Here closes this remarkable correspondence, and we hear no more of the _Vestiarium_ until its publication by Tait in 1842, with the name of John Sobieski Stuart on the title-page as editor. So remarkable a work could not fail to attract attention. The most striking criticism on the book, so far as ability and bitterness went, and the only one to which any reply was vouchsafed, is that contained in the _Quarterly Review_ for June 1847.[92] This criticism the brothers Stuart believed to have been written by the late Mr Dennistoun, but it was in reality the work of the late Professor George Skene, of Glasgow University, brother of the late Dr. William Forbes Skene, from materials furnished chiefly by the late Dr. Mackintosh Mackay. One half of the criticism consists of an unsparing attack on the alleged claims of the brothers to Royal descent, and the other of an attack upon the authenticity of the _Vestiarium_. Professor Skene first proposed to discuss the printed text for indications of its genuineness, or the reverse. Had he done so, the result could hardly have failed to be interesting, the language of the work offering a fair field for criticism. He not only did not do so, but fell into a series of very extraordinary errors regarding facts. He wrote:— We cannot find that the actual MS., “which belonged to the Douay College,” and “contains the signature of the Bishop of Ross,” has ever been exhibited to any learned society in the north, or even to any individual scholar or antiquary unconnected with the present publication; but about twenty years ago, a _description_ of the MS., with a _transcript_ of part, at least, if not the whole of it, was sent to the Society of Scottish Antiquaries, with a request that they would patronise its publication; and by their secretary the specimen was placed in the hands of Sir Walter Scott, who kindly undertook to examine it, and give the society the benefit of his opinion as to its authenticity. The secretary, accompanied by our informant, a reverend friend deeply versed in Highland lore, waited upon him shortly afterwards to ascertain the result of the scrutiny. Sir Walter assured them that the style and dialect of the specimen shewn him were utterly false, a most feeble and clumsy imitation of the genuine writing of the period, and indignantly declared his conviction that the manuscript itself must be an absolute fabrication.[93] To this attack the editor of the _Vestiarium_ made the following reply:—