Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 108, November 22, 1851 / A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.

by Various

Replies.

THE REVEREND RICHARD FARMER.
(Vol. iv., p. 379.)

Assuming that the principal ATROCITIES of the reverend Richard Farmer are his Essay on the learning of Shakespeare, and the substance of a note on Hamlet, Act V. Sc. 2., I shall transcribe, as a hint to the lovers of manly criticism, a general character of that writer, a character of his Essay, and the note in question:—

1. "His knowledge is various, extensive, and recondite. With much seeming negligence, and perhaps in later years some real relaxation, he understands more and remembers more about common and uncommon subjects of literature, than many of those who would be thought to read all the day and meditate half the night. In quickness of apprehension and acuteness of discrimination I have not often seen his equal."—Samuel PARR.

2. "It [the Essay on the learning of Shakespeare] may in truth be pointed out as a master-piece, whether considered with a view to the sprightliness and vivacity with which it is written, the clearness of the arrangement, the force and variety of the evidence, or the compression of scattered materials into a narrow compass; materials which inferior writers would have expanded into a large volume."—Isaac REED.

3. "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew [them how we will.] Dr. Farmer informs me, that these words are merely technical. A wool-man, butcher, and dealer in skewers, lately observed to him, that his nephew (an idle lad), could only assist him in making them;"—'he could rough-hew them, but I was obliged to shape their ends.' [To shape the ends of wool-skewers, i.e. to point them, requires a degree of skill; any one can rough-hew them.] Whoever recollects the profession of Shakespeare's father, will admit that his son might be no stranger to such a term [such terms]. I have [frequently] seen packages of wool pinn'd up with skewers.—STEEVENS.

This note was first printed by Malone in 1780, and was reprinted by him in 1790; the portions within brackets having been added in 1793? It is clear, from this statement, that it received the deliberate revision of its author. Now, I cannot deny that Farmer related the anecdote of the wool-man—suspicious as is the character of the witness, but I contend that the observations on it should be ascribed to Steevens alone; and so I shall leave your critic A. E. B. to his own reflections.

BOLTON CORNEY.

ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY.
(Vol. iv., p. 365.)

A SUBSCRIBER TO THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY has discovered one fault in one volume (published in 1844) of a series which now extends to sixty-three volumes; and on this one fault he builds a representation which implies, in general, incompetency in the editors, and neglect of proper supervision on the part of the committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library. I believe the character of the editions of most of the volumes sent out in this series is sufficiently known to theologians to render such a charge as this of little importance as respects their judgment. But it may not be so with many of the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES."

The gravamen of the charge rests on the importance of a certain passage of St. Jerome bearing on the Presbyterian controversy,—on the necessity for a familiarity with that controversy in an editor of Overall's Convocation Book,—and the consequent incompetency of a person not thus familiar with it to edit that work without, not the assistance merely, but the immediate supervision of the committee.

Now the subject of episcopacy is not, as the Subscriber alleges, "the principal subject" of this Book; it occupies 30 pages out of 272: nor is a familiarity with that controversy in any special way necessary for an editor of the volume. The subjects of which the Convocation Book treats are wide and varied, and such omnigenous knowledge as a familiar acquaintance with them implies, is not, nor could be, required in any editor, nor be expected by subscribers.

The committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library undertook to publish careful reprints of the works of our old divines; and had they simply reprinted with accuracy the Convocation Book, as published in 1690, they would have fulfilled their covenant with the subscribers. They did, however, much more.

It was known that the original MS. copy of this Book was preserved at Durham. The edition of 1690 had been printed from a transcript made by Archbishop Sancroft. The committee therefore engaged the services of a gentleman whose name is well known as an accurate editor of works existing in MS.

This gentlemen obtained access to all the known MSS. of the Convocation Book; viz. 1. The original copy, and papers of alterations suggested as it passed through the Upper House, preserved at Durham. 2. A cotemporary MS. of part of the first book, also preserved at Durham. 3. Archbishop Sancroft's Transcript, preserved at Emanuel College, Cambridge and 4. A MS. of the first book belonging to Bishop Barlow, preserved at Queen's College, Oxford. These MSS. were carefully collated, and the variations, in many respects curious and interesting, were printed at the bottom of the pages, and, as regards the 4th MS., at the end of the volume. The result is a correct edition of the text of this book, with all that can be learned of its variations—the book so highly extolled by your correspondent. And I hear no objection alleged against the care and faithfulness with which this part of the work has been executed: your correspondent does not appear to be aware of anything of the kind having been done.

But the editor went still further—he not only gave the subscribers so much more than they had bargained for, he added full references to the authorities quoted in the book; and when the passages were important, he printed them in full, and even added references to works in which the arguments were more largely handled. Now these references appear to me to amount to many hundreds. They begin with Josephus, and run through Fathers, councils, schoolmen, Roman Catholic controversialists, ecclesiastical historians, and the chroniclers of the Middle Ages: and, as far as I can judge in looking over the notes, not more than three or four of these passages have been undiscovered by the editor, and he honestly says he has not found them; one of these is the unlucky place of St. Jerome, which your correspondent happens to know something about.

The remarks of your correspondent have led me to examine the book, and I refer any one who has the least regard for candour or fairness, to do the same. I would ask them to judge it as a whole, to see the number and variety of the references, and the care which has been bestowed upon them; and to say whether—because he missed one passage, and knew not its importance—the editor can be fairly charged with incompetency; or the committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library accused of neglect, in leaving the work in his hands without exercising over him such supervision as implies the reading every sheet as it passed through the press; for assistance the editor had, and amply acknowledges that he received, at the hand of the superintending editor.

ANOTHER SUBSCRIBER TO THE
ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY.

GENERAL JAMES WOLFE.
(Vol. iv., pp. 271. 322.)

Many letters of Wolfe's will be found published in the Naval and Military Gazette of the latter part of last and early part of this year.

By the statement of your correspondent MR. COLE, Wolfe was promoted as captain in Burrell's regiment (at present the 4th, or king's own) in 1744. Now Burrell's regiment took the left of the first line at Culloden, so that James Wolfe, unless absent on leave, or employed on particular duty, must have been in that action. The left of the second line was occupied by "Colonel Wolfe's" regiment (now the 8th or "king's"). See the "Rebellion of 1745," by Robert Chambers, in Constable's Miscellany, vol. xvi. p. 86. Captains of nineteen were common enough at that period, but Wolfe is the only one whose name has excited attention.

As to Wolfe's having been "the youngest general ever intrusted with such a responsible command" as that at Quebec, your correspondent surely forgets Napoleon in modern, and the Black Prince in more remote times.

I have seen at Mr. Scott's, of Cahircon, in the co. Clare, an engraving of Wolfe: he is designated as the "Hero of Louisburgh," and is represented with his right to the spectator, the right hand and arm raised as if enforcing an order. The features are small, the nose rather "cocked," and the face conveys the idea of spirit and determination; he wears a very small three-cocked hat, with a plain black cockade, a sort of frock coat reaching to the knees, where it is met by long boots; there are no epaulets, a twist belt confines the coat, and supports a cartouche-box in front, and a bayonet at the right side, and he carries a fusil slung from his right shoulder "en bandouillière."

It is said that the father of Wolfe was an Irishman, and I have been shown in the co. Wicklow the farm on which it is said that James Wolfe was born. It lies near Newtown-Mount-Kennedy. Be that as it may, the name has been made celebrated in Ireland within the last half century by three individuals: first, the Lord Kilwarden, who was murdered during Emmett's rising in 1803; secondly, the late Chief Baron, who spelt his name "with a difference;" and last, not least, the author of the celebrated lines on the "Burial of Sir John Moore."

KERRIENSIS.

PUNISHMENT OF EDWARD OF CAERNARVON BY HIS FATHER.—CHARACTER OF EDWARD I.
(Vol. iv., p. 338.)

I think considerable light is thrown upon this very remarkable incident by a letter of the prince himself to the Earl of Lincoln, dated Midhurst, June 14, which appears upon the Roll of that prince's letters lately discovered at the Chapter House, Westminster. (See Ninth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, App. II., No. 5.) This letter has been printed in one of the volumes of the Sussex Archæological Society, having been written from that county. For such of your readers as may not have either of these books at command, I will give the material part of the letter, translated:

"On Sunday, the 13th of June, we came to Midhurst, where we found the lord the king, our father; the Monday following, on account of certain words which, it had been reported to the king, had taken place between us and the Bishop of Chester, he was so enraged with us that he has forbidden us, or any of our retinue, to dare to enter his house; and he has forbidden all the people of his household and of the exchequer to give or lend us anything for the support of our household. We are staying at Midhurst to wait his pleasure and favour, and we shall follow after him as well as we are able, at a distance of ten or twelve miles from his house, until we have been able to recover his good will, which we very much desire."

The roll contains several letters which show how seriously the prince was affected by his father's displeasure, and how the king was appeased.

By the letter above quoted, the "minister" appears to have been the Bishop of Chester, then treasurer of the royal household. But the connexion between the prince's case and that of William de Brewosa does not appear, unless they were on intimate terms, as is not improbable: and the punishment of the prince himself is, in my opinion, referred to as a precedent or justification of the punishment imposed upon Brewes. That the severe punishment so imposed was richly deserved none can doubt who has read the report on the Roll: but an unfortunate error in the press[2] makes it appear that the prince, and not De Brewes, was the culprit, and performed the penance.

[2] Page 339. col. 1. line 46., where "Edward" is printed instead of "William de Brewes."

To return to the prince's offence and punishment. He appears to have been nearly starved into submission, as the royal prohibition against supplying him with articles or money was obliged to be removed by a Letter Close directed to all the sheriffs, dated Ospring, 22nd July.

The whole transaction is highly characteristic of the firmness of the king. Whether the prince's letters which I have referred to make out a case of harshness, as regards some other circumstances, I will not now trouble you with. But while examining cotemporary documents illustrative of the prince and his correspondents, I met with an entry upon the Close Roll (33 Edw. I.) too strikingly illustrative of the determination and caution of Edward I. to be allowed to remain in its present obscurity.

On the 27th November the prince addressed a letter to Master Gerard de Pecoraria, earnestly begging him to favour and forward the affairs of Ralph de Baldok, then Bishop Elect of London. The "affairs" in question were the removal of certain scruples instilled into the Papal ear against the approval of the bishop elect; a matter generally involving some diplomacy and much money. Master Gerard was employed by the Pope to collect various dues in England; and so his good will was worth obtaining. But the following Letter Close will show how he received his "quietus," as far as the King of England was concerned:

"The King to Ralph de Sandwich.—By reason of the excessive and indecent presumption with which Gerard de Pecoraria is making oppressive levies and collections of money in various places; by whose authority we know not, for he will not show it; and inasmuch as the same is highly derogatory to our crown, and injurious to our people, and many complaints have been made against him on that account; We command you to take the said Gerard before the Mayor and Sheriffs of London, and there warn him to cease from making the said levies, and to quit the kingdom in six days, provided that at such warning no public notary be present, so that the warning be given to the said Gerard alone, no one else hearing. And be you careful that no one but yourself see this letter, or get a copy thereof."

Who can doubt that such a mandate was strictly carried out?

I regret that my memoranda do not preserve the original language.

JOSEPH BURTT.

MR. GIBSON will find that this story, as well as that relative to Sir William Gascoigne, is also told by MR. FOSS (Judges of England, vol. iii. pp. 43. 261.), who suggests that the offence committed by Prince Edward was an insult to Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, occasioned probably by the boldness with which that prelate, while treasurer, corrected the insolence of Peter de Gaveston, and restrained the Prince's extravagance. (Ibid. p. 114.)

R. S. V. P.

ELIZABETH JOCELINE'S LEGACY TO AN UNBORNE CHILD.
(Vol. iv., p. 367.)

Your correspondent J. M. G., whose letter is inserted in your 106th Number, labours under various mistakes relating to this small volume. The first edition was not printed in 1684, but more than sixty years earlier. Moreover, that edition, or at least what the Rev. C. H. Craufurd appended to his Sermons in 1840 as a reprint, is not a genuine or faithful republication of the original work. I have for several years possessed a copy of the third impression, Printed at "London, by Iohn Hauiland, for Hanna Barres, 1625;" and of this third impression a fac-simile reprint has passed through the press of Messrs. Blackwood in Edinburgh, which new edition corresponds literatim et verbatim (line for line and page for page) with the earliest impression known to exist, which differs materially in several passages from the reprint published by Mr. Craufurd. This new edition is accompanied by a long preface or dissertation containing many particulars relating to the authoress and her relatives, and to a number of ladies of high station and polished education, who during the period intervening between the Reformation in England and the Revolution in 1688, distinguished themselves by publishing works characterized by exalted piety and refined taste. With regard to Mrs. Joceline, no printed work appears to have preserved correct information. Genealogists seem to have conspired to change her Christian name from Elizabeth to Mary or Jane. The husband is supposed to have sprung from an old Cambridgeshire family, the Joscelyns of Hogington, now called Oakington, the name of a parish adjoining to Cottenham. The writer of the preface seems rather disposed to trace his parentage to John Joscelyn (Archbishop Parker's chaplain), who, according to Strype, was an Essex man.

But I have probably exceeded the bounds allotted to an answer to a Query.

J. L.

Edinburgh.

The Mother's Legacy to her unborne Child is reprinted for the benefit of the Troubridge National Schools, and can be procured at Hatchard's, Piccadilly.

J. S.