/
28475-8.txt
3518 lines (2705 loc) · 160 KB
/
28475-8.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
Project Gutenberg's Notes and Queries, Number 193, July 9, 1853, by Various
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Notes and Queries, Number 193, July 9, 1853
A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists,
Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc
Author: Various
Editor: George Bell
Release Date: April 2, 2009 [EBook #28475]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOTES AND QUERIES ***
Produced by Charlene Taylor, Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Library of Early
Journals.)
Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.
* * * * *
{25}
NOTES AND QUERIES:
A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION FOR LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES,
GENEALOGISTS, ETC.
"When found, make a note of."--CAPTAIN CUTTLE.
* * * * *
No. 193.]
SATURDAY, JULY 9. 1853..
[Price Fourpence. Stamped Edition 5d.
* * * * *
CONTENTS.
NOTES:-- Page
The Eye: its primary Idea 25
Gossiping History--De Quincey's Account of Hatfield 26
Notes upon the Names of some of the Early Inhabitants
of Hellas 27
Shakspeare Readings, No. IX. 28
Göthe's Author-Remuneration 29
MINOR NOTES:--Parallel Passages--Unpublished Epitaphs--
The Colour of Ink in Writings--Literary Parallels--
Latin Verses prefixed to Parish Registers-- Napoleon's
Bees 30
QUERIES:--
Was Thomas Lord Lyttelton the Author of Junius's
Letters? by Sir F. Madden 31
MINOR QUERIES:--Lord Chatham--Slow-worm Superstition--
Tangiers--Snail Gardens--Naples and the Campagna
Felice--"The Land of Green Ginger"--Mugger--
Snail-eating--Mysterious Personage--George Wood of
Chester--A Scale of Vowel Sounds--Seven Oaks and Nine
Elms--Murder of Monaldeschi--Governor Dameram--Ancient
Arms of the See of York--Hupfeld--Inscription on a
Tomb in Finland--Sir Isaac Newton and Voltaire on
Railway Travelling--Tom Thumb's House at Gonerby,
Lincolnshire--Mr. Payne Collier's Monovolume
Shakspeare 33
REPLIES:--
Wild Plants and their Names 35
Jacob Bobart, by H. T. Bobart 37
Heraldic Queries 37
Door-head Inscriptions 38
Consecrated Roses 38
Notes on Serpents 39
Photographic Correspondence:--Early Notice of the
Camera Obscura--Queries on Dr. Diamond's Collodion
Process--Baths for the Collodion Process 41
REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES:--Mitigation of Capital
Punishment to a Forger--Chronograms and Anagrams--
Abigail--Burial in unconsecrated Ground--"Cob" and
"Conners"--Coleridge's Unpublished MSS.--Selling a
Wife--Life--Passage of Thucydides on the Greek
Factions--Archbishop King--Devonianisms--Perseverant,
Perseverance--"The Good Old Cause"--Saying of Pascal--
Paint taken off of old Oak--Passage in the "Tempest" 42
MISCELLANEOUS:--
Notes on Books, &c. 45
Books and Odd Volumes wanted 45
Notices to Correspondents 46
Advertisements 46
* * * * *
Notes.
THE EYE: ITS PRIMARY IDEA.
I do not remember to have remarked that any writer notices how uniformly,
in almost all languages, the same primary idea has been attached to the
eye. This universal consent is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the
connexion in question, though of course most appropriate and significant in
itself, hardly seems to indicate the most prominent characteristic, or what
we should deem to be _par excellence_ the obvious qualities of the eye; in
a word, we should scarcely expect a term derived from a physical attribute
or property.
The eye is suggestive of life, of divinity, of intellect, piercing
acuteness (_acies_); and again, of truth, of joy, of love: but these seem
to have been disregarded, as being mere indistinctive accidents, and the
primary idea which, by the common consent of almost all nations, has been
thought most properly to symbolise this organ is a spring--_fons_, [Greek:
pêgê].
Thus, from [Hebrew: `IYN], _manare, scatere_, a word not in use, according
to Fuerst, we have the Hebrew [Hebrew: `AYIN], _fons aquarum et
lacrimarum_, h. e. _oculus_. This word however, in its simple form, seems
to have almost lost its primary signification, being used most generally in
its secondary--_oculus_. (Old Testament Hebrew version, _passim_.) In the
sense of _fons_, its derivative [Hebrew: MA`YAN] is usually substituted.
Precisely the same connexion of ideas is to be found in the Syriac, the
Ethiopic, and the Arabic.
Again, in the Greek we find the rarely-used word [Greek: opê], a fountain,
or more properly the _eye_, whence it wells out,--the same form as [Greek:
opê], _oculus_; [Greek: ôps, opsis, optomai]. Thus, in St. James his
Epistle, cap. iii. 11.: [Greek: mêti hê pêgê ek tês autês opês bruei to
gluku kai to pikron].
In the Welsh, likewise, a parallel case occurs: _Llygad_, an eye, signifies
also the spring from which water flows, as in the same passage of St.
James: _a ydyw ffynnon o'r un llygad_ (from one spring or eye) _yn rhoi
dwfr melus a chwerw?_
On arriving at the Teutonic or old German tongue, we find the same
connexion still existing: _Avg_, _auga_,--_oculus_; whence _ougen
ostendere_--Gothis _augo_; and _awe, auge, ave, campus ad {26} amnem_.
(Vid. Schilteri, _Thes._, vol. iii. _ad voc._) And here we cannot help
noticing the similarity between these words and the Hebrew [Hebrew: Y'OR],
which (as well as the Coptic _iaro_) means primarily a river or stream from
a spring; but, according to Professor Lee, is allied to [Hebrew: 'WOR],
light, the enlightenment of the mind, the opening of the eyes; and he adds,
"the application of the term to water, as _running, translucid_, &c., is
easy." Here, then, is a similar connexion of ideas with a change in the
metaphor.
In the dialects which descended from the Teutonic in the Saxon branch, the
connexion between these two distinct objects is also singularly preserved.
It is to be found in the Low German, the Friesic, and the Anglo-Saxon. In
the latter we have _eá_, _eah_, _eagor_, a welling, flowing stream; _eah_,
_ægh_, _eage_, an eye, which might be abundantly illustrated.
We could hardly fail to find in Shakspeare some allusion to these connected
images in the old tongue; no speck of beauty could exist and escape his
ken. Thus:
"In that respect, too, like a loving child,
Shed yet some small drops from thy tender spring,
Because kind Nature doth require it so."
_Tit. And._, Act V. Sc. 3.
"Back, foolish tears, back to your native spring;
Your tributary drops belong to woe,
Which you, mistaking, offer up for joy."
_Rom. and Jul._, Act III. Sc. 2.
Many of the phrases of the ancient tongues, in which the eye bears a part,
have been handed down to us, and are still preserved in our own. My space,
however, forbids me to do more than allude to them; but there is one very
forcible expression in the Hebrew [Hebrew: `AYIN B`AYIN], literally, eye in
eye, which we render much less forcibly--face to face. The Welsh have
preserved it exactly in their _llygad yn llygad_. Indeed, this is not the
only instance in which they are proud of having handed down the Hebrew
idiom in all its purity. Shakspeare twice uses the old phrase:
"Since then my office hath so far prevailed,
That face to face, and royal eye to eye,
You have congreeted."--_Hen. V._, Act V. Sc. 2.
And in _Tro. and Cres._, Act III. Sc. 3; but it appears now to be obsolete.
Before concluding, I cannot help noticing, in connexion with this subject,
the Old English term "the apple of the eye." I am unable to trace it beyond
the Anglo-Saxon. The Teutonic _sehandes ougen_, _pupilla oculi_, is totally
distinct; _seha_ being merely _medius punctus oculi_, whence _sehan_,
_videre_. In the Semitic languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin, the
origin of the term is the same, and gives no clue to the meaning of the
Saxon term. Thus, in the Hebrew [Hebrew: 'IYSHWON], dim. of [Hebrew:
'IYSH], _homunculus_, the small image of a person seen in the eye. In
Arabic it is the _man_ or _daughter of the eye_. In Greek we have [Greek:
korê, korasion, korasidon]; and in Latin, _pupa, pupula, pupilla_.
Has any light been thrown on the Anglo-Saxon term? Can it be that _iris_,
not the pupil, is taken to represent an apple? The pupil itself would then
be the eye of the apple of the eye.
H. C. K.
---- Rectory, Hereford.
* * * * *
GOSSIPING HISTORY--DE QUINCEY'S ACCOUNT OF HATFIELD.
In proof of the severity with which the laws against forgery were enforced,
I have been referred to the case of Hatfield, hanged in 1803 for forging
franks. It is given very fully in Mr. De Quincey's "Literary Recollections
of Coleridge" in the first volume of the Boston edition of his _Works_.
The story has some romance in it, and excited great interest fifty years
ago. Hatfield had lived by swindling; and, though he underwent an
imprisonment for debt, had, upon the whole, a long career of success. The
last scene of his depredations was the Lakes, where he married a barmaid,
who was called "The Beauty of Buttermere." Shortly after the marriage he
was arrested, tried, and executed. Mr. De Quincey afterwards lived in the
neighbourhood, dined at the public-house kept by Mary's father, and was
waited upon by her. He had the fullest opportunities of getting correct
information: and his version of the story is so truthlike, that I should
have accepted it without hesitation but for the hanging for forging a
frank. As that offence never was capital, and was made a felony punishable
with transportation for seven years by 42 Geo. III. c. 63., I was impelled
to compare the statement founded on gossip with more formal accounts; and I
send the result in illustration of the small reliance which is to be placed
on tradition in such matters. The arrival of Hatfield in a carriage is
graphically described. He called himself the Hon. Augustus Hope, brother of
the Earl of Hopetoun. Some doubts were felt at first, but--
"To remove suspicion, he not only received letters addressed to him
under this assumed name, but he continually franked letters by that
name. Now, _that being a capital offence_, being not only a forgery,
but (as a forgery on the Post-office) sure to be prosecuted, nobody
presumed to question his pretensions any longer; and henceforward he
went to all places with the consideration due to an earl's
brother."--P. 196.
The marriage with Mary Robinson, and the way in which they passed the
honeymoon, are described:
"They continued to move backwards and forwards, until at length, _with
the startling of a thunderclap to the_ {27} _affrighted mountaineers_,
the bubble burst; officers of justice appeared, _the stranger was
easily intercepted from flight_, and, _upon a capital charge_, he was
_borne away to Carlisle_. At the ensuing assizes he was _tried for
forgery on the prosecution of the Post-office_, found guilty, left for
execution, and executed accordingly."--P. 199.
"One common scaffold confounds the most flinty hearts and the
tenderest. However, it was in some measure the heartless part of
Hatfield's conduct which drew upon him his ruin; for _the Cumberland
jury_, as I have been told, _declared their unwillingness to hang him
for having forged a frank_; and both they, and _those who refused to
aid his escape when first apprehended_, were reconciled to this
harshness entirely by what they heard of his conduct _to their injured
young fellow-countrywoman_."--P. 201.
Hatfield was not "easily intercepted from flight." Sir Frederick Vane
granted a warrant to apprehend him on the charge of forcing franks.
Hatfield ordered dinner at the Queen's Head, Keswick, to be ready at three;
took a boat, and did not return. This was on October 6: he was married to
Mary on the 2nd. In November he was apprehended near Brecknock, in Wales:
so those who refused to aid his escape, if such there were, were not
"reconciled to the hardship by what they heard of his conduct to their
young fellow-countrywoman." The "startling of the thunderclap" was preceded
by an ordinary proclamation, describing the offender, and offering a reward
of 50l. for his apprehension. He was not "hurried away to Carlisle," but
deliberately taken to London on December 12; examined at Bow Street,
remanded three times, and finally committed; and sent to Carlisle, where he
was tried on August 15, 1803.
Three indictments were preferred against him: the first for forging a bill
of exchange for 20l., drawn by Alexander Augustus Hope on John Crump,
payable to George Wood; the second for a similar bill for 30l.; and the
third for counterfeiting Colonel Hope's handwriting to defraud the
Post-office.
The Cumberland jury did not "declare their unwillingness to hang him for
forging a frank," that not being a capital offence. I infer, also, that it
was one for which he was not tried. He was convicted on the first
indictment; the court rose immediately after the jury had given their
verdict; and the prisoner was called up for judgment at eight the next
morning. Trying a man under sentence of death for a transportable felony,
is contrary to all practice. Hatfield was executed at Carlisle on September
3, 1803.
Mary's misfortunes induced the sympathising public to convert her into a
minor heroine. She seems to have been a common-place person, with small
claims to the title of "The Beauty of Buttermere." A cotemporary account
says, "she is rather gap-toothed and somewhat pock-marked." And Mr. De
Quincey, after noticing her good figure, says, "the expression of her
countenance was often disagreeable."
"A lady, not very scrupulous in her embellishment of facts, used to
tell an anecdote of her which I hope was exaggerated. Some friend of
hers, as she affirmed, in company with a large party, visited
Buttermere a day or two after that on which Hatfield suffered; and she
protested that Mary threw on the table, with an emphatic gesture, the
Carlisle paper containing an elaborate account of the execution."--P.
204.
Considering the treatment she had received, it is not unlikely that her
love, if she ever had any for a fat man of forty-five, was turned into
hatred; and it was not to be expected that her taste would keep down the
manifestation of such feeling. When Hatfield was examined at Bow Street,
Sir Richard Ford, the chief magistrate, ordered the clerk to read aloud a
letter which he received from her. It was:
"Sir,--The man whom I had the misfortune to marry, and who has ruined
me and my aged and unhappy parents, always told me that he was the Hon.
Colonel Hope, the next brother to the Earl of Hopetoun.
"Your grateful and unfortunate servant,
"MARY ROBINSON."
I do not blame Mr. De Quincey, having no doubt that he believed what he was
told; but I have put together these facts and discrepancies, to show how
careful we should be in accepting traditions, when a man of very high
ability, with the best opportunities of getting at the truth, was so
egregiously misled.
My authorities are, _The Annual Register_, 1803, pp. 421. and 428.; _The
Gentleman's Magazine_, 1803, pp. 779. 876. and 983.; Kirby's _Wonderful
Magazine_, vol. i. pp. 309. and 336. _The Newgate Calendar_ gives a similar
account but not having it at hand, I cannot vouch it.
H. B. C.
U. U. Club.
* * * * *
NOTES UPON THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE EARLY INHABITANTS OF HELLAS.
I. I have never seen it yet noticed, that the names _Pyrrha_, _Æolus_,
_Xuthus_, _Ion_, are all names of _colours_. Is there anything in this, or
is it fortuitous?
II. In accordance with the above, I think we may refer most of the names of
the early inhabitants of Greece to words denoting _light_ or _colour_, or
the like.
(1.) _Pelas-gi._ The first part of this word is, by Mr. Donaldson,
connected with [Greek: mel-as], which is also, probably, the root of
_Mol-ossi_.
(2.) _Hellenes_, connected with _Helli_, _Selli_, [Greek: selas, heulê,
hêlios]. This derivation is made more probable {28} by the fact, that the
neighbouring Pelasgic tribes have a similar meaning; _e.g._,
_Perrhæbi_, alike to _Pyrrha_ and [Greek: pur]; _Æthices_, [Greek: aithô],
_Tymphæi_, [Greek: tuphô]; _Hestiæi_, [Greek: hestia]. Add to this, that
the name _Phthiotis_ seems indubitably to derive its name from _Phthah_,
the Egyptian _Hephæstus_, and to be a translation of the word _Hellas_.
N.B.--The existence of an Egyptian colony in that part is attested by the
existence of a Phthiotic _Thebæ_.
(3.) On the other hand, the word _Achæus_ seems to be connected with
[Greek: achos, achnumai], and [Greek: achlus] in the sense of gloom (of
[Greek: ouranion achos]). So the Homeric _Cimmerians_ are derived from
[Hebrew: KIMRIYRIY] (Job), denoting _darkness_.
(4.) Lastly, I submit with great diffidence the following examination of
the words _Dorus_ and the Æolian _Minyæ_, which I shall attempt to derive
from words denoting _sun_ and _moon_ respectively.
The word _Dorus_ I assume to be connected with the first part of the names
_Dry-opes_ and _Dol-opes_. The metathesis in the first case seems
sanctioned by the analogy of the Sanscrit _drî_ and Greek [Greek: deirô],
and the mutation of _l_ and _r_ in the second is too common in Greek and
Latin to admit of any doubt, _e.g._ [Greek: ar-galeos] and [Greek:
algaletos]; _Sol_ and _Soracte_. With this premised, I think we may be
justified in connecting the following words with one another.
_Dores_, _Dryopes_ with [Greek: Seirios] (of [Greek: Sios] and [Greek:
Dios]) [Greek: Theros], the Scythian sun-god [Greek: Oito-surus], the
Egyptian _O-siris_, and perhaps the Hebrew [Hebrew: DWOR] and Greek [Greek:
dêros] (the course of the sun being the emblem of eternity).--_Dol-opes_
with _Sol_, [Greek: heilê], _Selli_, &c.
On the other hand, the neighbouring _Minyæ_ seem connected with [Greek:
minuthô, minuntha], _minus_,--all with the sense of _decreasing_ or
_waning_; hence referable, both in sense and (I fancy) in derivation, to
Greek [Greek: mên], and Latin _men-sis_.
J. H. J.
* * * * *
SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. IX.
"It lies as sightly on the back of him
As great Alcides' shoes upon an ass."--_King John_, Act II. Sc. 1.
"The ass was to _wear_ the shoes, and not to bear them on his back, as
Theobald supposed, and therefore would read _shows_. The 'shoes of
Hercules' were as commonly alluded to by our old poets, as the _ex pede
Herculem_ was a familiar allusion of the learned." (Mr. Knight in
1839.)
Fourteen years' additional consideration has not altered Mr. Knight's view
of this passage. In 1853 we find him putting forth a prospectus for a new
edition of Shakspeare, to be called "The Stratford Edition," various
portions from which he sets before the public by way of sample. Here we
have over again the same note as above, a little diversified, and placed
parallel to Theobald's edition in this way:
"It lies as sightly on the back of him
As great Alcides' _shows_ upon an ass."
"The folio reads 'Great Alcides' shoes.' Theobald says, 'But why
_shoes_, in the name of propriety? For let Hercules and his _shoes_
have been really as big as they were ever supposed to be, yet they (I
mean the _shoes_) would not have been an overload for an ass.'"
"The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to in our old poets,
as the _ex pede Herculem_ was a familiar allusion of the learned. It
was not necessary that the ass should be overloaded with the shoes--he
might be _shod_ (shoed) with them."
Now who, in reading these parallel notes, but would suppose that it is Mr.
Knight who restores _shoes_ to the text, and that it is Mr. Knight who
points out the common allusion by our old poets to the shoes of Hercules?
Who would imagine that the substance of this correction of Theobald was
written by Steevens a couple of generations back, and that, consequently,
Theobald's proposed alteration had never been adopted?
I should not think of pointing out this, but that Mr. Knight himself, in
this same prospectus, has taken Mr. Collier to task for the very same
thing; that is, for taking credit, in his _Notes and Emendations_, for all
the folio MS. corrections, whether known or unknown, necessary or
unnecessary.
Indeed, the very words of Mr. Knight's complaint against Mr. Collier are
curiously applicable to himself:
"It requires the most fixed attention to the nice distinctions of such
constantly-recurring 'notes and emendations,' to disembarrass the
cursory reader from the notion that these are _bonâ fide_ corrections
of the common text....
"Who cares to know what errors are corrected in" (the forthcoming
Stratford edition), "that exist in no other, and which have never been
introduced into the modern text?"--_Specimen_, &c., p. xxiv.
The impression one would receive from Mr. Knight's note upon Theobald is,
that Shakspeare had his notion of _the shoes_ from "our old poets," while
_the learned_ had _theirs_ from _ex pede Herculem_; but where the analogy
lies, wherein the point, or what the application, is not explained.
Steevens' original note was superior to this, in so much that he quoted the
words of these old poets, thereby giving his readers an opportunity of
considering the justness of the deduction. The only set-off to this
omission by Mr. Knight is the introduction of "ex pede Herculem," the merit
of which is doubtless his own.
But it so happens that the size of the foot of Hercules has no more to do
with the real point of the allusion than the length of Prester John's;
therefore _ex pede Herculem_ is a most unfortunate
illustration,--particularly awkward in a specimen sample, the excellence of
which may be questioned. {29}
It is singular enough, and it says a great deal for Theobald's common
sense, that _he_ saw what the true intention of the allusion must be,
although he did not know how to reconcile it with the existing letter of
the text. He wished to preserve _the spirit_ by the sacrifice of _the
letter_, while Mr. Knight preserves the letter but misinterprets the
spirit.
Theobald's word "shows," in the sense of externals, is very nearly what
Shakspeare meant by _shoes_, except that _shoes_ implies a great deal more
than _shows_,--it implies the assumption of the character as well as the
externals of Hercules.
Out of five quotations from our old poets, given by Steevens in the first
edition of his note, there is not one in which _the shoes_ are not provided
with _feet_. But Malone, to his immortal honour, was the first to furnish
them with _hoofs_:
"Upon an ass; _i.e._ upon the hoofs of an ass."--_Malone._
But Shakspeare nowhere alludes to feet! His ass most probably _had feet_,
and so had Juvenal's verse (when he talks of his "satyrâ sumente
cothurnum"); but neither Shakspeare nor Juvenal dreamed of any necessary
connexion between the feet and the shoes.
Therein lies the difference between Shakspeare and "our old poets;" a
difference that ought to be sufficient, of itself, to put down the common
cry,--that Shakspeare borrowed his allusions from them. If so, how is it
that his expositors, with these old poets before their eyes all this time,
together with their own scholarship to boot, have so widely mistaken the
true point of his allusion? It is precisely because they _have_ confined
their researches to these old poets, and have _not_ followed Shakspeare to
the fountain head.
There is a passage in Quintilian which, very probably, has been the common
source of both Shakspeare's version, and that of the old poets; with this
difference, that he understood the original and they did not.
Quintilian is cautioning against the introduction of solemn bombast in
trifling affairs:
"To get up," says he, "this sort of pompous tragedy about mean matters,
is as though you would dress up children with the _mask_ and _buskins_
of Hercules."
["Nam in parvis quidem litibus has tragoedias movere tale est quale si
_personam_ Herculis et _cothurnos_ aptare infantibus velis."]
Here the addition of the _mask_ proves that the allusion is purely
theatrical. The mask and buskins are put for the stage trappings, or
_properties_, of the part of Hercules: of these, one of the items was the
_lion's skin_; and hence the extreme aptitude of the allusion, as applied
by the Bastard, in _King John_, to Austria, who was assuming the importance
of Coeur de Lion!
It is interesting to observe how nearly Theobald's plain, homely sense, led
him to the necessity of the context. The real points of the allusion can
scarcely be expressed in better words than his own:
"Faulconbridge, in his resentment, would say this to Austria, 'That
lion's skin which my great father, King Richard, once wore, looks as
uncouthly on thy back, as that other noble hide, which was borne by
Hercules, would look on the back of an ass!' A double allusion was
intended: first, to the fable of the ass in the lion's skin; then
Richard I. is finely set in competition with Alcides, as Austria is
satirically coupled with the ass."
One step farther, and Theobald would have discovered the true solution: he
only required to know that _the shoes_, by a figure of rhetoric called
synecdoche, may stand for the whole character and attributes of Hercules,
to have saved himself the trouble of conjecturing an ingenious, though
infinitely worse word, as a substitute.
As for subsequent annotators, it must be from the mental preoccupation of
this unlucky "ex pede Herculem," that _they_ have so often put their foot
in it. They have worked up Alcides' shoe into a sort of antithesis to
Cinderella's; and, like Procrustes, they are resolved to stretch everything
to fit.
A. E. B.
Leeds.
* * * * *
GÖTHE'S AUTHOR-REMUNERATION.
The Note in your valuable Journal (Vol. vii., p. 591.) requires, I think,
so far as it relates to Göthe, several corrections which I am in the
position of making. The amount which that great man is said to have
received for his "works (aggregate)" is "30,000 crowns." The person who
_originally_ printed this statement must have been completely ignorant of
Göthe's affairs, and even biography. Göthe had (unlike Byron) several
publishers in his younger years. Subsequently he became closer connected
with M. _J. G. Cotta_ of Stuttgardt, who, in succession, published almost
all Göthe's works. Amongst them were _several_ editions of his complete
works: for instance, that published conjointly at Vienna and Stuttgardt.
Then came, in 1829, what was called the edition of the last hand (_Ausgabe
letzter Hand_), as Göthe was then more than eighty years of age. During all
the time these two editions were published, other detached new works of
Göthe were also printed; as well as new editions of former books, &c. Who
can now say that it was 20,000 crowns (_thalers?_) which the great poet
received for each various performance?--_No one._ And this for many
reasons. Göthe always remained with M. Cotta on terms of polite
acquaintanceship, no more: there was no "My dear Murray" in their strictly
business-like connexion. Göthe also never wrote on such things, even in his
biography or diary. But some talk was going around in Germany, that for
_one_ of the editions of his _complete_ works (there {30} appeared still
many volumes of posthumous), he received the above sum. I can assert on
good authority, that Göthe, foreseeing his increasing popularity even long
after his death, stipulated with M. Cotta to pay his _heirs_ a certain sum
for every new edition of either his complete or single works. One of the
recipients of these yet _current accounts_ is Baron Wolfgang von Göthe,
Attaché of the Prussian Legation at Rome.
A FOREIGN SURGEON.
Charlotte Street, Bloomsbury Square.
* * * * *
Minor Notes.
_Parallel Passages._--
"The Father of the gods his glory shrouds,
Involved in tempests and a night of clouds."--Dryden's _Virgil_.
"Mars, hovering o'er his Troy, his terror shrouds
In gloomy tempests and a night of clouds."--Pope's _Homer's Iliad_, book
xx. lines 69, 70.
UNEDA.
_Unpublished Epitaphs._--I copied the following two epitaphs from monuments
in the churchyard of Llangerrig, Montgomeryshire, last autumn. They perhaps
deserve printing from the slight resemblance they bear to that in Melrose
Churchyard, quoted in Vol. vii., pp. 676, 677.:
"O earth, O earth! observe this well--
That earth to earth shall come to dwell:
Then earth in earth shall close remain
Till earth from earth shall rise again."
"From earth my body first arose;
But here to earth again it goes.
I never desire to have it more,
To plague me as it did before."
P. H. FISHER.
_The Colour of Ink in Writings._--My attention was called to this subject
some years ago by an attempt made in a judicial proceeding to prove that
part of a paper produced was written at a different time than the rest,
because part differed from the rest in the shade of the ink. The following
conclusions have been the result of my observations upon the subject:
1. That if the ink of part of a writing is of a different shade, though of
the same colour, from that of the other parts, we cannot infer from that
circumstance alone that the writing was done at different times. Ink taken
from the top of an inkstand will be lighter than that from the bottom,
where the dregs are; the deeper the pen is dipped into the ink, the darker
the writing will be.
2. Writing performed with a pen that has been used before, will be darker
than that with a new pen; for the dry residuum of the old ink that is
encrusted on the used pen will mix with the new ink, and make it darker.
And for the same reason--
3. Writing with a pen previously used will be darker at first than it is
after the old deposit, having been mixed up with the new ink, is used up.
M. E.
Philadelphia.
_Literary Parallels._--Has it ever been noticed that the well-known
epitaph, sometimes assigned to Robin of Doncaster, sometimes to Edward
Courtenay, third Earl of Devon, and I believe to others besides: "What I
gave, that I have," &c., has been anticipated by, if not imitated from,
Martial, book v. epigr. 42., of which the last two lines are:
"Extra fortunam est, quicquid donatur amicis;
Quas dederis, solas semper habebis opes."
The English is so much more terse and sententious, besides involving a much
higher moral signification, that it may well be an original itself; but in
that case, the verbal coincidence is striking enough.
J. S. WARDEN.
_Latin Verses prefixed to Parish Registers._--On a fly-leaf in one of the
registers of the parish of Hawsted, Suffolk, is the following note in the
handwriting of the Rev. Sir John Cullum, the rector and historian of the
parish:
"Many old register books begin with some Latin lines, expressive of
their design. The two following, in that of St. Saviour's at Norwich,
are as good as any I have met with:
'Janua, _Baptismus_; medio stat _Tæda jugalis_
Utroque es felix, _mors_ pia si sequitur.'"
Can any of your correspondents contribute other examples?
BURIENSIS.
_Napoleon's Bees_ (Vol. vii., p. 535.).--No one, I believe, having
addressed you farther on the subject of the Napoleon Bees, the models of
which are stated to have been found in the tomb of Childeric when opened in
1653, "of the purest gold, their wings being inlaid with a red stone, like
a cornelian," I beg to mention that the small ornaments resembling bees
found in the tomb of Childeric, were only what in French are called
_fleurons_ (supposed to have been attached to the harness of his
war-horse). Handfuls of them were found when the tomb was opened at
Tournay, and sent to Louis XIV. They were deposited on a green ground at
Versailles.
Napoleon wishing to have some regal emblem more ancient than the
_fleur-de-lys_, adopted the _fleurons_ as bees, and the green ground as the
original Merovingian colour.
This fact was related to me as unquestionable by Augustin Thierry, the
celebrated historian, when I was last in Paris.
WM. EWART.
University Club.
* * * * *
{31}
Queries.
WAS THOMAS LORD LYTTELTON THE AUTHOR OF JUNIUS'S LETTERS?
In the _Quarterly Review_ for 1852 (vol. xc. No. 179.) appeared a clever
and speciously written article on the long debated question of the identity
of Junius, in which the writer labours at great length to prove that
Thomas, second Lord Lyttelton, who died in 1779, was the real substance of
the shadow of Junius, hitherto sought in vain. That this Lord Lyttelton was
fully competent to the task, I do not doubt; and that there are many points
in his character which may well be reconciled with the knowledge we possess
of the imaginary Junius, I also admit--but this is all. The author of the
review has wholly failed, in my opinion, to prove his case and the remark
he makes on Mr. Britton's theory (as to Col. Barré) may equally well apply
to his own, namely, that it affords "a [another] curious instance of the
delusion to which ingenious men may resign themselves, when they have a
favourite opinion to uphold!" The reviewer, indeed, admits that he has
"traced the parallel from the scantiest materials;" and in another passage
repeats, that but "few materials exist for a sketch of Thomas Lyttelton's
life." Of these materials used by the reviewer, the principal portion has
been derived from the two volumes of letters published in 1780 and 1782,
attributed to Lord Lyttelton, but the authorship of which has since been
claimed for William Coombe. The reviewer argues, that they are
"substantially genuine;" but evidence, it is believed, exists to the
contrary.[1] According to Chalmers, these letters were "publicly disowned"
by the executors of Lord Lyttelton; and this is confirmed by the notice in
the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for 1780, p. 138., shortly after the publication
of the first volume. Putting aside, however, this moot-point (which, I
trust, will be taken up by abler hands, as it bears greatly on the theory
advanced by the author of the _Review_), I proceed to another and more
conclusive line of argument. In the _Preliminary Essay_, prefixed to
Woodfall's edition of Junius, 1812 (vol. i. p. *46.), the following
statement is made in regard to that writer, the accuracy of which will
scarcely be doubted:
"There is another point in the history of his life, during his
appearance as a public writer, which must not be suffered to pass by
without observation: and that is, _that during a great part of this
time, from January 1769 to January 1772, he uniformly resided in
London, or its immediate vicinity, and that he never quitted his stated
habitation for a longer period than a few weeks._"
Now, do the known facts of Thomas Lyttelton's life correspond with this
statement or not? The reviewer says, p. 115.:
"For a period of three years after Mr. Lyttelton lost his
seat[2]--_that period during which Junius wrote his acknowledged
compositions_--we hardly find a trace of him in any of the
contemporaneous letters or memoirs that have fallen under our
observation."
But how is it, let me ask, that the author of the review has so studiously
avoided all mention of one work, which would at once have furnished traces
of Thomas Lyttelton at this very period? I allude to the volume of _Poems
by a Young Nobleman of distinguished Abilities, lately deceased_, published
by G. Kearsley: London, 1780, 4to. Does not this look much like the
_suppressio veri_ which follows close on the footsteps of the _assertio
falsi_? It is hardly credible that the reviewer should not be acquainted
with this book, for he refers to the lines spoken in 1765, at Stowe, in the
character of Queen Mab, which form part of its contents; and the existence
of the work is expressly pointed out by Chalmers, and noticed by Lowndes,
Watt, and other bibliographers. Among the poems here published, are some
which ought to have received a prominent notice from the author of the
review, if he had fairly stated the case. These are:
1. Lines "to G----e Ed----d Ays----gh, Esq., [George Edward Ayscough,
cousin to Thomas Lyttelton] _from Venice, the 20th July, 1770_."--P.
22.
2. "An Irregular Ode, _wrote at Vicenza, in Italy, the 20th of August,
1770_."--P. 29.
3. "On Mr. ----, _at Venice, in J----, 1770_."
4. "An Invitation to Mrs. A----a D----, _wrote at Ghent in Flanders,
the 23rd of March, 1769_."--P. 41.
5. "_An Extempore, by Lord Lyttelton, in Italy, anno 1770_."--P. 48.
Admitting that these poems are genuine, it is evident that their author,
Thomas Lyttelton, was abroad in Flanders and Italy during the years 1769
and 1770; and consequently could not have been the mysterious Junius, who
in those years (particularly in 1769) was writing constantly in or near
London to Woodfall and the _Public Advertiser_. Of what value then is the
assertion so confidently made by the reviewer (p. 133.):
"The position of Thomas Lyttelton in the five years from 1767 to 1772,
is exactly such a one as it is reasonable to suppose that Junius held
during the period of his writings;"
or how can it be made to agree with the fact of his residence on the
Continent during the greater part of the time?
{32}
The reviewer, indeed, tells us that "just as Junius concluded his great
work, Thomas Lyttelton returned to his father's house, and Chatham was one
of the first to congratulate Lord Lyttelton on the event." This was in
February 1772; and in the _Chatham Correspondence_, vol. iv. p. 195., is
Lord Lyttelton's letter of thanks in reply. The reviewer would evidently
have it inferred, that Thomas Lyttelton had returned home like a prodigal
son, after a temporary estrangement, and from a comparatively short
distance; but surely, had the volume of _Poems_ been referred to, it might
or rather _must_ have occurred to a candid inquirer, that in February 1772
Thomas Lyttelton returned from his _travels on the Continent, after an
absence of nearly three years_! But, perhaps, the authenticity of the
_Poems_ may at once be boldly denied? Is this the case? Chalmers certainly
includes them with the _Letters_, as having been "disowned" by Lord L.'s
executors; but says, "as to the _Poems_, they added, '_great part whereof
are undoubtedly spurious_.'" It is certain, therefore, that _some_ of the
_Poems_ are genuine; and it is a pity that the exceptions were not
specified, as the discussion might then have been confined within narrower
limits. The editor of the _Poems_, in his address "To the Reader," writes
thus in vindication of them:
"There is scarcely a line in the collection which does not bear
testimony of its origin; the _places and dates_ are also strong
corroborations to such of his friends as he corresponded with _on his
last journey across the Alps_. His style was elegant, and his ideas so
animated, that _spurious productions would be immediately detected_."
This is the testimony of one who "had the honour of his friendship, which
terminated only with his death," and is not to be lightly rejected.[3] My
own conviction is in favour of the authenticity of the whole; but, at all
events, I shall be able to offer undoubted evidence as to the genuineness
of part of the volume, and additional proof that the author was abroad at
the precise time when, if he were Junius, he must have resided in this
country. By Thomas Lord Lyttelton's will (dated Oct. 30, 1777), he
appointed as his executors his brother-in-law Arthur Viscount Valentia, his
uncle William Henry Lord Westcote, and Wilson Aylesbury Roberts of Bewdley.
To the latter he left all his "letters, verses, speeches, and writings,"
with directions that, if published, it should be for his sole emolument.
The important Query therefore at once arises, _what became of these
manuscripts, and were they destroyed or preserved_?
The above Mr. Roberts was an intimate personal friend; and from his local
influence as bailiff and deputy-recorder of Bewdley, had no doubt
contributed towards Thomas Lyttelton's return for that borough in 1768. His
son continued to keep up a close connexion with the Valentia family at
Arley Hall[4]; and this fact, coupled with the close proximity of Bewdley,
Arley, and Hagley, and the circumstance of the co-executorship of Lord
Valentia and Mr. Roberts, would make us naturally look to the library at
Arley as a not unlikely place of deposit for Thomas Lyttelton's papers.
This is not mere conjecture, and brings me immediately to the point at
issue: for, at the sale of the Valentia Library at Arley Castle, in
December last, a manuscript volume made its appearance in a lot with others
thus designated:
"Original Diary of Travels [of Lord Valentia] 4 vols.; Five Memorandum
Books of Journeys and Travels; also _Two Old Folio Volumes of Original
Poetic Pieces_."
One of the folio volumes thus catalogued subsequently came into my hands,
and is evidently one of the manuscripts left by Thomas Lord Lyttelton's
will to the care of Mr. Roberts, since it consists wholly of pieces in
verse and prose of his composition, written either _in his own hand_, as
rough draughts, or copied (apparently by a female scribe) and afterwards
_corrected by himself_. Among the poetry in this MS. I find the greater
part of the long poem printed in the edition of 1780, p. 1., entitled "The
State of England in the year 2199," which is without date in the MS., but
in the edition bears date March 21, 1771; as likewise the "Invitation to
Miss Warb[u]rt[o]n," edit. p. 35., which appears in the MS. without any
name; and the "Extempore Rhapsody, March 21, 1771," edit. p. 37., also
undated in the MS., but which supplies the name of "Yates," expressed in
the edition by asterisks; and also six lines at the end, which were omitted
in the edition on account of their indecency. There are several variations
in the manuscript, which prove that some other copy was followed by the
printer; and many typographical errors in the edition may hence be
corrected. Besides these poems, the following pieces constitute the chief
contents of this manuscript volume:
Draughts of four letters _written by Thomas Lyttelton from Lyons, the
first of which is dated September_ 10, 1769.
Heads of a series of Dialogues, in imitation of "Dialogues of the
Dead," by his father George, first Lord Lyttelton.
Poetical Fragments, imitated from Lucretius.
{33} Two letters addressed by Thomas Lyttelton to his father; and a
third to "Dear George," probably his cousin George Edward Ayscough.
Some Latin lines, not remarkable for their delicacy.
Political letter, _written from Milan_, by Thomas Lyttelton; in which
indignant notice is taken of the commital of Brass Crossby, Lord Mayor,
_which took place in March, 1771_.
Fragment of a poem on Superstition, and various other unfinished
poetical scraps.
Private memoranda of expenses.
A page of writing in a fictitious or short-hand character, of which I
can make nothing.
Remarks, in prose, on the polypus, priestcraft, &c.
Poem in French, of an amatory character.
Portion of a remarkable political letter, containing some bitter
remarks by Thomas Lyttelton on the "first minister." He ends thus: "The
play now draws to a conclusion. I am guilty of a breach of trust in
telling him so, but I shall [not] suffer by my indiscretion, for it is
an absolute impossibility any man should divine who is the author of
the letter signed ARUSPEX."
It would appear from the water-mark in the paper of which this MS. is
composed, that it was procured in Italy; and there can be little or no
doubt it was used by Thomas Lyttelton as a draught-book, during his travels
there in 1769-1771; during which period, nearly the whole of the contents
seem to have been written. The evidence afforded therefore by this volume,
comes peculiarly in support of the dates and other circumstances put forth
in the printed volume of _Poems_; and leads us inevitably to the
conclusion, _that it was utterly impossible for Thomas Lyttelton to have
had any share in the Letters of Junius_. He has enough to answer for on the
score of his early profligacy and scepticism, without being dragged from
the grave to be arraigned for the crime of deceit. His heart need not,
according to the reviewer, be "stripped bare" by the scalpel of any
literary anatomist; but he may be left to that quiet and oblivion which a
sepulchre in general bestows. Before I conclude these remarks (which I fear
are too diffuse), I will venture to add a few words in regard to the
signature of Thomas Lord Lyttelton. In the _Chatham Correspondence_, a
letter from him to Earl Temple is printed, vol. iv. p. 348., the signature
to which is printed LYTTLETON, and the editors point out in a note the
"alteration adopted" in the spelling of the name; but it is altogether an
error, for the fac-simile of this signature in vol. iv. p. 29., as well as
his will in the Prerogative Court, prove that he wrote his name
_Lyttelton_, in the same manner as his father and uncle. As to the
resemblance pointed out by the author of the _Review_ between the
handwriting of Thomas Lyttelton and that of Junius, it exists only in
imagination, since there is really no similitude whatever between them.
Some Queries are now annexed, in reference to what has been above
discussed:
1. In what publication or in what form did the executors of Thomas Lord
Lyttelton disown the _Letters_ and _Poems_?
2. Is it known who was the editor of the _Poems_ published in 1780?
3. Can the present representative of the family of Roberts give any farther
information respecting Thomas Lord Lyttelton's manuscripts?
4. Lastly, Is any letter known to exist in the public journals of the years
1770, 1771, under the signature of ARUSPEX?
F. MADDEN.
British Museum.
[Footnote 1: I have been unable to refer to these letters, as no copy
exists in the British Museum library.]
[Footnote 2: As M.P. for Bewdley. He was returned in 1768, and unseated in
January, 1769.]
[Footnote 3: In the _Public Advertiser_ for January 1, 1779 [1780],
appeared a notice of the _Poems_, said to have been "published yesterday;"
and although two pieces are extracted at length, not a syllable of doubt is
expressed as to their genuineness.]
[Footnote 4: The estate at Arley was left to the Hon. George Annesley
(afterwards Earl of Mountnorris), son of Lord Valentia, by the will of
Thomas Lord Lyttelton, and Mr. Roberts was one of the trustees appointed.]
* * * * *
Minor Queries.
_Lord Chatham._--I would suggest as a Query, whether Lord Chatham's famous
comparison of the Fox and Newcastle ministry to the confluence of the Rhone
and Saone at Lyons (_Speech_, Nov. 13, 1755), was not adapted from a
passage in Lord Roscommon's _Essay on translated Verse_. Possibly Lord
Chatham may have merely quoted the lines of Roscommon, and reporters may