# Is "Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke a First Edition?

> **Quick answer.** A first edition of Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke (J. Dodsley, London, 1790) is identified by: First edition, London: printed for J. The Dodsley London edition of November 1790 is the true first in every sense — English is the original language and there is no competing prior edition.

**Checklist — a true first has these:**
- First edition, London: printed for J. Dodsley, 1790
- Octavo (approx
- 210 x 128 mm), title with no edition statement — the immediate trap, since Dodsley's own rapid reprints of the same year also carry a plain 1790 title
- The primary first-impression point, given in Todd 53a and cited independently by two auction houses, is the imprint alignment: the "M" of the date stands directly beneath the "D" of "Dodsley"; in the second impression the "M" sits slightly to the right of that "D"
- Todd 53a further records the setting by press figures (10-x, 116 none, 171, 354-*) and by cancels at E2, F6 and H2-3 with cancellanda at B8 and E7-8
- References: Printing and the Mind of Man 239
- Publisher imprint reads J. Dodsley, London

| | |
|---|---|
| Author | Edmund Burke |
| Publisher | J. Dodsley, London |
| Year | 1790 |
| True first | — |
| Format | Hardcover (trade) |
| Key point | First edition, London: printed for J. Dodsley, 1790 |
| Book-club edition exists? | No |

## Points of issue
First edition, London: printed for J. Dodsley, 1790. Octavo (approx. 210 x 128 mm), title with no edition statement — the immediate trap, since Dodsley's own rapid reprints of the same year also carry a plain 1790 title. The primary first-impression point, given in Todd 53a and cited independently by two auction houses, is the imprint alignment: the "M" of the date stands directly beneath the "D" of "Dodsley"; in the second impression the "M" sits slightly to the right of that "D". Todd 53a further records the setting by press figures (10-x, 116 none, 171, 354-*) and by cancels at E2, F6 and H2-3 with cancellanda at B8 and E7-8. References: Printing and the Mind of Man 239; Rothschild 522; Todd 53a. Note that Todd separates three 1790-dated editions comprising ten impressions and that experienced cataloguers routinely hedge ("first edition, ?first impression"); Todd's collation, not any single point, is the arbiter, and a reported ornament-direction point on p. [iv] is described inconsistently across sources and is not relied on here.

## Is this the true first?
The Dodsley London edition of November 1790 is the true first in every sense — English is the original language and there is no competing prior edition. A Dublin edition of 1790 (Todd 53aa) followed and is a separate, later printing rather than a co-first. The work went through eleven editions within about a year, thirteen thousand copies selling in the first five weeks, so 1790-dated later impressions and editions are common and are the principal "first thus" trap: a plain 1790 title alone proves nothing without the imprint-alignment and press-figure checks.

## Telling it from reprints & book-club editions
No book-club editions exist for an 18th-century pamphlet of this kind. The documented reprint tells are all within Dodsley's own 1790 sequence — resettings of the sheets, shifted press figures, and misprints introduced in the later impressions — plus the separate Dublin 1790 printing. Later 19th- and 20th-century collected-works and scholarly editions (and the modern paperback texts) are reprints of the text, not of the first edition sheets.

## Source
New Mexico Literacy Project — Is *Reflections on the Revolution in France* by Edmund Burke a first edition? https://newmexicoliteracyproject.org/first-edition/reflections-on-the-revolution-in-france
CC BY 4.0. Part of the Canonical First-Edition Points of Issue dataset (https://newmexicoliteracyproject.org/api/first-edition-titles.json). Last reviewed 2026-07-04.