week ended Saturday the 24th May, and the "Narrative" did not appear before the 10th of June.

The "Supplement," however, did appear prefixed to what Curll calls the second volume of Pope's Correspondence, which also contained a copy of the "Narrative," with notes by Curll. This second volume must have followed quickly, as a third is announced on the 26th July as to appear next month.

It may be well to note that Curll's "Supplement "-the "Initial Correspondence "-has a different pagination, and a different sheet-lettering from the "Narrative." There is no reference to it in the "Narrative": it brings the account down only to the 22nd May, in brief, suggests by its silence and by circumstances that it had been printed before the "Narrative" was published. It is strong evidence of this, that Curll's "Supplement" does contain the "Initial Correspondence"; and among other letters, the two of Oct. 11, and of Nov. 15, 1733, which two letters were published in the "Narrative," and are not, therefore, included in Curll's reprint of it.

The Letters begin p. 1, and end p. 232, without "Finis"; and vol. ii. begins p. 1, and ends p. 316, which is announced as "The end of the first volume." I have two editions. My description is general, and merely to help the curious at a bookstall. It will be found, however, on examination, that the pagination of the second volume ends p. 128, and then recommences p. 233, which would make what follows the proper continuation of vol. i.

I have also four editions of 1735, in 12mo. As, however, the interest attaches only to the first edition and its various issues, these 12mos. may be briefly dismissed.

The first, as I believe, was "Printed for T. Cooper, and sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster." After a hurried examination, I am of opinion that it was reprinted from the A copy, corrected by the table of errata. It was advertised as "this day published," in the Country Journal of June 16th. The copy itself bears evidence that it must have been got up in great haste, and it was intended probably to undersell Curll's 8vo., which was only announced on the 21st May. Three of the letters are throughout printed in italics,

and after p. 244, the pagination commences with p. 217; and all that follows is in a different type. This was probably the edition which Pope "connived at," as he was forced to acknowledge to Fortescue.

The next edition was probably one "Printed, and sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster." This was a still cheaper reprint, probably by or for Cooper. Here again haste is evident four letters are printed, throughout, in italics. It is professed in the title-page that this "Edition contains more letters, and more correctly printed, than any other extant." As to the superior accuracy I have not collated, and therefore cannot say; but it certainly contains two letters not before. published, one from Atterbury and one "To** doubt contributed by Pope. It has also a portrait of Pope, copied I presume from Curll, and therefore reversed; it is inscribed, "Mr. Alexander Pope," whereas Curll's is " Mr. Pope." The portrait may have been, and probably was, a subsequent insertion. This is the edition to which Bowles referred in his controversy with Roscoe. (See "N. & Q.," 2" S. x. 381.)

по

The best, typographically, of these 12mo. editions, is “ Printed for T. Cooper." The pagination is wrong in both, and at the same places. Thus p. 216 is followed by page 221, and p. 263 by p. 294. It contains the additional Letters, and the "Narrative." There was a second issue of this edition, with a sheet of portraits prefixed, no doubt in rivalry of Curll's edition "with portraits."

All the above 12mo. editions have the "Narrative" prefixed or affixed.

Curl also issued a 12mo. edition of the letters, "Printed for E. Curll, in Rose Street, Covent Garden." I have a third edition of it with date of 1735*.-D.-[Mr. Dilke.]

* See Spence on publication of Pope's Letters, Note and Queries, 2 S. xi. 61.

SWIFT OR POPE.

F. C. H. comes much too hastily to his confident conclusion that Swift* wrote the maxim quoted by a former correspondent from "Thoughts on Various Occasions" published in the Miscellanies of Swift and Pope in 1727. Let me remind F. C. H. that there were two series of maxims called Thoughts," &c. published in the Miscellanies-the one printed at the end of the first volume, and the other at the end of the second, and that the maxim referred to is from the second series, or to speak more exactly, from the second volume. Now Pope told Spence (edit. 1820, p. 158), "those [maxims] at the end of one volume are mine, and those at the end of the other, Dr. Swift's." The only difficulty therefore is to find out the specific series to which Pope referred as his own, and I think the following evidence will be considered as conclusive, and conclusive as against F. C. H.

In 1735, Faulkner, the Dublin bookseller, published the first collected edition of the Works of Swift, in four handsome volumes. It has been stated, on contemporary authority, that Swift revised and superintended that edition. Whether he did or not, there can be no reasonable doubt that, as he was the avowed friend and patron of Faulkner, and so continued for life, a word from him would have insured the insertion or rejection

* SUPPOSED QUOTATION FROM SWIFT (2nd S. vi. 188; vii. 136.—At the first of the above references, a correspondent signing himself DELTA, enquired where the following quotation occurred in the works of Swift :—

"I as little fear that God will damn a man that has charity, as I hope that the priests can save one who has not."

This was answered at the second reference given by another correspondent, under the signature of , who stated that he had not, after considerable search, found such a sentence in Swift's works; but that Pope, in a letter to Edward Blount, Esq., dated Feb. 10, 171, makes use exactly of the above expression. Not "exactly," however, for Pope's sentence is thus worded in the second part: "As I hope any Priest can save one who has not."

The difference is immaterial, but I wish to observe that the sentence, as given by DELTA, does occur, word for word, in Swift's "Thoughts on Va ious Subjects" at the end of the second vo`ume of his Mi-cellanies, London, printed for Benj. Motte and Chas. Bathurst, 1736, p. 275. I think there can be little doubt that the sentence was originally Swift's.-Notes and Queries, 3 S. iii. 297.-F. C. H,

of any of the many anonymous works attributed to him; so far, therefore, as the contents are concerned, Faulkner's edition may be considered as of authority. In this edition appears the "Thoughts" reprinted from the first volume of the Miscellanies, but the "Thoughts" from the second volume were not therein republished. This surely is very strong evidence against the conclusion of F. C. H. Further, in 1741, Pope published the second volume of his Works in Prose, and amongst these are "Thoughts " from the second volume of the Miscellanies, but the "Thoughts" from the first volume are not included. Can there be stronger evidence? It is true that both series have, since the death of the writers, been included in editions of Swift's Works; why, I know not, for neither Nichols nor Scott had any doubt about the authorship of the second series, as both prefix to the latter "By Mr. Pope."

It may be just worth noting, that the republications in 1735 and in 1741 were after the known custom of the several writers. The Swift "Thoughts" are a mere reprint; whereas, in the Pope series, there are many omissions and additions. It is not to be believed that Pope would have ventured on this had they been written by Swift,

Bowles noticed that many of the "Thoughts" in the Pope series are found totidem verbis in his Letters. This is quite true, and Pope, I suspect, found that out before Bowles, and therefore many of the omissions in the Quarto. It is curious that the very maxim to which your correspondents refer, and about which this discussion has arisen, is of the number; it appeared, substantially, in 1735, in a letter professedly addressed to Ed. Blount, and was, therefore, I suspect, omitted in 1741; and here, to prevent further confusion, let me observe, that as the series "by Mr. Pope" were printed among Swift's Works from Pope's quarto, the particular maxim does not appear in either Scott or Nichols's edition of Swift's Works, or any edition of Pope's Works published during his life.-Notes and Queries, 3 S. iii. 350.-S. O. P. [Mr. Dilke.]

LADY MARY MONTAGU.

From the Athenæum, April 6, 1861.

The Letters and Works of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. By Lord Wharncliffe. Third Edition, with Additions. Edited by Moy Thomas. Vol. I. (Bohn.)

FOR more than a century the character of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu has been a subject of discussion,—a mystery which neither time nor literary research has been able satisfactorily to clear up. We can only explain this by the fact that, for a person of fortune and position, she lived, by choice, in comparative retirement-latterly and for twenty years abroad-and that, on her death, all her papers came into the possession of Lord Bute, who had married her only daughter, and who, though a distinguished and somewhat ostentatious patron of Literature and Science, thought it altogether derogatory that his wife's mother should appear and take rank among a class which he looked on as persons to be patronized. This feeling was more general in the eighteenth thañ in the nineteenth century. Lady Mary herself felt it little less strongly than her son-in-law; we are not aware that she ever published anything in her lifetime with her name. The famous "Turkish Letters" she certainly gave to Mr. Sowden to do what he pleased with; but that was forty years after they were written—after they had been long circulated in manuscript among her friends, and when she was more than seventy years old. Lord Bute no sooner heard of this than he entered into