12 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2"'J S. VI. 131., July 24. '68. 



years, or thereabouts, the I/adj' Mnry Tiulor, Countess 

 of Dervventwater, relict of Francis Uatcliffe, second Earl 

 of Derwentwater, who had issue by her three sons and 

 one daughter, viz. James, who succeeded his father in the 

 earldom, and was beheaded for high treason on Tower 

 . Hill in 1716, Francis and Charles, and the Lady Mary 

 Tudor. She was twice married after the death of the 

 liarl, her first husband, viz. to Henry Graehme, Esq. ; and 



after his dece.ise to Eooke, Esq., son of Brigadier- 



Geu. Kooke."] 



lXt])\iti, 



MXLTON's first edition of " PARADISE LOST." 



(2°'' S. V. 82. 322. 399.) 



The paper of your correspondent Lethredi- 

 ENSis (2"'* S. V. 322.) bad satisfied me that my 

 description of the title-pages to the first edition of 

 Paradise Lost was not arranged in the order in 

 which those title-pages appeared ; and on con- 

 sulting the Appendix to Capel LofFt's edition of 

 the First Book of the poem, and finding what was 

 evidently a cancelled leaf in the volume with the 

 No. 1. A title, undoubtedly the rarest of all, I sup- 

 posed that this pointed out the text as first issued. 

 But S. W. S. (2"'^ S. V. 399.), states that this leaf 

 is in his copy with the title-page of 1668; he 

 does not say whether with the name of Parker or 

 Simmons. 



Lethredibnsis has misunderstood my observa- 

 tion as to the reprinting of the preliminary leaves. 

 I referred to those which appeared in my copies 

 with the title-pages Nos. 2., 3., and 4. I ex- 

 pressly said that in No. 5., 1669, they liad been 

 reprinted. Capel Lofft in what he states re- 

 specting the variations in these leaves was not 

 ])erl;aps aware that there were two issues with 

 the date 1669, to the first of which (No. 4.) the 

 unaltered preliminary leaves were prefixed. As 

 my manuscript was inaccurate, I must ask you to 

 reprint the description of the title-pages, so as 

 to facilitate a reference to the remarks I wish to 

 make. 



No. 1a. London : Peter Parker and 1667. The 

 words " By John Milton," are in small type 

 and capitals. 



No. 1. London, Peter Parker, &c. 1667. The 

 same words in larger characters. 



No. 2. London, Peter Parker, &c. 1668. The 

 Author, J. M. 



No. 3. London, S. Simmons, &c. After the 

 name John Milton is an ornament made up of 

 printer's stars. 



No. 4. London, S. Simmons and T. Helder, 

 1669. The word Angel is not in italics, and a 

 period after Brittain. 



No. 0. agrees with No. 4., except that Angel 

 is in italics, and there is a comma after Brittain. 



In both Nos. 4. and 5. the words Little Brittain 

 are in italics. 



I have five copies ; the title-pages Nos. 1 a., 2 



and a duplicate No. 3. are prefixed to the same 

 volume, to which I sh.all refer as No. 2. It is 

 impossible, without taking the volume to pieces, 

 to ascertain which title-page belongs to the text ; 

 but my other copy with the No. 3. title does not 

 agree with this in the text. S. W. S.'s remark 

 already quoted shows that the text must be that 

 of either 2. or 3. 



In No. 1. the poem follows the title-page. In 

 Nos. 2., 3., and 4., the Address of the Printer to 

 the Reader, and the Arguments to each Book, 

 follow tlie title-page, and a Table of Errata also 

 ' precedes the poem. In No. 5. the Address is 

 omitted, but the Arguments and Errata succeed, 

 and have all been reprinted. 



I take the following list of variations from 

 Capel Lofft's Appendix. 



Errata. 



Lib. i. 1. 4. Hundreds, reads hunderds. In all except 

 5, where it re.ads hundreds (b) read hunderds. 



Lib. iii. 1. 700. For ivith read in. In No. 2. alone do 

 I find this error. Lethrediensis suggests why with 

 was left among the errata, even in those copies in which 

 the mistake was corrected. 



Lib. v. 1. 257. In 1. 3. and 5. a" new paragraph, and 

 a comma after cloud. No. 2. a new paragraph, and no 

 comma ; in 4. the line is unbroken, and has a comma. 



Numbers. 



Liber iii. ■ In 1. the numbers of the lines are wrong 

 from 50 to 80, then 80 being omitted, 90 falls in the 

 right place. In 2. tlie.se numbers are correct. In 3., 4., 

 and 6., lines 50 to 600 correct, then 600 wrong, and to 

 the end like No. 1. 



Liber iii , 1. 530. The 3 is omitted, and no space be- 

 tween the 5 and in 1. 2. and 5. In 3. and 4. the 3 is 

 omitted, and a space left between the 5 and 0. 



Liber iii. 1. 010 in No. 1. printed for 600, and the num- 

 bers wrong to the end of the book. 740 is placed oppo- 

 site the 741st line, and 750 opposite the 751st. Nos. 3., 

 4., and 5. agree with 1. In 2. 610 is printed for 600, 

 and the numbers run on incorrectly to the 730th line. 

 740 is then placed opposite the 731st line, and 750, 760, 

 are misprinted. Thus the reference to the 761st line in 

 the errata appears to be correct. The book really con- 

 tains only 742 lines, and in none of my five copies are the 

 numbers correct throughout the whole book. 



Liber iv. In 1. and 2. the numbers wrong; 80 for 90, 

 and so oa to 110. Then 120 correct. In all the others, 

 correct. 760 placed a line too high in all, and the num- 

 bers continue so to the end of the book. 



Liber v. 510., correct in all but 4. and 5. There reads 

 150. 



Liber ix. 230., in all but 5. the 3 is replaced by the 

 letter g. 



The Verse and Arguments. 



These are not found in No. I. In the Verse 

 Lofft gives four variations between the copies 

 1668 and 1669, and twenty-four in the Argu- 

 ments. These occur in my copies (2, 3, and 4. 

 agree, and 5. differs from the others) with the 

 exception of the 24th. All read cherubi?«,- none 

 cherubims. 



On page xxxV. of lists of editions, Lofft men- 

 tions a title-page to the second edition with the 

 date 1672, small 8 vo. twelve books; he, however, 



