<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11.5pt;">4to. pp. [3], 4-15, [1] (blank). Signatures: [A]2 B-D2. New quarter calf. Marbled cover. Gilded spine.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11.5pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11.5pt;">Only edition of a rare ‘Miltonic’ attack in couplets on Lauder, recounting the plot, hatched in Pandæmonium by Satan, Belial, and Moloch, to revenge themselves on Milton with ‘horrid lyes,’ through the agency of the fame-seeking ‘Scotch Devil’ Lauder. This plan is foiled by the angel Uriel, who ‘descends on [John] Douglas, luminates his mind, / And bids him mark th’ imposter to mankind.’ Douglas obeys and triumphs, and our poet concludes by taunting Lauder that "Thou fails! our Milton is immortal still! / And cou'd my verse pepetuate thy name, / While Milton's fragrant thou should'st stink of fame."</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11.5pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11.5pt;">In a prefatory note, the anonymous author declares himself unacquainted personally with Douglas, but honors him more than he can express "for his pains," and "rejoice[s] to hear that he is a Scotchman, because it may prevent some national Reflections" – a political theme touched on by many subsequent English critics of Macpherson. </span><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11.5pt;">ESTC, nonetheless (locating just seven copies), attributes the work provisionally to Douglas himself, evidently on the basis of a contemporary note by Richard Rawlinson. David Foxon (English verse 1701–1750: A catalogue of separately printed poems with notes on contemporary collected editions. Cambridge, 1975, P21) thought Rawlinson's meaning "not clear," but considered the ascription "possible." Arthur Freeman rather doubts it (Hoax, fake and fraud. Literary forgery from Ctesias to Wise. One hundred books and manuscripts. London, 2013).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/permalink/01JHU_INST/1lu78g9/alma991040482149707861" rel="nofollow">Click here to view the Johns Hopkins University catalog record.</a></span></span></p>

Log in to favorite or list