Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 62, January 4, 1851», страница 4

REPLIES

"GOD SPEED THE PLOUGH."

(Vol. i., p. 230.)

L.S. asks, in what rebellion was the banner carried with the motto "God speed the plough?"—(Homily against Wilful Rebellion.)

Probably in the rebellion of the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland in the north of England, during the autumn of A.D. 1569. In the passage of the homily which immediately follows the one quoted by L.S., occur these words:—

"And though some rebels bear the picture of the five wounds painted, against those who put their only hope of salvation in the wounds of Christ … and though they do bear the image of the cross painted in a rag … yet let no good and godly subject … follow such standard-bearers of rebellion."

Again: just before the quotation cited by L.S. is an allusion to the "defacing or deformation" which the rebels have made, "where through they tarry but a little while they make such reformation, that they destroy all places, and undo all men where they come."

Collier, in his Eccles. History, vol. vi. p. 469. edit. Straker, 1840, part ii. b. vi., says,—

"However, the insurrection went on, and the rebels made their first march to Durham. And here going into the churches they tore the English Bible and the Common Prayer. They officiated in the service of the mass, had the five wounds of Christ represented in some of their colours, and a chalice in others. One Richard Norton, an ancient gentleman, carried the standard with a cross in it."

In this passage we have three out of four facts enumerated: 1st. The defacing of places; 2d. The banner with the five wounds; 3d. The standard with the cross. It does not, therefore, seem unreasonable to infer, that the other fact alluded to, viz. the banner with the motto, is to be referred to the same rebellion.

It is not, however, impossible that the rebellion, which broke out A.D. 1549, first in the western counties, and then in Oxfordshire, Bucks, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Yorkshire, may be also alluded to in the homily. For Cranmer, in his answer to the Devonshire and Cornish rebels, urges this amongst other reasons:—

"Fourthly, for that they let the harvest, which is the chief sustentation of our life; and God of his goodness hath sent it abundantly. And they by their folly do cause it to be lost and abandoned."—Strype's Mem. of C., ed. Oxf. 1840, vol. ii. p. 841.

An argument similar to the one used in the homily.

The insurrection, in fact, in the midland and north-eastern counties, began with an attempt to redress an agricultural grievance; according to Fox (E.H. vol. ii. p. 665. edit. 1641); "about plucking down of enclosures and enlarging of commons." The date of the homily itself offers no objection; for though it is said (Oxf. ed. Pref. p. v.) not to occur in any collected edition printed before 1571, yet there exists a separate edition of it printed in 4to. by Jugge and Cawood, probably earlier than A.D. 1563. Collier does not quote his authority for the statement about the banners, but probably it was either Camden or Holinshed, and a reference to these authors, which I regret I have no means of making, might established the particular point in question.

E.A.D.

"DEFENDER OF THE FAITH."

(Vol. ii., pp. 442. 481.)

I regret that my Note, inserted in your paper of Nov. 30th, was so ambiguously written as to elicit such a reply as it has been favoured with by MR. GIBSON of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

What I meant to say in my last Note was simply this—that two persons, viz. Messrs. Christopher Wren and Chamberlayne, have asserted that the title "Defender of the Faith" had been used by our monarchs anterior to 1521; and in support of their assertions, cite the Black Book of the order of the garter, and several charters granted to the University of Oxford: that is, each gives a distinct proof of his allegation.

Had MR. GIBSON understood my Note, as I trust he now will, he will see at once that the expression "untrue" is totally inapplicable to their statements, at least upon any showing upon his part; for he does not appear to me to have consulted either the Black Book or the charters, on which alone their assertions are based, to which alone we must in common honesty refer, and by which alone their veracity must be judged.

That their "startling" statements do not appear in Selden, nor in Luder's brief paper in the 19th vol. of the Archæologia, is conceded; but I think it might have occurred to the mind of one of less acumen than MR. GIBSON, that it was precisely because the allegations do not appear in these or any other writers or authorities that I considered them not unworthy of the attention of the readers of the "NOTES AND QUERIES". I am at a loss to reconcile MR. GIBSON'S expression "startling," as applied to the assertions of Messrs. Wren and Chamberlayne (and I need not add, that had they not been startling to myself as to him, they would never have found their way to your paper), with the following paragraph:

"In this sense, the sovereign and every knight became a sworn defender of the faith. Can this duty have come to be popularly attributed as part of the royal style and title?"

I do not allude to this statement in a critical point of view, but simply, as, from the general tenor of his communication, MR. GIBSON appears to labour under an impression, that, from ignorance of historical authorities, I have merely given utterance to a popular fallacy, unheard of by him and other learned men; and, like the "curfew," to be found in no contemporaneous writer. I beg, however, to assure him, that before forwarding the note and question to your paper, I had examined not only the Bulls, and our best historians, but also the works of such writers as Prynne, Lord Herbert, Spelman, Camdem, and others, who have in any way treated of regal titles and prerogatives.

I have only to add, that beyond the investigation of the truth of the assertions of Messrs. Wren and Chamberlayne, I am not in any way interested. I care not for the result. I only seek for the elucidation of that which is at once "startling" and a "popular fallacy".

ROBERT ANSTRUTHER.

Bayswater.

BEATRIX LADY TALBOT

In reference to the Query of SCOTUS (Vol. ii., p 478.) respecting Beatrix Lady Talbot (so long confounded by genealogists with her more illustrious contemporary, Beatrix Countess of Arundel), perhaps I may be permitted to state, that the merit, whatever it may be, of having been the first to discover this error, belongs to myself; and that the whole of the facts and authorities to prove the non-identity of the two ladies were supplied by me to the late Sir H. Nicolas, to enable him to compile the article on the subject in the Collectanea Topographica, vol. i.; the notes to which also were almost entirely written by myself. From the note of SCOTUS, one would suppose that he had made the discovery that Lady Talbot belonged to the Portuguese family of Pinto; whereas he merely transcribes my words in p. 405. of the Addenda to vol. i. of the Collectanea.

I had originally supposed that this lady was a member of the house of Sousa, which bore a coat of four crescents, quartered with the arms of Portugal (without the border); and in that belief a paragraph was written by Sir H. Nicolas, accompanied by a pedigree, to show the connexion of Beatrix Lady Talbot, through her great-great-grandfather, with the royal line of Portugal, and, consequently, with Beatrix Countess of Arundel; but these were subsequently struck out. By an oversight, however, the note referring to some works on the genealogy of the house of Sousa has been allowed to remain at p. 87. of the Collectanea; and as it stands at present, it has no corresponding passage in the text. For the information that Lady Talbot bore the arms of Pinto, I was really indebted to a Portuguese gentleman, the Chevalier M.T. de Moraes Sarmento, who published (anonymously) a small volume entitled Russell de Albuquerque, Conto Moral, por um Portuguez, 12mo. Cintra, 1833, at p. 331-2. of which work is a brief notice of the two Beatrixes, from memoranda furnished by myself. At the time I collected the information given to Sir H. Nicolas, I wrote to the Earl of Shrewsbury, to inquire whether among the family papers any evidence could be found, to clear up the history of his ancestress; but his lordship informed me he had no means of elucidating the difficulty, and that in the earliest pedigree in his possession (drawn up in the reign of Elizabeth), Beatrix Lady Talbot was not only described as daughter of the King of Portugal, but had the royal arms of Portugal assigned to her,—a proof, by the way, that even in pedigrees compiled and attested by heralds, there are statements which are not borne out by historic documents. I am still, therefore, like SCOTUS, anxious to know more about this lady, and hope some of your correspondents versed in Portuguese genealogies may supply the required information.

F. MADDEN.

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES

Passage in Hamlet (Vol. ii., p.494.).—The word modern, instead of moderate, in my editions of Shakspeare, is a printer's error, which shall be corrected in the edition I am now publishing. To a person unfamiliar with printing, it might appear impossible that any compositor, with this copy before him,—

 
"While one with moderate haste might tell a hundred,"
 

should substitute—

 
"While one with modern haste might tell a hundred."
 

And yet such substitution of one word for another is a constant anxiety to every editor. Some may consider that a competent editor would detect such a gross blunder. Unfortunately, the more familiar the mind is with the correct reading, the more likely is such an error to escape the eye. Your correspondent who did me the favour to point out this blunder will, I trust, receive this explanation, as also your other readers, in a candid spirit. The error has run through three editions, from the circumstance that the first edition furnished the copy for the subsequent ones. The passage in question was not a doubtful text, and therefore required no special editorial attention. The typographical blunder is, however, an illustration of the difficulties which beset the editors of our old dramatists especially. Had the word modern occurred in an early edition of Shakspeare, it would have perplexed very commentator; but few would have ventured to substitute the correct word, moderate. The difficulty lies in finding the just mean between timidity and rashness. With regard to typographical errors, the obvious ones naturally supply their own correction; but in the instance before us, as in many others, it is not easy to detect the substitution, and the blunder is perpetuated. If a compositor puts one for won—a very common blunder—the context will show that the ear has misled the eye; but if he change an epithet in a well-known passage, the first syllable of the right and the wrong words being the same, and the violation of the propriety not very startling, the best diligence may pass over the mistake. It must not be forgotten that many gross errors in typography occur after the sheet is gone to press, through the accidents that are constantly happening to the movable types.

CHARLES KNIGHT.

Passage in Tennyson (Vol. ii., p. 479.)—The following extract from Sir James Mackintosh's History of England vol. ii. p. 185., will explain this passage:

"The love of Margaret Roper continued to display itself in those outwardly unavailing tokens of tenderness to his (her father, Sir Thomas More's) remains, by which affection seeks to perpetuate itself; ineffectually, indeed, for the object, but very effectually for softening the heart and exalting the soul. She procured his head be taken down from London Bridge, where more odious passions had struggled in pursuit of a species of infernal immortality by placing it. She kept it during her life as a sacred relic, and was buried with that object of fondness in her arms, nine years after she was separated from her father."

X.Z.

Was Quarles pensioned? (Vol. i., p. 201.).—I believe that no reply has been made to this Query. The following passage, transcribed from the Epistle Dedicatory to the surreptitious edition of Quarles's Judgment and Mercy, affords a slight negative proof to the contrary;—

"And being so usefull, dare not doubt your patronage of this child, which survives a father, whose utmost abilities were (till death darkned that great light in his soule) sacrificed to your service."

Now if Charles had conferred a pension on Quarles, is it not exceedingly probable that the publisher and dedicator, Richard Royston, would have recalled so honourable a circumstance to the memory of his "Most gratious soveraigne King Charles" in this Epistle Dedicatory, when he had so excellent an opportunity of doing so?

J.M.B.

Old Hewson the Cobbler (Vol. ii., p. 442.).—I remember that there was a low song sung at some wine parties in Oxford about fifteen years ago, which began with the words, "My name is old Hewson," &c. I do not remember the words, but they were gross: the chief fun seemed to consist in the chorus,—a sort of burring noise being made with the lips, while the doubled fists were rubbed and thumped upon the thigh, as if the cobbler's lapstone had been there.

Was Hewson, the Parliamentarian colonel, a cobbler?

C.P.

The Inquisition (Vol. ii., p. 358.).—The following reply to IOTA'S Queries is extracted from Walchii Bibliotheca Theologica, tom. iii. p. 739.:

"Auctor libri: Histoire de l'Inquisition et son origine. Coloniæ MDCXCIII. 12. qui Jacob Marsollierius est."¹

Of the history of the Bohemians I can ascertain only that J. Amos Comenius was the author of the original. (See Walch, tom. iii. p. 265.)

T.J

Mrs. Tempest (Vol. ii., p. 407.).—In reply to your correspondent requesting information respecting this lady, I have much pleasure in sending you the following particulars, which I leave obtained through the kindness of Colonel Tempest of Tong Hall, the present representative of the ancient family of Tempest of Tong. Henry Tempest, the oldest son of Sir John Tempest, Bart., of Tong Hall, by Henrietta his wife, daughter and heir of Sir Henry Cholmley of Newton Grange, married Alathea, daughter of Sir Henry Thompson of Marston, county of York, and had two daughters, Alathea and Henrietta; one of these ladies was celebrated as Pope's Daphne. Henry Tempest died very young, before his father Sir John; the next brother, George, succeeded to the title and Tong estates. Daphne was on the point of being, married very highly, tradition says to the Duke of Wharton, but died of the small-pox before the celebration.

In the library at Tong Hall there is a painting, by Sir Godfrey Kneller, of Pope's Daphne.

OLIVER THOMLINSON WYNDOWE.

Cardinal Allen's Declaration (Vol ii., p. 497.).—I am happy to inform H.P. that the Declaration of the Sentence and Deposition of Elizabeth, the Usurper and pretended Queen of England, alluded to in his note, is in the Bodleian Library; where, a few days since, I saw Dr. Cumming poring over it; and where, I have no doubt, he, or any friend, can easily obtain a sight of it by applying to any of the librarians.

Z.X.Z.

Cardinal Allen's Admonition (Vol. ii., p. 497.).—The Declaration of the Sentence and Deposition of Elizabeth, the Usurper and pretended Queen of England, will be found accurately reprinted in the Appendix to vol. iii. of Dodd's Church History, edited and enlarged by the Rev. M.A. Tierney, F.R.S., F.S.A., in whose possession a copy of the Declaration is stated to be.