Minor Queries Answered.

"The man of law, who never saw,The way to buy or sell,Shall never rise, by merchandise,Or ever speed him well."

"The man of law, who never saw,

The way to buy or sell,

Shall never rise, by merchandise,

Or ever speed him well."

They may not be quite correct, as I write from memory.

W. W. KING.

—What is the origin of the terminationship, in such words as consulship, prætorship, lordship, and others?

A. W. H.

—I have two old quarto tracts, of eight pages each, printed, as seems both by the type and by an allusion contained in one of them, between 1520 and 1530, or thereabouts. They are part of a satirical controversy, the subject of which is very obscure, betweenNemoof Wittemberg, andNullusof Leipsic. Though printed, we must suppose, at the two places, the opponents have evidently clubbed for a woodcut to be common to the two title-pages.

In this cut an unfortunate householder stands in an attitude of despair, surrounded by what are as much in our day as in his the doings ofnobody, as broken crockery, hardware, &c. In the distance his kitchen is visible, in which two nobodies are busy with his meat and wine. A young woman is carrying an infant to the priest to be baptized; and from the way in which the worthy man holds up his finger, we may fear she has just confessed that it is nobody's child. Can any of your readers give any information?

—Can any of your readers discover the answer to the adjoining riddles which I have met with, though I neither know its author nor answer?—

"The noblest object of the work of art,The brightest gem that nature can impart,The point essential in the tenant's lease,The well-known signal in the time of peace,The farmer's comfort when he holds the plough,The soldier's duty and the lover's vow,The planet seen between the earth and sun,The prize that merit never yet hath won,The miser's idol and the badge of Jews,The wife's ambition and the parson's dues.If now your noble spirit can divine,A corresponding word for every line,By the first letters plainly will be shown,An ancient city of no small renown."

"The noblest object of the work of art,

The brightest gem that nature can impart,

The point essential in the tenant's lease,

The well-known signal in the time of peace,

The farmer's comfort when he holds the plough,

The soldier's duty and the lover's vow,

The planet seen between the earth and sun,

The prize that merit never yet hath won,

The miser's idol and the badge of Jews,

The wife's ambition and the parson's dues.

If now your noble spirit can divine,

A corresponding word for every line,

By the first letters plainly will be shown,

An ancient city of no small renown."

A. W. H.

—Can any one inform me if I am right in supposing that this word, used in the reign of George I. as an addition expressing trade, is the same as ourupholsterer?

D. X.

—Can you furnish me with any particulars respecting the Rev. Cæsar de Missy? Bishop Middleton, in his work on the Greek article, quotes once or twice some MS. notes of his, now in the British Museum; and a rare edition of the Septuagint (Basil, 1545), now in my possession, contains his autograph under date Londini, 1745. I have not met with his name in any biographical work, and should therefore be obliged by any information respecting his life and works.

QUIDAM.

[Cæsar de Missy, a learned Prussian divine, was born at Berlin, 1703. Having settled in England, he was appointed in 1762 to be one of the French chaplains to George III., and died 1773. His valuable library, which was sold by Baker and Leigh in 1778, consisted of many books enriched with his MS. notes, some of which were purchased for his Majesty's library, some for the British Museum, and some by Dr. Hunter, who also bought several of his manuscripts. A biographicalaccount of De Missy will be found in Chalmers'sBiographical Dictionary, underDe Missyand a list of his works in Watt'sBibliotheca Britannica, art.Missy.]

—"An acre sown with royal seed," &c. Would M. W. kindly saywherethe passage in Beaumont is to be found?

C. P. E.

[The passage occurs in the poem entitled "On the Tombs in Westminster Abbey." See Beaumont and Fletcher'sWorks, vol. ii. p. 709. edit. 1840.]

"——Carve out dials, quaintly, point by point,Thereby to set the minutes, how they run,How many make the Hour full, complete;How many hours bring about the Day."

"——Carve out dials, quaintly, point by point,

Thereby to set the minutes, how they run,

How many make the Hour full, complete;

How many hours bring about the Day."

Where is the above quotation from? It heads an advertisement of theSam Slick Clocks.

G. CREED.

[It will be found in Shakspeare'sKing Henry VI., Part III. Act II. Sc. 5.]

—What is the origin ofLog Book?

G. CREED.

[The Logboardno doubt gave rise to the Logbook, as being more convenient for preserving a record of the ship's course, winds, and weather. Consult Falconer'sDictionary of the Marine.]

—Would you kindly inform me who was the "Lord Mar. Clydesdale," or "Clidsdale," whose name appears as a commoner of St. Mary's College, Winchester, in 1735; and in other Rolls about that date?

MACKENZIEWALCOTT, M.A.

P.S. May I in your columns beg all Wykehamists to send to me, under care of my publisher, any information concerning their old school?

[James, Marquis of Clydesdale, was afterwards fifth Duke of Hamilton, and second Duke of Brandon. See Douglas'Peerage of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 473. 722.]

—There is a phrase, "Time is the stuff that life is made of," which has been taken for a line of Shakspeare. A reference to Mrs. Clark'sConcordanceshows that that supposition is erroneous. Can any of your readers inform me where the phrase may be found?

[It occurs in Dr. Franklin'sWorks, vol. iii. p. 454., edit. 1806, in the article "The Way to Wealth, as clearly shown in the Preface of an old Pennsylvania Almanack, intitled, Poor Richard Improved." He says, "But dost thou love life, then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of, as Poor Richard says." Franklin may have quoted it from some previous author.]

—"Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown."—Septuagint (Baxter's edition) "Ἔτιτρεῖςἥμεραι," &c.: "Yetthreedays."—How is this?

NEDLAM.

[Τρεῖςis the common reading of the LXX. asארבעיםof the Hebrew. We know of no variants. J. H. Michaelis' account of the matter is, "Perperam vero LXX. huncquadragenariumdierum numerum intriduanumcommutarunt."]

—Most readers of general history are aware that the parentage of the renowned mother of the still more renowned Constantine has been claimed for two widely different sources,—a British king on the one hand, and an innkeeper of Bithynia on the other. In favour of the former, we have Geoffrey of Monmouth, Carte the English historian, and modern Welsh authors; for the latter, Gibbon and his authorities. The object of the present Query is threefold: 1. Will some one having access to Geoffrey be kind enough to favour me (in the original or a translation) with the exact statement of the chronicler to which Gibbon refers? 2. Are writers of intelligence and credit quite agreed that the tradition which assigns to the wife of Constantius a royal British parentage was "invented in the darkness of monasteries?" 3. Where is the question—one of interest in many ways—fully and satisfactorily discussed?

[The statement will be found in Geoffrey'sBritish History, book v. ch. 6.:—"After the decease of Coel, a petty prince of Caercolvin [Colchester], Constantius himself was crowned, and married the daughter of Coel,[7]whose name was Helena. She surpassed all the ladies of the country in beauty, as she did all others of the time in her skill in music and the liberal arts. Her father had no other issue to succeed him on the throne; for which reason he was very careful about her education, that she might be better qualified to govern the kingdom. Constantius, therefore, having made her partner of his bed, had a son by her called Constantine." Thus far Geoffrey; and with him agree Baronius, Ussher, Stillingfleet, and Camden. The learned Lipsius' opinion of this tradition, in his letter to Mr. Camden, will be found in hisEpistles, page 64. The traditions, however, is not mentioned by Gildas, Nennius, or Bede. Our correspondent will find a long discussion on this disputed point in Alban Butler'sLives of the Saints, August 18, Art. "S. Helen." See also Tillemont,Hist. des Empereurs, t. iv.]

[7]This petty king is probably the hero of the old popular ditty:

"Old King Coel,Was a merry old soul," &c.

"Old King Coel,

Was a merry old soul," &c.

I have delayed contradicting the stories told about the Royal Library in theQuarterly Reviewof last December, and repeated in theIllustrated Boswell, and, I am sorry to say, still more gravely and circumstantially reproduced by the Editor of "NOTES ANDQUERIES." I have delayed, I say, until I was enabled to satisfy myself more completely as to one of the allegations ofyourNote. I can now venture to assure you that the whole story of the projected sale to Russia is absolutely unfounded; and that the Princess Lieven, whose supposed agency is the gist of the story, never heard a syllable about it, till my inquiry brought it to her notice, and that she has given it the most absolute contradiction. As there never was any such proposition, I need not say that the interference against it attributed to Mr. Heber and Lord Sidmouth is equally unfounded. The real history of the affair is this:—Mr. Nash, the architect, had rendered himself very agreeable to George IV. by his alterations and additions to the Pavilion at Brighton, and he managed to obtain (somewhat irregularly, I believe) the job of altering old Buckingham House, which was originally intended, or at least proposed, to be only an extensive repair and more commodious arrangement of the existing edifice. Under that notion, Mr. Nash had little difficulty in persuading the king that the space occupied by so large a library could not be spared for that purpose, if the house was to be arranged as apalaceboth for private residence and for purposes of state; and as there was a very great jealousy in Parliament of the expense of Buckingham House, he was afraid to propose the erection of an additional building to receive the books. It was then that the scheme was hit on, I know not exactly by whom (but I believe by Mr. Nash), of giving the books to the British Museum. The principal part of the library occupied three large rooms, two oblong and one an octagon. The former were to have been absorbed into the living apartments, and the octagon was to be preserved as achapel, which it was proposed to adorn with the sevencartoonsof Raphael from Hampton Court. All these, and several other schemes, vanished before Mr. Nash's larger views and increased favour, which led by degrees to the total destruction of the old house, and the erection of an entirely new palace, which however retains strong evidence of the occasional and piecemeal principle on which it was begun. But in the meanwhile the library was gone.I knowthat some members of the government were very averse to this disposal of the library: they thought, andstrongly represented, that a royal residence should, not be without a library; and that this particular collection, made especiallyad hoc, should not have been, on any pretence, and above all on one so occasional and trivial, diverted from its original destination. It is very possible that Mr. Heber may have expressed this opinion; and I think I may say that Lord Sidmouth certainly did so: but, on the other hand, some of the king's advisers were not sorry to see the collection added to the Museumpro bono publico; and so the affair concluded,—very unsatisfactorily, as I thought and think, as regards the crown, to whom this library ought to have been an heirloom; and indeed I doubt whether it was not so in point of law. It is likely enough that the gift of the library may have beenpartlyprompted by a hope of putting the public in better humour as to the expenses of Buckingham House; but the idea of asale to Russianever, I am sure, entered the head of any of the parties.

I can easily suppose, after the space you have given to J. S. W. (Vol. iv., p. 64.) to sum up on the long-protracted controversy of theEisellinterpretation, that you will scarcely permit it to be renewed. J. S. W.'s judgment, though given with much amenity and fulness, I cannot think satisfactory, as towards its close he evidently sinks into the advocate.

Theobald, a most admirable annotator, has narrowed the controversy very properly, to the consideration whether Hamlet was here proposing possibilities or impossibilities. J. S. W. dwells on the whole of the dialogue between Hamlet and Laertes as a rant; and sinks all the lines and passages that would bring it down to sanity. But this seems to line singularly unjust. Imprimis, Hamlet is not enraged like Laertes, "who hath a dear sister lost," and is a very choleric, impetuous, and arrogant young gentleman. It is this quality which irritates Hamlet, who is otherwise in the whole of this scene in a particularly moralising and philosophic mood, and is by no means "splenetic and rash." Hamlet, a prince, is openly cursed by Laertes: he is even seized by him, and he still only remonstrates. There is anything but rant in what he (Hamlet) says; he uses the most homely phrases; so homely that there is something very like scorn in them:

—— "What wilt thoudofor her?"

is the quietude of contempt for Laertes' insulting rant; and so, if my memory deceive me not, the elder Kean gave it; "Dofor her" being put in contrast with Laertes' braggadociosay. Then come the possibilities:

"Woul't weep, fight, fast, tear thyself,"

(All, be it noted, common lover's tricks),

"Would drink up eisell, eat a crocodile,I'll do't."

"Would drink up eisell, eat a crocodile,

I'll do't."

Now the eating a crocodile is the real difficulty, for that looks like an impossibility but then, no doubt, the crocodile, like all other monstrous things, was in the pharmacopœia of the time, andwas considered the most revolting of eatables. Eat a crocodile, does not mean a whole raw one, but such as the alligator mentioned in the shop of Romeo's apothecary, probably preserved in spirits.

Here we have possibilities put against the rant of Laertes;the doingagainstthe saying; the quietude of the philosophic prince, against the ranting of the robustious Laertes; things thatcould be done,—for Hamlet ends with "I'll do it." That is, he will weep, fight, fast, tear himself, drink bitterness, and eat monstrosities: and this is his challenge of Laertes to the true testimony of his love, in contrast to his wordy lamentation. But his quick imagination has caught an impetus from its own motion, and he goes on, "Nay, I will even outprate you;" and then follows his superior rant, not uttered with sincere vehemence, but with quiet and philosophic scorn; and he ends with the reproof of Laertes' mouthing; a thing particularly distasteful to him. And now, in accordance with this dignified contempt is his final remonstrance and his exit speech of—

"I lov'd you ever; but it is no matter;Let Hercules himself," &c.

"I lov'd you ever; but it is no matter;

Let Hercules himself," &c.

We thus see that there is no real rant in Hamlet; he is not outbragging Laertes; but institutes the possible, in contradiction to swagger and mouthing. The interpretation ofeisellthus becomes a matter of character, and to a great degree would determine an actor's mode of rendering the whole scene. This result I do not see that any of your correspondents have taken notice of; and yet it really is the main thing worth discussing.

This interpretation too has the advantage of coinciding with Shakspeare's perpetual love of contrast; the hot, hasty, wordy Laertes being in strong contrast to the philosophic, meditating, and melancholy young prince; always true to his character, and ever the first in every scene by his own calm dignity. He never rants at all, but rides over his antagonist by his cool reasoning and his own magnificent imagination. The adoption of Theobald and Hickson's interpretation of the wordeisellbecomes therefore of great importance as indicating the character of Hamlet.

F. G. T.

Many of your readers no doubt feel much indebted to your correspondent for his able summary of theeisellcontroversy; an example which it is to be hoped will be followed in other cases. It has induced me to collect a few passages for the purpose of showing that Shakspeare was accustomed to make use of what may be termedlocalisms, which were frequently as occult as in the instance of theeisell; and that he was especially fond of establishing himself with the children of his brain in the particular country by means of allusion to the neighbouring seas and rivers. What appropriate signs are the Centaur and the Phœnix for the city of Ephesus, the scene of theComedy of Errors! The Italian, Iachimo, speaks of—

"—— lips as common as the stairsThat mount the capitol."

"—— lips as common as the stairs

That mount the capitol."

And Petruchio alludes to the bursting of "a chestnut in a farmer's fire," an incident probably of common occurrence in the sunny south. InHamlet, with which we are chiefly concerned, the king "gulps his draughts ofRhenishdown;" and the grave-digger talks of a flagon ofRhenishhaving been poured by the jester upon his head, the wine with which Denmark would naturally be supplied. His majesty inquires:

"Where are theSwitzers? let them guard the door."

And the student Horatio is judiciously placed at the university of Wittenburg. Constant mention is made inThe Merchant of Veniceof the Rialto; and Portia, not unmindful of the remarkable position of the city, thus directs Balthazar:

"Bring them, I pray thee, with imagin'd speedUnto the tranect, to the common ferryWhich trades to Venice."

"Bring them, I pray thee, with imagin'd speed

Unto the tranect, to the common ferry

Which trades to Venice."

What a fine Hebraism (Hazlitt remarks) is that of Shylock, where he declares, that he would not have given his ring "for a whole wilderness of monkeys!" And so, if the subjoined passage inOthellorelates to the ceremony of the Doge's union with the sea, may we not exclaim "What an admirable Venetianism!"

"I would not my unhoused free conditionPut into circumscription and confineFor the sea's worth."

"I would not my unhoused free condition

Put into circumscription and confine

For the sea's worth."

The Moor has not travelled far to find the following simile:

"Like to the Pontick sea,Whose icy current and compulsive courseNe'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due onTo the Propontick and the Hellespont."

"Like to the Pontick sea,

Whose icy current and compulsive course

Ne'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on

To the Propontick and the Hellespont."

Petruchio asserts in respect to Catherine:

"—— Were she as roughAs are the swelling Adriatic waves,I come to wive it wealthily in Padua."

"—— Were she as rough

As are the swelling Adriatic waves,

I come to wive it wealthily in Padua."

In the Roman plays the Tiber is repeatedly noticed. The Thames occurs inMerry Wives of Windsor, and others. And in the Egyptian scenes ofAntony and Cleopatra, the Nile is several times introduced.

"Master Brook [says Falstaff], I will be thrown into Etna, as I have been into Thames, ere I will leave her thus."

Antony exclaims:

"Let Rome in Tiber melt!"

while Cleopatra gives utterance to the same sentiment:

"Melt Egypt into Nile! And kindly creaturesTurn all to serpents!"

"Melt Egypt into Nile! And kindly creatures

Turn all to serpents!"

In the last two passages it may be observed, that the hyperbolical treatment of the two riversbears some analogy to that of theeisell; and it may also be pointed out, that although one of your correspondents has rashly maintained that the word cannot mean a river because the definite article is omitted before it, Thames, Tiber, and Nile here occur without. Upon the whole it must appear that there is some reason for adopting the motto:

"Flow on, thou shining river."

Eisellwill, I think, if examples from our old writers decide, be at least acknowledged to mean in Shakspeare what we now (improperly?) call vinegar, and not any river. InThe Goolden Letanye of the Lyf and Passion of our Lorde Jesu Criste, edited from a MS. (No. 546.) in the library at Lambeth, by Mr. Maskell,Monumenta Ritualia, ii. 252., comes this entreaty:—

"For thi thirste and tastyng of gall andeysyl, graunte us to tast the swetnes of thi spirite; and have mercy on us."

All through the sixteenth century, and ages before,eisellwas not only a housewife's word, but in every one's mouth—in the poet's as he sang, the preacher's as he preached, and the people's while they prayed. Surely, for this very reason, if Shakspeare meant Hamlet to rant about a river, the bard would never have made the king choose, before all others, that very one which bore the same name with the then commonest word in our tongue: a tiny stream, moreover, which, if hardly ever spoken of in these days of geographical knowledge, must have been much less known then to Englishmen.

DA. ROCK.

Buckland, Faringdon.

Your correspondent J. S. W. well deserves the thanks of all those of your readers who have taken an interest in the discussion on the meaning ofeisellinHamlet, for the able manner in which he has summed up the evidence put forward by the counsel on both sides. Perhaps he is correct in his conclusion, that, of twelve good men and true, nine would give their verdict foreisellbeing "a river;" while but three would favour the "bitter potion." Nevertheless, I must say, I think the balance yet hangs pretty even, and I rather incline myself to the latter opinion, for these reasons:

1. There is no objection whatever, even in the judgment of its enemies, againsteisellmeaning "a bitter potion," except that theypreferthe river as more to their taste; for the objection of MR. CAUSTONI conceive to have no weight at all, that "to drink up" can only be applied "to a definite quantity;" surely it may also mean, and very naturally, to drink "without stint." Andeisellneed not be taken as meaning nothing more than "vinegar;" it may be a potion or medicament of extreme bitterness, as in the 111th sonnet, and in Lydgate'sTroy Bokequoted by MR. SINGER, such, that while it would be possible to sip or drink it in small quantities, or diluted, yet to swallow a quantity at a draught would be almost beyond endurance; and hence, I submit, the appropriateness of "drink up."

2. There is this objection againsteisellmeaning a river,—Would the poet who took a world-wide illustration fromOssa, refer in the same passage to an obscure local river for another illustration? Moreover it does not appear to be sufficient to find any mere river, whose name resembles the word in question, without showing also that there is a propriety in Hamlet's alluding, to that particular river, either on account of its volume of water, its rapid flow, &c., or from its being in sight at the time he spoke, or near at hand.

Can any of your readers, who have Shakspeare more at their fingers' ends than myself, instance anyexact parallelof this allusion of his tolocalscenery, which, being necessarily obscure, must more or less mar the universality, if I may so speak, of his dramas. Could such instances be pointed out (which I do not deny) or at least any one exactly parallel instance, it would go far towards reconciling myself at least to the notion thateisellis the river Essel.

H. C. K.

—— Rectory, Hereford, July 28.

I will not attempt to follow all the statements of L. M., because some of them are totally beside the question, and others contradict each other. I shall only observe that he totally mistakesmyargument when he says, as if in reply to me, thatit is not necessary to have the courtesy title of lord to be a privy councillor. No one ever said any such thing. What I said was this, that the Mayor of London, like those of Dublin and York, had the courtesy title oflord, and that this title oflordbrought with it the other courtesy designation ofright honorable, which latter beingalso(but notlikewise) the designation of privy councillors, had, as I suppose, occasioned the error now predicated of the Mayor of London being a privy councillor, which, I repeat, he is no more than any Lord John or Lady Jane, who have also the title of Right Honorable.

L. M., however, states as a matter of fact, that "the Lord Mayor is alwayssummoned to councilon the accession of a new sovereign." Now I assert, and I think have proved in my former note, that the Lord Mayor never was sosummoned to council. I now add that he never has on any occasion entered thecouncil chamber, that he has never taken the oath nor performed any act of a privy councillor, and that in short there is not thesmallest doubt with any one who knows anything about the Privy Council, that theLord Mayor of Londonno more belongs to it than theLord Mayors of York or Dublin, or theLord Provost of Edinburgh, all of whom are equally styled Right Honorable, which title, I repeat, is the sole and silly pretence of this new-fangled hypothesis.

Observing the imperfect knowledge which Lowndes and your correspondents apparently have of the work called Anderson'sHouse of Yvery, I send you a few Notes to clear up some points.

It may be said there were two editions of this work; one containing the censorious comments of (I presume) Lord Egmont on the degraded state of the peerage; the second, that in which those comments were cancelled. To the first, no printer's name appeared in the title-page; to the second is the name of "H. Woodfall, jun."

Lowndes has entirely mistaken the origin of the different paging in vol. i. The fact is, the original edition of the Introduction contained 41 pages of text, but the cancels reduced that number to 37; which p. 37., as Lowndes correctly remarks, is in the second edition misprinted 29. I possess both copies, with and without the cancels. By Lowndes we are led to believe that only p. xxxvii. was destroyed; but in truth they are p. xvi., and parts of pp. xv. and xvii., and nearly the whole of pp. xxxv.-vi., containing the anecdotes of the tailor's son and the apothecary's brother-in-law being sent, or intended to be sent, to foreign courts, as ambassadors from England. Another cancel occurs in vol. ii., of nearly the whole of pp. 444-5-6, which occasions Lowndes to say that pp. 446-7 are missing. The duplicate pages 453 to 460 are peculiar to the second edition only. One of my copies contains two additional plates, one of Wardour Castle, the other of Acton Burnell, evidently engraved for the work. The map of the baronies of Duhallow, &c., is only in one copy, viz. the original edition. Unfortunately, this original edition wants all the portraits of Faber, but it has the tomb of Richard Percival of 1190, beginning "Orate," as in Lowndes. It contains also a duplicate portrait of Sir Philip Percival, engraved by Toms in 1738 (who also engraved the Wardour and Acton Burnell Castles); and this duplicate is also in the other copy.

Were I to form any judgment when this work was commenced, I should say about 1738, and that all the engravings for it were done by Toms; and the first edition was printed in 1742, without any printer's name, and that some copies were so bound up. The other copies remained in sheets until the next year, when Faber was employed to engrave the portraits, and till 1744 or 1747; 1747 being the latest date of Faber's plates. There is some curious information in these volumes, and I would recommend your readers to observe how much the conduct of the Catholics of Ireland, recorded in vol. ii. p. 271., resembles that of the Catholics of the present day.

I think A. E. B. has not understood MR. HICKSON'Sargument in reference to this word. Perhaps the latter may not have expressed himself very clearly; and not having by me his original paper on the subject, I cannot cite his exact words; but his argument I take to be to this effect:—In construction of the passage there is a double comparison, which, though perfectly clear to the intelligent reader, causes some confusion when a doubt is first raised as to the meaning of the word, and which can be cleared up only by a thorough analysis. "The cloud-capp'd towers," &c., are first compared with "the baseless fabric of this vision,"like whichthey "shall dissolve," and afterwards with "this insubstantial pageant,"like which(having "faded") they shall "leave not a rack behind." A given object can be said to "leave behind" only that which was originally of its elements, and for this reason only a general term such aswreckorvestigewill accord with the construction of the passage.

I am sorry to find that any one should misquote Shakspeare for the purpose of obtaining a temporary triumph: probably, however, in the instance I am about to cite, A. E. B. has really fallen into the common error of regarding two similes as one. He says, giving the substance of Shakspeare's passage, "the globe itself shall dissolve, and, like this vision, leave not a wreck behind." What Shakspeare in substancedoessay is, "The globe itself,like this vision, shall dissolve, and,like this faded pageant, shallleave not a rack behind." A. E. B.'s question, therefore, "in what was the resemblance to the vision to consist, if not in melting, like it, into thin air?" is thus answered: The resemblancedoesconsist indissolving, or "melting" away.

My object in making these remarks is not to express an opinion on one side or the other, but to draw the attention of your readers to the real question at issue. I therefore say nothing as to whether Shakspeare may or may not have had a prevision of the nebular theory; though I cannot see that this would be in the least affected by our decision as to the meaning of this word, since thewrackorwreckof the world might well be representedby the "vapour" for which A. E. B. contends. As, however, this gentleman says such is its meaning "beyond all doubt," (a rather dogmatic way of settling the question, by the way, seeing that a doubt had been thrown upon it in the very paper he has engaged himself to answer,) I should like to be informed if there is any authority for the use of the word in Shakspeare, or his cotemporaries, asmere"haze" or "vapour." I have generally understood it to mean aparticulardescription of cloud, or, as some say, more properly, the course of the clouds in motion.

In fine, as Prospero did undoubtedly point to the dissolution of the globe and all that it contained, it is quite clear that it could in such case leave neither "cloud" nor "vapour," nor anything else behind it. The simple question then remains: Is the wordrack, as elsewhere used by Shakspeare and his contemporaries, logically applicable there?

A LOOKER-ON.

Dawlish, Aug. 16. 1851.

—Coleridge (Death of Wallenstein, Act V. Sc. 1.) gives the lines—

"Fast fly the clouds, the sickle of the moonStruggling, darts snatches of uncertain light."

"Fast fly the clouds, the sickle of the moon

Struggling, darts snatches of uncertain light."

as a translation of

"—— schnell gehtDer Wolken Zug: die Mondessichel wanktUnd durch die Nacht zuckt ungewisse Helle."

"—— schnell geht

Der Wolken Zug: die Mondessichel wankt

Und durch die Nacht zuckt ungewisse Helle."

In a note on this passage he says:

"The wordswankenandschwebenare not easily translated. The English words by which we attempt to render them are either vulgar or pedantic, or not of sufficiently general application. So 'der Wolken Zug,' the draft, the procession of clouds, the masses of the clouds sweep onward in swiftstream."

On reading this, it struck me that the English wordrackexactly expresses the meaning of "der Wolken Zug."

Malone, in his note on theTempest, Act IV. Sc. 1., says:

"Rackis generally used for abody of clouds, or rather forthe course of clouds in motion."

I add a few instances of the use of this word, many of which are collected in the note I have referred to.

InAntony and Cleopatra—

"That which is now a horse, even with a thoughtTherackdislimns."

"That which is now a horse, even with a thought

Therackdislimns."

In Fletcher'sFaithful Shepherdess—

"shall I strayIn the middle air, and stayThe sailingrack."

"shall I stray

In the middle air, and stay

The sailingrack."

In Dryden's tenthÆneid—

"the doubtfulrackof heavenStands without motion."

"the doubtfulrackof heaven

Stands without motion."

The termscud, used by sailors, seems to express the same idea.

X. Z.

The productions of the writer known by the name of the Hermit of Hampole have been hitherto much neglected: they afford copious illustrations of ancient manners, and are very valuable in a philological point of view. I would especially name theSpeculum Vitæ, or Mirrour of Life, of which I possess two MSS. in entirely distinct dialects.

Your Cambridge correspondent has shown that the Metrical Sermons contain interesting passages also illustrative of manners and as the extracts he has made have given occasion to some glossarial Queries from an Oxford correspondent, J. E., should they not be more satisfactorily answered by C. H., to whom they are addressed, perhaps the following attempt to resolve them may not be unacceptable.

1. By thedevenischmost probably theDanishis meant, which we find elsewhere writtenDeniske,Daniske, andDanske.

2.Guystrounshould bequystroun, which is used by Chaucer in theRomaunt of the Rose, and signifies ascullion, as is evident from this passage. It is from the O. Fr.quistronorcuistron. Thus in K. Alisaunder (Weber'sMetr. Rom.), v. 2511.:

"Ther n'as knave noquistronThat he no hadde gôd waryson."

"Ther n'as knave noquistron

That he no hadde gôd waryson."

3. ByChaunsemleeswe may probably understandschoon-semeles, signifying, no doubt,sandals.

4. "Hir chere was aysemandsori," which your correspondent says is "an expression very strange to English verse," is nothing more than the old form ofseeming: her cheer was ever sorrowful orsad-seeming. The terminationandorande, as well asinde, was formerly used where we now haveing. Examples are numerous of this form; assemandandsemynd,spekand,strikinde, &c. &c.

In Gawin Douglas,Eneados, we haveglaidsemblandfor an appearance of joy or gladness, acheerful countenance; and in b. ii. v. 159.:

"As that drery unarmyt wicht was stedAnd witheine[8]blent aboutsemyn ful red."

"As that drery unarmyt wicht was sted

And witheine

[8]blent aboutsemyn ful red."

[8]Your correspondent's extract hasane; buteyesare evidently meant.

There are other words which appear in an uncommon form in these extracts, for instance,telidandtelith,hirchedandhirching; and the following plural form I do not recollect to have observed elsewhere:

"For ser deyntes and manymesMake men falle in manysicknes."

"For ser deyntes and manymes

Make men falle in manysicknes."

In the last line of the first page,Salhanasshould beSathanas:

"And so slew Jesu Sathanas,"

reminding us of the tradition mentioned by DR. RIMBAULT, "the Devil died when Christsuffered," not when he wasborn.

S. W. Singer.

Mickleham, Aug. 18. 1851.

—ERZAregrets extremely the mistake she has made with regard to the above poem. The person from whom, and the circumstances under which she received it, all tended to confirm her in her error till the last moment—with which, if the authoress of this beautiful poem were acquainted, ERZAis sure she would be forgiven.

[To these regrets on the part of ERZAwe have to add the expression of our own that our columns should have been made the medium of a statement which it is obvious originated in error. We regret also that, after the contradictions given to the first statement, ERZAshould, without a positive knowledge of the real facts of the case, have reiterated in such strong terms the claims of Lady Flora Hastings to the authorship of a poem which it is now quite clear is really the production of Miss Barber.]

—I cannot concur in MR.CROSSLEY'Sconjecture that themarks of quotationaffixed to this line in the eighteenth book of theDunciadmay have been a mereerror of the press; because, in the first place, I do not find that theDunciadis more negligently printed than other works of the day. I should say rather less so; but (which is more important) any one who will look at the successive editions will, I think, be satisfied that theremarkable typographyof the line, carefully reproduced inall, could not be accidental. This matter is less trifling than it at first sight may seem, because there are several lines in Pope's works similarly marked as quotations, on which questions have arisen; and my belief is that everything so marked will turn out to have really been aquotation, though in this case, and in that other,

"No Lord's anointed but a Russian bear,"

we have, as yet, failed to find the original.

—The old church was Early English; the original windows were lancet-shaped. It was built, like all the adjoining churches, of stone; but it had been repaired with brick, and the roof of the tower had been covered with tiles instead of shingles. The earliest brick building in Sussex, after the Roman period, is Herstmonceux Castle, built by Sir Roger de Fynes, treasurer of the household to Henry VI.

W. D. COOPER

—The quotation your correspondent writes about to be found in MR. DOUGLASJERROLD'SA Man Made of Money, p. 252.:

"'Robert, my dear,' said Jenny, with the deferential air of a scholar, 'Robert, what did Mr. Carraways mean when he said he hated dog—dogmatism?' Topps was puzzled. 'Robert, my dear,' Jenny urged, 'what—what in the world is dogmatism?' Now it was the weakness of Topps, never to confess ignorance of anything soever to his wife. 'A man should never do it,' Topps had been known in convivial seasons to declare; 'it makes 'em conceited.' Whereupon Topps prepared himself, as was his wont, to make solemn, satisfying, answer. Taking off his hat, and smoothing the wrinkles of his brow, Topps said, 'Humph! what is dogmatism? Why, it is this, of course: dogmatism is puppyism come to its full growth.'"

ED.STEANEJACKSON.

Saffron Walden, Aug. 10.

—That Swift was the son of Sir William Temple seems to have been completely disproved by Mason. Swift was born in Dublin, 30th November, 1667, in the house of his uncle Godwin Swift, who, after the death of his younger brother, Jonathan, in the preceding April, took charge of his widow. Sir William Temple appears from his letters to have been abroad in a public capacity from 1665 to 1670. If therefore, there existed such consanguinity between Swift and Stella as to be a bar to their marriage, it must have arisen in some other way. Swift says that Stella "was born at Richmond in Surrey, on 13th March, 1681; her father being the younger brother of a good family in Nottinghamshire [Qy. Sir Wm. Temple? Sheen, where he resided, was close by], her mother of a lower degree." There can be little doubt that she was illegitimate. The question arises, who was her mother? On this point the Richmond registry might perhaps throw some light.Has it ever been searched?In order that the supposed consanguinity should have existed, her mother must have been either Swift's mother, Abigail Swift (néeErick) of Leicestershire, or (what seems more probable) an illegitimate half-sister of Swift. It has been surmised, however, that an impediment to Swift's marriage of an entirely different nature from consanguinity may have existed; or that, feeling himself to be labouring under an hereditary disease, he may have been unwilling to propagate it. I am much inclined to think that the objection to the marriage of Swift and Stella, which certainly must have existed, was of this last description; and thatit would have been equally strong the case of any other female. However this may be, I believe that full credit may be given to what Swift has stated respecting the perfect purity of his intercourse with Stella.

"I knew her from six years old, and had some share in her education, by directing what books she should read, and perpetually instructing her in the principles of honour and virtue, from which she never swerved in any one action or moment of her life."—Swift'sWorks, vol ix. p. 489. (citanteMason).

E. H. D. D.

—It has been suggested to me by a lady who was an intimate friend of Lamb's, that Mr. Justice Talfourd was the author of this epitaph. The observation, however, was made without, I believe, anycertainknowledge on the subject.

COWGILL.

—ARUNinquires as to the meaning of Carnaby as the name of a street. Carnaby is a surname probably deriving from the parish of Carnaby in Yorkshire. It has become a Christian name in the family of —— Haggerston, Bart., since the marriage of an heiress of Carnaby's into that family.

Streets are often called after proper names.

†

—Your correspondent T. J. has called attention to the tradition-falsifying assertion of Mr. G. Pigott, that the custom with which the Scandinavians were long reproached, of drinking out of the skulls of their enemies, has no other foundation than a blunder of Olaus Wormius in translating a passage in the death-song of Regner Lodbrog.

The following extracts from the curious and learned work of Bartholinus,De Causis Contemptæ a Danis Adhuc Gentilibus Mortis, will, I think, show that the subject deserves further inquiry before we consent to place this ancient historical tradition in the category of vulgar errors. Speaking of the banquets of the beatified heroes in Valhalla, Bartholinus says:

"Neque tamen ex communi animalium cornu elaborata pocula in Valhalla viserentur; sacratiora desiderabantur ex cæsorum craniis inimicorum confecta, quæ apud Danos vel ex Daniâ oriundos, alias quoque gentes, in summo erant pretio."—Lib. ii. cap. xii. p. 555.

In proof of this assertion he quotes the following authors; Herodotus (lib. iv. cap. 65.) and Plato (Euthydemus), who attribute this custom to the Scythians. Aristotle is supposed to allude to it,De Repub.lib. vii. cap. 2. In theHistoria Miscellanea, lib. vi., it is mentioned as a custom of the Scordisci; and similar customs are recorded of the Panebi by Nicolaus Damascenus, of the Essedones by Solinus and Mela, of the Boii by Livy (lib iii. cap. 24.), of the Celts by Silius Italicus (lib. ii.), of the Langobards by Paulus Diaconus (lib. i. cap. 27.). The last-mentioned author informs us that these skull cups were alled "scalæ;" upon which Bartholinus remarks—

"Unde genus, undeque morem ejusmodi conficiendarum paterarum unde etiam nomenscalæiis inditum, ex septentrione nempe traxerunt Langobardi manifestum facient Vaulundar qvidu.

Back to Index Next