insisted upon writing a preface to justify
Mr. P. from having any knowledge of it, and to lay it upon the corrupt
practices of the printers in London; but this he would not agree to, as
not knowing the truth of the fact." It was therefore a book, and a
_printed_ book, which was delivered to Faulkner, since if the collection
transmitted to the Dean had been in manuscript, Mrs. Whiteway and her
son-in-law would not have laid it upon the corrupt practices of the
printers, and it must have been transmitted from England, or they would
neither have laid it upon the printers of London, nor have proposed "to
justify Mr. P. from having any knowledge of it." The story was told him
while it could be refuted if it was false; but he did not venture to
question the existence of the printed volume, and had nothing more to
say than that he did not personally know that it was due to the corrupt
practices of the London booksellers. He might have gone further, and
stated that he knew the booksellers to be innocent.

The assertion of Faulkner, that it was Pope who sent this volume to
Swift, is equally supported by unexceptionable evidence. The collection
of 1735 was secretly printed and sold to Curll, and when a secretly
printed work turns out to be the origin of the collection of 1741, the
nature of the device proclaims its author. But the circumstance which
most implicates Pope is his anxiety that it should not transpire that a
printed volume had been sent to Swift at all. He informed his friend
Allen that he had endeavoured to put a stop to the work, and that this
had drawn forth replies from the "Dean's people--the women and the
bookseller." With their statements before him, he kept back from Allen
the main fact that the Dublin volume was taken entirely from a printed
copy, and speaks instead as if it was taken from the originals. He adds
that it is too manifest to admit of any doubt how many tricks have been
played with the Dean's papers, and accused his "people" of secreting
them as long as they feared he would not permit them to be published.
This dishonest substitution of "originals" and "papers" for the printed
book is a convincing proof that Pope had some motive, incompatible with
innocence, for his studious perversion of the truth. The desire to
obliterate the traces of his delinquency reappears in the preface to the
quarto. He writes with implied censure of Swift for his sanction of the
Dublin edition, and has the disingenuousn