LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 4, 1857. Nates. 66 WILKES AND THE ESSAY ON WOMAN." The following is the account of this Essay and of the writer given by Earl Stanhope in his History 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 Michael Curry at the Bar of the House of Lords, Nov. 15, 1763), cost him a great deal of pains and time, he was, it is said, assisted by Thomas Potter, 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 which 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 Warburton's well-known Commentary, some burlesque_notes were appended in the name of the Right Reverend the Bishop of 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 offered, and the positive assertion as to the inscription, that Lord Stanhope spoke, or believed that he spoke, after an examination of the work; the more certainly as The Athenæum, in its review, hinted a doubt on this subject, notwithstanding which the statement was repeated verbatim in the second edition. It struck me as strange and I still 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, inscribed to a man — - St. John, was an Essay on WOMAN, not inscribed to a woman, but to Sandwich. This indeed was only sufficient to raise a suspicion, for there may have been such blundering 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 Chancellor Hardwicke (Life, vol. iii. p. 159) may pleasantly 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 and elegance of a house that he asked permission to see the inside of it. The request was politely complied with, and the owner, who it subsequently appeared was the brother of Lord dwelling with especial emphasis on the merits of Sandwich, conducted him through the apartments, his pictures. The subject, I suppose, was caviare to the Chancellor; for at length Mr. Montagu said, pointing to "two female figures, beautifully painted, in all their native, naked charms," "These ladies you must certainly know, for they are most The Chancellor again acstriking likenesses." knowledged his ignorance. "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. I 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 himself- 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 subsequently destroyed. I have, however, been assured 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 answered the description given by Curry the thief. But another description, by a contemporary, is somewhat more particular : 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 existence; 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 Sandwich had been delivered to Webb, the solicitor to the Treasury, to enable him to carry on the prosecution—that it was returned then redelivered—and not returned. It is possible, therefore, that Webb, who was an antiquary - a curiosity collector-may have retained this unique copy, and it may have been sold with his collection, and be still in existence. That other copies of the poem were at the time, or soon after, in existence, is beyond question; and the scoundrels who bribed the poor journeyman to betray and rob his employer, were very likely persons to take a copy before they delivered the original to Lord Sandwich; or copies may have been taken, as Wilkes said, after Sandwich, having blazoned forth his indignation, laid the poem on the table that the clerks and others of the House might take copies. It is more to my purpose to show, what is equally indisputable, that there were spurious copies soon after sold as genuine - some with a few genuine passages, probably copied from the Bill of Indictment, worked into them, and others without one genuine line. Some of these are in our public libraries; but as they are more vile than the original, I need not specifically refer to them. Enough for me to show that it was one of these to which probably my informant referred, certainly one without a genuine line in it, which Lord Stanhope has mistaken for the original. I will now proceed to proof; and for this proof I am indebted to "N. & Q." An intelligent correspondent referred, some time since (2nd S. iii. 308.), to works in his possession printed in red letters, and mentioned incidentally the Essay on Woman. Under very proper conditions, I was permitted to see this unique volume; and it turned out to be the very copy, or a copy of the very edition, seen and commented on by Lord Stanhope, inscribed to Lord Sandwich, and beginning, Awake, my Sandwich." 66 How, it may be asked, under the circumstances I have stated, can I be sure that this red-letter 66 copy is not genuine? For many reasons. It does not even pretend to be genuine. Instead of being the work printed at Wilkes's press, and laid on the table of the House of Lords in 1763, it is declared on the title-page to be "Printed for George Richards, MDCCLXXII. ;" and it declares this in type, whereas the genuine title-page was on copper curiously engraved." Again, there is not one single note throughout, whereas, as the Parliamentary History shows, and my Lord Stanhope admits, "burlesque notes were appended" to the genuine edition "in the name of the Right Reverend the Bishop of Gloucester." Farther and conclusive, the indictment sets forth copious extracts both from the poem and the notes, and not one line of these numerous paragraphs is to be found in the copy printed for George Richards and commented on by the historian. I will hereafter, with your permission, consider the evidence as to Wilkes having "composed" or written the poem. D. THE FIRST SANSCRIT BOOK. I have often reflected on the circumstance which prompts me to write this note. A language which boasts of vast antiquity—a language which, as affirms M. Eichhoff, "contient le germe de toutes les langues et de toutes les littératures de l'Europe" was first made patent through the medium of the press at the close of the eighteenth century. The work chosen on that memorable occasion must be noticed in our best biographical and other collections, and preserved in many public libraries: such, at least, are the fair inferences. Inquiry proves the reverse. The Seasons of Cálidás, as edited in Sanscrit by sir William Jones, are not noticed in the Nouveau dictionnaire historique, nor in the Biographie universelle, nor in the General biographical dictionary. The same censure applies to the Cyclopædia of Rees, to the Edinburgh cyclopædia, to the Encyclopædia Americana, to the Penny cyclopædia, to the Encyclopædia Britannica, and to the National cyclopædia; also, to the bibliographical works of Watt, and Lowndes, and Ebert, and Brunet. The precious volume is not in the British Museum, nor in the Bibliotheca Marsdeniana, nor in the Bodleian Library, nor in the Bibliothèque Impériale at Paris; nor does it appear to have been in the private collections of Langlès, De Chézy, Haughton, Silvestre de Sacy, or Bournouf. I shall now describe it from a copy which came into my possession on the sale of the library of sir William Jones in 1831. It is entitled "The SEASONS: a descriptive poem, by CÁLIDAS, in the original Sanscrit. CALCUTTA: M.DCC.XCII." The volume is in royal octavo, and consists of thirty-four leaves of wove paper of very firm texture. An anonymous advertisement occupies the recto of the second leaf, and bears the autograph initials of the illustrious sir William Jones. The text, as professor Horace Hayman Wilson assures us, is in the Bengali character. The typefounder is not named, nor even the printer. The paper has the water-mark J. WHATмan, and is in spotless condition. The advertisement, though reprinted in the works of its author, must not be omitted on this occasion. "ADVERTISEMENT. THIS book is the first ever printed in Sanscrit; and it is by the press alone, that the ancient literature of India can long be preserved: a learner of that most interesting language, who had carefully perused one of the popular grammars, could hardly begin his course of study with an easier or more elegant work than the Ritusanhára, or Assemblage of seasons. Every line composed by CÁLIDAS is exquisitely polished, and every couplet in the following poem exhibits an Indian landscape, always beautiful, sometimes highly coloured, but never beyond nature: four copies of it have been diligently collated; and, where they differed, the clearest and most natural reading has constantly had the preference." W: J: [Autograph.] I do not mean to insinuate that the abovedescribed volume is inaccessible, or unrecorded. There is a copy, as appears by the printed catalogue, in the library of the India-House; and the publication is noticed by professor Wilson in the Calcutta edition of Megha duta, and by F. von Adelung in his Historical sketch of Sanscrit literature. It is also noticed in the Encyclopédie des gens du monde, in the Nouvelle biographie générale, etc. But in every instance which has come under my observation the title of the volume is misreported; or the place or date of its impression, or its size, is omitted; and, except in the advertisement, I have nowhere seen it designated as the first Sanscrit book. BOLTON CORNEY. Fontainebleau, (Rue de France, No. 16.) SHAKSPEARE'S "PERICLES," AND WILKINS'S NOVEL FOUNDED UPON IT. а The readers of "N. & Q." are already acquainted with the fact of the reprint in Oldenburg of an English tract, bearing the title of The Painful Adventures of Pericles, Prince of Tyre. They are aware that it is a novel founded upon Shakspeare's Pericles, and not a novel upon which Shakspeare's Pericles was founded. It was theory of mine, entertained and broached about twenty years ago, that this novel, printed in 1608, contains passages which are not found in the play, printed in 1609; and that those passages must have formed part of the original drama as it was acted at the Globe Theatre, in 1607, or, more probably, in 1608. They are given as mere prose, and in a narrative form, in the novel; but sometimes, with the omission of two or three particles, and sometimes without the omission, or even change of a syllable, they run into such excellent and Shakspearian blank-verse, as to form of themselves a strong confirmation of my opinion, that by means of such passages we recover a genuine and lost portion of Pericles, as it was first acted, and as our great dramatist wrote it. In support of this notion, I published, in 1839, fifty copies of a small tract, called Farther Particulars regarding Shakspeare and his Works, in which I may here say (since comparatively few have had an opportunity of seeing it), that I endeavoured to establish three points, then entirely new. 1. That the novel was founded upon Shakspeare's Pericles. 2. That it contained portions written by Shakspeare, but not found in his play, as it has come down to us. 3. That it furnishes some most useful and valuable verbal emendations. This little production of mine attracted so little notice at the time, that when Rodd, the publisher (if publication it can be called), died, he was in possession of a number of unsold copies of it. When I printed the first edition of my Shakspeare in 1843, I used a part of my Farther Particulars, &c., in the "Introduction" to Pericles. I apprehended that the copy of The Painful Adventures of Pericles, lent to me by the late Mr. Heber, was unique and complete. I soon discovered that it was not the sole existing exemplar, and a fragment, without commencement or conclusion, devolved into my hands; but it was not until within these last few months that I learned that Mr. Heber's book was incomplete: it wanted the dedication, which was the more important, because at the end of it was the name of the compiler of the narrative, George Wilkins, the author, as I then presumed, of a play entitled The Miseries of Enforced Marriage, first printed in 1607. I have now good reason to believe that they were different men with the same names. The discovery of a copy of The Painful Adventures of Pericles, in a public library of Switzerland, enabled Professor Mommsen, of Oldenburg, to reprint the tract in Germany, in its entire state; and as he favoured me with some copies of it, in return for a brief and imperfect sort of preface, with which, really at an hour's notice, I furnished him, I have been enabled to go over every line and letter it contains, with a view to the reprint I am now making of my Shakspeare of 1843. The result has been the discovery of much new matter connected with the three points I urged in my Farther Particulars of 1839. I think that I have now established them all beyond the possibility of dispute; but my object is not at present to advert to the first and third, but to the second, which I hold to be the most important of all,-viz. that Wilkins's novel, founded upon Pericles, and probably derived from short-hand notes taken at the Globe Theatre during the representation, includes not a few passages, originally recited by the actors, but not contained in the very imperfect first edition of the play in 1609, from which all the subsequent reprints were made. I subjoin a few proofs. Simonides, pretending wrath at the love his daughter Thaisa has declared for Pericles, calls him, in Wilkins's novel : "A stragling Theseus, borne we know not where, one that hath neither bloud, nor merite, for thee to hope for, or himselfe to challenge even the least allowance of thy perfections." How easily this passage, as it were, turns itself into blank-verse, will at once be seen: "A straggling Theseus, born wee know not where, Can we reasonably doubt that these were, and are, Shakspeare's lines? Not only are the particles omitted of no value, but how likely it is that they were inserted by Wilkins in the speedy process of transcribing his notes for the printer, who was, perhaps, actually waiting for them. If the passage had not been delivered on the stage, very nearly in the form we have given it, how would it have been possible for Wilkins, or for any other person, anxious to bring out the novel with all haste, for the purpose of gratifying public curiosity, to have deliberately composed such lines as those above-inserted? What is Thaisa's reply to them? Exactly in the same form and spirit:"And what, most royal father, with my pen I have in secret written unto you, With my tongue now I openly confirm; Which is, I have no life but in his love, Nor being, but th' enjoyment of his worth." -- These are, as nearly as possible, the very words in Wilkins's novel, with no omission of the slightest importance moreover, the blank-verse is quite regular, which cannot be said of hundreds of lines in the play, as printed in 1609. I am convinced that the play was made up from notes, in many instances much more imperfect than those which Wilkins employed for his novel that the two short-hand writers were, as it were, running a race for priority - that Wilkins was first ready with his prose narrative; and consequently that it came out in 1608, while the play was not completed for publication until some time afterwards, I do not alter, or omit, a single syllable of what Wilkins gives us as the speech of Simonides in answer to his daughter: I only divide it into lines: "Equals to equals, good to good is join'd: I do not complain of Mr. Singer, or of any body else, for using the extracts I formerly gave from this publication, without the slightest acknowledgment that I was the first to direct attention to it all I am anxious about is, that the value of the novel, not of the discovery, should be admitted. J. PAYNE COLLIER, It illustrates a passage in Shakspeare's As You Like It, Act V. Sc. 3.: "Shall we clap into't roundly, without hawking or spitting; which are the only prologues to a bad voice;' and shows how correct the great poet was in his observance of little things. "Chap. XV. If we have a faculty in singing, playing upon the Musick, &c., how we are to demean. "If you have a talent in singing, musick, or making of verses, you must never discover it by any vanity of your own. If it be known any other way, and you be importun'd by a person of quality to show him your skill, you may modestly excuse yourself. If that will not satisfie, 'tis but civil to gratifie him readily, and the promptitude of your compliance atones for any miscarriage; whereas a sullen and obstinate denial favours too much of the mercenary, and either shows that you would be paid for what you do, or that you think him unworthy of your skill; and this unwillingness and difficulty to sing, &c., does many times dispose people to censure, and make them cry out to his face sometimes, Is this all he can do? This is not worth the trouble he put us to to intreat him.' "When you begin to sing, or play upon the Theorbo, Lute, or Guitar, you must not hawk, nor spit, nor cough (before those that attend) to clear up your voice. Neither must you be too long in tuning your instrument. "You must have a care of seeming to applaud yourself by any affected or fantastical gesture, nor by any expression that may signifie how much we are delighted ourselves as to say, 'Now observe this note; this is well; this excellent; take notice of this cadence,' &c. "You must observe likewise not to sing or play so long as to tire the company; you must end therefore so discreetly as to leave them with a relish, and opinion of your faculty, that they may be tempted to invite you another time; otherwise you will be in danger of being told, 'It is enough,' which on his side (if the person who sings be a gentleman) is as much rudeness as to talk to him and interrupt him." EDWARD F. RIMBAULT. "Lines addressed by Cowper to Mary Unwin, on her becoming Blind. "Mary, oft my mind recals thee, Happy, whatsoe'er befals thee, Faith, the Christian's anchor, thine. "Though in outward darkness journeying, Half the Christian's conflicts cease, Thou canst trim thy lamp in peace. T. OXFORD AND DR. JOHNSON. From the reverence entertained by Dr. Johnson for the University of Oxford, and the honours it conferred upon him while living, it would seem natural and becoming that after his death the University should seek to perpetuate the memory and the fame of so great a man by a statue worthy both of him and of its own renown. For such a memorial, however, I have looked in vain; and would now, after the lapse of so many years, seek to revive the interest of the present age and of future generations in all that was truly great and noble in the character of one of England's worthiest sons, by proposing that a statue should be erected to him in the centre of the Bodleian quadrangle, -a spot above all others, next to the House of God, where his spirit would hover with the greatest complacency. In such a situation he would be seen by foreigners of all nations, as well as by his own countrymen; while all would rejoice to see the University embodying, in everlasting granite, the massive form of the giant of English literature.* BOSWELL, JUN. Minor Notes. Gloves given on Reversal of Outlawry in 1464. One Sir John Bell having been outlawed on an indictment for murder, the outlawry was reversed on error brought, "And he paid the fees of gloves to the Court, two dozen for the officers of the Court (for these in all four shillings), and in addition three pairs of furred gloves for the three judges there, to wit, Markham, Chief Justice, Yelverton and Bingham, and so the prisoner went to God," &c.- Year Book, 4 Edward IV. 10. pl. 14. In the original the words are "ala a Dieu," &c., a not uncommon termination to the reports of acquittals in those days. I note them here to contrast them with the concluding words of another case which occurred almost a hundred years earlier in 1369. In that case, which is reported in the Year Book, 43 Edward III. 34. pl. 43., the king A subscription of 58. from each of the 900 heads, fellows, and scholars of the University, not to speak of the commoners, who are probably twice as numerous, would probably accomplish the object in a worthy manner; but if the sum thus raised should be inadequate, there must be many individuals throughout the British Empire who would feel honoured by assisting to erect the statue. sought to recover an advowson from the Bishop of Chester (as the Bishop of Lichfield was then sometimes called) upon a very flimsy pretext, and judgment was given for the bishop. The report concludes," and you bishop go to the very great devil without day," 66 au tres graund deable sans jour." Is this the fun of the court, or of the reporter, or of some subsequent copyist? A. S. J. were Abbreviation wanted. The word Professor will not get itself properly shortened. It is an awful prefix; especially for a trisyllabic surname. It has as many letters in it as Mr., Dr., M.A., and Esq., put together. If N. & Q. had been in existence when I corrected the proofs of my evidence before the Museum Commissioners, I should have made my protest earlier. The constant occurrence of Professor Augustus De Morgan" in the head margin of page after page made me feel that "thrice to thine" and "thrice to mine bad enough, but that "thrice again to make up nine" was an enormity. Some journals usually cut it down into Prof., which is ambiguous: it may mean proficient, profitable, or profound; but it may mean profuse, profane, or profligate. Now in like manner as Mister becomes Mr., and Doctor becomes Dr., why should not Pr. take the place of Professor: this need no more stand for Prosy than Dr. for Drony. Surely N. & Q., or *?, so fortunate in its own abbreviations, should set a good example, save its own space (the word takes half an inch in capitals), and cease to make a certain class of contributors feel as if they were being looked at through a microscope. A. DE MORGAN. General Todtleben. -In Hardwicke's Annual Biography for 1856, p. 313., there is a long obituary notice of the above-named officer, in which it is stated that · "In the death of General Todtleben, Sebastopol has lost its greatest hero, and the loss of this Russian General of Engineers, from the effect of a wound received on June 18, is an event of no mean importance to the Russians." This singular error should be corrected, and it cannot be more readily done than by giving the following quotation from the United Service Gazette, of May 23, 1857 : "General Todtleben. This distinguished Russian engineer has fixed the first week in September for visiting in London by the officers of the Royal Engineers." England and attending the banquet to be given to him Malta. W. W. Bristol Artillery Company. In the beginning of the year 1679 an artillery company was established here. The Marquis of Worcester, Lord Lieutenant of the city and county of Bristol, as well as of the counties of Gloucester, Hereford, and Monmouth, on March 6, 1678-9, communicated to the mayor, Sir John Lloyd, his majesty's |