2n'i S. N« 79., JuLT 4. '57,] 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



1 



LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 4, l657. 

 WILKfiS AND THE "ESSAY ON WOMAN.'* 



The following is the account of this Essay and 

 of the writer given by Earl Stanhope in his HiS' 

 tory of England^ vol. v. p. 66. : 



" It appears that Wilkes had several years before, and in 

 some of his looser hours, composed a parody of Pope's ' Essay 

 on Man,' In this undertaking, which, according to his 

 own account (^Examination of 3Iichael Curry at the Bar of 

 the House of Lords, Nov. 16, 1763), cost him a great deal 

 of pains and time, he was, it is said, assisted by Thomas 

 totter, second son of the late Archbishop of Canterbury', 

 who had been secretary of Frederick Prince of Wales, and 

 had since shown ability and gained office in the House of 

 Commons, but was (as well became one of Wilkes's friends) 

 of lax morals in his private life. The result of their joint 

 authorship, however, has little wit or talent to make any 

 amends for the blasphemy and lewdness with whicR it 

 abounds. As the original had been inscribed by Pope to 

 Lord Bolingbroke, so was the parody by Wilkes to Lord 

 Sandwich; thus it began, 'Awake, my Sandwich !' instead 

 of 'Awake, my St. John !' Thus also, in ridicule of War- 

 burton's well-known Commentarj-, some burlesque notes 

 were appended in the name of the Right Reverend the Bishop 

 6f Gloucester. 



" This worthless poem had remained in manuscript, and 

 lain in Wilkes's desk, until in the previous spring he had 

 occasion to set up a press at his own house, and was 

 tempted to print fourteen copies only as presents to his 

 boon companions. 



It IS obvious, from the critical opinion here of- 

 fered, and the positive assertion as to the inscrip- 

 tion, that Lord Stanhope spoke, or believed that 

 he spoke, after an examination of the work ; the 

 more certainly as The Alheuceum, in its review, 

 hinted a doubt on this subject, notwithstanding 

 which the statement was repeated verbatim in the 

 eecond edition. It struck me as strange — and I 

 8till think it strange — that Lord Stanhope was 

 not startled to find that the parody to which he 

 referred — a parody on Pope's Essay on Man, in- 

 scribed to a man — St. John, was an Essay on 

 WoMAN^ not inscribed to a woman, but to Sand- 

 wich. This indeed was only sufficient to raise a 

 suspicion, for there may have been such blunder- 

 ing parodists — and I shall show that there were 

 — but they were not the writers of the Essay for 

 which Wilkes was prosecuted, and on which Lord 

 Stanhope passed judgment, for that is inscribed 

 to a woman, and begins " Awake, my Fanny." 

 This fact was actually set forth in the indictment, 

 which describes the work as a libel " entitled An 

 Essay on Woman, and purporting to be inscribed 

 to Miss Fanny Murray." 



An anecdote often told by the great Lord Chan- 

 cellor Hardwicke {Life, vol. iii. p. 159 ) may plea- 

 santly illustrate who this Fanny was; and it is 

 curious in itself, seeing the relationship of the 

 parties. One day, soon after the Chancellor had 

 purchased Wimpole, and when riding round the 



neighbourhood, he was so much struck with the 

 taste an ' elegance of a house that he asked per- 

 mission J see the inside of it. The request was 

 politely complied with, and the owner, who it 

 subsequently appeared Was the brother of Lord 

 Sandwich, conducted him through the apartments, 

 dwelling with especial emphasis on the meflts of 

 his pictures. The subject, I suppose, was cuviat'i 

 to the Chancellor; for at length Mr. Montagu 

 said, pointing to " two female figures, beaiitifufly 

 painted, in all their tiatite, naked charms," "These 

 ladies you must certainly know, for they are most 

 striking likenesses." The Chancellor again ac- 

 knowledged his ignofance. " Why, where have 

 you led your life, or what company have you 

 kept?" said Mr. Montagu, "not to know Fanny 

 Murray and Kitty Fisher." This was the "Fanny 

 to whom the Essay, which Lord Stanhope has not 

 seen, was inscribed. 



1 believed, and believe, that not more than a 

 single copy of so much of the Essay on Woman as 

 was printed at Wilkes's press is in existence ; and 

 as to the existence of that single copy I have great 

 doubts. We know, on the oath of Curry the thief, 

 that only twelve copies were printed for Wilkes, 

 and a thirteenth surreptitiously by Curry for him- 

 self — Lord Stanhope says fourteen, a difference 

 of no consequence, but I believe a mistake ; that 

 the work was never completed — that so far as 

 printed every copy was kept under lock and key 

 — that the few other pages submitted by Lord 

 Sandwich to the House of Lords were a proof, 

 or a revise with manuscript corrections, which 

 another of the printers had stolen ; and I believe 

 that the copies in Wilkes's possession were sub- 

 sequently destroyed. I have, however, been as- 

 sured by a gentleman that he many years since 

 saw a copy of the original edition. With all 

 respect for my informant I doubt it. The only 

 proof that I could make out was, that the copy 

 he saw was printed in red letters, and so far an- 

 swered the description given by Curry the thief. 

 But another description, by a conteinporary, is 

 somewhat more particular : 



" Tis printed 



In letters red, on paper fine, 

 On copper curiously engraved 

 The title of the work ; 



and so says the indictment, " a frontispiece or 

 sculpture prefixed." 



I thought it possible, however, that the stolen 

 proof — or the stolen copy — might be in exist- 

 ence ; but all I could discover from the indexes 

 to the Journals of the House of Lords was, 

 that the copy laid on the table by Lord Sand- 

 wich had been delivered to W^ebb, the solicitor 

 to the Treasury, to enable him to carry on the 

 prosecution — that it was returned — then rede- 

 livered — and not returned. It is possible, there- 

 fore, that Webb, who was an antiquary — a 



