322 



NOTES^AND QUERIES. [2nd s. v. 120., Apbil 17. '58. 



are references to " Fotherglll," 1234, fol. 245. b, 

 and 1564, fol. 23. ; and communications can easily 

 be made to Mr. Sims by anyone on the subject. 



F. B. D. 



THE FIRST EDITION OF " PARADISE LOST. 

 (2"'» S. V.82.) 



I have never opened my copy of the first edition 

 of Milton's great work without being struck with 

 the serene majesty, not merely of the exordium 

 of the poem itself, but even of the title-page : — 



•'PARADISE LOST; 



A 



POEM 



IN TEN BOOKS, 



The Author, 

 JOHN MILTON." 



That is all ! That is the author's own intro- 

 duction of his poem to the world. No academic 

 titles, no reference to the works by which he was 

 already distinguished, no extrinsic appendage 

 whatever is admitted to interfere with the simple 

 announcement of the fact. And when we turn 

 the page, the same noble self-reliance is evident. 

 What ! no dedication ! No craioling, book in 

 hand, into the presence of some high dignitary to 

 solicit his good offices with the public ? Not even 

 a conciliatory "Address to the Reader?" No 

 testimonials to literary character from his dear 

 friends, A. B., C. D., E. F., &c. Nothing of the 

 kind ! The simple vestibule admits you at once 

 into the temple — look before you and around you ! 

 But I forget that I am writing for the " N. & Q.," 

 and that my immediate business with the title- 

 page of Paradise Lost is of a bibliographical kind. 

 So considered, it is quite a curiosity in its way. 

 Your correspondent has pointed out six variations, 

 and it appears possible that there may be at least 

 one more ; if it should turn out that Todd's sug- 

 gestion, rather than assertion, is true that the 

 notification (" Licensed and enlred," etc.) is to be 

 found in any title-page of 1669. 



With regard to errata corrected in some sheets 

 while passing through the press, and leaves can- 

 celled and reprinted, on which point Neo-Ebora- 

 CENsis requires evidence, I would add a few words. 

 There are two or three proofs (as may be seen on 

 reference to Capel Lofft's edition of the first and 

 second books of Paradise Lost, appendix to Pre- 

 face, p. liii. ; and to Richardson's Life., p. cxxxii.) ; 

 but one will suffice. In the table of errata given 

 with the new title-page of 1668, we find (iii. 760.) 

 for with read in ; but on reference to the passage 

 in the copy of 1667, no verse 764 and no ivith 

 appear ; but Richardson informs us that in one 

 out of six copies that he examined the word was 

 found ; while, with regard to the numbering of the 

 lines, Lofft states that iu the 1667 copy there arc 



two errors, namely, 60 for 50, and 610 for 600 ; 

 making the total number of lines in the book ap- 

 pear to be 751 instead of 742 ; while in the 1668 

 and 1669 copies, the numbering is correct. The 

 inevitable inference is, that in working the im- 

 pression the error of with for in, as well as those 

 of the figures, had been discovered ; and that the 

 sheets pulled afterwards had, therefore, contained 

 the corrections ; while for the sake of those who 

 might get the uncorrected sheets, the word had 

 been put among the errata. No notice was taken 

 of the figures. My own copy has the word cor- 

 rect, and the figures not ; and yet both are in the 

 same sheet (L). This seems to indicate a correc- 

 tion ; but in those copies which both have in and 

 the numbering of the lines correct, it would seem 

 that a cancel must have been made. 



Neo-Eboracensis next doubts whether the 

 preliminary leaves attached to the copies sent out 

 in 1668 were afterwards reprinted. If I can trust 

 Capel Lofft's statement, they certainly were, as 

 he minutely points out the variations between the 

 1668 and 1669 copies; but then he does not spe- 

 cifically say whether the 1669 copy contains the 

 Address of the Printer to the Reader. All depends 

 on this : LofTt thinks that " only a certain number 

 of the argument had been printed in 1668, as 

 many as were expected to be wanted for the sale 

 of that year ; and that afterwards a farther quan- 

 tity was printed for 1669." 



The only remaining point is Lowndes's assertion 

 (which he, however, only repeats from Todd), that 

 " the two last leaves of the poem appear to have 

 been reprinted," for which I can see no founda- 

 tion whatever. Lethrediensis. 



BRITISH PEARLS. 

 (2'«» S. V. 258.) 



I think A. A. is mistaken in supposing that the 

 oyster is the pearl-producing mollusc of Britain. 

 In that deeply interesting work of the lamented 

 Hugh Miller, iliy [Schools and Schoolmasters, 

 among the mass of varied information it contains, 

 the following passage occurs : — 



" When the river (Canon) was low, I used to-wade into 

 its fords in quest of its pearl muscles {Unio Margaritifc- 

 rus) ; and though not very successful in my pearl-fishing, 

 it was at least something to see how thickly the indivi- 

 duals of this greatest of British fresh- water molluscs lay 

 scattered among the pebbles of the fords, or to mark 

 them creeping slowly along the bottom, when, in conse- 

 quence of prolonged droughts, the current had so mode- 

 rated that they were in no danger of being swept away ; 

 each on its large white foot, with its valves elevated over 

 its back, like the carapace of some tall tortoise. I found 

 occasion at this time to conclude that tlie Unio of our 

 river-fords secretes pearls so much more frequently than 

 the TlnionidcB and Anudonta of our still pools and lakes, 

 not from any specific peculiarity in the constitution of the 

 creature, but from the efi'ects of the habitat which it is its 



