Replies.
PRINCESSES OF WALES.
(Vol. iii., p. 477.)
The statement of Hume, that Elizabeth and Mary were created Princesses of Wales, rests, I am disposed to think, on most insufficient authority; and I am surprised that so illustrious an author should have made an assertion on such slender grounds, which carries on the face of it a manifest absurdity, and which was afterwards retracted by the very author from whom he borrowed it.
Hume's authority is evidently Burnet's History of the Reformation; (indeed, in some editions your correspondent G. would have seen Burnet referred to) in which are the following passages (vol. i. p. 71., Oxford edition, 1829):
"The King, being out of hopes of more children, declared his daughter (Mary) Princess of Wales, and sent her to Ludlow to hold her court there, and projected divers matches for her."
Again, p. 271.:
"Elizabeth was soon after declared Princess of Wales; though lawyers thought that against law, for she was only heir presumptive, but not apparent, to the crown, since a son coming after he must be preferred. Yet the king would justify what he had done in his marriage with all possible respect; and having before declared the Lady Mary Princess of Wales, he did now the same in favour of the Lady Elizabeth."
Hume's statement is taken almost verbatim from this last passage of Burnet, who, however, it will be observed, does not say "created," but "declared" Princess of Wales; the distinction between which is obvious. He was evidently not aware that Burnet afterwards corrected this statement in an Appendix, entitled, "Some Mistakes in the first Portion of this History communicated to me by Mr. William Fulman, Rector of Hampton Meysey, in Gloucestershire." In this is the following note, in correction of the passages I have quoted (Burn. Hist. Ref., vol. iv. p. 578.):
"Here and in several other places it is supposed that the next heir apparent of the crown was Prince of Wales. The heir apparent of the crown is indeed prince, but not, strictly speaking, of Wales, unless he has it given him by creation; and it is said that there is nothing on record to prove that any of Henry's children were ever created Prince of Wales. There are indeed some hints of the Lady Mary's being styled Princess of Wales; for when a family was appointed for her, 1525, Veysey, bishop of Exeter, her tutor, was made president of Wales. She also is said to have kept her house at Ludlow; and Leland says, that Tekenhill, a house in those parts, built for Prince Arthur, was prepared for her. And Thomas Linacre dedicates his Rudiments of Grammar to her, by the title of Princess of Cornwall and Wales."
This is one of the many instances of the inaccuracy, carelessness, and (where his religious or political prejudices were not concerned) credulity of Burnet. Whatever he found written in any previous historian, unless it militated against his preconceived opinions, he received as true, without considering whether the writer was entitled to credit, and had good means of gaining information. Now, neither Hall, Holinshed, Polydore Virgil, nor (I think) Cardinal Pole, contemporary writers, say anything about Mary or Elizabeth being Princesses of Wales. The only writer I am acquainted with who does say any such thing, previous to Burnet, and whose authority I am therefore compelled to suppose the latter relied on, when he made the statement which he afterwards contradicted, is Pollini, an obscure Italian Dominican, who wrote a work entitled L'Historia Ecclesiastica della Rivoluzion d'Inghilterra; Racolta da Gravissimi Scrittori non meno di quella Nazione, che dell' altri, da F. Girolamo Pollini dell' ordine de Predicatori, della Provincio de Toscana: Roma, Facciotti, 1594. In book i. chapter ii. page 7. of this author is the following statement, which I translate, speaking of the Princess Mary:
"As the rightful heir of the throne she was declared by Henry, her father, Princess of Wales, which is the ordinary title borne by the first-born of the king; since the administration and government of this province is allowed to no other, except to that son or daughter of the king, to whom, by hereditary right, on the death of the king the government of the realm falls.... In the same way that the first-born of the French king is called the Dauphin, so the first-born of the English king is called Prince of Britain, or of Wales, which is a province of that large island, lying to the west, and containing four bishoprics. Which Mary, with the dignity and title of Princess, assisted by a most illustrious senate, and accompanied by a splendid establishment, administered with much prudence," &c.
Pollini's history is, as may be supposed, of very little historical value; and one feels surprised that, on a point like the present, Burnet should have allowed himself to be misled by him. But still more remarkable, in my opinion, is the use Miss Strickland makes of this author. After several times giving him as her authority at the foot of the page, by the name of Pollino, but without giving the least information as to the name of his work, or who he was, she has the following note relating to the passage I have quoted (Lives of the Queens of England, vol. v. p. 156.):
"The Italian then carefully explains that the Princes of Wales were in the same position, in regard to the English crown, as the Dauphins were to that of France. Pollino must have had good documentary evidence, since he describes Mary's council and court, which he calls a senate, exactly as if the Privy Council books had been open to him. He says four bishops were attached to this court."
It seems to one a singular mode of proving that Pollini must have had good documentary evidence, by saying that he speaks exactly and positively; and I would ask what good documentary evidence would a Florentine friar be likely to have, who certainly never was in England, and in all probability never far from his convent? But it is the statement about the bishops that I wish more particularly to allude to, as I can find no statement to that effect in Pollini, and can only suppose that Miss Strickland misunderstood the passage (quoted above) where he says the province of Wales contains four bishoprics.
I think I have now shown that Hume's statement rests on no sufficient grounds as to the authority from whence he derived it. But there is yet another reason against it, which is this: it would be necessary, before Elizabeth was created Princess of Wales, that Mary should be deprived of it; and this could only be done by a special act of parliament. But we find no act of such a nature passed in the reign of Henry VIII. There are other reasons also against it; but having, I think, said enough to show the want of any foundation for the assertion, I shall not trouble you any further.
C.C.R.
Linc. Coll., Oxon., June 26.
THE LATE MR. WILLIAM HONE.
(Vol. iii., p. 477.)
In reply to the inquiry of E.V. relative to the conversion of the late Mr. William Hone, I send a slight reminiscence of him, which may perhaps be generally interesting to the readers of the Every Day Book. It was soon after the period when Mr. Hone (at the time afflicted both in "body and estate") began to acknowledge the truths of Christianity, that I accidentally had an interview with him, though a perfect stranger. Our conversation was brief, but it turned upon the adaptation of the Christian religion to the wants of man, in all the varied stations in which he may be placed on earth, independent of its assurance of a better state hereafter. With child-like meekness, and earnest sincerity, the once contemner and reviler of Christianity testified to me that all his hope for the future was in the great atonement made to reconcile fallen man to his Creator.
Before we parted, I was anxious to possess his autograph, and asked him for it; as I had made some collection towards illustrating, his Every Day Book, to which it would have been no inconsiderable addition. After a moment of deep thought, he presented me with a slip of paper inscribed as follows, in his small and usual very neat hand:—
"'He that increaseth knowledge
increaseth sorrow.' ——[3]
"Think on this.
"W. HONE.
"15 January, 1839."
[3] Ecclesiastes, i. 18.
Shortly after his death, the following appeared in the Evangelical Magazine, which I transcribed at the time:—
"The following was written by Mr. Hone on a blank leaf in his pocket Bible. On a particular occasion he displaced the leaf, and presented it to a gentleman whom we know, and who has correctly copied its contents for publication.
LINES
Written before Breakfast, 3rd June 1834, the Anniversary of my Birthday in 1780.
'The proudest heart that ever beat,
Hath been subdued in me;
The wildest will that ever rose,
To scorn Thy cause, and aid Thy foes,
Is quell'd, my God, by Thee.
'Thy will, and not my will, be done;
My heart be ever Thine;
Confessing Thee, the mighty Word,
I hail Thee Christ, my God, my Lord,
And make Thy Name my sign.
'W. HONE.'"
At the sale of Mr. Hone's books, I purchased a bundle of religious pamphlets; among them was Cecil's Friendly Visit to the House of Mourning. From the pencillings in it, it appears to have afforded him much comfort in the various trials, mental and bodily, which it is well known clouded his latter days.
WILLIAM BARTON.
19. Winchester Place,
Southwark Bridge Road.
SHAKSPEARE'S "SMALL LATIN."—HIS USE OF "TRIPLE."
(Vol. iii., p. 497.)
In reference to the observations of A. E. B., I beg leave to say that, in speaking of Shakspeare as a man who had small Latin, I intended no irreverence to his genius. I am no worshipper of Shakspeare, or of any man; but I am willing to do full justice, and to pay all due veneration, to those powers which, with little aid from education, exalted their possessor to the heights of dramatic excellence.
As to the extent of Shakspeare's knowledge of Latin, I think that it was well estimated by Johnson, when he said that "Shakspeare had Latin enough to grammaticize his English." Had he possessed much more than was sufficient for this purpose, Ben Jonson would hardly have called his knowledge of the language small; for about the signification of small there can be no doubt, or about Ben's ability to determine whether it was small or not. But this consideration has nothing to do with the appreciation of Shakspeare's intellect: Shakspeare might know little of Latin and less of Greek, and yet be comparable to Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides; as Burns, who may be said to have known no Latin, is comparable, in many passages, even to Horace. "The great instrument of the man of genius," says Thomas Moore, "is his own language," which some knowledge of another language may assist him to wield, but to the wielding of which the knowledge of another language is by no means necessary. The great dramatists of Greece were, in all probability, entirely ignorant of any language but their own; but such ignorance did not incapacitate them from using their own with effect, nor is to be regarded as being, in any way, any detraction from their merits. Shakspeare had but a limited acquaintance with Latin, but such limited acquaintance caused no debilitation of his mental powers, nor is to be mentioned at all to his disparagement. I desire, therefore, to be acquitted, both by A. E. B. and by all your other readers, of entertaining any disrespect for Shakspeare's high intellectual powers.
As to his usage of the word triple, that it is "fairly traced to Shakspeare's own reading" might not unreasonably be disputed. We may, however, concede, if A. E. B. wishes, that it was derived from his own reading, as no trace of its being borrowed is to be found. But I am not sure that if other writers had taken pains to establish this use of the word in our tongue, its establishment would have been much of a "convenient acquisition." Had any man who has three sisters, closely conjoined in bonds of amity, the privilege of calling any one of them a triple sister, I do not consider that he or his language would be much benefited. Ovid, I fear, employed triplex "improperly," as Warburton says that Shakspeare employed triple, when he spoke of the Fates spinning triplici pollice. I cannot find that any writer has imitated him. To call the Fates triplices deæ (Met. viii. 481.), or triplices sorores (Met. viii. 453.), was justifiable; but to term any one of them triplex dea, or to speak of her as spinning triplici fuso or triplici pollice, was apparently to go beyond what the Latin language warranted. A. E. B. rightly observes that triple must be explained as signifying "belonging to three conjoined;" but the use of it in such a sense is not to be supported either by custom or reason, whether in reference to the Latin language or to our own.
MR. SINGER, in his observations on "captious," has a very unlucky remark, which A. E. B. unluckily repeats—"We, no doubt, all know," says MR. SINGER, "by intuition as it were, what Shakspeare meant." If we all know Shakspeare's meaning by intuition, how is it that the "true worshippers of Shakspeare" dispute about his meaning?
J. S. W.
Stockwell, June 27. 1851.