130 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 250. 



to what Pope calls the "first perfect edition" 

 (i. e. that by Lawton Gilliver), he tells us : 



" This poem was writ in 1726. In the next year an 

 imperfect edition was published at Dublin, and reprinted 

 in London in 12mo., another at Dublin, and another at 

 London, 8to. ; and three others in 12mo. the same year." 



— P. 66. 



This statement is repeated in Pope's first col- 

 lected edition, 1736 (vol. iv. p. 70.), and again in 

 his last collected edition, 1743 (vol. iii. p. 4.). 

 Why E. T. D. should doubt its existence is more 

 than I can explain ; but if he wondered at the 

 existence of three editions (I had not specified the 

 number), he will be more surprised to find Pope 

 thus asserting that there yr ere Jive. 



Malone, I repeat, did not believe a word of all 

 this, and I have never been able to find any one 

 of those alleged editions ; but it is, as I have said, 

 quite incomprehensible that Pope should have vo- 

 lunteered and persisted in a distinct and circum- 

 stantial lie without any object that can be dis- 

 covered. 



To save other correspondents trouble, I beg 

 leave to state that I have before me the following 

 early editions, and need no information about 

 them. 1st. That which Malone thought to be the 

 first of all, its title-page running thus : The 

 Dunciad, an Heroic Poem in Three Books. 

 Dublin printed ; London, reprinted for A. Dodd, 

 1728.^ 2nd. The edition by Lawton Gilliver, 

 mentioned by Mk. Thoms, with the frontispiece 

 of the owl, without date, but stating on the title- 

 page that the poem was "written in 1727," and in 

 the prolegomena, that this is " the first perfect 

 edition." 3rd. The quarto edition of 1729, with 

 a copper-plate vignette of an ass laden with the 

 works of the Dunces, which Pope afterwards 

 stated was " the first perfect edition." This seems 

 to have been also printed in 8vo., but it is doubt- 

 ful whether in the same year, as the date and 

 printer's name, " A. Dod, 1729," are engraved on 

 the copper-plate vignette, which, after being used 

 for the 4to., appears to have been subsequently 

 reproduced in the Svo. Your correspondent 

 B. H. C. has this Svo., but seems to doubt that 

 there was a 4to., and even to suspect that I have 

 mistaken the Svo. for a " so-called 4to." I beg 

 leave to tell him that it is a 4to., a handsome one 



— that I have even seen a large paper copy of it, 

 and that it is by no means a rare volume — I 

 have seen several copies. This, which was Pope's 

 first avowed edition, and which was presented to 

 George II. and Queen Caroline, has a prefatory 

 advertisement, complaining of former editions, 

 and especially of one printed at Dublin. Why 

 should he have repeated this if there was no such 

 edition ? C. 



EOBEET PARSONS. 



(Vol.x., p.6S.) 



As Edmund Bunny is not present to speak for 

 himself, I hope you will allow me to put in a plea 

 of "Not guilty" on his behalf; your correspon- 

 dent F. C. H. having confidently accused him — 

 and most unwarrantably — of having broken the 

 eighth commandment. Speaking of A Booh of 

 Christian Exercise, SfC, he says : 



" This is the same as the Apologetieal Epistle, No. 28. 

 in the above catalogue. The substance of it was stolen by 

 Bunny, a Protestant clergyman, and published under Ms 

 own name." 



There are here, I think, two false accusations 

 and one misstatement. To take these in the order 

 in which they stand : — 



1. That the Booh of Christian Exercise apper- 

 taining to Resolution is the same as the Apolo- 

 getieal Epistle. This is wrong, for several reasons. 

 A copy of the Exercise now lies before me. It 

 has no title-page ; but the Dedication to the Arch- 

 bishop of Canterbury is preserved, and the pre- 

 face to the reader. The latter thus concludes : 

 " And so I bid thee hartily farewell. At Bolton- 

 Percie, in the ancientie or liberties of York, the 

 9 of lulie, 1584. Thy hartie wel-willer in Christ." 

 This frst part was issued, then, sixteen or seven- 

 teen years before the Apologetieal Epistle was 

 published (viz. 1601, if F. C. H.'s own date is to 

 be trusted). The second part of the work (bound 

 up with the first) is dated 1594, or seven years 

 prior to the Apologetieal Epistle. Now the Exer- 

 cise is not an epistle at all, nor by any process can 

 it be tortured into one, — unless we may call 

 Thomas k Kempis' Imitation, or Baxter's Saint's 

 Rest, epistles. I may observe in passing, that 

 Baxter owed very much to the perusal of Parsons* 

 book (the one under consideration) in early life. 



2. That the substance of Parsons' book was 

 stolen by Bunny. What " Edm. Bunny" did, was 

 to adapt Parsons' book to Protestant readers ; as 

 many others had done before him, and have done 

 since. This may be stealing ; but if it is, it is a 

 crime which is chargeable upon many very excel- 

 lent men of the various religious communions — 

 Romish as well as reformed. I should like to add 

 the remarks of Bunny himself on this subject, 

 but it will not be necessary owing to what now 

 follows. 



3. That Bunny published it under his own 

 name. He did : not as author, but as editor, 

 which makes all the difference. Parsons himself, 

 it appears, issued the book without his name. 

 And therefore Bunny could give no more than 

 the author gave, the initials " R. P.," and these 

 he gave ; for he says to the reader : 



" Who it is that was the author of it, I do not know; 

 for that the author hath not put to his name, but only 



