Chapter C: W. G

292. _Sir Joshua Reynolds._--Having the early catalogues of the Royal Academy before me, I see that in 1773 and following years, Sir Joshua exhibited twelve or thirteen works. You will find they stand as current Nos. in the list. Can you inform me whether they hung on the line, that is, in the space of privilege, or took their chance with the many? Had they, under his own eye, been grouped together, what a treat it must have been to see them! What an evidence of the industry of the man! Though too late in the day to obtain these details from actual observation, enough may be recorded or remembered through others, to assist in throwing light on the rules and customs of past days, which never can be deficient in interest while they tend to illustrate the habits and character of great men.

You could touch no topic more interesting than this must prove to the increasing curiosity seekers in your useful and amusing repertorium, and your attention to it will be valued by

A LAYMAN.

Athenaeum Club.

293. _Great Plough at Castor Church._--Can any of your correspondents give me the history of, or afford me any intelligence about, the large plough which Dibdin, in his _Northern Tour_, vol. i. p. 44., tells us is about twenty feet in length, and suspended in Castor Church, extending from one transept to the other? In a foot-note on the same church, he speaks of a curious ceremony, as practised there every Palm Sunday, respecting a peculiar tenure. I do not find it referred to in any other account of Castor Church. Bourne, in his _Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 130., gives the history of it, but says it is practised at Caistor Church in Lincolnshire. Is the doctor right in his statement? I would also be glad to know whether it is still continued at Caistor Church, as some years ago an act was tried for in the House to abolish it.

R. W. ELLIOT.

Hull.

294. _Church of St. Bene't Fink._--Is there any copy in existence of the inscriptions on the gravestones and monuments of St. Bene't Fink in the City, adjoining the Exchange, and which is now pulled down? If any of your correspondents can direct me to any transcript of them, I shall be much obliged by the communication.

JAS. CROSSLEY.

295. _Spectacles, Inscription on a Pair of._--Will you oblige me by inserting, as soon as possible, the following curious inscription round the rim of a pair of spectacles found in a stone coffin in Ombersley Church, Worcestershire, some years since, when the old church was being pulled down. It is as follows:--

"JOHERHARD MAY: SEEL ERB. PETER CONRAD. WIEGEL."

This occurs on each rim, and I should be glad of an explanation of the words.

J. N. B. (A Subscriber.)

296 _Campbell._--Can any of your readers tell me what he supposes Campbell to mean when he makes the sister, in delivering her curse on her brother, say--

"Go where the havoc of your kerne
Shall float as high as mountain fern!"

Does havoc float? Does mountain fern float? What is the effect of either floating _high_? The lines are in "The Flower of Love lies Bleeding."

Also can any one say who or what this is?

"Fly, like the moon-eyed herald of dismay
Chac'd on his night-steed by the star of day!"

The lines are near the end of _The Pleasures of Hope_.

W. W.

Cambridge.

297. _Family of Cordeux._--What is the origin of the name? When was it introduced into England? What are the armorial bearings of the family? What family or families bear gu. three stags' heads, on a chief arg. two griffins' heads erased: Crest, a griffin's head erased? Any information of the Cordeux family more than fifty years ago will confer an obligation on the querist.

W. H. K.

298. _Panelling Inscription._--I have recently discovered, in my investigations for the _History and Antiquities of South Lynn_, an old building in this town which bears the date 1605 on one of its gables; and in the course of my peregrinations through, I find some old panelling with the date 1676, and the following inscription in old English (large) characters:

"As nothinge is so absolutly blest
But chance may crosse, and make it seeming ill,
So nothinge cane a man so much molest,
But God may chang, and seeing good he will."

It has been suggested to me that these lines form a quotation from some of our English poets; if so, of whom? for it is of great importance to me to know, as it will tend considerably to connect the date with the building; and if the lines can be traced to a writer of the period, it will establish what I require very much, and assist me in my researches.

J. N. C.

299. _Infantry Firing._--Can any of your correspondents refer me to authentic instances of the comparative numbers of rounds of cartridges fired in action, with the number of men killed? I think I have read it in Sir W. Napier's _History of the Peninsular War_, and also in _The Times_, but omitted to make a note. I have some recollection of 60,000 rounds beings fired, and only one man killed! and another instance of 80,000, and twenty-five killed! Any remarkable instances of the inefficiency of musketry fire will be acceptable.

H. Y. W. N.

Replies.

THE REVEREND RICHARD FARMER.

(Vol. iv., p. 379.)

Assuming that the principal ATROCITIES of the reverend Richard Farmer are his _Essay on the learning of Shakespeare_, and the substance of a note on _Hamlet_, Act V. Sc. 2., I shall transcribe, as a hint to the lovers of manly criticism, a general character of that writer, a character of his _Essay_, and the note in question:--

1. "His knowledge is various, extensive, and recondite. With much
seeming negligence, and perhaps in later years some real
relaxation, he understands more and remembers more about common
and uncommon subjects of literature, than many of those who would
be thought to read all the day and meditate half the night. In
quickness of apprehension and acuteness of discrimination I have
not often seen his equal."--Samuel PARR.

2. "It [the _Essay on the learning of Shakespeare_] may in truth
be pointed out as a master-piece, whether considered with a view
to the sprightliness and vivacity with which it is written, the
clearness of the arrangement, the force and variety of the
evidence, or the compression of scattered materials into a narrow
compass; materials which inferior writers would have expanded into
a large volume."--Isaac REED.

3. "There's a divinity that _shapes our ends_, _Rough-hew_ [them
how we will.] Dr. Farmer informs me, that these words are merely
technical. A wool-man, butcher, and dealer in _skewers_, lately
observed to him, that his nephew (an idle lad), could only
_assist_ him in making them;"--'he could _rough-hew_ them, but I
was obliged to _shape their ends_.' [To shape the ends of
_wool-skewers_, i.e. to _point_ them, requires a degree of skill;
any one can _rough-hew_ them.] Whoever recollects the profession
of Shakespeare's father, will admit that his son might be no
stranger to such a term [such terms]. I have [frequently] seen
packages of wool pinn'd up with _skewers_.--STEEVENS.

This note was first printed by Malone in 1780, and was reprinted by him in 1790; the portions within brackets having been added in 1793? It is clear, from this statement, that it received the deliberate revision of its author. Now, I cannot deny that Farmer related the anecdote of the _wool-man_--suspicious as is the character of the witness, but I contend that the observations on it should be ascribed to Steevens alone; and so I shall leave your critic A. E. B. to his own reflections.

BOLTON CORNEY.

ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY.

(Vol. iv., p. 365.)

A SUBSCRIBER TO THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY has discovered _one_ fault in _one_ volume (published in 1844) of a series which now extends to sixty-three volumes; and on this _one fault_ he builds a representation which implies, in general, incompetency in the editors, and neglect of proper supervision on the part of the committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library. I believe the character of the editions of most of the volumes sent out in this series is sufficiently known to theologians to render such a charge as this of little importance as respects their judgment. But it may not be so with many of the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES."

The gravamen of the charge rests on the importance of a certain passage of St. Jerome bearing on the Presbyterian controversy,--on the necessity for a familiarity with that controversy in an editor of Overall's _Convocation Book_,--and the consequent incompetency of a person not thus familiar with it to edit that work without, not the assistance merely, but the immediate supervision of the committee.

Now the subject of episcopacy is _not_, as the Subscriber alleges, "the principal subject" of this Book; it occupies 30 pages out of 272: nor is a familiarity with that controversy in any special way necessary for an editor of the volume. The subjects of which the _Convocation Book_ treats are wide and varied, and such omnigenous knowledge as a familiar acquaintance with them implies, is not, nor could be, required in any editor, nor be expected by subscribers.

The committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library undertook to publish careful reprints of the works of our old divines; and had they simply reprinted with accuracy the _Convocation Book_, as published in 1690, they would have fulfilled their covenant with the subscribers. They did, however, much more.

It was known that the original MS. copy of this Book was preserved at Durham. The edition of 1690 had been printed from a transcript made by Archbishop Sancroft. The committee therefore engaged the services of a gentleman whose name is well known as an accurate editor of works existing in MS.

This gentlemen obtained access to all the known MSS. of the _Convocation Book_; viz. 1. The original copy, and papers of alterations suggested as it passed through the Upper House, preserved at Durham. 2. A cotemporary MS. of part of the first book, also preserved at Durham. 3. Archbishop Sancroft's Transcript, preserved at Emanuel College, Cambridge and 4. A MS. of the first book belonging to Bishop Barlow, preserved at Queen's College, Oxford. These MSS. were carefully collated, and the variations, in many respects curious and interesting, were printed at the bottom of the pages, and, as regards the 4th MS., at the end of the volume. The result is a correct edition of the text of this book, with all that can be learned of its variations--the book so highly extolled by your correspondent. And I hear no objection alleged against the care and faithfulness with which this part of the work has been executed: your correspondent does not appear to be aware of anything of the kind having been done.

But the editor went still further--he not only gave the subscribers so much more than they had bargained for, he added full references to the authorities quoted in the book; and when the passages were important, he printed them in full, and even added references to works in which the arguments were more largely handled. Now these references appear to me to amount to many hundreds. They begin with Josephus, and run through Fathers, councils, schoolmen, Roman Catholic controversialists, ecclesiastical historians, and the chroniclers of the Middle Ages: and, as far as I can judge in looking over the notes, not more than three or four of these passages have been undiscovered by the editor, and he honestly says he has not found them; one of these is the unlucky place of St. Jerome, which your correspondent happens to know something about.

The remarks of your correspondent have led me to examine the book, and I refer any one who has the least regard for candour or fairness, to do the same. I would ask them to judge it as a whole, to see the number and variety of the references, and the care which has been bestowed upon them; and to say whether--because he missed one passage, and knew not its importance--the editor can be fairly charged with incompetency; or the committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library accused of neglect, in leaving the work in his hands without exercising over him such supervision as implies the reading every sheet as it passed through the press; for _assistance_ the editor had, and amply acknowledges that he received, at the hand of the superintending editor.

ANOTHER SUBSCRIBER TO THE

ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY.

GENERAL JAMES WOLFE.

(Vol. iv., pp. 271. 322.)

Many letters of Wolfe's will be found published in the _Naval and Military Gazette_ of the latter part of last and early part of this year.

By the statement of your correspondent MR. COLE, Wolfe was promoted as captain in Burrell's regiment (at present the 4th, or king's own) in 1744. Now Burrell's regiment took the left of the first line at Culloden, so that James Wolfe, unless absent on leave, or employed on particular duty, must have been in that action. The left of the second line was occupied by "Colonel Wolfe's" regiment (now the 8th or "king's"). See the "Rebellion of 1745," by Robert Chambers, in Constable's _Miscellany_, vol. xvi. p. 86. Captains of _nineteen_ were common enough at that period, but Wolfe is the only one whose name has excited attention.

As to Wolfe's having been "the youngest general ever intrusted with such a responsible command" as that at Quebec, your correspondent surely forgets Napoleon in modern, and the Black Prince in more remote times.

I have seen at Mr. Scott's, of Cahircon, in the co. Clare, an engraving of Wolfe: he is designated as the "Hero of Louisburgh," and is represented with his right to the spectator, the right hand and arm raised as if enforcing an order. The features are small, the nose rather "cocked," and the face conveys the idea of spirit and determination; he wears a very small three-cocked hat, with a plain black cockade, a sort of frock coat reaching to the knees, where it is met by long boots; there are no epaulets, a twist belt confines the coat, and supports a cartouche-box in front, and a bayonet at the right side, and he carries a fusil slung from his right shoulder "en bandouilliere."

It is said that the father of Wolfe was an Irishman, and I have been shown in the co. Wicklow the farm on which it is said that James Wolfe was born. It lies near Newtown-Mount-Kennedy. Be that as it may, the name has been made celebrated in Ireland within the last half century by three individuals: first, the Lord Kilwarden, who was murdered during Emmett's rising in 1803; secondly, the late Chief Baron, who spelt his name "with a difference;" and last, not least, the author of the celebrated lines on the "Burial of Sir John Moore."

KERRIENSIS.

PUNISHMENT OF EDWARD OF CAERNARVON BY HIS FATHER.--CHARACTER OF EDWARD I.

(Vol. iv., p. 338.)

I think considerable light is thrown upon this very remarkable incident by a letter of the prince himself to the Earl of Lincoln, dated Midhurst, June 14, which appears upon the Roll of that prince's letters lately discovered at the Chapter House, Westminster. (See _Ninth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records_, App. II., No. 5.) This letter has been printed in one of the volumes of the Sussex Archaeological Society, having been written from that county. For such of your readers as may not have either of these books at command, I will give the material part of the letter, translated:

"On Sunday, the 13th of June, we came to Midhurst, where we found
the lord the king, our father; the Monday following, on account of
certain words which, it had been reported to the king, had taken
place _between us and the Bishop of Chester_, he was so enraged
with us that he has forbidden us, or any of our retinue, to dare
to enter his house; and he has forbidden all the people of his
household and of the exchequer to give or lend us anything for the
support of our household. We are staying at Midhurst to wait his
pleasure and favour, and we shall follow after him as well as we
are able, at a distance of ten or twelve miles from his house,
until we have been able to recover his good will, which we very
much desire."

The roll contains several letters which show how seriously the prince was affected by his father's displeasure, and how the king was appeased.

By the letter above quoted, the "minister" appears to have been the Bishop of Chester, then treasurer of the royal household. But the connexion between the prince's case and that of William de Brewosa does not appear, unless they were on intimate terms, as is not improbable: and the punishment of the prince himself is, in my opinion, referred to as a precedent or justification of the punishment imposed upon Brewes. That the severe punishment so imposed was richly deserved none can doubt who has read the report on the Roll: but an unfortunate error in the press[2] makes it appear that the prince, and not De Brewes, was the culprit, and performed the penance.

[Footnote 2: Page 339. col. 1. line 46., where "Edward" is printed
instead of "William de Brewes."]

To return to the prince's offence and punishment. He appears to have been nearly starved into submission, as the royal prohibition against supplying him with articles or money was obliged to be removed by a Letter Close directed to all the sheriffs, dated Ospring, 22nd July.

The whole transaction is highly characteristic of the firmness of the king. Whether the prince's letters which I have referred to make out a case of _harshness_, as regards some other circumstances, I will not now trouble you with. But while examining cotemporary documents illustrative of the prince and his correspondents, I met with an entry upon the Close Roll (33 Edw. I.) too strikingly illustrative of the determination and caution of Edward I. to be allowed to remain in its present obscurity.

On the 27th November the prince addressed a letter to Master Gerard de Pecoraria, earnestly begging him to favour and forward the affairs of Ralph de Baldok, then Bishop Elect of London. The "affairs" in question were the removal of certain scruples instilled into the Papal ear against the approval of the bishop elect; a matter generally involving some diplomacy and much money. Master Gerard was employed by the Pope to collect various dues in England; and so his good will was worth obtaining. But the following Letter Close will show how he received his "quietus," as far as the King of England was concerned:

"The King to Ralph de Sandwich.--By reason of the excessive and
indecent presumption with which Gerard de Pecoraria is making
oppressive levies and collections of money in various places; by
whose authority we know not, for he will not show it; and inasmuch
as the same is highly derogatory to our crown, and injurious to
our people, and many complaints have been made against him on that
account; We command you to take the said Gerard before the Mayor
and Sheriffs of London, and there warn him to cease from making
the said levies, and to quit the kingdom in six days, _provided
that at such warning no public notary be present, so that the
warning be given to the said Gerard alone, no one else hearing.
And be you careful that no one but yourself see this letter, or
get a copy thereof._"

Who can doubt that such a mandate was strictly carried out?

I regret that my memoranda do not preserve the original language.

JOSEPH BURTT.

MR. GIBSON will find that this story, as well as that relative to Sir William Gascoigne, is also told by MR. FOSS (_Judges of England_, vol. iii. pp. 43. 261.), who suggests that the offence committed by Prince Edward was an insult to Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, occasioned probably by the boldness with which that prelate, while treasurer, corrected the insolence of Peter de Gaveston, and restrained the Prince's extravagance. (_Ibid._ p. 114.)

R. S. V. P.

ELIZABETH JOCELINE'S LEGACY TO AN UNBORNE CHILD.

(Vol. iv., p. 367.)

Your correspondent J. M. G., whose letter is inserted in your 106th Number, labours under various mistakes relating to this small volume. The first edition was not printed in 1684, but more than sixty years earlier. Moreover, that edition, or at least what the Rev. C. H. Craufurd appended to his Sermons in 1840 as a reprint, is not a genuine or faithful republication of the original work. I have for several years possessed a copy of _the third impression_, Printed at "London, by _Iohn Hauiland_, for _Hanna Barres_, 1625;" and of this third impression a _fac-simile_ reprint has passed through the press of Messrs. Blackwood in Edinburgh, which new edition corresponds _literatim et verbatim_ (line for line and page for page) with the earliest impression known to exist, which differs materially in several passages from the reprint published by Mr. Craufurd. This new edition is accompanied by a long preface or dissertation containing many particulars relating to the authoress and her relatives, and to a number of ladies of high station and polished education, who during the period intervening between the Reformation in England and the Revolution in 1688, distinguished themselves by publishing works characterized by exalted piety and refined taste. With regard to Mrs. Joceline, no printed work appears to have preserved correct information. Genealogists seem to have conspired to change her Christian name from Elizabeth to Mary or Jane. The husband is supposed to have sprung from an old Cambridgeshire family, the Joscelyns of Hogington, now called Oakington, the name of a parish adjoining to Cottenham. The writer of the preface seems rather disposed to trace his parentage to John Joscelyn (Archbishop Parker's chaplain), who, according to Strype, was _an Essex man_.

But I have probably exceeded the bounds allotted to an answer to a Query.

J. L.

Edinburgh.

_The Mother's Legacy to her unborne Child_ is reprinted for the benefit of the Troubridge National Schools, and can be procured at Hatchard's, Piccadilly.

J. S.

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Coleridge's "Christabel"_ (Vol. iv., p. 316.).--I am not familiar with the Coleridge Papers, under that title, nor indeed am I quite sure that I know at all to what papers MR. MORTIMER COLLINS refers in his question. On this account I am not qualified, as he will perhaps think, to give an opinion upon the genuineness of the lines quoted as a continuation of "Christabel." If I may be allowed, however, to hazard a judgment, as one to whom most of the great poet-philosopher's works have long and affectionately been known, I would venture to express an opinion against the right of these lines to admission as one of his productions. I do it with diffidence; but with the hope that I may aid in eliciting the truth concerning them.

I presume "brookless plash" is a misprint for "brooklet's plash."

The expressions "the sorrow of human years," "wild despair," "the years of life below," of a person who is not yet dead and in heaven, do not seem to me, _as they stand in the lines_, to be in Coleridge's manner; but especially I do not think the couplet--

"Who felt all grief, all wild despair,
That the race of man may ever bear,"

is one which Coleridge would have penned, reading as I do in the _Aids to Reflection_, vol. i. p. 255. (edit. Pickering, 1843) his protest against the doctrine

"holden by more than one of these divines, that the agonies
suffered by Christ were equal in amount to the sum total of the
torments of all mankind here and hereafter, or to the infinite
debt which in an endless succession of instalments we should have
been paying to the divine justice, had it not been paid in full by
the Son of God incarnate!"

There are one or two other expressions of which I entertain doubt, but not in sufficient degree to make it worth while to dwell upon them.

Are we ever likely to receive from any member of Coleridge's family, or from his friend Mr. J. H. Green, the fragments, if not the entire work, of his _Logosophia_? We can ill afford to lose a work the conception of which engrossed much of his thoughts, if I am rightly informed, towards the close of his life.

THEOPHYLACT.

_Dryden--Illustrations by T. Holt White_ (Vol. iv., p. 294.).--My father's notes on Dryden are in my possession. Sir Walter Scott never saw them. The words AEGROTUS attributes to Sir Walter were used by another commentator on Dryden some thirty years since.

ALGERNON HOLT WHITE.

_Lofcop, Meaning of_ (Vol. i., p. 319.).--_Lofcop_, not _loscop_, is clearly the true reading of the word about which I inquired. _Lovecope_ is the form in which it is written in the Lynn town-books, as well as in the Cinque-port charters, for a reference to which I have to thank your correspondent L. B. L. (Vol. i., p. 371.). I am now satisfied that it is an altered form of the word _lahcop_, which occurs in the laws of Ethelred, and is explained in Thorpe's _Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_, vol. i., p. 294., note. The word _loveday_, which is found in English Middle-Age writers, meaning "a day appointed for settling differences by arbitration," is an instance of a similar change. This must originally have been _lah-daeg_, though I am not aware that the word is met with in any Anglo-Saxon documents. But in Old-Norse is found _Logdagr_, altered in modern Danish into _Lavdag_ or _Lovdag._