University of Virginia Library

A "second edition" of the True Collection appeared in 1705 (including the same items as the first). This Collection and the Second Volume were reissued in two parts as A True Collection ... The Third Edition in 1710, and again in 1711 as the two-volume Collection of the Writings of the Author of the True-Born Englishman. Forty items were reprinted in the two-volume The Genuine Works of Daniel D’Foe, Author of The True-born English-Man ([1721]), perhaps an unauthorized collection (and an expensive one at 12 shillings). All of the items included in these collections were printed either in the original True Collection or in the Second Volume.

The Life and Errors of John Dunton (1705), 240.

The How collection was unauthorized, and Defoe excluded 11 (P) and 40(F) from his True Collection.

The True-Born Hugonot (by William Pittis?), 11.

Poems on Affairs of State: Augustan Satirical Verse, 1660–1714, vol. 6, ed. Frank H. Ellis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970). Ellis says that "The evidence for Defoe's authorship ... lies mainly in his quotation of the poem in" issues of the Review (48).

Four stanzas were also "quoted in Cursory Remarks upon Some Late Disloyal Proceedings in Several Cabals (1699)," a volume not associated with Defoe (CB, 16).

For example, [William Pittis?], The True-Born Hugonot: or, Daniel de Foe (1703).

Animadversions on the Succession to the Crown of England, Consider'd (1701), 1. Also in two 1703 pamphlets (CB, 26).

Furbank and Owens observe that this item was "widely attributed" to Defoe by contemporaries (including Tutchin), though Defoe (almost certainly disingenuously) denied authorship (CB, 27).

This is probably the piece James Drake attributes to "Legion" in The Source of our Present Fears Discover'd (1703), 32.

This pamphlet was "widely attributed" to Defoe, including by Pittis (?) in The True-Born Hugonot, p. 10 (CB, 29).

Ralph, History of England: During the Reigns of K. William, Q. Anne, and K. George I, 2 vols. (1744–46), 2:999.

Reprinted in A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts, 4 vols. (1748), 3:114–124, attributed to "T.G." (Thomas Gordon?).

Extracts adapted and reprinted in The Modern Addresses Vindicated ... by D. De Foe (1710), which has sometimes been mistakenly attributed to Defoe (CB, 32).

The first edition was attributed to "the Author of the Preface to Mr. Howe."

See for example The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters ... with its Author's Brief Explication Consider'd, his Name Expos'd... and The Fox with his Firebrand Unkennell'd and Insnar'd (both 1703).

See note to 11(P).

"Defoe's authorship is made clear in an 'advertisement' on the verso of the title-page" of the first edition (CB, 41).

19. A Dialogue between the Pillory and Daniel de Foe.

Chalmers found the piece attributed to Defoe in a catalogue by William Collins (CB, 43).

The author of Remarks on the Author of the Hymn to the Pillory assumes that this item was written by Defoe (CB, 43).

Furbank and Owens note that, in addition to the preface being signed "D.F.," one part of item 46 is signed "Daniel de Foe" (CB, 44).

23. "An Unknown Defoe Broadsheet on the Regulation of the Press?", The Library, 5 th ser., 33 (1978): 51–58. Downie explains that an anonymous informer sent this piece to Harley and attributed it to Defoe.

An anonymous writer attributed this poem to "our Legionite" in the preface to The Whig's Scandalous Address Answered Stanza by Stanza (1703). John Dyer's News-Letter in October 1704 implied Defoe's authorship. Furbank and Owens point out, however, that in a 1710 letter, Defoe "reproaches Dyer for having reported him as fled from justice, when in fact he was on a journey, and there was not 'the least Charge Against me for being Concern'd in it' (Letters, p. 269)" (CB, 51–52). Elsewhere, they explain that they "are inclined to think that Defoe was its author, on the (admittedly slender) grounds that the first line from it is quoted in An Elegy on the Author of the True-Born Englishman ... and that Sammen who dispersed it was evidently a friend of Defoe's." See their "New Light on John Pierce, Defoe's Agent in Scotland," Edinburgh Bibliographical Society Transactions 6 (1998): 134–143, at 136.

The author of Stockings out at Heel (1705) attributes this piece to "A Dislocated Hosier" (CB, 58).

"No independently published edition of this work has been found" (CB, 59). The item was first published in SV.

Charles Leslie and others attributed this to Defoe by 1708 (when he openly acknowledged authorship); see CB, 62.

Defoe does not claim this piece by name, but his advertising it in the Review as by the author of The True-Born Englishman provides a tacit admission of authorship.

Advertised in the Review for 7 August 1705 as "by the Author of the True-Born English-Man."

Furbank and Owens also point out that "Defoe later [in 1711] became a vociferous champion for the firm of Brooke and Hellier, when they tried to break into the retail trade in Portugese wine" (CB, 67).

Furbank and Owens refer to another work that includes the same Buder quotation, concluding in that instance that "Although this line is sometimes quoted by Defoe ... there is little reason to think that he was the author" of the work at issue (CB, 64).

Observations on the Bankrupts Bill, a response to "Mr. Daniel De Foe."

Rodney M. Baine quotes a 1734 essay in The Universal Spectator, whose author suggests that the same person was responsible for both this item and An Essay on the History and Reality of Apparitions. "This reference," Baine concludes, "gives us our first evidence that Defoe wrote A True Relation of the Apparition of Mrs. Veal" See Daniel Defoe and the Supernatural (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1968), 93.

Jure Divino Toss'd in a Blanket: or, Daniel De Foe's Memorial (in POAS, 1707) and elsewhere (see CB, 76).

A Second Defence of the Scotish Vision.

See Frank H. Ellis, "Notes for an Edition of Defoe's Verse," The Review of English Studies, n.s., 32 (1981): 398–407. What Defoe says in his 28 November 1706 letter to Harley is "I Gould not Refrain sending you a peice of my Ld Beilhavens Poetry in Answer to the Ballad" (Letters, 162).

Robert Wodrow (1679–1734), an eighteenth-century collector of books and manuscripts, often wrote what he believed to be the author's name on title pages of pieces he acquired; Furbank and Owens do not accept all of the pieces that were first attributed by Wodrow. See Defoe De-Attributions, xv-xvi, and CB, xiv. Because these annotations were made over a period of time, I have not given a precise date of his ascription of the relevant items.

What Defoe writes to Harley is this: "They go to morrow on the 5th Article. They have been Debateing it last sitting, and here is a mighty popular Objection against on Account of their shipping. The Enclosed will Explain it more particularly, which I Wrot at the Desire of the E's of Abercorn, Sutherland, and some Members of the Commons, to prepare them against to morrows Debate" (Letters, 154). That the "Enclosed" is item 85 is highly likely, but the allusion is not as unambiguous as (for example) in the case of 134(P).

On 9 December 1706, Defoe writes to Harley, "I am printing a Single sheet Entituled a Letter to the Glasgow men," and on 12 December he says, "The paper I mentioned in my last About the Glasgow men I send you Enclosed. Tis a plain but Course Expostulation and they Flatter me it has done a great Deal of service here" (Letters, 169, 170).

See note to no. 85.

What Defoe says to Harley (17 January 1707) is this: "Since the papers I lately sent you I have printed here Two Essayes. One I Enclose you here; The Other shall be sent The Next post" (Letters, 194). Furbank and Owens, following Healey, believe the "One" to be item 90, and the "Other" to be item 91.

Pamphlets nos. 92, 93, and 94 are part of a controversy with the Rev. James Webster. Furbank and Owens: "The second of the three pamphlets addressed to Webster makes it plain that the author is, and is known by Webster to be, Defoe" (CB, 84). In a 27 January 1707 letter to Harley, Defoe says, "I sent you the last letter The Attempt of One Webster, a minister, against the Dissenters, I here Send my Answer to him" (Letters, 196).

I have labeled item no. 94 "deduced-context" instead of "contemporary attribution" because in this case the contextual evidence (for which see previous note) is more persuasive than the contemporary attribution. A second edition appeared the same year under the title The Dissenters Vindicated; or, A Short View of the Present State of the Protestant Religion in Britain. Toland attributes The Dissenters Vindicated to Defoe in his Second Part of the State Anatomy (1717), p. 46.

"It seems likely that Robert Wodrow was referring to it in a letter ... of 13 March 1711, where he remarked that 'the foolish plea of persecution' by Episcopal pamphleteers 'is fully answered by ... Defoe' (CB, 87).

45. Just Reprimand to Daniel De Foe, the author (Defoe's target, James Clark) "takes it for granted that [the piece] is by Defoe himself" (CB, 90).

The letter is dated 29 June 1708, and printed in Furbank and Owens, "Defoe as Secret Agent." What Defoe says to Godolphin is this: "Enclosed I send your Ldpp the printed paper I promised (in my Last but one) should Come last post, but Could not be ready; your Ldpp will see by it The steps I am Taking. It would be a most usefull Encouragement to kno' if your Ldpp approves Thi, and My Design of Dispersing it over the wholl Island, in a Method I noted to your Ldpp was formally Done in the Case of the reply to the Memoriall. It is but a short piece, but I am perswaded it may be usefull, and I shall Follow it with Another, and perhaps a Third, to expose the Conjunction of These men with the Enemies of the Government. I have sent this up this post to be printed in England; your Ldpp will perceive I have Disguised the Stile, and I am perswaded no body will so much as guess it is mine" (150). Furbank and Owens suggest that the "reply to the Memoriall" to which Defoe refers is likely to be The High-Church Legion, and the "Another" he anticipates is probably Scotland in Danger, item no. 250h (see notes 37 and 38).

The pamphlet was attributed to "the Author of the Reviews" in the Edinburgh edition of the Review (CB, 92). Also see the note to no. 85 for Wodrow's ascription of it to Defoe.

Advertised in the Review for 11 March 1712 as "by the Author of the Review" (CB, 95).

In a 5 September 1710 letter to Harley, Defoe boasts, "I am Vain of Saying Sir The first Step I Took has been Successfull and has done More Service Than I Expected, in which The Town does me too much Honour, in Supposeing it well Enough done to be your Own. I Mean the Essay Upon Credit" (Letters, 276-277). The Essay is attributed to Harley in A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts, 2:1–9. So is no. no (2:10–18).

In a 5 September 1710 letter to Harley, Defoe says, "If you Think it proper, I would Offer Another Piece of The Same kind [as An Essay upon Publiek Credit]; which I would Call an Essay Upon Loans" (Letters, 277). Item no. no appeared later the same month.

The reference is in volume six of Samuel Halkett and John Laing's Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English Literature, as enlarged by James Kennedy, W. A. Smith, and A. F. Johnson (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1932), p. 304 (under the tide "Captain Tom's ballad; or, Captain Tom's lamentation for his mob's tribulation").

Furbank and Owens admit that "With a fraction more hesitation, since there are no 'Captain Tom' allusions in the Review at this time, and the style is more demotic ... one can apply the same argument in support of Defoe's authorship as with item 106(P)" (CB, 104–105).

Defoe denied his authorship of this piece, attributing it to someone else. "Nevertheless," Furbank and Owens conclude, "internal evidence strongly suggests his authorship" (CB, 106).

History of the Present Parliament, 89.

The bookseller Joseph Button wrote to Defoe about this pamphlet c. 25 December 1710: "When you do Bickerstaff I wou'd not ha' you fright all people as you say you will" (Letters, 305).

"Robert Wodrow, in a letter to his wife of 10 May 1711, writes that he is enclosing 'a pamphlet, "Counsel to the Assembly" by Defoe"' (CB, 109).

In a 3 March 1711 letter to Harley, Defoe asks "whether if a Small pamphlett ... were written to Allay the feares and Lessen the Surprize of the people There, to Dispose Them to Consider Calmly of Things, and a Little Encourage Them–whether you may not Think it Usefull at Such a Juncture as This" (Letters, 320).

Defoe refers to this pamphlet as a "Vile Ill Natur'd Pamphlet" and "a Bitter Invective" not by him: "It is Certainly Written by Some English man, and I have Some Guess at the Man, but dare not be positive" (Letters, 306–307). Furbank and Owens (not unwisely) disbelieve him, "above all because [Atalantis Major] corresponds so closely to what he had written earlier to Harley" (CB, 111).

"Defoe was friendly with Dalby Thomas, a governor of the African Company, and was widely believed to be a hired advocate for the company" (CB, 112).

Furbank and Owens also observe that this pamphlet refers to "a writer of much penetration who continually warned the Whigs of the danger of running down credit ... almost certainly an allusion to Defoe." The piece does criticize the Review, but they conclude that such criticism "can probably be taken as a ruse" (CB, 117).

"The tone and complex line of argument as regards Occasional Conformity are very close to those of Defoe's known writings on the subject"; a favorite allusion; reference that suggests "that the author has the backing of fellow Dissenters" (CB, 119). It was also advertised in the Review.

In a 14 February 1712 letter to Harley, Defoe says, "I Reproach my Self with The Answer I gave your Ldpp when you were pleased to Ask me if I had any thing Perticular to Offer, Because I Fully purposed to have Represented a Perticular Case of the Poor keel men of New Castle. ... There is So Much Justice ... in The Case That I Perswade my Self your Ldpp will be pleased with Appearing in behalf of a Thousand Families of poor and Injured Men, who None but God and your Ldpp can Now Deliver; If your Ldpp pleases to give me Leav I would Gladly Lay an Abstract of The Case before you" (Letters, 369).

Although this attribution is deduced from content, and regarded as merely "highly 'probable'" by Furbank and Owens, the detailed reference to Defoe and his career seem to me virtually to constitute a claimed authorship.

In "Defoe and the Dutch Alliance: Some Attributions Examined," BJECS 9 (1986): 169–182, Furbank and Owens argue that, of the six pamphlets on 1710–1712 Anglo-Dutch peace negotiations attributed to Defoe by earlier bibliographers, only three are legitimate: 140(P), 141(P), and 143(P). They contend that the Enquiry's "telling rhetorical organization" is "suggestive of Defoe," and that the argument corresponds "with Defoe's position in the Review," which leads them to conclude that "the attribution is correct, and that the pamphlet is by Defoe" (176). Given the certitude reflected in this verdict, one might wonder why they label the pamphlet merely "probable" in the Bibliography. The case for Defoe's authorship of Reasons against Fighting and A Further Search is strengthened, Furbank and Owens argue, by circumstantial evidence. In a letter to Harley, Defoe seems to promise to write a pamphlet that fits the description of Reasons against Fighting, and there is a similarly suggestive epistolary reference to a work that might be A Further Search. The style of A Further Search, moreover, "has here and there an edge and neat turn of phrase-making that seem reasonably Defoean" (180).

The reference is in a 5 June 1712 letter to Harley, where Defoe says that he is enclosing "books," presumably nos. 140(P) and 141 (P), though the references are vague. Of the first, he explains, "It is written without Doores, and for The Use of Those Cheifly, who kno' Nothing but without Doores. I hope it May be Usefull to Undeciev an abused people, and Let Them see How The wholl Nation was Forming into One Tribe of Issachar, and Taught to Couch Under The Tyranny of Our Neighbours." He goes on to explain that he is sending "another book ... in Answer to The Dutch Memorialls." He insists that he is "farr from Exciting the people against The Dutch, and believ it is not the Governments View to Injure or Break with The Dutch; but it Seems Necessary ... to have the Dutch Friends and Not Masters" (Letters, 376, 377).

See note to no. 85.

Furbank and Owens say that, "since the persona of 'Count Tariff' was directly associated with Mercator by Addison," this praise "is strongly suggestive of Defoe's authorship" (CB, 140).

As further "evidence," Furbank and Owens explain that Defoe had, in a letter to Harley, encouraged him "to get Steele expelled from Parliament." They conclude that "Out of these circumstantial facts a 'probable' attribution seems to emerge" (CB, 141).

Oldmixon, Remarks on the Letter to the Dissenters, 24.

To Harley, Defoe writes, "I have also Compil'd a Letter to The Dissenters, of which I had a hint from your Ldpp" (Letters, 424).

The attribution of items 161, 164(P), 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 175(P), and 194 are addressed in more detail in Furbank and Owens, "The Lost Property Office: Some Defoe Attributions Reconsidered," PBSA 86 (1992): 245–67. Furbank and Owens sort 24 "Harley" pamphlets attributed to Defoe by Moore into "Defoe's," "probably Defoe's," and unlikely to be Defoe's. They list no. 161 as merely "probable" in this article, and (without explanation) upgrade it to "definite" in CB.

Dunton, The Impeachment, or Great Britain's Charge Against the Present M[inistr]y, 24.

Boyer, Political State for June 1717.

Some people attributed this to Harley; both Harley and Defoe (in an Appeal to Honour and Justice) denied authorship (CB, 148). Either we disbelieve Defoe's passionate defense of himself or we deprive him of authorship.

Defoe explains "why I have not Persued what I was upon for Vindicateing your Ldpps person and Conduct and Exposeing your Enemyes as I had proposed to your Ldpp and which was actually in the Press and part of it Printed off" (Letters, 444). Furbank and Owens conclude that "it is hard to doubt that this was the promised pamphlet he referred to in a letter to Harley of 3 August 1714" (CB, 148–49).

Pittis (?), Queen Anne Vindicated, 12–15.

Furbank and Owens argue that "it is difficult not to conclude that he wrote [this pamphlet] and that it is a work of fiction" (CB, 151).

Read's Weekly Journal for 8 November 1718.

In The Life And Strange Surprizing Adventures of Mr. D[aniel] De F[oe], Gildon has "Defoe" say, "I have written against my old Teachers in the Shape and Form of a Quaker, as in a Pamphlet to T. B. a Dealer in many Words; and in the same Form I have attack'd the B...of B..., one who is equally hated by them" (xv). The "Pamphlet to T. B." is evidently item no. 170, the full tide of which is A Friendly Epistle by way of Reproof from one of the People called Quakers, to Thomas Bradbury, a Dealer in many Words. Nos. 172 and 174 are related to 170 (the title pages of both announce that the work is "By the same Friend that wrote to Thomas Bradbury), which is presumably why Furbank and Owens use Gildon to support the attribution of these items as well as of no. 170. The same is true for no. 195, attributed on the title page to "a Ministring Friend, who writ to Tho. Bradbury, a Dealer in many Words." Items 172, 174, and 195 are labeled "contemporary attribution" here because Gildon clearly associated Defoe with a group of related pamphlets.

Boyer, Political State for June 1717.

Furbank and Owens suggest that "the discriminating and provocative tribute to the genius of Louis XIV ... seems particularly characteristic and has many parallels in the Review" (CB, 160).

James Crossley, "Defoe's Pamphlet on the Septennial Bill," Notes and Queries, 1st ser., 5 (1852): 577–579.

Defoe's claim appears in an article in the St. James's Post, reprinted in Mercurius Politicus (July 1717). Furbank and Owens explain that "Boyer, in the Political State for April 1716, accuses Defoe of writing an attack on the bill to extend the life of Parliament... and mentions the present tract as one of seven written in favour of the bill and therefore as not by Defoe" (CB, 164).

Boyer, Political State for June 1717.

As "most probably" rather than a definite attribution.

This variation "is one of many such adaptations of the line by Defoe" (CB, 167).

Furbank and Owens listed this item as a doubtful attribution in Defoe De-Attributions (pp. 95–96), but "new light on Defoe's political stance at this period now inclines us to accept it as probable" (CB, 171). They also accept the successor to this pamphlet, no. 193(P) (p. 100 in Defoe De-Attributions).

Boyer, Political State for June 1717. As Furbank and Owens point out, "Toland, who was an old enemy of Defoe, went along with the attribution, gleefully exploiting the chance to score off him" (CB, 170). "Toland, in The Second Part of the State-Anatomy, answered [this pamphlet], making merciless fun of the paradox of the author of The True-Born Englishman (of all people) extolling the English nobility and whipping up prejudice against foreigners" (CB, 176). Defoe flatly denies authorship of this piece in 193(P), but perhaps disingenuously.

The author of The Conduct of Robert Walpole Esq. reports that "Fair Payment no Spunge ... was also said to be written by the Order of the first Contrivers: Some said it was written by the aforesaid Paterson; others, who pretended to speak from better Information, said it was done by Daniel de Foe" (p. 59; quoted in CB, 172).

James Crossley, "'Inquiry into the State of the Union, by the Wednesday Club in Friday Street,"' Notes and Queries, 1st ser., 7 (1853): 576.

The piece expresses sentiments similar to those in no. 189; includes a remark also found in nos. 7 and 8; its title may recall no. 148; there are possible reference to no. 148; a "classic Defoe formulation" and a "very Defoean homily." Also, "the absurd prejudice of supposing that anyone who finds things to praise in an enemy must be a traitor [is] frequently echoed in the Review" (CB, 173).

A Presbyterian Getting on Horse-Back, 3–4. From Furbank and Owens's point of view, however, the author of this piece is half wrong: the author says that no. 191(P) must be by the same author as The Repeal of the Act against Occasional Conformity Considered, and "I should suspect De Foe to be the Author." Furbank and Owens do not attribute The Repeal of the Act to Defoe (CB, 174), which means that we cannot count this contemporary's testimony as reliable external evidence.

"Wodrow, in the preface to his The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1721–22), discusses this work and says that it is generally believed to be by the author of the History of the Union. He makes a more explicit attribution to Defoe in a letter to James Fraser (undated, but about November 1720)" (CB, 175).

"The present tract's denial that Defoe wrote [188(P)] ... carries little conviction in the face of so much external evidence" (CB, 177). The external evidence to which they refer is presumably the Boyer and Toland attributions of no. 188(P) to Defoe (both hostile).

Oldmixon, A Reply to the Late Bishop Atterbury's Vindication, 7. Boyer's statements in the Political State (June 1717) implies that this tract is Defoe's. Defoe replied to Boyer (in a letter signed "D.F." in St James's Post, reprinted in Mercurius Politicus, July 1717), challenging him to "produce some Proof" that he had written it. The Post Boy advertisement attributes it to someone else (CB, 178).

As Furbank and Owens point out, however, Wilson admitted "that there was probably 'no solid foundation' for the attribution" (CB, 179).

"Despite his disclaimers and the Post Boy advertisement the ascription to Defoe is convincing, and one passage in particular helps support the theory that he wrote it and constitutes a complicated private joke" (CB, 178).

See note to no. 170.

This piece includes lengthy quotations from no. 20 and cites no. 23; it includes a favorite "dog-Latin tag" of Defoe's; and its approach is similar to Defoe's known writings (CB, 187).

Furbank and Owens do not mention that Gildon attributed this to Defoe in the "postscript" to The Life And Strange Surprizing Adventures of Mr. D[aniel] De F[oe]: "Having just run thro' the first Volume and clos'd my Letter, I was told that the second Volume was at last come out" (29).

"There could be thought to be the hint of an attribution to Defoe in a passage from a pamphlet Considerations on the Consequences of the French settling Colonies on the Mississippi excerpted in the Political State for April 1720: '... all your heavy Fellows, who pass for wise ... have thought it the shortest Way [our italics] to tell us gravely it will certainly come to nothing, and to treat it as a meer Chimaera' [our italics]" (CB, 191). They point out that passages from The Chimera (206(P)) had been reprinted in the Political State the previous January.

As Furbank and Owens point out, "Defoe claimed more than once to have ... a manuscript by an English gentleman who served under Gustavus Adolphus" (CB, 194).

Furbank and Owens suggest that Noble's 1784 edition of Captain Singleton "is, perhaps, the first ascription of it to Defoe" (CB, 196). I have found additional evidence suggested a significantly earlier first attribution: a 17 67 edition of Captain Singleton sold by Francis Noble (and others) is advertised as "Published originally from the Captain's Manuscript, by the celebrated Daniel Defoe." See The London Chronicle, 23–25 June 1767. The tide page of this edition (labeled the "third") says 1768, but the advertisement announces it as appearing on that day.

Jonathan E. Hill, "Defoe's Singleton?" PBSA 84 (1990): 285–296.

The connection with Defoe is, however, tenuous. The appearance of this verse passage in the Review is sixteen years earlier than the publication of The Case of Mr Law, and the same passage is quoted at p. 22 of A Letter from a Gentleman at the Bath, to his Friend in London (1722), a work never associated with Defoe.

This attribution was made by Crossley in a letter to the Gentleman's Magazine 10 (1838): 370–371.

Every Man Mind his Own Business, 10.

Furbank and Owens point out that "Several passages from the Tour are reproduced without acknowledgment in ... Atlas Maritimus (1728)" (CB, 210–211)—an illustration of the fact that the appearance of passages from a "Defoe" work does not constitute solid evidence for an item's authorship.

J. R. Forster, History of Voyages ... Made in the North (1786); Noble's edition of Daniel De Foe's Voyage Round the World (1787).

Furbank and Owens argue that Defoe was suspected of being Moreton in his lifetime, citing the anonymous Villany Exploded (1728) as an example (CB, 214). I have, however, found no other association of Defoe with Moreton in his lifetime. In the "Cibber" list of 1753, Shiels includes nos. 233 (as "History of Magic") and 238, the latter as "under the name of Moreton," but does not attribute the other Moreton pamphlets to Defoe (see p. 323). Chalmers (1790) included 233 and 238 as Defoe's (pp. 82, 83), but he regarded the other "Moreton" works (nos. 222, 232, 241, 243, and 245) as merely "supposed to be De Foe's" (see p. 86). Nos. 233 and 238 are not in fact part of the Moreton series, as Furbank and Owens point out, but 238 was reissued (as The Secrets of the Invisible World Disclos'd) with "Andrew Moreton" on the title page, and a second edition of 233 also includes that name (CB, 213).

As Furbank and Owens point out, Trent "cites a manuscript note [dated 1759] in one of his copies: 'I was told by Mr. Bowles, print-seller ... that it was composed by Daniel Defoe"' (CB, 220).

The piece includes a favorite allusion; a reference that appears in no. 227; a claim also made in no. 223; and a line of verse also in no. 233.

Furbank and Owen note that an abridgment entitled Chickens feed Capons (1731 [for 1730]) reproduced some of no. 232, though they doubt Defoe's participation in or authorization of it.

Items included in the Critical Bibliography chiefly because they are continuations of earlier "Defoe" works are labeled here "deduced-context." 236(P) is "deduced from content" because both it and the work to which it is connected are attributed on the grounds of internal evidence.

A 30 January 1705 letter to "The Select Committee of the House of Lords" is printed in Letters (pp. 73-77). The author of no. 242(P), Furbank and Owens explain, gives "an approving account of a similar long and intricate proposal 'laid before a Committee of Parliament' some years ago" (CB, 234).

Furbank and Owens retain Some Objections as a "probable" attribution, while de-attributing two other pamphlets on imprisonment for debt (all three were treated as certain by Moore). See "Defoe and Imprisonment for Debt: Some Attributions Reviewed," The Review of English Studies, n.s., 37 (1986): 495-502.

Furbank and Owens point out that "There was much anonymous verse, in the main most probably by Defoe himself" in the Review [CB, 244). They also explain that "Occasionally, Defoe reprinted previously published pamphlets in the Review. ... More usually, though, articles from or issues of the Review were reprinted as pamphlets. It is often difficult to tell whether this was done with Defoe's authorisation or not" (245).

On which see J. A. Downie, "Mr. Review and His Scribbling Friends: Defoe and the Critics, 1705-1706," Huntington Library Quarterly 41 (1978): 345-366.

As, for example, in the Review for 30 January 1707, where he insists "no Person whatsoever has or ever had any Concern in writing the said Paper Entitled the REVIEW, than the known Author D. F. "... and that "wherever the Author may be, the Papers are wrote with his own Hand."

Narcissus Luttrell reports that "de Foe is ordered to be taken into custody for reflecting on admiral Rooke, in his Master Mercury" (quoted in CB, 249).

Boyer's ascription is in the Political State for May 1713. Furbank and Owens point out that "Various suggestions were made as to the authorship of Mercator" (CB, 250).

In the Review,Furbank and Owens report, Defoe "speaks as if the Mercator were by another author," and in An Appeal to Honour and Justice, he admits to having some part in it, but insists that he "neither was the Author of it, had the Property of it, the Printing of it, or the Profit by it." In a cryptic passage in a 21 May 1714 letter to Harley, Defoe seems to claim sole authorship (see Letters, 441).

The Flying-Post for 26-29 June 1714 includes criticism of the Monitor: ...you are to remember, that if D.F. be the Author (as 'tis generally suppos'd) he is famous for Irony ..." (CB, 252).

One issue includes a story for which there are "several analogues ... in known Defoe writings"; another issue includes a discussion of Steele very similar to one in a letter to Harley. A passage in yet another issue "corresponds closely, and at one point word-for-word, with a letter of Defoe's to Harley on the same subject" (CB, 252-253).

A passage in the 5 August 1720 Commentator (255(P)) attributes The Manufacturer to "Daniel" (CB, 254).

"An attack on [The Commentator] in the Weekly Medley for 16-23 January 1720 ('composed equally of Ignorance and Malice, and like a common FOE to all ingenious and learned men') might be hinting at Defoe as author" (CB, 255).

This paper includes several parallels to other Defoe writings: an anecdote used in no. 216 and another used in the Review; a quotation from no. 34; a comment very similar to one in no. 267 and the Review; a bit of wordplay paralleled in no. 224; a discussion akin to one in the Review; a Rochester quotation also found in the Review; and a discussion of credit that "is very much in Defoe's style upon this favourite topic." One issue includes an epigraph similar to the opening lines of no. 271 (CB, 256).

Printed in Gildon, History of the Athenian Society.

Dunton, Life and Errors, 240.

"The letter was declared treasonable, as a result of which Mist's offices were raided and searched and the staff taken into custody; and under questioning Mist testified that the letter was the work of Defoe, as did the bookseller Thomas Warner and a certain Jonathan Marshall, who said it had been delivered to him by Defoe's gardener" (CB, 259–60).

"The Universal Spectator was edited by Defoe's son-in-law Henry Baker, and in his set of copies of this journal ... Baker has written Defoe's name against this essay" (CB, 260).

See J. A. Downie, "'Mistakes on all Sides': A New Defoe Manuscript," The Review of English Studies, n.s., 27 (1976): 431-437.

The piece is known "from a transcript, headed 'De-Foe's Satyr' by George Staniland ... in a letter to an unknown recipient, dated 11 May 1709" (CB, 266).