Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 42, August 17, 1850», страница 3

Various

Шрифт:

QUERIES

ESSAYES OF CERTAIN PARADOXES: POEM ON NOTHING

Who was the author of a thin 4to. volume with the above title, printed for Tho. Thorpe, 1616? The contents are, "The Praise of K. Richard the Third—The French Poetes—Nothing—That it is good to be in Debt."

The late Mr. Yarnold has a MS. copy of the "Praise of K. Richard," to which was prefixed the following dedication:—

"TO THE HONOURABLE SIR HENRY NEVILL, KNIGHTE."
"I am bolde to adventure to your honors viewe this small portion of my privatt labors, as an earnest peny of my love, beinge a mere Paradoxe in prayse of a most blame-worthie and condemned Prince, Kinge Richard the Third; who albeit I shold guilde with farre better termes of eloquence then I have don, and freate myself to deathe in pursuite of his commendations, yet his disgrace beinge so publicke, and the worlde so opinionate of his misdoings, as I shold not be able so farre to justifie him as they to condemne him. Yet that they may see what may be saide, and to shew how farre they haue mispraysed his vertues, this following Treatise shall make manyfest. Your honour may peruse and censure yt at your best leisure, and though yt be not trickt up wth elegance of phrase, yet may it satisfye a right curious judgmente, yf the reasons be considered as they ought. But, howsoever, yf you please to accepte it, I shall thinke my labors well bestowed; who, both in this and what ells may, devote myself to your honour, and rest,
"Your honours most affectionat servant,
"HEN. W."

The praise of Nothing is very well versified from the Latin of Passerat, whose verses Dr. Johnson thought worthy of a place in his Life of Lord Rochester. Besides Rochester's seventeen stanzas "Upon Nothing," there appears to have been another copy of verses on this fertile subject; for Flecknoe, in his Epigrams of All Sorts, 1671, has "Somewhat to Mr. J.A. on his excellent poem of Nothing." Is anything known of this Nothing?

S.W. SINGER.

Mickleham, July 29. 1850.

MINOR QUERIES

Papers of Perjury.—In Leicester's Commonwealth occurs the following passage:—

"The gentlemen were all taken and cast into prison, and afterwards were sent down to Ludlow, there to wear papers of perjury."

Can any of your readers refer me to a graphic account of the custom of perjurers wearing papers denoting their crime, to which I suppose this passage alludes?

S.R.

Church Rates.—CH. would be obliged to any of your readers who could refer him to the volume of either the Gentleman's or the British Magazine which contains some remarks on the article on Church Rates in Knight's Political Dictionary, and on Cyric-sceat.

St. Thomas of Lancaster's Accomplices.—In No. 15. I find an extract from Rymer, by MR. MONCKTON MILNES, relative to some accomplices of St. Thomas of Lancaster, supposed to have worked miracles.—Query, Was "The Parson of Wigan" one of these accomplices, and what was his name? Was he ever brought to trial for aiding the Earl, preaching sedition in the parish church of Wigan, and offering absolution to all who would join the standard of the barons? and what was the result of that trial—death or pardon?

CLERICUS CRAVENSIS.

Prelates of France.—P.C.S.S. is desirous to know where he can meet with an accurate list of the Archbishops and Bishops of France (or more properly of their Sees) under the old régime.

Lord Chancellor's Oath.—The gazette of the 16th July notified that the Right Hon. Sir Thomas Wilde, in council, took the oath of Lord Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland on the 15th inst.; and the same gazette announced the direction of the Queen that letters patent be passed granting the dignity of baron to the Right Hon. Sir Thomas Wilde, Knt., Lord Chancellor of that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Great Britain.

Why, when he is only Chancellor of Great Britain, should he take the oath of Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland?

J.

Mediæval Nomenclature.—In what work is to be obtained the best information explanatory of the nomenclature of the useful arts in mediæval times?

δ.

Sir Christopher Sibthorp.—Can any of your readers furnish me with information as to the ancestry of Sir Christopher Sibthorp, whose name appears in the title-page of the following tract: A friendly Advertisement to the pretended Catholics of Ireland, by Christopher Sibthorp, Knt., one of H.M. Justices of his Court of Chief Place in Ireland, 1622, Dublin and also as to the crest, arms, and motto borne by him.

DE BALDOC.

Alarm (Vol. ii., p. 151.).—The derivation of alarm, and the French alarme, from à l'arme, which your correspondent M. has reproduced, has always struck me as unsatisfactory, and as of the class of etymologies suspiciously ingenious. I do not venture to pronounce that the derivation is wrong: I merely wish to ventilate a doubt through "NOTES AND QUERIES," and invite some of your more learned readers to lily to decide the question.

Of the identity of the words alarm and alarum there is no doubt. The verb alarm is spelt alarum in old writers, and I have seen it so spelt in manuscripts of Charles II.'s reign, but unfortunately have not taken a "Note." Dr. Johnson says alarum is a corruption of alarm. Corruption, however, usually shortens words. I cannot help having a notion that alarum is the original word; and, though I may probably be showing great ignorance in doing so, I venture to propound the following Queries:—

1. How far back can the word alarum be traced in our language, and how far back alarm?

2. Can it be ascertained whether the French took alarme from our alarm, or we alarm from them?

3. Can any explanation be given of alarum, supposing it to be the original word? Is it a word imitative of sound?

A l'arme, instead of aux armes, adds to the suspiciousness of this derivation.

CH.

REPLIES

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF "DELIGHTED."

Although Dr. Kennedy does not think I have discovered the source from whence Shakspeare's word delighted is derived, I am gratified to find that he concurs with me in drawing a distinction between this and the more common word. His failure to convince me is a source almost of regret, so happy do I regard the derivation he proposes in the last passage cited. But in the passage from Measure for Measure, it does not appear to me to express the sense which I deduce from the context; and as I look upon the word in question as the same in each of the three passages, I feel more inclined to adhere to my view, that it is a word of English manufacture, according to the analogy referred to. I express my opinion with hesitation and there can be no doubt the question is deserving of full and attentive consideration.

Strengthened, however, in my main purpose, which was to show that Shakspeare did not use delighted in the ordinary sense of highly gratified, I am better prepared to meet MR. HALLIWELL. This gentleman does me no more than justice in the remark, not expressed, though, I hope, implied, that I would not knowingly make use of an offensive expression towards him or any living man; and I appreciate the courtesy with which he has sweetened the uncomplimentary things he has felt constrained to say of me. I trust it will be found that I can repay his courtesy and imitate his forbearance. As a preliminary remark, however, I must say that MR. HALLIWELL, in his haste, has confounded the "cool impertinence" for which I censured one editor, with the "cool correction" which was made by another; and, moreover, has referred the remark to Measure for Measure, which I applied to the notes to the passage in Othello. As I have not yet learned to regard the term "delightful" as an active participle, it is evident that, however "cool" I may consider the correction, I have not called it an "impertinence." But he has no mind that I should escape so easily; and therefore, like a true knight-errant, he adopts the cause without hesitation, as though to be first satisfied of its goodness would be quite inconsistent in its champion.

When I am charged with an "entire want of acquaintance with the grammatical system" employed by Shakspeare, I might take exception to the omission of the words "as understood by Mr. Halliwell," this gentleman assuming the very point in question between us. I believe he has paid particular attention to this subject; but he must not conclude that all who presume to differ from him "judge Shakspeare's grammar by Cobbett or Murray." And if I were disposed to indulge in as sweeping an expression, I should say that the remark excites a suspicion of the writer's want of acquaintance with the spirit of Shakspeare's works. I do not think so, though I think MR. HALLIWELL has formed his opinion hastily; and I think, moreover, that before I have ended, I shall convince him that it would not have been amiss had he exercised a little more reflection ere he began. In the passage in Othello, I object to the substitution of delighting or delightful for delighted, as weak epithets, and such as I do not believe that Shakespeare would have used. It was not as a schoolmaster or grammarian, but in reference to the peculiar fitness and force of his expressions, and his perfect acquaintance with the powers of the English language, and his mastery over it, that I called Shakespeare its greatest master.

But to return to the first passage I cited—that from Measure for Measure,—MR. HALLIWELL will be surprised to find that in the only remark I made upon it as it stands he actually agrees with me. I said that the passage "in our sense of the term" is unintelligible. I still say so; and he who attempts to mend it, or modernise the form, says so too. The question next arises, Does he not mean no system, when he says system? Otherwise, why does he say that Shakspeare uses the passive for the active participle, when he explains the word not by the active participle, but by an adjective of totally different meaning? Is it not more likely that MR. HALLIWELL may have misunderstood Shakspeare's system, than that the latter should have used intelligible words, and precise forms of words, so at random? And, moreover, does not the critic confound two meanings of the word delightful; the one obsolete, full of delight, the other the common one, giving delight, or gratifying?

Now by a violent figure which Shakspeare sometimes uses, delighted may mean delightful in the former sense; perhaps, rather, filled with delight. The word then would be formed directly from the noun, and must not be regarded as a participle at all, but rather an ellipsis, from which the verb (which may be represented by give, fill, endow, &c.) is omitted. Take, as an instance, this passage in Measure for Measure:—

"Clau. Death is a fearful thing!
"Isa. And shamed life a hateful."

The meaning here is not life ashamed, but life covered with shame. In this sense MR. HALLIWELL, apparently without knowing why, has adopted the term delightful; but then the two succeeding words of his explanation, "sweet, pleasant", he would appear to have taken at random from a dictionary, forgetting that he was not using the word in its ordinary sense; for it is not possible that he can suppose Shakspeare to have used the word in the sense of the active participle. Now, though I do not think this at all the expression that Shakspeare would use, it is undoubtedly allowable as a general characteristic; but the word actually used would appear to imply the result of a particular action, which would have been productive of anything but delight. In short, as we are agreed that the word delighted in the passage in question in its present sense is unintelligible, so also are we, I think, agreed that the substitute, if any, must be used in a passive sense.

Now, with regard to the first instance furnished by MR. HALLIWELL of the use of the passive for the active participle, if I were sure that the delinquent were well out of hearing, and not likely "to rise again and push us from our stools," I should be disposed to repeat the charge of impertinence against the editor who altered "professed" to "professing". The word professed is one of common use, and in the present instance perfectly intelligible. "To your bosom, professed to entertain so much love and care for our father, I commit him," seems to express the sense of the passage: a doubt is implied by the expression, but there is a directness of insult in the term professing quite inconsistent with the character of Cordelia.

"Becomed love" is love suited or fitted to the occasion. The use of the passive participle is every way more appropriate than that of the active, though the latter is more common now.

In the next instance, I have to observe that there is no such verb as to guile. Guile is a noun; and "guiled shore" is guile-covered, or charactered shore. According to this rule, the modern word talented, that is, talent-endowed, has been formed, it not having been considered that licences are allowed in poetry that are unsuited to ordinary language.

The passage next referred to is conditional, and I regard the use of the passive participle here, too, as correct.

I have thus reduced MR. HALLIWELL'S list to that number which usually forms the exception rather than the rule; and if accident, misprint, error in copying, or other special circumstance be not held sufficient to account for the single remaining instance, I have then only to say that I prefer deformed to deforming, as an epithet applied disparagingly to Time's hand as more in accordance with Shakspeare's practice, who was not in the habit of repeating the same idea, which, in the latter case, would occur again in the word "defeatures" in the following line.

MR. HALLIWELL may, doubtless find other instances, perhaps more felicitous than these; at present, all I can say is that he has failed to show that the use of the passive for the active participle was common with Shakspeare. As to other variations between the grammatical usage of Shakspeare's day and that of our own, I call assure him that I am not quite so ignorant of the fact as he imagines.