advertises the work as published. A MS note by Joseph Haslewood in a pamphlet at the British Museum (shelf-mark C.39.f.16) mentions his having seen a copy of Milles’ work which Richard Gough obtained on 12 Dec. 1781.

 9. History, ed. Price, II, 340.

10. Rowley Poems, ed. Hare, p. 311.

11. See Meyerstein, Life, pp. 472-474. Warton’s reply, advertised in the St. James’s Chronicle in No. 3280 (14-16 March 1782) to be published “in a few Days,” was An Enquiry into the Authenticity of the Poems attributed to Thomas Rowley. In which the arguments of the Dean of Exeter, and Mr. Bryant are examined. Tyrwhitt’s reply, first advertised in the St. James in No. 3342 (6-8 Aug. 1782), was A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems, called Rowley’s . . . .

12. The only earlier replies were obscure squibs in the newspapers. See the St. James’s Chronicle, Nos. 3238 (6-8 Dec., against Bryant), 3240 (11-13 Dec., against Bryant), and 3245 (22-25 Dec., against both).

13. LI (1781), 555-559, 609-615. On its publishing schedule during the 18th century, see the Gentleman’s Magazine, N.S., I (July-Dec., 1856), 9. Neither the magazine nor the pamphlet mentioned Malone’s authorship, but his hand in “the new Pamphlet,” at least, was soon recognized (see the St. James’s Chronicle, No. 3268, 14-16 Feb. 1782). One can only speculate whether Malone and Nichols were fellow plotters from the beginning. They seem to have taken interest in each other’s work as early as 1779, when Nichols printed for Malone special copies of some early analogues to Shakespeare’s plays. See Albert H. Smith, “John Nichols, Printer and Publisher,” The Library, 5th Ser., XVIII (1963), 182-183. And evidently Nichols had an eye out for anti-Rowleian materials. At his solicitation, Horace Walpole allowed the Letter to the Editor of the [Chatterton] Miscellanies (Strawberry Hill, 1779) to be reprinted in the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1782 (LII, 189-195, 247-250, 300, and 347-348).

14. Nichols’ printing operations are described in a pamphlet by David Bond, Friendship Strikingly exhibited in a New Light (London, 1781).

15. Charlemont Correspondence, I, 393-394. I wish to thank Professor Osborn for calling my attention to this letter.

16. See the Gentleman’s Magazine, LII (1782), 14-15, and the St. James’s Chronicle, Nos. 3257 (19-22 Jan.) and 3264 (5-7 Feb.).

17. The Letters of Horace Walpole, ed. Paget Toynbee, XII (Oxford, 1904), 152.

18. Concerning Walpole’s copy, see Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, Yale Ed., ed. W. S. Lewis et al., XVI (New Haven, 1952), 363. I have found no trace of any other version of the pamphlet, and it is doubtful that there was time for one to be published between 8 Jan., when Malone wrote to Charlemont, and 31 Jan., the date of the “Advertisement” printed in the “revised and augmented” edition. We may presume that as editor of the magazine Nichols would not be anxious for another printing of the essay during Jan. to compete with two numbers in which the essay was a principal feature. All copies of the pamphlet which I have been able to locate specify “the second edition, revised and augmented.” In my examination of six copies (at the Library of Congress, the Bodleian, and the British Museum), I found variation only in the catchword on p. 32. Although the first word on p. 33 is “comprise” in all copies, the catchword in three copies (Bodleian, and British Museum shelf-marks 687.g.33 and 78.i.9) is “contain,” the word Malone used in the magazine.* Since the copies are otherwise identical, repeating distinctive flaws and errors (note, for instance, “written,” p. 19), I judge that this discrepancy was seen and corrected at press, and that all copies are of one printing.
* In this edition, the catchword is “comprise”.

19. Besides the added paragraphs and footnotes, I have noted 235 separate textual changes. Undoubtedly some deviations in spelling and punctuation were the printer’s work. But the number of changes in quoted passages (see especially pp. 16 and 60) and the regularity of changes (like those noted above) which evidently serve a stylistic purpose suggest the author’s meticulous revision.

20. In reference to Bryant’s Observations (advertised at 8s.), Malone had said, “by an unwarrentable artifice of the bookseller, it is divided into two, to furnish a pretence for demanding an uncommon price.” Compare with this the statement on p. 2.

21. LII (1782), 128.

22. See Malone’s letter of 19 Nov. 1782 in Charlemont Correspondence, I, 422.

23. See Meyerstein, Life, p. 474, and Warton’s comment