« PreviousContinue »
vols...... London: Henry Colburn, Publisher; Great Marlborough Street. 1844.-12mo. B.M. N. 2313. Vol. i. has pp. iv, 319; vol. ii., pp. ii, 314; vol. iii., pp. ii, 350. The dedication, "To Henry Hope," forms pp. iii, iv, of vol. i., and is signed A. InKey to the Characters in Coningsby, comprising about Sixty of the Principal Personages of the Story,' published in 1844 by Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper, the names of the originals are indicated by the first and last letters of the surname or title; but in A New Key to the Characters in Coningsby,' issued by W. Strange (without date), the names of the originals are in nearly all instances printed in full, the names of the characters not being reprinted. The two lists are combined in the following
The Duke of Rutland
Quentin Dick, Esq., M.P.
Lord Edward Howard
Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,
P. Borthwick, Esq., M.P. Duchess of Buckingham
and Chandos Lord Harrington
Sir G. Clerk, Bart., M.P.
Earl of Clarendon
Hon. James Macdonald
John Bright, Esq., M.P.
Madile. A. D.
Sir Charles Shackerley
The origin and first publication of this masterpiece of our gentlest poet have been described in an interesting manner by his most recent biographer, Mr. Thomas Wright ('The Life of William Cowper,' London, 1892). It may, however, tend to absolute completeness of information on this topic if some note be now taken respecting the first publication of the poem in a separate form. It may be fairly assumed that, down to now, particulars on this special point have not been easily attainable, or else so careful and painstaking an author as Mr. Wright would have included them in his book, containing as it does ample enough details about the first, and anonymous, appearance of the ballad in the Public Advertiser for November, 1782, and about Johnson (Cowper's publisher), early in 1784, suggesting its direct publication by the poet himself, who replied, in a letter dated October, 1784, saying, "I have not been without thoughts of adding 'John Gilpin' at the tail of all," i.e., of his second volume, for which he was preparing 'The Task,' the 'Tirocinium,' &c., and in which volume it actually did appear in June, 1785.
The first separate publication of 'John Gilpin' took place, however, rather more than two months previously, namely, on March 25, 1785, by I. Wallis, Ludgate Street, London. Whether this was done with the sanction of Cowper I know not. It will, therefore, oblige if some one of your luciferous correspondents can solve that question. Wallis's edition was printed in broadside form, giving the two hundred and fifty-two lines of the ballad in five closely-printed columns, and surmounted by the words, "Johnny [sic] Gilpin of Cheapside, going farther than he intended: a Droll Story,
read by Mr. Henderson at Freemasons' Hall." object to furnish his patrons with "designs for At top of all (if we may be allowed to slightly furniture, cradles, boots, and petticoats." copy the poet's prose, "at tail of all") is a large Flemish sculptor named Scheemakers-the inand very cleverly executed engraving, oval, nine structor of Nollekens-was appointed to execute and a half by seven and a half inches, depicting the the work. He had considerable command over the creditable and renowned citizen Gilpin (who, by mechanical details of his art, but not over its higher the way, has been successfully identified with one qualities. Beyer, a linendraper, of 3, Cheapside, deceased, at the ripe age of ninety-eight, in 1791) arriving, but unable to dismount, at the "Bell" hostelry in Edmonton. It is regrettable that no engraver's name or sign is on this engraving, but, if I may hazard a conjecture, I would suggest that its style is very like that of Isaac, the father of George Cruikshank.
The date on this engraving seems to fix Henderson, the popular actor's, recitations of John Gilpin' at a somewhat earlier month in 1785 than the one mentioned by Mr. Wright (at p. 314 of his book). Henderson himself died shortly afterwards, on Nov. 25, 1785. The reason for my giving the precise date of his death is that, besides my own broadside above described, I have seen another separate edition of John Gilpin' in small chapbook form, published without a date, or rather "printed for W. Lane," price 2d. or 3d., I forget which. A copy was, I believe, sold at Sotheby's this year, and described as "the first edition, printed before the first collected edition of Cowper's Poems, vol. ii." The date was given, on supposition, thus, (1785). But, even if it appeared at all in that year, it must have been in December, or at least eight months after the broadside, and six months after Cowper's volume ii. The proof of this rests on the internal evidence of the chapbook itself describing the reciter of the ballad at Freemasons' Hall as "the late Mr. Henderson," the full title being: "History of John Gilpin as related by the late Mr. Henderson, showing how he went further than he intended, and came back safe at last." FREDK. HENDRIKS.
THE SHAKSPEARE MONUMENT IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.-In pointing out the "painful contrast" between the obsequies of Shakspere and those of Molière, M. L. NOTTELLE states (ante, p. 70) that in 1740,
"the ladies of England made a subscription among themselves to raise a monument to him [Shakspere] in Westminster Abbey, that Pantheon of illustrious Englishmen, which should be worthy, in their estimation, of the glory shed on England by the Bard of Avon." Whether this monument is "worthy" either of the subscribers' intention, or of the object of their bounty, will appear after a brief inquiry.
The choice of an artist who was to furnish a design for the monument was unfortunate. Kent was selected-a man who had already been the object of Hogarth's keen satire-and who did not
When the monument was finished, Horace Walpole exclaimed :
"What an absurdity to place busts at the angles of a pedestal, and at the bottom of that pedestal! Whose choice the busts were I do not know; Queen Elizabeth's head might be intended to mark the era in which the selected? Are the pieces under the names of these poet flourished; but why were Richard III, and Henry V. Princes two of Shakspere's most capital works; or what reason can be assigned for giving them the preference?" Allan Cunningham, who quotes this passage in his 'Lives of the Painters,' &c. (iv. 306), goes on to say:
"The chief defect, however, lies in the figure of Shakspere himself-he leans upon a pedestal, like a sort of sentimental dandy-there is no mark of intellectual power in his face, and his whole air is mean and conceited. This thing belongs to the Cockney school' of sculpture."
from the reply of Pope in answer to a request that That these opinions were not peculiar is evident he would write an inscription for the monument. ferred to place it not on the monument, but in the He would write an inscription, indeed, but pre
Thus Britons love me, and preserve my fame,
On Poets' tombs see Benson's titles writ.
But to return to Shakspere's monument. It stands facing the main transept under the last aisle arch, which is walled up. It is what is called “an honorary monument," that is, the person to whom it is erected is buried elsewhere. It is said to have been the intention of the subscribers to transfer the remains of Shakspere from Stratford to the Abbey, but that the solemn words on his tomb naturally interfered with such a design :—
Kind friend, for Jesus sake, forbeare,
pole and Allan Cunningham, both of whom knew something of art, and the latter, associated as he was with Chantry, a good deal about sculpture. But according to the vergers,
"both the design and the workmanship of this monument are extremely elegant. The figure of Shakspere and his attitude, his dress, his shape, bis genteel air, and fine composure, all so delicately expressed by the sculptor, cannot be sufficiently admired."
The heads on the pedestal are
proper ornaments to grace his tomb. In short, the taste that is here shown does honour to those great names under whose direction, by the public favour, it was so elegantly constructed; namely, the Earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martin."
I do not find any statement that the subscription to this monument was limited to the ladies of England; but at the time it was going on Sir Thomas Hanmer was bringing out his edition of Shakspere in six volumes quarto, printed at the Oxford University Press. He says:—
"As a fresh acknowledgment hath lately been paid to his [Shakspere's] merit, and a high regard to his name and memory by erecting his statue at a public expense, so it is desired that this new edition of his works, which hath cost some attention and care, may be looked upon as another small monument, designed and
dedicated to his honour."
The reader will doubtless remember Collins's complimentary poetical epistle to Sir Thomas on this occasion. Highgate, N.
"THE STUMP OF DAGON."-The Revisers of the Old Testament have retained this expression in 1 Sam. v. 4, though it is well known that "Dagon" alone stands in the original Hebrew. The idol in question consisted in all probability of a figure, the upper part of which was human, the lower a representation of a fish. In this verse we are told that the image fell to the ground and the upper part was broken off, the fish part (to which the word, Dagon, diminitive of 7, fish, was specially applicable) only being left. Of course it would have read awkwardly if translated that after Dagon was broken, only Dagon was left. Benisch renders "only a fish stump had remained of him." The expression "stump," however, is hardly applicable to a fish, which has neither legs nor arms, so that the whole of it is here intended. Surely the best course would have been a very simple one, to translate the word Dagon in this last clause of the verse, and read "only the fish was left of him."
In the Speaker's Commentary it is stated that the word " stump" in this place was suggested by paxis, supplied in the Septuagint. No doubt it came into the English versions from the Vulgate, "Dagon solus truncus remanserat." But if the Greek páxis suggested Jerome's "truncus," he followed the Septuagint only partially. That version has an additional clause, which does not appear in our Hebrew copies. After saying that Dagon's head
and both the palms of his hands had been broken
HOW TOPOGRAPHY IS WRITTEN.-The follow
ing paragraph, which I cut from a recent number of a society newspaper, contains about as many blunders as it would be possible to crowd into so small a space; and as these blunders refer to two or three "historic places," it would be well to correct the statements in N. & Q.':
"In connexion with the fact that Mr. Coningsby Disraeli is now the owner of Hughenden, I find it is generally believed that the manor purchased by his uncle was the original home of Edmund Burke. This is an error. Sir Edward Lawson occupies the great orator's old Beaconsfield home, which, however, has undergone so many alterations and improvements since its present owner entered into possession that the ghost of Burke would, I suspect, find it difficult to find its way about the modern version of Butler's Court.' But Sir Edward, though he has built round the old house, has filled it with as many relics of Burke as he has been able to gather together in the twenty years since he purchased the place from the Du Pré famliy."
First, it is not only "now" that Mr. C. Disraeli is the "owner" of Hughenden, for he has owned it ever since the death of his illustrious uncle, who made him his heir. Secondly, no one that I know of has believed anything so foolish as that Hughen(This den was "the original home of Burke." house was called "Gregories," and was burnt down many years ago.) Thirdly, Sir Edward Lawson does not occupy "the old Beaconsfield home of the great orator," but that of the poet Waller. Fourthly, his house is known as Hall Barns, and Butler's Court." Fifthly, Sir Edward has not filled his house with relics of Burke, but with those of Waller. Sixthly, he did not buy the estate from the Du Pré family, but from that of the Youngs, baronets, of Hughenden. Seventhly, and lastly, Wilton Place, near Beaconsfield, of which the writer speaks as having formerly belonged to the Du Prés, is still in possession of that family. E. WALFORD, M. A.
'EUPHUES': PARALLEL PASSAGES. If wisdom always went with sage aphorisms, and if farfetched conceits were true learning, there would be few wiser or more learned books than Lyly's 'Euphues.' Re-reading it recently I have been led to the conclusion that Lyly has been much laid under contribution by better-known writers, though it is, of course, impossible always to distinguish between plagiarism and accidental resemblance. It is hardly likely, for instance, that Burns, when he wrote
Auld nature swears, the lovely dears
knew that Lyly had been before him with his
The bud may have a bitter taste,
referring to Lyly's comparison of love to "the
I cannot but think it a pity this book should have fallen out of favour. With all his absurdities, Lyly is often admirably pithy; and though a good deal of his natural history appears to be of his own invention, yet his book reflects much of the more curious learning of his time. C. C. B.
NOVEL NOTIONS OF HERALDRY.-A friend who has just returned from the Roman pilgrimage has given me a pamphlet in English relating to the tomb of Pius IX., which was published at Milan last year. The title is 'To a beloved Father. Eternal Monument of Love, of Gratitude, of Admiration, erected by his Children of every Language, of every Nation, of every Race.' No author's name is given. It is evidently the work of a foreigner. After describing the tomb, and stating that all who make a certain contribution will have their arms shown in mosaic on the wall near the tomb, we come upon the following passage :
"The Armorial Bearings of American Families.-A difficulty may arise from the fact that American families do not use any armorial bearings, and therefore no
American armorial bearings could appear on the monument. The Executive Committee took care to remove such an obstacle, and ordered their Heraldry Department to supply regular armorial bearings for the American families willing to render homage to the blessed memory of the beloved Pontiff."
CHAUCERIANA.-There are some useful illustrations of Chaucer's phrases in the Selden Society's fifth volume, the issue for 1891, lately published. The book is entitled 'Leet Jurisdiction in Nor
"Matheus cum serviente Johannis Beumond et alii ......asportaverunt colobium Rogeri de Rokhathe et annelacum suum et bursam suam.'
We may suppose that Roger came into town from Rackheath, and as in the case of the Frankeleyn, Prologue, 357-8,
An anlas and a gipser al of silk
so he was set upon by the cutpurses and robbed in
Among the pledges taken in 1364 instead of unum cortepi pro muliere furratum pro ijs:” (p. 77). money fines was this, From Henry Carleton Being for a lady and furred, it was better, no doubt, than the clerk's,
Ful thredbare was his overeste courtepy.
And many a Jack of Dover hast thou sold
for in 1287 presentation was made that "all the
"Warwickshire historians are divided as to the origin
last year, and may be interesting for a record.
[See 1st S. x. 448; 6th S. ii. 386; 7th S. xii. 442, 493.]
"6 TROUTS."-Grammarians give trout as one of those words that have the same form for singular stantives. Sir Walter Scott was notoriously his and plural-salmon, deer, &c., being similar subown authority and guide in all matters concerned with style; and yet, when we find him writing trouts, we naturally infer that he and his friends
actually used the form in speaking. When a man is an authority on a subject he is entitled to a hearing, and Scott, of course, understood angling. Here is an extract from his 'Diary,' telling of Loch Scavaig, Skye, in which, it will be observed, he uses trouts deliberately:
"Round this place were assembled hundreds of trouts and salmon struggling to get up into the fresh water; with a net we might have had twenty salmon at a haul, and a sailor, with no better hook than a crooked pin, caught a dish of trouts during our absence."-Lockhart's 'Life,' iii. 233, ed. 1837.
Do anglers still speak of "trouts"?
We must request correspondents desiring information on family matters of only private interest to affix their names and addresses to their queries, in order that the answers may be addressed to them direct.
"CROW" AND "ROOK."-It is known to most that the bird known in the south of England as a rook, is called in the north of England, in Scotland, and Ireland (Ulster at least) a crow; in the United States also the crow is a gregarious bird, answering to the north English and Scottish crow, the southern rook. It would be interesting to know how far north the name rook is in use (naturally and popularly, of course, not merely in book-language), and how far south the name crow comes for the gregarions bird. Swainson's Provincial Names of British Birds' gives crow in Yorkshire and Lancashire, but he says nothing of the Midlands. Now in Shakspere's time crow appears to have been the name at Stratford; for he says in 'Macbeth,' III. ii. 51 :—
Light thickens, and the Crow makes Wing to th' Rookie
And in our own time it appears to be so used in north Lincolnshire, as exemplified by Tennyson in 'Locksley Hall,' 1. 68:
As the many-winter'd crow that leads the clanging rookery home.
In Scotland the bird to which London naturalists restrict the name crow is called the corbie or corbie craw. I shall be glad if any readers of 'N. & Q.' living in south Lancashire, south Yorkshire, and the counties thence down to the Thames will send me on a post-card a statement as to the meaning
of crow and rook (if used) in their own districts. Address Dr. Murray, Oxford. J. A. H. M.
"CURSE OF SCOTLAND."-In Annandale's 'Imperial Dictionary,' after mentioning, among many other ingenious and baseless guesses, a hypothetical connexion of the card with the Battle of Culloden, the author says, "but the phrase was in use before." I shall be grateful to any one who will send me a quotation or reference for the " curse of Scotland” before Culloden, 1745, or indeed before 1791, when it is mentioned in the Gentleman's Magazine, p. 141. Jameson has no quotation, and knew it only as colloquial in the south of Scotland. I have not at present any ground for thinking that the phrase is of Scottish origin. J. A. H. MURRAY.
TENNYSON AND CARLYLE.-Who wrote the article in the Quarterly Review for September, 1842, on Alfred Tennyson? The earlier criticism on him in the same periodical is generally attributed to Lockhart; but the one to which I refer is very unlike Lockhart's work. Could it possibly have been written by Thomas Carlyle? Mr. Froude could probably tell. I have not his life of Carlyle at hand, but, if my memory serves me rightly, there is some mention in it of Lockhart having, much about the date which I have given, expressed his willingness to insert a paper of Carlyle's in the Quarterly, were he not afraid of Tory prejudices-the subject dealt with being a social and political one. If so, it strikes me that Lockhart, who had a great admiration for the genius of the author of 'The French Revolution,' may have invited him to contribute something of a less risky kind, and that the criticism on the rising poet of the day may have been the result. passages in the article which appear to me to be exceedingly Carlylian, not only in spirit but in actual phrase. There are, for example, certain reflections on the mystery of human life, which at once recall the concluding part of the chapter on "Natural Supernaturalism" in 'Sartor Resartus.' I am, indeed, disposed to think that the article was really Carlyle's, but that Lockhart, exercising his editorial privilege, even as Jeffrey used to boast that he did in respect of Carlyle's essays for the Edinburgh, had freely "cut out" and written in." I should, however, be glad to hear what some better authority than myself may have to say on
"FAMILY PAPERS OF JAMES CRAGGS."-The sale of these papers at Puttick & Simpson's in January, 1853, was suddenly stopped. (See Athenæum, Jan. 29, 1853, p. 137.) In whose hands are they now? G. F. R. B.
SIR WILLIAM PETTY.-In an article by the German economist Röscher, published in the Leipzig Magazine of History and Philology in