Replies.
THE OUTER TEMPLE.
(Vol. iii., p. 375.)
While I thank MR. PETER CUNNINGHAM for his ready compliance with my request, I am sorry to say that I cannot concur in the reliance which he expresses on the authority of Sir George Buc. The passage quoted from that writer contains so palpable a blunder in that part of the history of the Temple of which we have authentic records, that I look with much suspicion on that portion of the relation, with regard to which no documentary evidence has been found.
He makes "Hugh Spencer, Earle of Glocester," the next successor of the Earl of Lancaster in the possession of the Temple after the suppression, and places "Andomare de Valence" in the house after the execution of Spencer for treason: an account which receives a somewhat significant contradiction in the fact, that Valence died in 1323, and Spencer was beheaded in 1326.
With reference to Buc's assertion, that "the other third part, called the Outward Temple, Doctor Stapleton, Bishop of Exceter, had gotten in the raign of the former king, Edward the Second, and conuerted it to a house for him and his successors, Bishops of Exceter," I can only say that no such grant has ever been discovered, and that every fact on which we have any information in relation to the Templars' possessions in London, contradicts the presumption that any part of them was disposed of to the bishop. He was raised to his see in 1307. The Templars were suppressed in 1309. Their lands and tenements in London were then placed in the hands of custodes appointed by the king, who in 1311 transferred them into the custody of the sheriffs of London, with directions to account for the rents into the Exchequer. In both of these documents, and in the grants to the Earls of Lancaster and Pembroke, ALL the property that belonged to the Templars in London and its suburbs is expressly included; without excepting any part of it as having been previously granted to the bishop; which, had any such been made, would inevitably have been specially noticed. And I have already shown in my former communication (p. 325.) that the grant by the Hospitallers themselves to Hugh le Despenser in 1324 is of the whole of their house called the New Temple, and that the bishop's mansion is therein stated to be its western boundary.
All these particulars confirm me in my opinion, that the bishop's house never formed any part of the New Temple.
EDWARD FOSS.
THE OLD LONDON BELLMAN AND HIS SONGS OR CRIES.
(Vol. iii., pp. 324. 377.)
The songs of the old bellman are interesting relics of the manners and customs of "London in the olden time;" but they must not be confounded with the more modern "copies of verses" which, until lately, were annually handed about at Christmas time by that all-important functionary the "Parish Beadle." The history of the old London bellman may be gleaned from a series of tracts from the pen of those two prolific writers—Thomas Dekker and Samuel Rowlands. The first of these in the order of date is The Belman of London. Bringing to light the most notorious Villanies that are now practised in the Kingdome. Profitable for Gentlemen, Lawyers, Merchants, Citizens, Farmers, Masters of Households, and all sortes of Servants to marke, and delightfull for all Men to Reade. Printed at London for Nathaniel Butler, 4to. 1608. The author of this tract was Thomas Dekker. Its popularity was so great that it passed through three editions in the course of one year. The title-page above given is that of the first impression. It is adorned with an interesting woodcut of the bellman with bell, lantern, and halberd, followed by his dog. In the following year the same author printed his Lanthorne and Candle-light, or the Bellman's second Nights-walke. In which he brings to light a Brood of more strange Villanies then ever were till this yeare discovered, &c. London, printed for John Busbie, 4to. 1609. The success of the Bellman of London, which Dekker published anonymously, induced him to write this second part, to the dedication of which "to Maister Francis Mustian of Peckham" he puts his name, while he also admits the authorship of the first part. This is the second edition of Lanthorne and Candle-light, but it came out originally in the same year. On the title-page of this tract the bellman is represented in a night-cap, without his dog, and with a "brown bill" on his shoulder. Three years later Dekker produced his O per se O, or a New Cryer of Lanthorne and Candle-light. Being an Addition, or Lengthening of the Bellman's Second Night-walke, &c. Printed at London for John Busbie, 4to. 1612. Previous to the year 1648, this production went through no fewer than nine distinct editions, varying only in a slight degree from each other. One of these editions, now before me, has for its title English Villanies Eight severall times Prest to Death by the Printers, 4to. 1648. The author in this calls the bellman "the childe of darkeness, a common night-walker, a man that hath no man to wait upon him, but onely a dogge; one that was a disordered person, and at midnight would beat at men's doores bidding them (in meere mockerie) to looke to their candles, when they themselves were in their dead sleepes." The following verses are at the back of the title-page, preceded by a woodcut of a bellman. The same lines are also given, "with additions," in the earlier editions of the Villanies, but they are too indecent to quote:
"THE BELL-MAN'S CRY.
"Men and children, maids and wives,
'Tis not too late to mend your lives:
Midnight feastings are great wasters,
Servants' riots undoe masters.
When you heare this ringing bell,
Thinke it is your latest knell:
Foure a clock, the cock is crowing,
I must to my home be going:
When all other men doe rise,
Then must I shut up mine eyes."
The exceeding popularity of the Bellman of London induced Samuel Rowlands to bring out his Martin Mark-all, Beadle of Bridewell, his Defence and Answere to the Belman of London, discovering the long-concealed Originall and Regiment of Rogues when they first began to take head, and how they have succeeded, &c. Printed for John Budge, &c., 4to. 1610. The object of this publication was to expose Dekker's Bellman, which Rowlands says was only a "vamp up" of Harman's Caveat or Warening for Common Cursetors; but Harman himself was only a borrower, and the origin of his work is The Fraternitye of Vacabondes, printed prior to 1565. Greene's Ground-work of Coney-catching is another work which may be pointed out as having been taken from the same original. But as these tracts do not contain any "bellman's songs," I need not now dwell upon them.
Among the many curious musical works printed in London at the close of the sixteenth and the beginning of the following century, I can scarcely point out a more desirable volume than one with this title: Melismata, Musical Phansies fitting the Court, City, and Country Humours, to three, four, and five voices:
To all delightful, except to the spiteful;
To none offensive, except to the pensive.
London, printed by William Stansby, &c., 4to. 1611. The work is in five divisions, viz., 1. Court Varieties; 2. Citie Rounds; 3. Citie Conceits; 4. Country Rounds; 5. Country Pastimes. Among the "City Conceits" we have the following:
"A BEL-MAN'S SONG.
"Maides to bed, and cover coale,
Let the mouse out of her hole;
Crickets in the chimney sing,
Whilst the little bell doth ring:
If fast asleepe, who can tell
When the clapper hits the bell."
But perhaps the most curious collection of bellman's songs that has been handed down to us, is a small tract of twelve leaves entitled The Common Calls, Cries, and Sounds of the Bel-Man; or Diverse Verses to put us in minde of our Mortality, 12mo. Printed at London, 1639. This excessively rare and interesting "set of rhymes" is now before me, and from them I have extracted a few specimens of the genuine old songs of the London bellman of past times:—
"THE BEL-MAN'S SOUNDS.
"For Christmas Day.
"Remember all that on this morne,
Our blessed Saviour Christ was borne;
Who issued from a Virgin pure,
Our soules from Satan to secure;
And patronise our feeble spirit,
That we through him may heaven inherit."
"All you that doe the bell-man heere,
The first day of this hopefull yeare;
I doe in love admonish you,
To bid your old sins all adue,
And walk as God's just law requires,
In holy deeds and good desires,
Which if to doe youle doe your best,
God will in Christ forgive the rest."
"COMMON SOUNDS.
"The belman like the wakefull morning cocke,
Doth warne you to be vigilant and wise:
Looke to youre fire, your candle, and your locke,
Prevent what may through negligence arise:
So may you sleepe with peace and wake with joy,
And no mischances shall your state annoy."
"All you which in your beds doe lie,
Unto the Lord ye ought to cry,
That he would pardon all your sins;
And thus the bell-man's prayer begins:
Lord, give us grace our sinful life to mend,
And at the last to send a joyfull end:
Having put out your fire and your light,
For to conclude, I bid you all good night."
The collection of Bellman's songs here described is sometimes found appended to a little work entitled Time well Improved, or Some Helps for Weak Heads in their Meditations, 12mo. 1657. The latter publication is a reprint, with a new title-page, of Samuel Rowlands' Heaven's Glory, seeke it; Earth's Vanitie, fly it; Hell's Horror, fere it. But whether the songs in question were written, or merely collected by Rowlands, does not appear.
EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.
The Bellman (Vol. iii., p. 324.).—Your correspondent F. W. T. will find a very amusing sketch of a night-watchman in Gemälde aus dem häuslichen Leben und Erzählungen of G. W. C. Starke: whether it may help his inquiries or not I cannot say. It will at least inform him of the difficulties in which a conscientious and gallant watchman found himself when he attempted to improve on the time-honoured terms in which he had to "cry the hours."
BENBOW.
Birmingham.
THE TRAVELS OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN, AND THE AUTHOR OF THE SABBATH.
(Vol. iii., p. 305.)
1. In answer to the communication of A COLLECTOR, allow me to remark, that although Bruce did not publish his Travels till about seventeen years after his return to Great Britain, various details had got abroad; and, as usually happens, the actual facts, as given by himself, were either intentionally or accidentally misrepresented. Latterly, Bruce, indignant at the persecution he suffered, held his tongue, and patiently awaited the publication of his Travels to silence his accusers. Amongst other teasing occurrences, Paul Jodrell brought him on the stage in a clever after-piece which was acted in the Haymarket in 1779, and was published in 8vo. in 1780. A copy of this piece, which is called A Widow and no Widow, is now before me: and Macfable, a Scotch travelling impostor, was acted by Bannister; and the hits at Bruce cannot be mistaken.
Further, Bruce himself understood that he was the party meant by "Munchausen," and he complained of this and many other attacks to a distant relative of mine, who died a few years since, and who mentioned the circumstances to me; adding, that Bruce uniformly declared that the publication of his work would, he had no doubt, afford a triumphant answer to his calumniators.
Whilst on the subject of Munchausen, I may observe, that the story of the frozen words is to be found in Nugæ venales, or a Complaisant Companion, by Head, the author or compiler of the English Rogue. It occurs among the lies, p. 133.:
"A soldier swore desperately that being in the wars between the Russians and Polemen, there chanced to be a parley between the two generals where a river parted them. At that time it froze so excessive that the words were no sooner out of their mouths but they were frozen, and could not be heard till eleven days after, that a thaw came, when the dissolved words themselves made them audible to all."
As my copy has a MS. title, I should be obliged if any of your readers could furnish me with a correct one.
2. There were not "two James Grahame" cotemporaries. The author of Wallace was the author of The Sabbath, as well as of Poems and Tales, Scotch and English, thin 8vo., Paisley, 1794: a copy of which, as well as of Mary Stewart and Wallace, is in my tolerably extensive dramatic library. The latter is defective, ending at p. 88.; and was saved some years ago from a lot of the drama about to be consigned to the snuff-shop. Probably the same reasons which caused the suppression of a political romance from the same pen, and of which I have reason to believe the only existing copy is in my library, may have induced the non-completion of Wallace. Grahame, like many other young men just emerging at that particular time from the Scotch Universities, had imbibed opinions which in after years his good sense repudiated. He concealed his authorship of the Paisley poems (now very scarce), and the secret only transpired after his death. From the intimacy that subsisted between myself and his amiable nephew and namesake, whose untimely death, in 1817, at the age of twenty, I have never ceased to lament, I had the best means of learning many facts relative to the poet, who was, according to all accounts, one of the most estimable and truly pious men that ever lived. As to the crude opinions of early youth, can we forget that the truly admirable Southey was the author of Wat Tyler?
Whether there were only six copies of Wallace completed, I cannot say; but this much I can assert, that there were a great many printed, and that, as before mentioned, the greater part went to the snuff-shop; probably, because people were not fond of purchasing a drama wanting the title and end.
In concluding, I may mention, that the "Mary Stewart" in the 12mo. edition of the Poems of Grahame, is quite altered from the one printed in 8vo. in 1801.
J. M.
THE PENN FAMILY.
(Vol. iii., p. 409.)
In reply to your correspondent A. N. C., William Penn, eldest son of the famous Quaker, married Mary Jones, by whom he had three children, Gulielma Maria, Springett, and William. The latter had a daughter by his first wife, Miss Fowler, who married a Gaskill, from which marriage the present Penn Gaskills of Rolfe's Hould, Buckinghamshire, are descended. While writing on this subject, allow me to send you two other "notes."
Hugh David, a Welshman, who went out to America in the same vessel with William Penn, used to relate this curious anecdote of the state founder. Penn, he says, after watching a goat gnaw at a broom which lay on deck, called out to him, "Hugh, dost thou observe the goat? See what hardy fellows the Welsh are; how they can feed on a broom! However, Hugh, I am a Welshman myself, and will relate by how strange a circumstance our family lost their name. My grandfather was named John Tudor, and lived on the top of a hill or mountain in Wales. He was generally called John Penmunith, which in English is—John on the top of the hill. He removed from Wales into Ireland, where he acquired considerable property. Upon his return to his own country he was addressed by his friends and neighbours, not in the former way, but as Mr. Penn. He afterwards removed to London, where he continued to reside under the name of John Penn, which has since been the family name." David told this story to a Quaker, who wrote it down in these words, and gave the MS. to Robert Proud, the historian of Pennsylvania. The same David, in a copy of doggrel verses presented to Thomas Penn on a visit to Philadelphia in 1732, made an allusion to this descent. I quote four of the lines:
"For the love of him that now descended be,
I salute his loyal one of three,
That ruleth here in glory so serene,
I branch of Tudor, alias Thomas Penn."
This is at least curious. But I attach little credit to Mr. David's report. He certainly mistook or ill remembered Penn's words; as his grandfather was Giles Penn, and his ancestors for two generations before Giles are known to have been William.
The second note refers to Penn's descendants, and may claim a corner in your chronicle on more than one ground. William Penn was born in 1644: in 1844 his grandson, Granville Penn, well known as a writer on classical subjects, was still alive! The descendants of his first marriage with Miss Springett, six years ago were in the fifth and sixth generation after him; those by his second wife, Hannah Callowhill, in the second.
HEPWORTH DIXON.
ON THE WORD "PRENZIE" IN "MEASURE FOR MEASURE."
(Vol. iii., p. 401.)
I have read with attention the argument of your correspondent LEGES on the passage in Measure for Measure, in which the word "prenzie" occurs; and to much that he advances I should, like the modest orator who followed Mr. Burke, be contented to say "ditto." Nevertheless, as I cannot agree with him altogether, I beg permission to make a few remarks upon the question. The extent of my agreement with your correspondent will be shown in stating, that I think neither "priestly," "princely," nor "precise" to be the true word. We disagree, however, in the measure of our dislike; for of the three suggested corrections, "princely" is, to my mind, by far the best, and "precise," beyond all measure, the worst. Indeed, but that Mr. Knight has adopted the latter term, as well as Tieck, I should have regarded it as an instance of the difficulty in the way of the best qualified Germans of understanding the niceties of English meaning, or of feeling how far license might be tolerated in English versification. In adopting this term Mr. Knight appears to have forgotten that it has a special application as the Duke (Act I. Sc. 4.) uses it. Taken in connexion with the expressions "stands at a guard" and "scarce confesses," cautiously exact would appear to express the sense in a passage the whole spirit of which shows a scarcely disguised suspicion. The Duke, evidently, would not have been surprised, as Claudio was; and the expression appropriate to a close observer like the one, is a most unlikely epithet to have been chosen by the other. More fatal, however, is the destruction of the measure. Both instances go beyond all bounds of license. And though we may pass over the error in a critic so eminent even as Tieck, we need feel no compunction at exposing "earless on high" an Englishman who has pilloried so often and so mercilessly others for the same offence.
While, however, LEGES has shown good cause against the adoption of either of the above epithets, it does not appear to me that he has succeeded in establishing a case in favour of the word "pensive," which he proposes instead. In the first place, the passages your correspondent quotes, show Angelo to be "strict," "firm," "precise," to be "a man whose blood is very snow-broth," &c., but certainly not "pensive" in the common acceptation of the word. Secondly, he fails to show that, if Shakspeare meant by "pensive" anything more than thoughtful in the passages he cites, he meant anything so strong as religiously melancholy, which would be the sense required to be of any service to him as an epithet to the word "guards."
I will now, with your permission, call attention to what I consider an oversight of enquirers into this subject. The conditions required, as your correspondent well states, are "that the word adopted shall be (1) suitable to the reputed character of Angelo; (2) an appropriate epithet to the word 'guards;' (3) of the proper metre in both places; and (4) similar in appearance to the word 'prenzie.'" Now, it does not appear to have been considered that this similarity was to be sought in manuscript, and not in print; or, if considered, that much more radical errors arise from illegible manuscripts than the critics have allowed for. In his "Introductory Notice," Mr. Knight says the word (prenzie) "appears to have been inserted by the printer in despair of deciphering the author's manuscript." Yet in his note to the text he has printed it, together with three suggested emendations, as though he would call attention to the comparative similarity in print. But if, as all have hitherto assumed, the printer had read the first three or four letters correctly, is it not most probable that the context, with the word recurring within four lines, would have set him right? And his having twice inserted a word having no apparent meaning, is it not as probable that he was misled at the very beginning of the word by some careless combination of letters presenting accidentally the same appearance in the two instances? Having thus shown that the search for the true word may have been too restricted, I will proceed to make a final suggestion.
When Claudio exclaims in surprise—
"The ( ) Angelo!"
it is quite clear that the epithet which has to be supplied is one in total contrast to the character just given of him by Isabella. What is this character?
"This outward-sainted deputy,—
Whose settled visage and deliberate word
Nips youth i' the head, and follies doth emmew,
As falcon doth the fowl,—is yet a devil;
His filth within being cast, he would appear
A pond as deep as hell."
To this it appears to me Claudio would naturally exclaim:
"The saintly Angelo!"
and Isabella, as naturally following up the contrast, would continue—
"O, 'tis the cunning livery of hell,
The damned'st body to invest and cover
In saintly guards!"
My acquaintance with the handwriting of the age is very limited, but I have no doubt there are possible scrawls in which saintlie might be made to look like prenzie. If any one knows a better word, let him propose it; only I beg leave to warn him against pious, which I have already tried, and for various reasons rejected.
SAMUEL HICKSON.
St. John's Wood, May 24. 1851.
"Prenzie" in "Measure for Measure."—It must be gratifying to the correspondents of "NOTES AND QUERIES" to know that their suggestions receive attention and consideration, even though the result be unfavourable to their views. I am therefore induced to express, as an individual opinion, that the reading of the word "prenzie," as proposed by LEGES, does not appear more satisfactory than those already suggested in the various editions.
Of these, "precise" is by far the most consonant with the sense of the context; while "pensive," almost exclusively restricted to the single meaning, contemplative,—action of mind rather than strictness of manner,—is scarcely applicable to the hypocritical safeguard denounced by Isabella.
From the original word, too, the deviation of "precise" is less than that of "pensive." Since the former substitutes e for n, and transposes two letters in immediate proximity, while the latter substitutes v for r, and transposes it from one end of the word to the other.
But "precise" has the immeasurable advantage of repetition by Shakspeare himself, in the same play, applied to the same person, and coupled with the same word "guard," which is undoubtedly used in both instances in the metaphorical sense of defensive covering, and not in that of "countenance or demeanour," nor yet in that of "the formal trimmings of scholastic robes:"
"Lord Angelo is precise;
Stands at a guard with envy—
O, 'tis the cunning livery of hell
The damned'st body to invest and cover
In precise guards."
Therefore, while I cannot quite join with Mr. Knight in understanding "precise" as applicable to the formal cut of Angelo's garments, I nevertheless agree with him, on other grounds, in awarding a decided preference to the reading of the German critic.
A. E. B.
The Obsolete Word "Prenzie."—I agree with your correspondent LEGES, that the several emendations which have been suggested of the word "prenzie," do not "answer all the necessary conditions." LEGES says, "it is universally agreed that the word is a misprint."[5] Now misprinting may be traced to wrong letters being dropped in the boxes into which compositors put the types, and which generally are found to be neighbours (this is hardly intelligible but to the initiated). However, they will at once see that a more unfortunate illustration could hardly have been suggested. An error, made by the printer, often passes "the reader" or corrector, because it is something, in appearance and sound, like what should have been used. But in this word there is no assimilation of either to any one of the words conjectured to have been meant. Moreover, such a word would never have been twice used erroneously in the same piece. May it not rather have been an adaptation from the Norman prisé, or the Latin prenso, signifying assumed, seized, &c.? The sound comes much nearer, the sense would do. I hardly like to venture a suggestion where so many eminent commentators entertain other views; but it seems to me that it is a main excellence of your periodical to encourage such suggestions; and if mine be not too wild, your insertion of it will oblige
B. B.
[5] Old as well as modern typographers need have broad backs. Bale, in his Preface to the Image of both Churches, says, "But ij cruel enemies have my just labours had * * * The printers are the first whose heady hast, negligence, and couetousnesse commonly corrupteth all bokes * * * though they had in their handes ij learned correctours wh take all paynes possyble to preserue them."
P.S. May I end this note by adopting a Query many years since put forth by a highly valued and, alas! deceased friend and coadjutor in antiquarian pursuits,—"What is the date of that edition of the Bible which reads (Psalm cxix. 161.): Printers have persecuted me without a cause?"
On a Passage in "Measure for Measure" (Vol. iii., p. 401.).—One of the very few admissible conjectural emendations on Shakspeare made by the ingenious and gifted poet and critic Tieck, is that which Mr. Knight adopted, and I cannot think your correspondent LEGES happy in proposing to substitute "pensive."
There can be no doubt that "guards" in the passage in question signifies facings, trimmings, ornaments, and that it is used metaphorically for dress, habit, appearance, and not for countenance, demeanour.
The context clearly shows this:
"Claud. The precise Angelo?
"Isab. O, 'tis the cunning livery of hell,
The damned'st body to invest and cover
In prècise guards."
Isabella had before characterised Angelo—
"This outward-sainted deputy is yet a devil:"
and the Duke afterwards says:
"Oh, what may man within him hide,
Though angel on the outward side."
In Much Ado about Nothing (Act I. Sc. 1.), Benedick says:
"The body of your discourse is sometimes guarded with fragments, and the guards are but slightly basted on neither."
That the epithet "precise" is peculiarly applicable to the assumed sanctity of Angelo, the poet has decided in Act I. Sc. 4., where the Duke describes him thus:
"Lord Angelo is precise,
Stands at a guard with envy, scarce confesses
That his blood flows, or that appetite
Is more to bread than stone. Hence we shall see,
If power change purpose, what our seemers be."
"The 'pensive' Angelo" might be admissible, though not so appropriate as "the precise;" but "pensive" is inapplicable to the word "guards," in the sense which the poet everywhere attaches to it. In the second Scene of this Act the Clown says:
"Craft being richer than innocency, stands for the facing."
Your correspondent may be assured that the word he would substitute was never written or printed "penzive" in Shakspeare's time.
Mr. Collier's objection, that "precise" "sounds ill as regards the metre, the accent falling on the wrong syllable," has no weight with me, for it is doubtful whether the accent was not placed on the first syllable of "prècise" by the poet and his cotemporaries; but were this not the case, I should still very much prefer the reading proposed by Tieck, and adopted by Mr. Knight, to any other that has been proposed, and have little doubt that it is the true one.
S. W. SINGER.