2M s. 2^0 73., May 23. '37.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



40» 



Man, I will state for his information how they 

 appear. Tiiey are all folio, larpe paper, and 

 handsomely printed, and were published separate 

 and at intervals, and with each its own pagination. 

 The title-page of the first runs thus : " An Essay 

 on Man addressed to a Friend. Part I. London, 

 printed for J. Wilford, &c." That of the second 

 IS ^^ An Essay on Man in Epistles to a Friend. 

 Epistle 11. London, printed," &c. This has a 

 short notice to the reader, explaining why " the 

 author is induced to publish these epistles in parts." 

 The third title-page is identical with the second, 

 except that it is, of course, " Epistle III." ; but it 

 has at the end a " N.B. The rest of this work will 

 be published next winter." In a contemporary MS. 

 note on the title is written " 8th May, 1733," ob- 

 viously the date of the publication or purchase of 

 this part. The fourth title-page Is identical with 

 the two last, with the change of number only, 

 " Epistle IV.," but It is preceded by a table of 

 contents, and has at the end this advertisement, as 

 stated by E. O. M. : 



" Lately published the three former Parts of an Essay 

 oil Man, in Epistles to a Eriend. Sold by J. Wilford, 

 &c." 



Tiiere are no notes to any of these. 



I do not, I repeat it, exactly see the point 

 raised by M. A. C. against Mr. Cakkuthkrs. 'Tis 

 true that Mr. Carruthers states, after Johnson, 

 that Pope prefixed his name to the fourth part, 

 and we know that the first edition of that part has 

 no name ; but is it certain that there was not a 

 second edition of that fourth part with Pope's 

 name, before he republished the three former 

 parts ? But after all, I do not see that the point is 

 of that importance that M. A. C. seems to attach 

 to it ; but as I perhaps misunderstand the matter, 

 I submit to M. A. C. my description of the original 

 edition, though It seems to me that he himself 

 possesses one. C. 



Pope, Lord Ilervey, and Lady M. W. Montagu 

 (2'^'' S. iii. 325.)— In the Bodleian Is the original 

 edition of the — 



" Verses address'd to the Imitator of the Eirst Satire 

 of the Second Book of Homer. By a Lady. Fol. Lond. 

 For A. Dodd*, and sold at all the Pamphlet-Shops in 

 Town. Price Six-pence." 



The book was originally Lord Oxford's, who has 

 written on the title : 



" The Authors of this poem are Lady Mary Wortley, 

 Lord Harvey, and Mr. Windham, under-Tutor to the 

 Duke of Cumberland, and married to my Lady Deloraine." 



We might here mention the Reply to the Lady, 



* I have seen two editions, both folio, printed for A. 

 Dodd : one, I suppose the first, without any motto on the 

 title; one, with the line from Juvenal — 



" Si Natura ncgat, facit Indignatio versus." 



which' appeared before April 12, 1733, in four 

 leaves folio : 



" Advice to Sappho occasioned by her Verses on the 

 Imitator of the Eirst Satire of the Second Book of Horace. 

 By a Gentlewoman. London : printed for the Authoress, 

 near White's Chocolate-House ; and sold by J. lioberts, in 

 Warwick-Lane, 1733. Price Six-Pence." 



P. B. 



The MSS. at Mapledurliam. — Some time since 

 (1" S. xli. 377.) a curious contradiction was 

 pointed out between Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Cak- 

 RUTUERs, both parties referring, as authority for 

 their contradictory assertions, to these MSS. Mr. 

 Chalmers had stated that the " Mrs. T." of Pope's 

 printed letters was " Mrs. Thomas" In the original, 

 whereas Mr. Caeeuthers quoted that original as 

 "Mrs. Teresa." A like contradiction presents 

 Itself in respect to the Verses to Martha Blount 

 on her Birth-day. It was shown some time since, 

 In The Athenmam, that the poet had tampered 

 a good deal, and not very honourably, with these 

 verses ; and further, by circumstances and con- 

 temporary copies, that a note to "Ms.. Carruthers' 

 edition, from which the reader would infer that 

 he had examined the MS., was. In truth, copied 

 from Warburton, and was, according to all pro- 

 bability, an error. Mr. Carruthers immediately 

 acknowledged the truth of what had been con- 

 jectured : admitted that he had not, at the time 

 his edition was published, compared the MS. with 

 the printed copy ; but he added — 



" On a subsequent visit to Oxfordshire I copied the 

 lines, and traced the variations . . certain it is that the 

 Poem in Pope's handwriting is exactly the same fourteen 

 lines published by Dodsley." 



Now the fourteen lines published by Dodsley 

 do not contain, as had been shown by the writer 

 in The Athenceum, either the six lines published 

 In The Miscellany, 1727, (the six Moore-Smith 

 lines), nor the six lines subsequently substituted 

 [with added days, &c.J ; and which were written 

 on Pope's own birth-day In 1724. How, then, are 

 we to reconcile Mr. Carruthers' statement with 

 Bowles's statement In note on Gay's letter (vlii. 

 202.) ? — 



" These lines [with added days, &c.] were originally 

 added to the lines on the Birth-day of M. Blount, ' OIi, be 

 thou blest!' These appear in the MS. in his ou-n hand- 

 writing, sent to her." 



Bowles adds the lines " are properly left out in 

 his works;" by which I suppose he must have 

 meant the four following lines quoted by him in 

 note on the poem (ii, 371.); for the lines "with 

 added years," are published in his own edition. 



T. M. S. 



Pope's " Wondering,'" or " Wandering " (2°'' S. 

 Hi. 325.) — " Wandering," the reading of the first 

 and of the last, and, I believe, of every edition 



