Chapter C: P. E

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

"_Carve out Dials._"--

"----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 the _Sam Slick Clocks_.

G. CREED.

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

_Log Book._--What is the origin of _Log Book_?

G. CREED.

[The Log _board_ no doubt gave rise to the Log _book_, as being
more convenient for preserving a record of the ship's course,
winds, and weather. Consult Falconer's _Dictionary of the
Marine_.]

_Lord Clydesdale._--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?

MACKENZIE WALCOTT, 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.]

"_Time is the Stuff of which Life is made._"--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's _Concordance_ shows that that supposition is erroneous. Can any of your readers inform me where the phrase may be found?

H.

[It occurs in Dr. Franklin's _Works_, 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_" (Jonah iii. 4.)--"Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown."--Septuagint (Baxter's edition) "[Greek: Eti _t r e i s_ hêmerai]," &c.: "Yet _three_ days."--How is this?

NEDLAM.

[[Greek: Treis] is the common reading of the LXX. as [Hebrew:
arbaiym] of the Hebrew. We know of no variants. J. H. Michaelis'
account of the matter is, "Perperam vero LXX. hunc
_quadragenarium_ dierum numerum in _triduanum_ commutarunt."]

_The Empress Helena._--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?

H.

[The statement will be found in Geoffrey's _British 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 his
_Epistles_, 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's _Lives of the
Saints_, August 18, Art. "S. Helen." See also Tillemont, _Hist.
des Empereurs_, t. iv.]

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

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

Replies.

ROYAL LIBRARY.

(Vol. iii., P. 427.; Vol. iv., p. 69.)

I have delayed contradicting the stories told about the Royal Library in the _Quarterly Review_ of last December, and repeated in the _Illustrated Boswell_, and, I am sorry to say, still more gravely and circumstantially reproduced by the Editor of "NOTES AND QUERIES." I have delayed, I say, until I was enabled to satisfy myself more completely as to one of the allegations of _your_ Note. 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 a _palace_ both 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 a _chapel_, which it was proposed to adorn with the seven _cartoons_ of 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 know_ that some members of the government were very averse to this disposal of the library: they thought, and _strongly represented_, that a royal residence should, not be without a library; and that this particular collection, made especially _ad 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 Museum _pro 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 been _partly_ prompted by a hope of putting the public in better humour as to the expenses of Buckingham House; but the idea of a _sale to Russia_ never, I am sure, entered the head of any of the parties.

C.

THE "EISELL" CONTROVERSY.

(Vol. iv., pp. 64. 135.)

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 the _Eisell_ interpretation, 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 thou _do_ for her?"

is the quietude of contempt for Laertes' insulting rant; and so, if my memory deceive me not, the elder Kean gave it; "_Do_ for her" being put in contrast with Laertes' braggadocio _say_. 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."

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 pharmacopoeia of the time, and was 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 doing_ against _the saying_; the quietude of the philosophic prince, against the ranting of the robustious Laertes; things that _could 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.

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 of _eisell_ thus 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 word _eisell_ becomes 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 the _eisell_ controversy; 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 termed _localisms_, which were frequently as occult as in the instance of the _eisell_; 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 Phoenix for the city of Ephesus, the scene of the _Comedy of Errors_! The Italian, Iachimo, speaks of--

"---- 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. In _Hamlet_, with which we are chiefly concerned, the king "gulps his draughts of _Rhenish_ down;" and the grave-digger talks of a flagon of _Rhenish_ having been poured by the jester upon his head, the wine with which Denmark would naturally be supplied. His majesty inquires:

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

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

"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 in _Othello_ relates 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 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 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 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 in _Merry Wives of Windsor_, and others. And in the Egyptian scenes of _Antony 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 creatures
Turn all to serpents!"

In the last two passages it may be observed, that the hyperbolical treatment of the two rivers bears some analogy to that of the _eisell_; 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."

T.

_Eisell_ will, 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. In _The 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 and _eysyl_, graunte us to
tast the swetnes of thi spirite; and have mercy on us."

All through the sixteenth century, and ages before, _eisell_ was 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 of _eisell_ in _Hamlet_, 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 for _eisell_ being "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, against _eisell_ meaning "a bitter potion," except that they _prefer_ the river as more to their taste; for the objection of MR. CAUSTON I 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." And _eisell_ need 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's _Troy Boke_ quoted 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 against _eisell_ meaning a river,--Would the poet who took a world-wide illustration from _Ossa_, 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 any _exact parallel_ of this allusion of his to _local_ scenery, 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 that _eisell_ is the river Essel.

H. C. K.

---- Rectory, Hereford, July 28.

LORD MAYOR NOT A PRIVY COUNCILLOR.

(Vol. iv., pp. 9. 137.)

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 mistakes _my_ argument when he says, as if in reply to me, that _it 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 of _lord_, and that this title of _lord_ brought with it the other courtesy designation of _right honorable_, which latter being _also_ (but not _likewise_) 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.