Your correspondent "J. SANSOM" (No. 19. p. 303.) may perhaps find some unpublished remains of Bp. Cosin in Baker's MSS.; from the excellent index to which (Cambridge, 1848, p. 57.) I transcribe the following notices, premising that of the volumes of the MSS. the first twenty-three are in the British Museum, and the remainder in the University Library, (not, as Mr. Carlyle says in a note in, I think, the 3d vol. of his Letters. &c. of Cromwell in the library of Trin. Coll.).
"Cosin, Bp.— Notes of, in his Common Prayer, edit. 1636, xx. 175. Benefactions to See of Durham, xxx. 377-380. Conference with Abp. of Trebisond, xx. 178. Diary in Paris, 1651, xxxvi. 329. Intended donation for a Senate-House, xxx. 454. Letters to Peter Gunning, principally concerning the authority of the Apocrypha, vi. 174-180. 230-238. Manual of Devotion, xxxvi. 338."
As the editors of the Index to Baker's MSS. invite corrections from those who use the MSS., you will perhaps be willing to print the following additions and corrections, which may be of use in case a new edition of the Index should be required:—
Preface, p. vii. add, in Thoresby Correspondence, one or two of Baker's Letters have been printed, others have appeared in Nichols's Literary Anecdotes.
Index, p. 2. Altars, suppression of, in Ely Diocese, 1550, xxx. 213. Printed in the British Magazine, Oct. 1849, p. 401.
P. 5. Babraham, Hullier, Vicar of, burnt for heresy. Brit. Mag. Nov. 1849, p. 543.
P. 13. Bucer incepts as Dr. of Divinty, 1549, xxiv. 114. See Dr. Lamb's Documents from MSS. C.C.C.C. p. 153.
Appointed to lecture by Edw. VI., 1549, xxx. 370. See Dr. Lamb, p. 152.
Letter of University to Edw., recommending his family to care, x. 396. Dr. Lamb, p. 154.
P. 14. Buckingham, Dr. Eglisham's account of his poisoning James I., xxxii. 149-153. See Hurl. Misc.
Buckmaster's Letter concerning the King's Divorce, x. 243. This is printed in Burnet, vol. iii. lib. 1. collect. No. 16., from a copy sent by Baker, but more fully in Dr. Lamb, p. 23., and in Cooper's Annals.
P. 25. Renunciation of the Pope, 1535. See Ant. Harmer, Specimen, p. 163.
P. 51. Cowel, Dr., charge against, and defence of his Antisanderus. Brit. Mag. Aug. 1849, p. 184.
Cranmer, extract from C.C.C. MS. concerning. Brit. Mag. Aug. 1849, p. 169, seq.
Cranmer, life of, xxxi. 1-3. Brit. Mag. Aug. 1849, p. 165.
P. 57. Convocation, subscribers to the judgment of, xxxi. 9. British Magazine, Sept. 1849, p. 317.
P. 68. Ely, Altars, suppression of, 1550, xxx. 213. Brit. Mag. Oct. 1849, p. 401.
P. 77. Several of the papers relating to Bishop Fisher will be found in Dr. Hymers' edition of The Funeral Sermon on Lady Margaret.
P. 80. Gloucester, Abbey of, &c., a Poem by Malvern, v. 285-7. Brit. Mag. xxi. 377.; Caius Coll. MSS. No. 391. art 13.
Goodman, Declaration concerning the articles in his book. Strype's Annals, I. i. 184.
P. 89. Henry VII., Letter to Lady Margaret, xix. 262. See Dr. Hymers, as above, p. 160.
P. 91. Henry VIII., Letter to, giving an account of the death of Wyngfield, &c. See Sir H. Ellis, Ser. III. No. 134.
P. 94. Humphrey, Bishop, Account, &c., xxxv. 1-19. Rend xxvi. 1-19.
Humphrey, Bishop, Images and Relics, &c., xxx. 133-4. Brit. Mag. Sept. 1849, p. 300.
P. 121-2. Lady Margaret. Several of the articles relating to Lady Margaret have been printed by Dr. Hymers (ut sup.).
P. 137. Pole Card. Oratio Johannis Stoyks, &c., v. 310-312. Dr. Lamb, p. 177.
P. 143. Redman, Dr., Particulars of, xxxii. 495.—Brit. Mag. Oct. 1849, p. 402.
P. 151. Spelman's Proposition concerning the Saxon Lecture, &c. Sir H. Ellis Letters of Eminent Literary Men, Camd. Soc. No. 59.
P. 169. Noy's Will, xxxvi. 375., read 379.
Many of the articles relating to Cambridge in the MSS. have been printed by Mr. Cooper in his Annals of Cambridge: some relating to Cromwell are to be found in Mr. Carlyle's work; and several, besides those which I have named, are contained in Dr. Lamb's Documents.
Marlborough Coll., March 30.
Will you suffer me to add some further remarks on the subject of the Arabic numerals and cipher; as neither the querists nor respondents seem to have duly appreciated the immense importance of the step taken by introducing the use of a cipher. I would commence with observing, that we know of no people tolerably advanced in civilisation, whose system of notation had made such little progress, beyond that of the mere savage, as the Romans. The rudest savages could make upright scratches on the face of a rock, and set them in a row, to signify units; and as the circumstance of having ten fingers has led the people of every nation to give a distinct name to the number ten and its multiples, the savage would have taken but a little step when he invented such a mode of expressing tens as crossing his scratches, thus X. His ideas, however, enlarge, and he makes three scratches, thus [C with square sides], to express 100. Generations of such vagabonds as founded Rome pass away, and at length some one discovers that, by using but half the figure for X, the number 5 may be conjectured to be meant. Another calculator follows up this discovery, and by employing [C with square sides], half the figure used for 100, he expresses 50. At length the rude man procured a better knife, with which he was enabled to give a more graceful form to his [C with square sides], by rounding it into C; then two such, turned different ways, with a distinguishing cut between them, made CD, to express a thousand; and as, by that time, the alphabet was introduced, they recognised the similarity of the form at which they had thus arrived to the first letter of Mille, and called it M, or 1000. The half of this DC was adopted by a ready analogy for 500. With that discovery the invention of the Romans stopped, though they had recourse to various awkward expedients for making these forms express somewhat higher numbers. On the other hand, the Hebrews seem to have been provided with an alphabet as soon as they were to constitute a nation; and they were taught to use the successive letters of that alphabet to express the first ten numerals. In this way b and c might denote 2 and 3 just as well as those figures; and numbers might thus be expressed by single letters to the end of the alphabet, but no further. They were taught, however, and the Greeks learnt from them, to use the letters which follow the ninth as indications of so many tens; and those which follow the eighteenth as indicative of hundreds. This process was exceedingly superior to the Roman; but at the end of the alphabet it required supplementary signs. In this way bdecba might have expressed 245321 as concisely as our figures; but if 320 were to be taken from this sum, the removal of the equivalent letters cb would leave bdea, or apparently no more than 2451. The invention of a cipher at once beautifully simplified the notation, and facilitated its indefinite extension. It was then no longer necessary to have one character for units and another for as many tens. The substitution of 00 for cb, so as to write bdeooa, kept the d in its place, and therefore still indicating 40,000. It was thus that 27, 207, and 270 were made distinguishable at once, without needing separate letters for tens and hundreds; and new signs to express millions and their multiples became unnecessary.
I have been induced to trespass on your columns with this extended notice of the difficulty which was never solved by either the Hebrews or Greeks, from understanding your correspondent "T.S.D." p. 367, to say that "the mode of obviating it would suggest itself at once." As to the original query,—whence came the invention of the cipher, which was felt to be so valuable as to be entitled to give its name to all the process of arithmetic?—"T.S.D." has given the querist his best clue in sending him to Mr. Strachey's Bija Ganita, and to Sir E. Colebrooke's Algebra of the Hindus, from the Sanscrit of Brahmegupta. Perhaps a few sentences may sufficiently point out where the difficulty lies. In the beginning of the sixth century, the celebrated Boethius described the present system as an invention of the Pythagoreans, meaning, probably, to express some indistinct notion of its coming from the east. The figures in MS. copies of Boethius are the same as our own for 1, 8, and 9; the same, but inverted, for 2 and 5; and are not without vestiges of resemblance in the remaining figures. In the ninth century we come to the Arabian Al Sephadi, and derive some information from him; but his figures have attracted most notice, because though nearly all of them are different from those found in Boethius, they are the same as occur in Planudes, a Greek monk of the fourteenth century, who says of his own units, "These nine characters are Indian," and adds, "they have a tenth character called [Greek: tziphra], which they express by an 0, and which denotes the absence of any number." The date of Boethius is obviously too early for the supposition of an Arabic origin; but it is doubted whether the figures are of his time, as the copyists of a work in MS. were wont to use the characters of their own age in letters, and might do so in the case of figures also.
There are several points connected with the subject of numerals that are important in the history of practical arithmetic, to which neither scientific men nor antiquaries have paid much attention. Yet if the principal questions were brought in a definite form before the contributors to the "NOTES AND QUERIES," I feel quite sure that a not inconsiderable number of them will be able to contribute each his portion to the solution of what may till now be considered as almost a mystery. With your permission, I will propose a few queries relating to the subject,
1. When did the abacus, or the "tabel" referred to in my former letters, cease to be used as calculating instruments?
The last printed work in which the abacal practice was given for the purposes of tuition that I have been able to discover, is a 12mo. edition, by Andrew Mellis, of Dee's Robert Recorde, 1682.
2. When did the method of recording results in Roman numerals cease to be used in mercantile account-books? Do any ledgers or other account-books, of ancient dates, exist in the archives of the City Companies, or in the office of the City Chamberlain? If there do, these would go far towards settling the question.
3. When in the public offices of the Government? It is probable that criteria will be found in many of them, which are inaccessible to the public generally.
4. When in the household-books of royalty and nobility? This is a class of MSS. to which I have paid next to no attention; and, possibly, had the query been in my mind through life, many fragments tending towards the solution that have passed me unnoticed would have saved me from the necessity of troubling your correspondents. The latest that I remember to have particularly noticed is that of Charles I. in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge; but I shall not be surprised to find that the system was continued down to George I., or later still. Conservatism is displayed in its perfection in the tenacious adherence of official underlings to established forms and venerable routine.
Shooter's Hill, April 8.
[Our correspondent will find some curious notices of early dates of Arabic numerals, from the Rev. Edmund Venables, Rev. W. Gunner, and Mr. Ouvry, in the March number of the Archæological Journal, p. 75-76.; and the same number also contains, at p. 85., some very interesting remarks by the Rev. Joseph Hunter, illustrative of the subject, and instancing a warrant from Hugh le Despenseer to Bonefez de Peruche and his partners, merchants of a company, to pay forty pounds, dated Feb. 4, 19 Edward II., i.e. 1325, in which the date of the year is expressed in Roman numerals; and on the dorso, written by one of the Italian merchants to whom the warrant was addressed, the date of the payment, Feb. 1325. in Arabic numerals, of which Mr. Hunter exhibited a fac-simile at a meeting of the Institute.]
Arabic Numerals.—In the lists of works which treat of Arabic Numerals, the following have not been noticed, although they contain a review of what has been written on their introduction into this part of Europe:—Archæologia, vols. x. xiii.; Bibliotheca Literaria, Nos. 8. and 10., including Huetiana on this subject; and Morant's Colchester, b. iii. p. 28.
If Mr. Hallam's accuracy in parvis could be fairly judged by the following instance, and that given by your correspondent "CANTAB." (No. 4, p. 51.), I fear much could not be said for it. The following passage is from Mr. Hallam's account of Campanella and his disciple Adami. My reference is to the first edition of Mr. Hallam's work; but the passage stands unaltered in the second. I believe these to be rare instances of inaccuracy.
"Tobias Adami, ... who dedicated to the philosophers of Germany his own Prodromus Philosophiæ Instauratio, prefixed to his edition of Campanella's Compendium de Rerum Naturæ, published at Frankfort in 1617. Most of the other writings of the master seem to have preceded this edition, for Adami enumerates them in his Prodromus."—Hist. of Literature, iii. 149.
The title is not Prodromus Philosophiæ Instauratio, which is not sense; but Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ (Forerunner of a philosophy to be constructed). This Prodromus is a treatise of Campanella's, not, as Mr. Hallam says, of Adami. Adami published the Prodromus for Campanella, who was in prison; and he wrote a preface, in which he gives a list of other writings of Campanella, which he proposes to publish afterwards. What Mr. Hallam calls an "edition," was the first publication.
Mere accident enabled me to detect these errors. I am not a bibliographer and do not know a ten-thousandth part of what Mr. Hallam knows. I extract this note from my common-place book, and send it to you, hoping to elicit the opinions of some of your learned correspondents on the general accuracy in biography and bibliography of Mr. Hallam's History of Literature. Has Mr. Bolton Corney, if I may venture to name him, examined the work? His notes and opinion would be particularly valuable.
As a few inaccuracies such as this may occur in any work of large scope proceeding from the most learned of men, and be accidentally detected by an ignoramus, so a more extensive impeachment of Mr. Hallam's accuracy would make a very trifling deduction from his great claims to respect and well-established fame. I believe I rightly understand the spirit in which you desire your periodical to be the medium for emending valuable works, when I thus guard myself against the appearance of disrespect to a great ornament of literature.
We have already shown pretty clearly, how high is the opinion we entertain of the value of our able contributor Mr. Peter Cunningham's amusing Handbook for London, by the insertion of numerous Notes upon his first edition. We will now give our readers an opportunity of judging how much the second edition, which is just published, has been improved through the further researches of that gentleman, by giving them a few Notes from it, consisting entirely of new matter, and very curious withal. When we add that the work is now enriched by a very copious Index of Names, it will readily be seen how much the value and utility of the book has been increased.
Hanover Square.—"The statue of William Pitt, by Sir Francis Chantrey, set up in the year 1831, is of bronze, and cost 7000l. I was present at its erection with Sir Francis Chantrey and my father, who was Chantrey's assistant. The statue was placed on its pedestal between seven and eight in the morning, and while the workmen were away at their breakfasts, a rope was thrown round the neck of the figure, and a vigorous attempt made by several sturdy Reformers to pull it down. When word of what they were about was brought to my father, he exclaimed, with a smile upon his face, 'The cramps are leaded, and they may pull to doomsday.' The cramps are the iron bolts fastening the statue to the pedestal. The attempt was soon abandoned."
Hyde Park Corner.—"There were cottages here in 1655; and the middle of the reign of George II. till the erection of Apsely House, the small entrance gateway was flanked on its east site by a poor tenement known as 'Allen's stall.' Allen, whose wife kept a moveable apple-stall at the park entrance, was recognised by George II. as an old soldier at the battle of Dettingen, and asked (so pleased was the King at meeting the veteran) 'what he could do for him.' Allen, after some hesitation, asked for a piece of ground for a permanent apple-stall at Hyde Park Corner, and a grant was made to him of a piece of ground which his children afterwards sold to Apsley, Lord Bathurst. Mr. Crace has a careful drawing of the Hyde Park Corner, showing Allen's stall and the Hercules' Pillars."
Pall Mall.—"Mr. Fox told Mr. Rogers, that Sydenham was sitting at his window looking on the Mall, with his pipe in his mouth and a silver tankard before him, when a fellow made a snatch at the tankard, and ran off with it. Nor was he overtaken, said Fox, before he got among the bushes in Bond Street, and there they lost him."
Lansdowne House.—"The iron bars at the two ends of Lansdowne Passage (a near cut from Curzon Street to Hay Hill) were put up late in the last century, in consequence of a mounted highwayman, who had committed a robbery in Piccadilly, having escaped from his pursuers through this narrow passage by riding his horse up the steps. This anecdote was told by the late Thomas Grenville to Sir Thomas Frankland Lewis. It occurred while George Grenville was Minister, the robber passing his residence in Bolton Street full gallop."
Newcastle House.—"The old and expensive custom of 'vails-giving,' received its death-glow at Newcastle House. Sir Timothy Waldo, on his way from the Duke's dinner table to his carriage, put a crown into the hand of the cook, who returned it, saying: 'Sir, I do not take silver.' 'Don't you, indeed?' said Sir Timothy, putting it in his pocket; 'then I do not give gold.' Hanway's 'Eight Letters to the Duke of ——,' had their origin in Sir Timothy's complaint."
Red Lion Square.—"The benevolent Jonas Hanway, the traveller, lived and died (1786) in a house in Red Lion Square, the principal rooms of which he decorated with paintings and emblematical devices, 'in a style,' says his biographer, 'peculiar to himself.' 'I found,' he used to say, when speaking of these ornaments, 'that my countrymen and women were not au fait in the art of conversation, and that instead of recurring to their cards, when the discourse began to flag, the minutes between the time of assembling and the placing the card-tables are spent in an irksome suspense. To relieve this vacuum in social intercourse and prevent cards from engrossing the whole of my visitors' minds, I have presented them with objects the most attractive I could imagine—and when that fails there are the cards.' Hanway was the first man who ventured to walk the streets of London with an umbrella over his head. After carrying one near thirty years, he saw them come into general use."
Downing Street.—"Baron Bothmar's house was part of the forfeited property of Lee, Lord Lichfield, who retired with James II., to whom he was Master of the Horse. At the beginning of the present century there was no other official residence in the street than the house which belonged, by right of office, to the First Lord of the Treasury, but by degrees one house was bought after another: first the Foreign Office, increased afterwards by three other houses; then the Colonial Office; then the house in the north corner, which was the Judge Advocate's, since added to the Colonial Office; then a house for the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and lastly, a whole row of lodging-houses, chiefly for Scotch and Irish members."
Whitehall.—"King Charles I. was executed on a scaffold erected in front of the Banqueting House, towards the park. The warrant directs that he should be executed 'in the open street before Whitehall.' Lord Leicester tells us in his Journal, that he was 'beheaded at Whitehall Gate.' Dugdale, in his Diary, that he was 'beheaded at the gate of Whitehall;' and a single sheet of the time reserved in the British Museum, that 'the King was beheaded at Whitehall Gate.' There cannot, therefore, be a doubt that the scaffold was erected in front of the building facing the present Horse Guards. We now come to the next point which has excited some discussion. It appears from Herbert's minute account of the King's last moments, that 'the King was led all along the galleries and Banqueting House, and there was a passage broken through the wall, by which the king passed unto the scaffold.' This seems particular enough, and leads, it is said, to a conclusion that the scaffold was erected on the north side. Where the passage was broken through, one thing is certain, the scaffold was erected on the west side, or, in other words, 'in the open street,' now called Whitehall; and that the King, as Ludlow relates in his Memoirs, 'was conducted to the scaffold out of the window of the Banqueting House.' Ludlow, who tells us this, was one of the regicides, and what he states, simply and straightforwardly, is confirmed by any engraving of the execution, published at Amsterdam in the same year, and by the following memorandum of Vertue's on the copy of Terasson's large engraving of the Banqueting House, preserved in the library of the Society of Antiquaries:—'It is, according to the truest reports, said that out of this window King Charles went upon the scaffold to be beheaded, the window-frame being taken out purposely to make the passage on to the scaffold, which is equal to the landing-place of the hall within side.' The window marked by Vertue belonged to a small building abutting from the north side of the present Banqueting House. From this window, then the King stept upon the scaffold."
We shall probably next week indulge in a few QUERIES which have suggested themselves to us, and to which Mr. Cunningham will perhaps be good enough to reply.
I have great pleasure in forwarding to you an anecdote of the captivity of Charles I., which I think will be considered interesting to your readers. Of its authenticity there can be no doubt. I extract it from a small paper book, purchased some fifty years since, at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, which contains the history of a family named Douglas, for some years resident in that town, written by the last representative, Eliza Douglas, at the sale of whose effects it came into my grandfather's hands. There are many curious particulars in it besides the anecdote I have sent you; especially an account of the writer's great-great-grandfather (the husband of the heroine of this tale), who "traded abroad, and was took into Turkey as a slave," and there gained the affections of his master's daughter, after the most approved old-ballad fashion; though, alas! it was not to her love that he owed his liberty, but (dreadful bathos!) to his skill in "cooking fowls, &c. &c. in the English taste;" which, on a certain occasion, when some English merchants came to dine with his master, "so pleased the company, that they offered to redeem him, which was accepted; and when freed he came home to England, and lived in London to an advanced age; so old that they fed him with a tea-spoon."
After his death his wife married again; and it was during this second marriage that the interview with King Charles took place.
"My mother's great-grandmother, when a-breeding with her daughter, Mary Craige, which was at y'e time of King Charles being a prisoner in Carisbrook Castle, she longed to kiss the King's hand; and when he was brought to Newport to be carried off, she being acquainted with the gentleman's housekeeper, where the King was coming to stay, till orders for him to leave the island, she went to the housekeeper, told her what she wanted, and they contrived for her to come the morning he was to go away. So up she got, and dressed herself, and set off to call her midwife, and going along, the first and second guard stopped her and asked her where she was going; she told them 'to call her midwife,' which she did. They went to this lady, and she went and acquainted his Majesty with the affair; he desired she may come up to him, and she said, when she came into the room, his Majesty seemed to appear as if he had been at prayers. He rose up and came to her, who fell on her knees before him; he took her up by the arm himself, and put his cheek to her, and she said she gave him a good hearty smack on his cheek. His Majesty then said, 'Pray God bless you, and that you go withal.' She then went down stairs to wait and see the King take coach; she got so close that she saw a gentleman in it; and when the King stept into the coach, he said, 'Pray, Sir, what is your name?' he replied, 'I am Col. Pride.' 'Not miscalled,' says the King. Then Pride says, 'Drive on, coachman.'"
The rector of Slimbridge, in the diocese of Gloucester, is bound to pay ten pounds a year to Magdalen College, for "choir music on the top of the College tower on May-day." (See Rudder's Gloucestershire.) Some years ago a prospectus was issued, announcing as in preparation, "The Maudeleyne Grace, including the Hymnus Eucharisticus, with the music by Dr. Rogers, as sung every year on May Morning, on the Tower of Magdalene College, Oxford, in Latin and English. With an Historical Introduction by William Henry Black." Can any of your readers inform me whether this interesting work ever made its appearance? I am inclined to think it did not, and have an indistinct recollection that the original MS. of the "Grace" was lost through the carelessness of the lithographer who was entrusted with it for the purpose of making a fac-simile.
Whilst making some researches in the library of Christ Church, Oxford, I accidentally met with what appears to me to be the first draft of the "Grace" in question. It commences "Te Deum Patrem colimus," and has the following note:—"This Hymn is sung every day in Magdalen College Hall, Oxon, dinner and supper throughout the year for the after grace, by the chaplains, clarkes, and choristers there. Composed by Benjamin Rogers, Doctor of Musique of the University of Oxon, 1685." It is entered in a folio volume, with this note on the fly-leaf,—"Ben Rogers, his book, Aug. 18. 1673, and presented me by Mr. John Playford, Stationer in the Temple, London." The Latin Grace, Te Deum Patrem colimus, is popularly supposed to be the Hymnus Eucharisticus written by Dr. Nathaniel Ingelo, and sung at the civic feast at Guildhall on the 5th July, 1660, while the king and the other royal personages were at dinner; but this is a mistake, for the words of Ingelo's hymn, very different from the Magdalen hymn, still exist, and are to be found in Wood's collection in the Ashmolean Museum. The music, too, of the Te Deum is in a grand religious style, and not of a festal character.
The custom of addressing almost every man above the rank of an artizan or a huckster as "Esquire," seems now to be settled as a matter of ordinary politeness and courtesy; whilst the degradation of the gentleman into the "Gent," has caused this term, as the title of a social class, to have fallen into total disuse. Originally, they were terms that had their respective meanings as much as Duke, Knight, Yeoman, or Hind; but now they simply mean courtesy or contempt towards the person to whom they are applied,—with the exception, indeed, of certain combinations of circumstances under which the word "Gentleman" is applied as a character.
It would be an interesting occupation to trace the mutations of meaning which these words have undergone, and the circumstances which gave rise to the successive applications of them. The subject has been often touched upon more or less slightly; but I know of no work in which it is discussed fully, though, indeed, there may be such. Of course, many of your readers are men whose pursuits have lain in other directions than social customs, social language, and social tastes; and, as one of them, I may be permitted to ask either where a full discussion can be found, or that some of your correspondents will furnish through your medium a clear and tolerably full exposition of the question. I believe it would be of general and public interest.
We naturally expect, that in official correspondence, the public boards, through their proper officers, would be very precise in assigning to every person his proper title, in the address of a letter. Yet nothing can be more negligent and capricious than the way in which this is done. I have held an appointment in the public service, which is generally considered to carry with it the title of "Esquire," (but really whether it do or not, I am unable to tell), and have at different times had a good deal of official correspondence, sometimes mere routine, and sometimes involving topics of a critical character. From my own experience I am led to think that no definite rule exists, and that the temper of the moment will dictate the style of address. For instance, in matter-of-course business, or in any correspondence that was agreeable to official persons, I was addressed as "Esq.;" but if the correspondence took a turn that was unpleasant, it was "Mr. ——;" and on one occasion I received a note addressed with my name denuded of all title whatever, even of the office I filled. The note, I hardly need say, was "full of fire and fury;" and yet, in less than half an hour, I received a second (the writer having discovered his mistake), opening with "My dear Sir," and superscribed with the "Esquire" at full length. This, I think, proves the capriciousness of men in public stations in their assignment of titles of this kind.
I certainly expected to find, however, in the "List of the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries," due attention paid to this circumstance. The one just circulated was therefore referred to, and it would seem to be as full of anomalies as a "Court Guide" or a "Royal Blue Book." We have, indeed, the Knights and Baronets duly titled, and the Peers, lay and spiritual, sufficiently distinguished both by capitals and mode of insertion. All those who have no other title (as D.D. or F.R.S.) recognised by the Society, are courteously designated by the affix "Esq." In this, it will be strange indeed if all be entitled to the appellation in its legitimate sense; or, in other words, if the principle of courtesy does not supersede, amongst the otherwise untitled mass of Fellows, the principle of social rank. To this in itself, as the distinction of "Gent" after a man's name has become derogatory, there cannot be the least objection; for antiquarianism does not palliate rudeness or offensive language.
At the same time, the adoption of this principle should surely be uniform, and invidious distinctions should not be made. The title "Esq.," should not be given to one man, and left out in designating another whose social position is precisely the same. For instance, we find in this list "——, M.D.," and "——, Esq., M.D.," employed to designate two different Doctors in Medicine. We find "——, F.R.S." and "——, Esq., F.R.S." to designate two Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries, who are also Fellows of the Royal. We see one or two D.D.'s deprived of their titles of "Rev.," and, as if to make amends (in point of quantity at least), we have one Fellow with titles at each end of his name that seem incompatible with each other, viz., "Rev. ——, Esq."
Anomalies like these can only be the result of sheer carelessness, or of the ignorance of some clerk employed to make out the list without adequate instructions given to him. It has, in my hearing, been held up as a specimen of invidious distinction to gratify some petty dislike; but this notion is simply absurd, and deserves no notice. At the same time, it betokens a carelessness that it is desirable to avoid.
As a mere question of dignity, it appears to me to savour too much of Clapham-Common or Hampstead-Heath grandeur, to add much to our respectability or worldly importance. It would, indeed, be more "dignified" to drop, in the lists, all use of "Esq." under any circumstances; or, if this be objected to, to at least treat "M.A.," "D.D.," "F.R.S." as higher titles, in which the "Esq." may properly be merged, and thus leave the appellation to designate the absence of any higher literary or scientific title.
A good deal of this is irrelevant to the primary object of my letter; but certainly not altogether irrelevant to the dignity of the highest English representative body of archæology, the Society of Antiquaries. I hope, at least, that this irrelevancy will give neither pain nor offence to any one, for nothing could be further from my wish or intention than such an effect. I have only wished to illustrate the necessity for an accurate description of what are really the original, subsequent, and present significations of the words "Esquire" and "Gentleman," and to urge that either some definite rule should be adopted as to their use in official and semi-official cases, or else that they should be discontinued altogether.
April 18.
1. Lines by Sir John Suckling.—Is Sir John Suckling, or Owen Feltham, the real author of the poem whose first verse runs thus:
"When, dearest, I but think on thee,
Methinks all things that lovely be
Are present, and my soul delighted;
For beauties that from worth arise,
Are like the grace of deities,
Still present with us though unsighted."
I find it in the twelfth edition of Feltham's Works, 1709, p. 593., with the following title:
"This ensuing copy of the late Printer hath been pleased to honour, by mistaking it among those of the most ingenious and too early lost, Sir John Suckling."
I find it also in the edition of Suckling's Works published at Dublin, 1766. As I feel interested in all that relates to Suckling, I shall be glad to have the authorship of this short poem rightly assigned.
2. What is the origin and exact meaning of the phrase "Sleeveless errand"? It is mentioned as late even as the last century, by Swift, in his poem entitled Reasons for not building at Drapier's Hill:
"Who send my mind as I believe, less
Than others do on errands sleeveless."
3. What is the origin and derivation of the word "Trianon," the name of the two palaces, Le Grand and Le Petit, at Versailles? and why was it applied to them?
4. What is the correct blazon of the arms of Godin; with crest and motto? I have seen an imperfect drawing of the arms, Party per fess, a goblet transpierced with a dagger.
5. Whose is the line,
"With upward finger pointing to the sky."
I have heard it generally referred to Goldsmith, but cannot find it.
Corpus Christi Hall, Maidstone, April 15. 1850.
The non-appearance of my name as a querist has been rather fortuitous, and it shall now be made evident that I am neither so rich in materials, nor so proud in spirit, as to decline such assistance as may be derived from the information and courtesy of other contributors to the "Notes and Queries."
1. Did the following critical remarks on Shakspere, by Edward Phillips, appear verbatim in the Thesaurus of J. Buchlerus, 1669?
The Bodleian library has the London edition of 1636; and the British Museum that of 1652. Wood cites an edition of 1669. I transcribe from that of 1679.
"Hoc seculo [sc. temporibus Elizabetha reginæ et Jacobi regis] floruerunt—Gulielmus Shacsperus, qui præter opera dramatica, duo poematia Lucretiæ stuprum à Tarquinio, et Amores Veneris in Adonidem, lyrica carmina nonnulla composuit; videtur fuisse, siquis alius, re verâ poeta natus. Samuel Daniel non obseurus hujus ætatis poeta, etc....
Ex eis qui dramaticè scripserunt, primas sibi vendicant Shacsperus, Jonsonus et Fletcherus, quorum hic facundâ et polita quadam familiaritate sermonis, ille erudito judicio et usu veterum authorum, alter nativa quadam et poetica sublimitate ingenii excelluisse videntur. Ante hos in hoc genere poeseos apud nos eminuit nemo. Pauci quidem antea scripserunt, at parum foeliciter; hos autem tanquam duces itineris plurimi saltem æmulati sunt, inter quos præter Sherleium, proximum à supra memorato triumviratu. Suclingium, Randolphium, Davenantium et Carturitium—enumerandi veniunt Ric. Bromeus, Tho. Heivodus," etc.
2. What are the contents of a work entitled, [Old German script: Schaubune Englischer und Franßofischer Comædianten], printed before 1671?
This work is recorded, but without a date, in the Historia literaria of Simon Paulli, which was printed at Strasbourg in 1671. A statement of its contents would be very acceptable to myself, and to other admirers of our early dramatic literature.
3. Who is the fortunate possessor of the Lives and characters of the English dramatick poets with the marginal marks of Garrick?
The copy in question was sold with the unreserved books of Garrick in 1823, No. 1269. It contained this note:
"All the plays marked thus * in this catalogue, I bought of Dodsley. Those marked thus O, I have added to the collection since. D.G."
Each of the above queries would have admitted further remarks, but I wish to set an example of obedience to the recent editorial injunction on brevity.
Elizabeth and Isabel.—"A.C." inquires whether these names are not varied forms of the same name, and if so, what is the common origin of the two? Camden, in his Remains, has—
"ELIZABETH, Heb. Peace of the Lord, or quiet rest of the Lord, the which England has found verified in the most honoured name of our late sovereign. Mantuan, playing with it maketh it Eliza-bella; and of Isabel he says 'The same with Elizabeth, if the Spaniards do not mistake, which always translate Elizabeth into Isabel, and the French into Isabeau.'"
Howard, Earl of Surrey.—Dr. Percy is said, in Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica, to have prepared an edition of the poems of the Earl of Surrey, the whole impression of which was consumed in the fire which took place in Mr. Nicholl's premises in 1808. Can any of your readers say whether Dr. Percy had a copy of the sheets, and whether he had prefixed thereto any life of the Earl of Surrey? or did Sir Egerton Brydges ever print any account of Surrey amongst his numerous issues from the Lee or other presses?
Bulls called William.—In looking into the notes in my Provincial Glossary, I find that bulls are in Somersetshire invariably called William. Is this peculiar to that county?
Bawn.—Mutual.—In vol. iii. p. 506. of Hallam's Constitutional History of England, there occurs the following passage in reference to the colonisation of Ulster in 1612, after Tyrone's rebellion:
"Those who received 2000 acres were bound within four years to build a castle and bawn, or strong court-yard; the second class within two years to build a stone or brick house, with a bawn; the third class a bawn only."
What was the bawn, which was equally indispensable to the grantee of 2000, 1500, or 1000 acres? Richardson variously describes the term as almost any kind of dwelling, or "an enclosure of walls to keep cattle from being stolen at night;" in fact, a court-yard. This, however, conveys a very unsatisfactory idea, unless I am justified in supposing that a court-yard was insisted upon, even when a house could not be built, as insuring a future residential settlement, and thereby warding off the evils of absenteeism.
At page 514. of the same volume, I read,—
"Wentworth had so balanced the protestant and recusant parties, employed so skilfully the resources of fair promises and intimidation, that he procured six subsidies to be granted before a prorogation, without any mutual concession from the crown."
Will Dr. Kennedy, or any other strict verbal critic, sanction this use of the word "mutual?"
April 6. 1850.
[It is obvious, from the following lines from Swift's poem, The Grand Question debated whether Hamilton's Bawn should be turned into a Barrack or Malt-house, 1729, that a Bawn was there used to signify a building, and not an inclosure:—
"This Hamilton's bawn, while it sticks in my hand,
I lose by the house what I get by the land;
But how to dispose of it to the best bidder,
For a barrack or malt-house, we now must consider."
And in a foot-note on Hamilton's bawn, in the original edition, it is described as "a large old house, two miles from Sir Arthur Acheson's seat."]
Versicle and Response.—What is the meaning of the following versicle and its response, which occur in both Morning and Evening Prayer?
"Give peace in our time, O Lord,
Because there is none other that fighteth for us
but only thou, O God!"
Surely the "because" &c. is a non sequitur!
April 6. 1850.
[In Palmer's Origines Liturgice, vol. i. p. 241. (2d edit.), we find the following note on the response, "Quia non est alius," &c.:—"Brev. Eboracens. fol. 264.; Brev. Sarisb. fol. 85." Bishop Lloyd remarks on this verse and response as follows:—"I do not know what Burnet means by stating that this response was made in the year 1549, on the occasion of political occurrences, for this answer is found in all the foreign breviaries, in the Salisbury primer, and in the primer of Hen. VIII. See Burnet's Hist. Ref. p. ii. b. 1. anno 1549."]
Yeoman.—This word, the origin of which Dr. Johnson says is much doubted, in the general acceptation of it meaning signifies a small farmer; though several authorities quoted by Johnson tend to show it also signifies a certain description of servants, and that it is applied also to soldiers, as Yeoman of the Guard. It is not, however, confined to soldiers, for we hear of Yeoman of the Chamber; Yeoman of the Robes; Yeoman of the Pantry; Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
I should be glad if any of your readers can give an explanation of the word as used in the latter instances.
Pusan.—Iklynton Collar.—Among the royal orders issued on the occasion of the marriage of Henry VI., contained in the fifth volume of Rymer's Fædera, p. 142., occurs the following:—
"We wol and charge you, that ye deliver unto oure trusty and well-beloved Squier, John Merston, keeper of our Jewell, a Pusan of golde, called Iklynton colar, garnished with iv Rubies, &c., &c."
What is the meaning and derivation of this word Pusan, and why called Iklynton collar?
Who was Lord Karinthon, murdered 1665?—Can any of your readers inform me who was the English lord, murdered in France by his Flemish valet, in March, 1665, as stated in the following passage of Gui Patin's Letters, tom. iii. p. 519., ed. 1846:—
"Hier, ce 18 Mars, je vis sur le pont Notre Dame, mené à la Grève, un certain méchant malheureux coquin, natif de Flandre, qui avoit poignardé son maître dans Pontoise; c'étoit un seigneur anglois, doint il vouloit avoir la bourse.... Ce seigneur anglois qui fut poignardé dans son lit avoit nom de Milord Karinthon.... Dans le testament de ce bon mais malheureux maître il se trouve qui'il donnoit à ce pendard de valet 20,000 livres."