DE REBUS SEPTENTRION ALIBUS.

At page 371. of Vol. iii. I addressed a Query as to the best mode of reaching Iceland. I have since ascertained that the principal communication with Iceland is from Copenhagen; whence during the season sail a monthly packet, sundry trading-vessels, and sometimes a Danish frigate. Danish vessels also call at Hull and Liverpool to load with salt for Iceland. The Norwegian trade thither has ceased since 1814, and it has now scarcely any intercourse except with Denmark. A few dirty smacks of fifty or sixty tons, from the Thames and another place or two, resort there to fish, they do not go into port. There is no further mode of reaching that interesting and remarkable island, except per yacht, or by one of the steam-excursions which are occasionally advertised in The Times. The Danish steamers mentioned in Murray's Guide-book have discontinued running.

Murray gives but little respecting, Iceland, but that little is good. The best book on it that I have met with is, An Historical and Descriptive Account of Iceland, Greenland, and the Faröe Islands, with Illustrations of their Natural History, by James Nicol: Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1844. It embodies the substance of all the best information in small space. The last published English visit to Iceland seems to be that of Barrow in 1835 but a much more recent account has been published in German by that enterprising lady Ida Pfeiffer, of a voyage she made there. An interesting statement of the diseases and sanatory condition of Iceland is found in the British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review for 1850, vol v., being a notice of a work entitled, Island undersögt fra lægevidenskabeligt Synspunct, by Dr. Schleisner, Fellow of the Royal Medical Society of Copenhagen, who went to Iceland purposely to examine into its medical condition.

Of works on Norway, Murray's Hand-book is the best, and contains a list of books on Scandinavia published up to 1848. Besides these, there are the following:—

1. Scandinavian Sketches; or, a Tour in Norway. By Lieutenant Breton, R.N.

2. Wittich's Visit to the Western Coast of Norway: London, 1848. Contains accurate physical descriptions of the country.

3. Forester's Norway in 1848 and 1849: London, 1850. Conveys to the mind an excellent and very complete picture of Norwegian scenery, travelling, manners and customs, &c., and gives much valuable information. The plates are very truthful and characteristic.

4. Ross's Yacht Voyage to Norway is not worth much; and

5. Jones's Angler's Guide to Norway is worth less.

6. Barrow's Visit to Iceland by way of Trondhjem in 1834 contains much about some parts of Norway.

Written in Norwegian, and published in Christiania, is a fine work entitled, Norge Fremstillet i Tegninger, 1848. The "Tegninger" are lithographs, eighty-two in number, and well executed and the descriptions are highly interesting. There is also now publishing a series of coloured plates of the Norwegian costumes, denominated Norske Nationaldragter tegnede efter Naturen af forskjellige Norske kunstnere, og ledsagede med en oplysende Text: Christiania, 1850. The plates are highly coloured, and the letter-press is in Norsk, German, and English. Mr. Schirmer of Christiania is also publishing a series of magnificent architectural drawings of the old cathedrals of Norway. There are several excellent maps of Norway, of which Munch's is the best but the only geological map is a very large and complicated one in many sheets, I think by Professor Keilhau. On the botany of Norway there are, Hartmann, Handbok i Skandinaviens Flora: Stockholm, 1843, and Lund, Haandbog i Christianias phanerogame Flora: Christiania, 1846. The Danish pharmacopœia is still employed by the Norwegian apothecaries. On the dreadful disease found in the Bergen-Stift, called Elephantiasis Græcorum, or Spedalskhed, Doctors Danielssen and Boeck have put forth a work in French and Norwegian, embodying an immense deal of research and information, accompanied with an Atlas of twenty-four coloured plates. They consider this disease to be identical with the leprosy of Scripture. Their book was published in 1847; and contains references to every known account of the disease up to that date, in a bibliographical list of great length. An article upon it, comprehending a short but complete account of the disease, may be found in the British and Foreign Med. Chir. Review for 1850, vol. v.

Of Norwegian national songs and music, there are, besides Lindeman's Norske Field-Melodier, the following publications:—

1. Folke Sange og Melodier, Fædrelandske og Fremmelse, udsalte for Pianoforte, 1844.

2. Sangsamling for Norske Selskabskredse: udgiven af det Norske Studenter-samfund: Christiania, 1839. The students of the Christiania University have much taste for music, and are very fond of singing in parts and choruses.

3. Scandinaviske Folkesange udsalte for Pianoforte af Niels W. Gade.

4. Norske Viser og Stev i Folkesproget. Anden Udgave: Christiania, 1848. This contains forty-three national ballads, mostly in provincial dialects, and consequently very difficult to translate but, in many respects, extremely curious, referring to the manners, customs, and superstitions of the peasantry. The new edition is edited by P. A. Munch, Professor of History in the University of Christiania. The notes of some national airs are added at the end.

Professor Munch also published in 1850, Symbolæ ad Historiam Antiquiorem Rerum Norvegicarum. I. Breve Chronicon Norvegiæ. II. Genealogia Comitum Orcadensium. III. Catalogus Regum Norvegiæ. E. Codice quoad magnam partem hactenus inedito, et in orcadibus, ut videtur, medio sæculo XVto conscripto. Appended to it is the following curious genealogy:—


"SANCTUS OLAUS, rex Norveg., ob. 1030, pr. kal. Sept. Uxor Astrida, filia Olai regis Sveciæ.
\|
Ulfhilda, mar. Ordulfus, dux Saxoniæ, ob. 1074.
\|
Magnus, dux Sax. ob. 1106.
\|
Ulfhilda, mar. Henricus Niger, dux Bavariæ.
\|
Henricus Superbus, dux Bavariæ et Saxoniæ, ob. 1130.
\|
Henricus Leo, id. ob. 1195.
\|
Wilhelmus, dux, ob. 1213.
\|
Otto Puer, dux Brunsvico-Luneburgensis, ob. 1252.
\|
Albertus Magnus, dux Brunsv. ob. 1279.
\|
Albertus pinguis, dux Br. Göttingen, ob. 1318.
\|
Magnus pius, dux Brunsv. ob. 1368.
\|
Magnus Torquatus, dux Brunsv. ob. 1373.
\|
—————————————————————————
\|	\|
Bernhardus, dux Lun. ob. 1434.	Henricus, dux Br. ob. 1416.
\|	\|
Fridericus pius, id. ob. 1478.	Wilhelmus victoriosus, dux Br. ob. 1482.
\|	\|
Otto Magnanimus, id. ob. 1471.	Wilhelmus junior, dux Br. Guelferb. ob. c. 1500.
\|	\|
Henricus junior, id.ob. 1532.	Henricus malus, dux Br. Guelf. ob. 1514.
\|	\|
Ernestus, d. Cellæ, ob. 1546.	Henricus junior, id. ob. 1575.
\|	\|
Wilhelmus junior, d. Lun. ob. 1592.	Julius, id. ob. 1589.
\|	\|
Georgius, id. ob. 1641.	Henricus Julius, id. ob. 1613.
\|	\|
Ernestus Augustus, Elector Hannov. 1698.	Sophia Hedviga, ob. 1642, nupta Ernesto Casimiro, Com. de Nassau-Dietz.
\|	\|
Georgius I. rex Brit. ob. 1727.	Wilhelmus Fridericus, com. de N.-D. vicerex Fresiæ, ob. 1664.
\|	\|
Georgius II. rex Br. ob. 1760.	Henricus Casimirus, pr. de Nassau-Dietz, v. Fresiæ, ob. 1696.
\|	\|
Fridericus Ludovicus, princ. Brit. ob. 1751.	Johannes Willelmus Friso, pr. de Nassau-Dietz, vic. her. Fresiæ, ob. 1711.
\|	\|
Georgius III. rex Br. ob. 1820.	Willelmus Carolus Henricus Friso, pr. Arausionensis, vic. her. Bat. ob. 1751.
\|	\|
Edwardus Augustus, dux Cantiæ,ob. 1820.	Willelmus V. pr. Arausionensis, vic. her. Bat. ob. 1806.
\|	\|
VICTORIA, regina Britanniarum.	Willelmus I. rex Bat. ob. 1843.
	\|
	—————————————————————————
	\|	\|
	Willelmus II. rex Bat. ob. 1849.	Willelmus Fridericus Carolus, pr. Bat.
	\|	\|
	WILLELMUS III. rex Bat.	WILLELMINA FRIDERICA ALEXANDRINA, Anna Ludovica, nata 5 Aug. 1828."

Further elucidating the ancient history of Scandinavia are the following works:—

Fagskrinna. Kortfaltet Norsk Konge-Saga fra slutningen af det 12te eller begyndelsen af det 13de aarhundrede. Udgivet af P. A. Munch, Professor i Historie, og C. R. Unger, Stipendiat i Nordisk Sprogvidenskab: Christiania, 1847. In Icelandic, with Norwegian introduction and notes. C. M. Falsen, Geografisk Beskrivelse over Kongeriget Norge og Udsigt over dets ældre Historie, som Indledning til Norges udförlige Historie, 1821; and Norges Historie under Kong Harald Haarfager og hans mandlige Descendenter, 1824, by the same author.

The various works and sources of information above mentioned will be found to lead on to many others, so that it will not be difficult for those who wish it, and can afford the time, to enter fully into the highly interesting and curious history of the North—a subject which once entered upon is not easy to quit. The literature of Scandinavia is considerable: although that of Denmark and of Norway is less known, distinctively, in this country, than the Swedish portion; partly, no doubt, because the semi-barbarous Gothic character is still much used instead of the clearer Roman type. English literature is much liked in Norway, and they have translations of Scott, Bulwer, Laing, Washington Irving, and some others.

I am very anxious to obtain information on the unanswered points referred to at page 370.

WILLIAM E.C. NOURSE.

Postscriptum.—In enumerating recent works on Iceland and the North, I omitted to mention Dillon's Winter in Iceland and Lapland, 2 volumes, London, 1840 an excellent work not sufficiently known.

The trading vessels to Iceland are exceedingly rough and dirty. The Dart, Madeira packet, a fine brig of 350 tons, will probably go thither this summer with passengers.

W. E. C. N.

HUGH HOLLAND AND HIS WORKS.
(Vol. iii., p. 427.)

MR. BOLTON CORNEY having favoured your readers with "a notice of some of the statements" contained in my article above-named, I deem it a duty incumbent upon myself to make a few remarks upon these "notices," which I shall do in the briefest manner possible.

The object of my paper was to call attention to a forgotten poet, and to endeavour to obtain some information regarding the locality of his manuscripts. Had I been writing the life of Hugh Holland, I should, of course, have investigated the dates of his biography and works more fully than it was necessary to do for a trifling article like that in question. But, as it is, the facts and dates which I have given are all derived from creditable and well-known sources and all the facts and dates in question are the facts and dates of older writers than myself, as will appear by the following.

1. "He was born at Denbigh in 1558." He was born at Denbigh, but not in 1558. In 1625 he thus expressed himself:

"Why was the fatall spinster so vnthrifty?

To draw my third four yeares to tell and fifty!"

Answer. Where are these lines taken from, and what do they mean? What is the proof that they relate to Hugh Holland? "Hugh Holland, an esquire's son of Denbighshire," was matriculated at Baliol College, Oxford, anno 1582, aged twenty-four. My authority is Wood's Athenæ, edit. Bliss, vol. ii. p. 560.

2. He did not quit Westminster school till 1589. If ever he pursued his studies at Baliol College, it was some ten years afterwards.

Answer. Who says he did not quit Westminster school till 1589?—Joseph Welch, or MR. BOLTON CORNEY? Allowing it to be the former, are all Welch's dates correct? I have Wood's authority that Hugh Holland matriculated at Baliol in 1582.

3. "About 1590 he succeeded to a fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge." In 1589 he was elected from Westminster to a scholarship in Trinity College, Cambridge—not to a fellowship. At a later period of life he may have succeeded to a fellowship.

Answer. My words are, "about 1590 he succeeded to a fellowship." MR. CORNEY adds, "In 1589" he was elected to a scholarship. I must again refer to honest old Wood, who expressly says that he was a fellow of Trinity College.

4. "Holland published two works: 1. Monumenta Sepulchralia Sancti Pauli, Lond. 1613, 4to. 2. A Cypress Garland, &c., Lond. 1625, 4to." Hugh Holland was not the compiler of the first-named work: the initials H. H. admit of another interpretation.

Answer. Why does not MR. CORNEY give your readers his interpretation of the mysterious "H. H.?" One Henry Holland was the author of A Booke of Kings, being the true Effigies of our English Kings, &c.: Lond. 1618, 4to. Is this the interpretation? If so, I ask for the proof.

5. The dates assigned to the Monumenta Sancti Pauli are "1613, 1616, 1618, and 1633." Here are three errors in as many lines. The first edition is dated in 1614. The edition of 1633, which is entitled Ecclesia Sancti Pauli illustrata, is the second. No other editions exist.

Answer. The edition of 1614 was certainly the first, and that of 1633 certainly the second. In the preface to the latter the author says, "My first collection of these Monumentall Epitaphs I published anno 1614, full nineteen yeeres sithence." My authority, however, for the "three errors in as many lines" is Cole's Collections for an Athenæ Cantabrigenses. (See Brydges Restituta, vol. iii p. 215.)

6. "Holland also printed a copy of Latin verses before Alexander's Roxana, 1632." No such work exists. He may have printed verses before the Roxana of W. Alabaster, who was his brother-collegian.

Answer. My authority again is Cole's Collections in Restituta, vol. iii. p. 215, where, under the head of "Hugh Holland, fellow of Trinity College," is this line: "Has a copy of Latin verses before Dr. Alexander's Roxana, 1632." I shall therefore leave the shade of Cole and MR. BOLTON CORNEY to settle the question as to whether any such work exists.

I have now disposed of the six statements, and have only to add, that the authorities which I have consulted are those which I have named.

EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

"PRENZIE" IN "MEASURE FOR MEASURE"
(Vol. iii., p. 522)

The suggestion of primzie is too ingenious, and too apparently happy, to be passed over without adducing some reason for refusing to give it the preference to Tieck's reading of precise.

The terminal adjuncts zie, sie, some, generally imply some playful diminutive variation of the original word, certainly they never add force or gravity to it: prim, in itself, is a diminutive of primitive, and applies more to external appearance than to internal character. I do not think, therefore that even prim would be a word sufficiently dignified for the situation and context; much less is its diminutive primsie.

It seems to me that the character of Angelo is generally mistaken; he is too often looked upon as a mere hypocrite, whereas Shakspeare depicts him, before his fall, as a rigid but sincere ascetic. This view of his character accounts for his final condemnation of Claudio: he has no mercy for the crime, even while committing it himself; and he was just the man who, had he escaped detection, would probably have passed the remainder of his life in the exercise of self-inflicted penance.

Viewing Angelo, therefore, as a man proverbial for rigidly virtuous conduct; who stood "at a guard with envy;" who challenged scrutiny; and who was above the tongue of slander; I do not think that primsie can be looked upon as an appropriate designation in the mouth of Claudio. He would use some word in the greatest possible contrast to the infamous conduct Isabella was imputing to Angelo: primsie would be weak and almost unmeaning, and, as such, I will not receive it as Shakespeare's, so long as the choice of a better remains.

Does not Shakspeare, by his frequent repetition of precise, in this play, seem purposely to stamp it with that peculiar signification necessary to his meaning, that is, rigidly virtuous? Another example of it, not, I believe, before noticed, is where Elbow describes his "two notorious benefactors" as "precise villains," "void of all profanation that good Christians ought to have."

The humour of this is in the contrast afforded by Elbow's association of incongruous and inconsistent terms, causing Escalus to exclaim, "Do you hear how he misplaces?" Precise therefore in this place also requires a meaning as opposite as possible to villany, something more than formal, in order that the humour may be fully appreciated.

With respect to Halliwell's quotation from Fletcher's poems, it certainly confers upon prin a very different meaning from any that prim is capable of receiving: the context requires prin to have some signification akin to fleshless; like "bodyes at the resurrection, just rarifying into ayre." Prin, in this sense, would seem to have some relation to pine, since pin and prin were synonymous.

A. E. B.

Leeds, July, 1851

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
(Vol. iii, pp. 166, 230, 412.)

The earliest divisions of the Decalogue are those of Josephus (Ant. Jud., lib. iii. c. v. s. 5.), the Chaldee Paraphrase of Jonathan, and Philo-Judæus de Decem Oraculis. According to the two former, the 3rd verse of Exod. xx., "Thou shalt have no other gods but me," contains the first commandment, the 4th, 5th, and 6th, the second. Philo makes the Preface or Introduction to be a distinct commandment, as do also St. Jerome and Hesychius. The two latter make what we call the first and second to be the second only; but Philo does not recite the words "Thou shalt have no other gods but me;" and whether he understood them in the first or the second, does not hence appear. The same uncertainty is found in Athanasius in Synopsi S. Scripturæ.

It may however be inferred, from these two writers giving the commencement only of the other commandments, that they made the prohibition, "Thou shalt not make," &c., in the same manner the commencement of the second; and therefore joined the other, "Thou shalt have," &c., to the words "I am the Lord thy God."

Those which we call the first and second were united by St. Augustine.

The distinction made by Josephus and the Chaldee Paraphrast, separating the two prohibitions, was adopted by the following early writers: Origen (Hom. viii. in Exod.); Greg. Nazianzen (Carmina, Mosis Decalogus) Irenæus (lib. ii. c. xlii.); Ambrose (in Ep. ad Ephes. c. vi.).

The Jews divide the Decalogue thus:

1. I am....

2. Thou shalt not have....

3. Thou shalt not take....

But in the field of speculation, the Jews have followed a variety of systems for dissecting the Decalogue, as may be seen in Abarvanel in the Pericope "Jethro," and in Voisin's Proœmium ad Martini Pugionem Fidei.

The following authors may be consulted on the arguments which have been adduced to support their respective divisions by the Church of Rome and the Lutherans on the one side, and the Reformers or Calvinists and the Church of England on the other.

1. Church of Rome.—Gother's Papist Misrepresented; Godden's Catholics No Idolaters; Gotti Vera Ecclesia Christi.

2. Lutherans.—Salmuthi Theses; Winckelmanni Dissertatio, &c.; Crameri de distinguendo decalogo, &c.; Franzii Disputatio; Weimari Demonstratio; Opitii Dissertatio de usu accentuationis geminæ in genuina divisione decalogi; Dasdorfii Dissertatio de decalogo, ex fundamento accentuum examinato; Hackspanii Notæ Philologicæ in varia loca S. Scripturæ; Pfeifferi Opera (cent. 1.).

3. Reformers.—Sam. Bohlii vera divisio decalogi ex infallibili principio accentuationis.

In reference to this argument, which is used by both parties, I have been favoured with the following remarks by a learned professor of languages, of the Jewish faith:

"On the subject of your inquiry, the accents do not appear to me to offer any decision. They show which words are to be connected with each other to make up one proposition; but not how many propositions shall go to make up one commandment."

4. The Church of England.—Ussher's Answer to a Jesuit (Images), and his Sermon preached before the Commons House of Parliament, 1620; Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium (where, in connexion with the Romish controversy, this subject is exhausted); Stillingfleet's Replies to Gother and Godden; and Forbesii Theologia Christiana.

T. J.

THE REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO.
(Vol. iii., pp. 321. 376.)

Though your correspondent MR. SYDNEY SMIRKE has brought to our notice the existence of the republic of San Marino, and informed us of many facts in connexion therewith, and though F. C. B. has enlightened us on several points of interest in the history of this state, still I do not find in either of these communications the following particulars of its foundation, which are in Addison's Remarks on Italy, pp. 62, 63. (ed. Talboys, 1830), and which may interest some of your readers.

"San Marino was its founder, a Dalmatian by birth and by trade a mason. He was employed above thirteen hundred years ago in the reparation of Rimini, and after he had finished his work, retired to this solitary mountain as finding it very proper for the life of a hermit, which he led in the greatest rigours and austerities of religion. He had not been long here before he wrought a reputed miracle, which, joined with his extraordinary sanctity, gained him so great an esteem that the princess of the country made him a present of the mountain, to dispose of at his own discretion. His reputation quickly peopled it, and gave rise to the republic which calls itself after his name.... The best of their churches is dedicated to the saint, and holds his ashes. His statue stands over the high altar, with the figure of a mountain in its hands crowned with three castles, which is likewise the arms of the commonwealth. They attribute to his protection the long duration of their state, and look on him as the greatest saint next the blessed Virgin. I saw in their statute book a law against such as speak disrespectfully of him, who are to be punished in the same manner as those who are convicted of blasphemy."

WALTER MONTAGU.

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF "EISELL."
(Vol. ii., pp. 241. 286. 329., &c.; Vol. iii., pp. 66. 119. 210., &c.)

After so much has "been said on both sides," in the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES," on the signification of eisill or esil in Hamlet, it appears to me that the evidence requires to be carefully summed up. This task I would willingly leave to other hands; but since no correspondent attempts it, I will venture, if I may be allowed, to take it on myself, and will strive to perform it to the best of my ability.

The question is, whether by the word under discussion we are to understand vinegar (or some such liquid) or a river. It will be proper, in taking a view of the matter, to "begin from the beginning," and to see, in the first place, what the earlier commentators have said.

1. What the critics before Theobald thought of the word, is not quite certain; but Theobald states that it had, "through all the editions, been distinguished by Italic characters, as if it were the proper name of a river; and so," he adds, "I dare say all the editors have from time to time understood it to be." But not being able to satisfy himself what river could be meant, he preferred to understand it of vinegar, and interprets the passage, "Wilt thou swallow down large draughts of vinegar?"

2. Sir Thomas Hanmer, on the contrary, was so convinced that a river was signified, that he actually altered the passage, arbitrio suo, to

"Wilt drink up Nile? or eat a crocodile?"

3. Johnson was silent, and left the explanation of the word to Steevens, who, observing that Hamlet meant to rant (as he says he will), supposed him to defy Laertes "to drink up a river, or try his teeth on an animal whose scales are supposed to be impenetrable." The word, he thinks, may be irrecoverably corrupted, but he finds plenty of rivers in Denmark of a somewhat similar sound, any one of which should "serve Hamlet's turn."

4. Malone, in his first edition, deeming that Hamlet was not speaking of "impossibilities," but merely of "difficult or painful exertions," decided on adhering to Theobald and his vinegar. But in his second edition he repented, and expressed his conviction that "Mr. Steevens's interpretation is the true one," remarking that "this kind of hyperbole is common among our ancient poets."

5. Steevens, before he published his second edition, read the observations in favour of vinegar given in Malone's first edition but, though he allowed them to be "acute," was not moved by anything advanced in them to depart from his opinion that a river was intended.

6. Boswell followed Malone's second thoughts.

7. Mr. Singer, in his edition printed in 1826, had so little notion that vinegar could be signified, that he does not even advert to a single argument in behalf of that opinion, attending only to the consideration "what river, lake, or firth, Shakspeare meant."

8. Mr. Collier makes no decision, observing only that eyesel is certainly the old word for vinegar, but that there is considerable doubt whether that be meant here and that "some of the commentators suppose Hamlet to challenge Laertes to drink up the river Yssell or Eisell."

9. Mr. Knight favoured the river, remarking that "there is little doubt that Shakspeare referred to the river Yssell, Issell, or Izel, the most northern branch of the Rhine, and that which is nearest to Denmark."

Thus we have, on the side of vinegar, Theobald, and Malone's first edition, on the side of the river, Sir T. Hanmer, Steevens, Malone's second edition, Boswell, Mr. Singer in 1826, and Mr. Knight; six against two. I say nothing of Johnson, whom, however, we may consider to have been favourable to Steevens; or of the earlier editors, who, according to Theobald, printed the word in Italics as a proper name.

So the matter remained; most readers, as well as critics, being, I believe, of opinion that a river was intended, until MR. SINGER, in the 46th No. of "NOTES AND QUERIES," revived the notion that some kind of drink was signified.

10. Let us now consider what testimonies are advanced by the various critics on behalf of each of these opinions. That eysell (the 4to., 1604, reads esil, and the folio esile) was used as synonymous with one kind of drink, viz. vinegar, is apparent from the following authorities. Malone observes that it occurs in Chaucer and Skelton, and also in Sir Thomas More, Works, p. 21., edit. 1557

—— "with sowre pocion

If thou paine thy taste, remember therewithal

That Christ for thee tasted eisil and gall."

He also remarks that it is found in Minsheu's Dictionary, 1617, and in Coles's Latin Dictionary, 1679.

Shakspeare himself, as Farmer was the first to point out, has, in his 111th Sonnet,

—— "like a willing patient I will drink

Potions of eysell 'gainst my strong infection;

No bitterness that I will bitter think,

Nor double penance to correct correction."

From Chaucer, Richardson's Dictionary supplies,

"She was like thing for hunger deed

That lad her life only by breed

Kneden with eisel strong and agre,

And thereto she was lean and megre."

Romaunt of the Rose.

and another passage thus:

"Then these wretches full of all frowardnesse

Gave him to drink eisel temp'red with gall."

Lamentation of Mary Magdalen.

Todd, also, in his edition of Johnson, says that the old English aysel for vinegar is used by Wicliffe.

11. Next comes the consideration whether, if vinegar were intended, the expression drink up could properly have been used in reference to it. On this point Theobald says nothing, except intimating that "drink up" is equivalent to "swallow down." Steevens denies that if Shakspeare had meant Hamlet to say, "Wilt thou drink vinegar?" he would have used "the term drink up," which means "totally to exhaust." Malone, in his first edition, remarks on the subject as follows:

"On the phrase drink up no stress can be laid, for our poet has employed the same expression in his 114th Sonnet, without any idea of entirely exhausting, and merely as synonymous to drink:

'Or whether doth my mind, being crowned with you,

Drink up the monarch's plague, this flattery?'

"Again, in the same Sonnet:

—— 'Tis flattery in my seeing

And my great mind most kingly drinks it up.'

"Again, in Timon of Athens:

'And how his silence drinks up his applause.'

"In Shakspeare's time, as at present, to drink up often meant no more than simply to drink. So in Florio's Italian Dictionary, 1598: 'Sorbire, to sip or sup up any drink.' In like manner we sometimes say, 'When you have swallowed down this potion,' though we mean no more than, 'When you have swallowed this potion.'"

In his second edition, however, Malone abandoned his first interpretation, and his remarks on drink up then went for nothing.

Discussion on this point has occupied some paragraphs in "NOTES AND QUERIES." MR. SINGER, in his first paper (Vol. ii., p. 241.), asserts that "to drink up was commonly used for simply to drink." MR. HICKSON, too (No. 51.), affirms that "drink up is synonymous with drink off, drink to the dregs," and observes that "a child taking medicine is urged to drink it up. But H. K. S. C., or Mr. H. K. S. CAUSTON, as he afterwards signs himself, denies that drink up can be used of eysell, or any other liquid, unless a definite quantity of it be signified; that is, you may say to any one, if you please, in allusion to a definite quantity of vinegar, "Drink it up;" but if you allude to vinegar in general, without limitation of quantity, you will say merely, "Drink vinegar." So if you would ask your friend whether he drinks wine or water, you would say, "Do you drink wine or water?" not "Do you drink up wine or water?" which would be to ask him whether he drinks up all the wine or water in the world, or at least all the definite quantities of either that come within his reach. MR. SINGER professes not to understand this doctrine, and refers MR. CAUSTON to the nursery rhyme:

"Eat up your cake, Jenny,

Drink up your wine,"

"which," he says, "may perhaps afford him further apt illustration;" but which supplies, MR. CAUSTON rejoins, only another example that drink up is applied to definite quantity; a quantity which, in this case, is "neither more nor less than the identical glass of wine which Jenny had standing before her." The line in Shakspeare's 114th Sonnet is, MR. CAUSTON adds, "a parallel passage." To drink up, therefore, he concludes, must be used of "a noun implying absolute entirety, which might be a river, but could not be grammatically applied to any unexpressed quantity." In these remarks there seems to be great justness of reasoning. MR. CAUSTON might also have instanced the lines:

"Freely welcome to my cup,

Couldst thou sip, and sip it up:"

that is, "couldst thou go on sipping till thou hast sipped up, or entirely exhausted, the whole definite quantity in the cup."

12. But MR. SINGER in 1850, differing so much from Mr. Singer in 1826 (who thought that a river was signified), supposes that though a sort of drink is intended, it is not vinegar, but wormwood-wine. To this purpose he cites the lines of Shakspeare's 111th Sonnet, which we have already transcribed:

"Whilst like a willing patient I will drink

Potions of eysell 'gainst my strong infection;

No bitterness that I will bitter think

Nor double penance to correct correction."

"Here we see," he observes, "that it was a bitter potion which it was a penance to drink." This does not seem to be clearly apparent from the passage for it is not absolutely certain that the bitterness in the third line refers to the eysell in the second. But he adds another quotation from the Troy Boke of Lydgate:

"Of bitter eysell, and of eager wine."

After which he subjoins:

"Numerous passages in our old dramatic writers show that it was a fashion with the gallants of the time to do some extravagant feat, as a proof of their love, in honour of their mistresses; and among others, the swallowing some nauseous potion was one of the most frequent: but vinegar would hardly have been considered in this light; wormwood might. In Thomas's Italian Dictionary, 1562, we have 'Assentio, Eysell;' and Florio renders that word [Assentio] by Wormwood. What is meant, however is absinthites, or wormwood wine, a nauseously bitter medicament then much in use; and this being evidently the bitter potion of eysell in the poet's sonnet, was certainly the nauseous draught proposed to be taken by Hamlet, among the other extravagant feats as tokens of love."

The reader will judge with what justice the words "evidently" and "certainly" are used. MR. SINGER then cites Junius, but to little purpose; Hutton's Dictionary, to prove that absinthites meant "wormwood-wine;" and Stuckius's Antiquitates Convivales to show that absinthites was a propoma; but Stuckius, be it observed, mentions this propoma only as a stomachic, quod vim habet stomachum corroborandi et extenuandi.

It is not surprising, therefore, that LORD BRAYBROOKE (Vol. ii., p. 286.) should quote against MR. SINGER'S theory the following paragraph:

"If, as MR. SINGER supposes, 'Eisell was absinthites, or wormwood-wine, a nauseously bitter medicament then much in use,' Pepys's friends must have had a very singular taste, for he records on the 24th of November, 1660:

'Creed, and Shepley, and I, to the Rhenish wine-house, and there I did give them two quarts of wormwood wine.'

"Perhaps the beverage was doctored for the English market, and rendered more palatable than it had been in the days of Stuckius."

Two other correspondents of the "NOTES AND QUERIES" also, C. H. (Vol. iii., p. 508.) and GOMER (ibid.), assert that eysell, if it means any potion at all, must mean vinegar; C. H. referring to a MS. at Cambridge (Dd. i. fol. 7.), date about 1350, in which occurs,—

"Þe iewis herde þis word wet alle

And anon eysel þei mengid wiþ galle:"

and GOMER relying on the support of the Welsh word Aesell, which implies verjuice or vinegar. D. ROCK, too, adduces the 'Festival' in the sermon for St. Michael's day:

"And other angellis with hī (St. Michael) shall bring all the Instrumētis of our lordis passyon; the crosse; the crowne; spere; nayles; hamer; sponge; eyseel; gall, &c."

There is therefore, it appears, ample testimony to show that eysell was used for vinegar; but to prove that it meant wormwood-wine, MR. SINGER'S instances seem insufficient.

13. Before we proceed further, let us, supposing that no bitter or sour potion, but a river, is meant, advert to the consideration what river may be intended? Theobald observed that there was no river of that name in Denmark, nor any resembling it in name but "Yssel, from which the province of Overyssel derives its name in the German Flanders." Steevens, however, is well content to take this Yssel as that which Hamlet had in his thoughts. "But," he adds, "in an old Latin account of Denmark, and the neighbouring provinces, I find the names of several rivers little differing from Esil or Eisill in spelling or pronunciation. Such are the Essa, the Oesil, and some others.... The poet," he further remarks, "might have written the Weisel; a considerable river, which falls into the Baltic Ocean, and could not be unknown to any prince in Denmark." MR. SINGER of 1826 suggests that the Issel is perhaps meant, but that the firth of Iyze is nearest to the scene of action. MR. KNIGHT has little doubt that the Yssell, Issell, or Izel, the most northern branch of the Rhine, and that which is nearest to Denmark, is signified.

MR. HICKSON, indeed, who favours MR. SINGER'S wormwood-wine, says (Vol. iii., p. 119.), that the word cannot mean a river, because the definite article is omitted before it. But this is an assertion of very little weight. H. K. S. C. (Vol. iii., p. 68.) very justly observes, that we may as correctly say,—"Woul't drink up Thames?" without the article, as "Woul't drink up Eisell?" without the article. Let MR. HICKSON call to mind Milton's lines on English rivers:

"And sullen Mole, that runneth underneath

And Severn swift, guilty of maiden's death,"

ending with—

"And Medway smooth, and royal-tower'd Thame,"

and ask himself whether the names of rivers are not with perfect propriety used without the article. Pope has—

"And sails far off, among the swans of Thames."

And is not Sir Thomas Hammer quite correct in expression, when he alters the hemistich into "Wilt drink up Nile?" But to multiply examples on such a point would be idle.

14. It is now to be considered whether, supposing that the word might mean a potion (whether of vinegar or wormwood) or a river, the potion or the river is the more applicable to the passage in which it occurs. It cannot be denied that the whole passage is full of rant and extravagance. Laertes begins to rant, and Hamlet answers him in a similar strain:

"Now pile your dust (says Laertes) upon quick and dead,

Till of this flat a mountain you have made,

T' o'ertop old Pelion, or the skyish head

Of blue Olympus."

This is surely extravagant enough. Hamlet retorts, in correspondent tone,—

"What is he whose grief

Bears such an emphasis? whose phrase of sorrow

Conjures the wand'ring stars, and makes them stand

Like wonder-wounded hearers?"

Then comes the struggles in which they are parted by the attendants after which Hamlet cries out with like "emphasis:"

"Why I will fight with him upon this theme

Until my eye-lids can no longer wag.

...

I lov'd Ophelia; forty thousand brothers

Could not, with all their quantity of love,

Make up my sum—what wilt thou do for her?"

On which the king exclaims, with much reason,

"O, he is mad, Laertes."

Hamlet continues, as if to make his madness indisputable:

"Zounds! show me what thoul't do:

Woul't weep? woul't fight? woul't fast? woul't tear thyself?

Woul't drink up Esil? eat a crocodile?

I'll do't. Dost thou come here to whine?

To outface me with leaping in her grave?

Be buried quick with her, and so will I:

And, if thou prate of mountains, let them throw

Millions of acres on us; till our ground,

Singeing his pate against the burning zone,

Make Ossa like a wart! Nay, an thoul't mouth,

I'll rant as well as thou."

The queen justly observes:

"This is mere madness."

Hamlet goes off, but maintains his extravagance of language to the last:

"Let Hercules himself do what he may,

The cat will mew, and dog will have his day."

If, then, a literary jury be required to decide this question, the point on which they have to give a verdict is, whether to drink vinegar (or wormwood-wine) or to drink up a river is more in consonance with the tenor of Hamlet's speech. Theobald indeed says, that "Hamlet is not proposing any impossibilities to Laertes, such as drinking up a river would be, but rather seems to mean, Wilt thou resolve to do things the most shocking and distasteful to human nature?" But on what ground does this assertion rest? Laertes himself commences with what we may surely call an impossibility:

"Till of this flat," &c.

And Hamlet speaks of more impossibilities, when he talks of throwing up "millions of acres," to "make Ossa like a wart." The drinking up a river is certainly more in unison with these extravagant proposals than a defiance "to swallow down (as Theobald has it) large draughts of vinegar;" or, as Malone gives it, "to drink a potion of vinegar." Such a proposition, Theobald admits, "is not very grand;" "a challenge to hazard a fit of the heartburn or the colic, is," says Steevens, "not very magnificent." But it is not only far from "grand" and "magnificent," but, what is worse, it is utterly tame and spiritless, in a place where anything but tameness is wanted, and where it is, quite out of keeping with the rest of the speech. MR. HICKSON, it is true, says (Vol. ii, p. 329.), that "the notion of drinking up a river would be quite unmeaning and out of place;" but this assertion is as groundless as Theobald's, and is somewhat surprising from a gentleman who exhorts those who would be critics "to master the grammatical construction of a passage, deducing therefrom its general sense," and, we may presume, its general drift, "before they attempt to fix the meaning of a doubtful word." Had MR. HICKSON looked to the general drift of this passage, before he attempted to fix the meaning of eisell, or to concur with MR. SINGER of 1850 in his attempt to fix it, he would, we may suppose, have been less ready to pronounce the notion of drinking up a river out of place. It would have been better for him to have adhered to the judgment of Archdeacon Nares, as cited by MR. SINGER (Vol. ii., p. 241.):—"The challenge to drink vinegar, in such a rant," says the Archdeacon, "is so inconsistent, and even ridiculous, that we must decide for the river, whether its name be exactly found or not. To drink up a river, and eat a crocodile with his impenetrable scales, are two things equally impossible. There is no kind of comparison between the others."

15. Though examples of similar rant are quite unnecessary to support this opinion, let us nevertheless conclude by noticing those which the critics have adduced on this passage:

"This sort of hyperbole," says Malone, in his second edition, "was common among our ancient poets. So, in Eastward Hoe, 1609:

'Come drink up Rhine, Thames, and Meander, dry.'.

"So also in Greene's Orlando Furioso, 1599:

'Else would I set my mouth to Tigris' streames,

And drink up overflowing Euphrates.'

"Again, in Marlowe's Jew of Malta:

'As sooner shalt thou drink the ocean dry,

Than conquer Malta.'"

To which Boswell adds:

"Our author has a similar exaggeration in Troilus and Cressida, Act III. Scene 2.:

'When we (i. e. lovers) vow to weep seas, live in fire, eat rocks, tame tigers,' &c.

"In Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose, we find the following lines:

'He underfongeth a grete paine,

That undertaketh to drink up Seine.'"

Steevens notices King Richard II., Act II Scene 2.:

"The task he undertakes,

Is numb'ring sands, and drinking oceans dry."

But enough. The majority of readers, like the majority of critics, will surely be for the river, in the proportion of at least six to two. Verbum non amplius addam.

J. S. W.

Stockwell.

Eisell—Wormwood—Scurvy Ale.—Such of your readers who have not yet made up their minds whether "eisell" and "wormwood" are identical, will not object to be reminded that Taylor, the Water Poet, in his Pennyless Pilgrimage, describing his hospitable reception at Manchester, when speaking of the liquid cheer supplied to him, says:—

"... Eight several sorts of ale we had

All able to make one stark drunk, or mad.

...

We had at one time set upon the table

Good ale of hyssop ('twas no Æsop fable);

Then had we ale of sage, and ale of malt

And ale of wormwood that could make one halt

With ale of rosemary, and of bettony,

And two ales more, or else I needs must lie.

But to conclude this drinking aley tale

We had a sort of ale called scurvy ale."

It would seem that in most of these drinks, the chief object was to impart an exciting but not disagreeable bitterness to the beverage, groping as it were, by instinct, after that enduring and gratifying bitter now universally derived from the hop. Wormwood, hyssop, rosemary, sage, bettony, each furnished its peculiar temptation to the Manchester drinkers, who some two centuries ago wanted an "excuse for the glass." Can any of your correspondents state what were the components of the scurvy ale spoken of by Taylor? This was, perhaps, a really medicated drink.

It may not be generally known, that even at this day, In some of the gin shops and taverns of London, gin, in which the herb rue is infused, is a constant article of sale; and many, who assume a most respectable blueness of physiognomy at the bare mention of "old Tom" in his undisguised state, scruple not to indulge in copious libations of the same popular spirit, provided it be poured from a bottle in which a few sprigs of rue are floating. But what was scurvy ale?

HENRY CAMPKIN.

ROYAL LIBRARY.
(Vol. iii., p. 427.)

In the following passage (extracted from the Quarterly Review, No. CLXXV., Dec. 1850, p. 143.) it is declared that the nation did "pay" for this "munificent present." The writer is understood to be Mr. R. Ford; and if his statement is not refuted, the business will henceforth take its place as a sale which the nation was duped into regarding as a gift:—

"The secret history," says the reviewer, "was this: King George IV., having some pressing call for money, did not decline a proposition for selling the library to the Emperor of Russia. Mr. Heber, having ascertained that the books were actually booked for the Baltic, went to Lord Sidmouth, then Home Secretary, and stated the case; observing what a shame it would be that such a collection should go out of the country: to which Lord Sidmouth replied: 'Mr. Heber, it shall not!'—and it did not. On the remonstrance of Lord Sidmouth, of whose manly and straightforward character George IV. was very properly in awe, the last of the grands monarques presented the books to the British Museum, on the condition that the value of the rubles they were to have fetched should be somehow or other made good to him by ministers in pounds sterling. This was done out of the surplus of certain funds furnished by France for the compensation of losses by the Revolution. But his ministers, on a hint from the House of Commons that it was necessary to refund those monies, had recourse, we are told, to the droits of the Admiralty."

So that the books were not given, but paid for, out of public monies: which ministers could not have made the object of a bargain, had they been the king's, and not the nation's. And the inscription in the Museum—like many others—"lifts its head and lies," i. e. unless the Quarterly Review has been inventing a story, instead of telling a true bit of secret history, decidedly worth noting if true.

[We believe the Quarterly Reviewer has been misinformed as to the facts connected with the transfer of the Royal Library to the British Museum. We have reason to know that George IV., being unwilling to continue the expense of maintaining the Library, which he claimed to treat, not as a heirloom of the crown, but as his own private inheritance, entertained a proposal for its purchase from the Russian Government. This having come to the knowledge of Lord Liverpool (through Dibdin, from Lady Spencer, to whom it had been mentioned by the Princess Lieven), the projected sale was, on the remonstrance of the Minister, abandoned, and the Library presented to the nation. The King thus got rid of the annual expenses; and although we do not believe that any bargain was made upon the subject, it is not unlikely that the Ministry felt that this surrender of the Library to the country gave the King some claim to assistance towards the liquidation of his debts, and that such assistance was accordingly furnished. Even if this were so, though the result might be the same, the transaction is a very different one from the direct bargain and sale described in the Quarterly Review.]

In justice to Kind George IV., the letter which he addressed to the late Earl of Liverpool, on presenting the books to his own subjects, should be printed in your columns. I saw the autograph letter soon after it was written, and a copy of it would be very easily met with.

Would it not have been both desirable and very advantageous, to have converted the banqueting room at Whitehall into a receptacle for this magnificent collection, which would doubtless have been augmented from time to time?

Instead of concentrating such vast literary treasures at the Museum, might it not have been expedient to diffuse them partially over this immense metropolis?

To Peers and M. P.'s, especially, a fine library at Whitehall would be a great boon. The present chapel was never consecrated, and its beautiful ceiling is little suited to a house of prayer.

J. H. M.

THE CAXTON MEMORIAL.
(Vol. iv., p. 33.)

For the information of your correspondent MR. BOLTON CORNEY, I beg to inform him that there was an intermediate meeting of the subscribers to the Caxton Memorial at the house of the Society of Arts between the first meeting to which he alludes, and the last, held at the same place the other day. Over that meeting I had the honour of presiding, and it was determined to persevere in the object of erecting a statue in Westminster to the memory of the first English printer; but the report of the last meeting shows that the funds have not been so largely contributed as might have been expected, and are now far short of the sum, 500l., required for the erection of an iron statue of the illustrious typographer. True it is that no authentic portrait of Caxton is known, but the truthful picture by Maclise might very well supply the deficiency; and I see the engraving to be made from that painting rather ostentatiously advertised as "the Caxton Memorial." The original design of the Dean of St. Paul's, for "a fountain by day, and a light by night," was abandoned as more poetical than practical; my chief apprehension being either that the gas would spoil the water, or that the water would put out the light. The statue was therefore resolved upon as less costly and more appropriate than the fountain.

The statue of Gutenberg at Mentz is a good example of what might be erected in Westminster; yet I very much doubt whether any likeness of the great printer has been preserved. The expense necessarily attendant upon MR. CORNEY'S Literary Memorial appears to me to be fatal to its success; for, however dear to the bibliographer, I fear but little public interest is now felt in the writings of Caxton. The Typographical Antiquities contain copious extracts from his works; and the biographies of Lewis and Knight appear to have satisfied public curiosity as to his life. Besides, a memorial of this nature would be hidden in a bookcase, not seen in a highway. I may add that the present state of the Caxton Memorial is this: the venerable Dean of St. Paul's is anxious to be relieved from the charge of the funds already subscribed, and to place them in the hands of the Society of Arts, if that body will receive them, and undertake to promote the object of the original subscribers by all the means at its command.

BERIAH BOTFIELD.

MEANING OF "NERVOUS".
(Vol. iv., p. 7.)

Medically, the word nervous has the following meanings:—

1. Of or belonging to the anatomical substance called nerve, e. g. the "nervous system," "nervous sheaths," "nervous particles," &c.

2. A predomination of the nervous system, when it is unusually active or highly developed, which is what we mean in speaking of a "nervous temperament," "a nervous person," &c.

3. Certain functional disorders of the nervous system are so termed, and in this sense we speak of "nervous people," "nervous complaints," and so forth.

4. Nervous is also used, more poetically than correctly, to signify muscular, and as synonymous with brawny, sinewy, &c., thus conveying an idea of strength and vigour. But nerve is not muscle, therefore this inaccurate use of the word, though sanctioned by some good old writers, must cease.

5. Nervous, in speaking of a part of the body, signifies a part in which there are many nerves, or much nervous matter, or which is endowed with extra sensibility.

These are the various ideas commonly attached to the word nervous. They are too many for the word to be a closely accurate one, but we must take them, not make them. We can, however, avoid the future inaccurate use of the term alluded to in explanation 4., and all the metaphorical derivations thereof, such as a "nervous style of writing," &c., and adhere to those two significations which are physiologically and pathologically correct, and which are obviously derivable from the several meanings and explanations above enumerated, viz.—

1. Of or belonging to the natural structure or functions of nerve; and

2. The quality of functional disorder or weakness of the nervous system in certain respects.

WILLIAM E. C. NOURSE.

Every one knows that instances of catachresis occur in all languages; but I think this case may be more satisfactorily explained by considering that the nerves consist of two very distinct and independent classes of organs—nerves of sensation, which conduct impressions to the sensorium; and nerves of volition, which convey the mental impulse to the muscles. From this it necessarily follows that when the former class are over-active (and redundancy is decidedly the adjectival idea in the word nervous), a morbid excitability of temper, with a perturbable anxious state of mind are produced (making the "bad" sense of the word); while from a similar state of the nerves of volition results a powerful and vigorous system of muscular action and mental energy (making the "good" sense of the word).

EDWIN J. JONES.

THE DUKE OF MONMOUTH'S POCKET-BOOKS.
(Vol. i., p. 198.; Vol. iv., p. 1.)

I am anxious to acknowledge that SIR F. MADDEN has established, beyond all doubt, the facts that several manuscript books were found on the Duke of Monmouth when he was captured, and that the volume rescued from oblivion by Dr. Anster, and now placed in the British Museum, is one of these, and also in Monmouth's handwriting. I take this opportunity of saying, that I, unfortunately, have not seen Dr. Anster's reply to my communication; and it is to be regretted that it was not copied from the Dublin University Magazine into "NOTES AND QUERIES," so that we (the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES") might have had the whole subject before us. This is a course which I think our kind Editor may usefully adopt on similar occasions.

Referring unsuccessfully to Lowndes' Manual for an answer to SIR F. MADDEN'S question as to the date of the first edition of Welwood's Memoirs, I was pleased, however, to find that my edition (the sixth, published in 1718) possesses a value which does not attach to previous editions, inasmuch as it contains "A short introduction, giving an account how these memoirs came at first to be writ." From this it appears that there are spurious editions of the work, for Welwood writes:

"I have given my bookseller leave to make a sixth impression of the following memoirs; and the [rather] that some time ago one Baker printed more than one edition of them without my knowledge, very incorrect, and on bad paper."

We may fairly assume, that the first edition was published at the beginning of 1699, for [the] "epistle dedicatory" to King William is dated February of that year. If this be so, it must be taken as a proof of extraordinary popularity that the work should have reached a third edition as early as 1700, as stated by SIR F. MADDEN. The "account how these memoirs came at first to be writ" possesses some interest. It appears that Queen Mary used to hold frequent converse with the Doctor on the subject of her great-grandfather's and grandfather's history, and—

"At last she fell to regret the insuperable difficulties she lay under (for I well remember that was her mind) of knowing truly the history of her grandfather's reign; saying that most of the accounts she had read of it were either panegyrick or satire, not history. Then with an inimitable grace she told me, 'If I would in a few sheets give her a short sketch of the affairs of that reign, and of the causes that produced such dreadful effects, she would take it well of me.' Such commands were too sacred not to be obeyed; and when I was retiring from her presence, she stopt me to tell me she expected I would do what she had desired of me in such a manner, and with that freedom, as if I designed it for the information of a friend, and not one of the blood of King Charles I., promising to show it to none living without my consent."

Welwood further states, that after Mary's death, King William—

"Sent me, by the late Earl of Portland, the manuscript I had given his Queen, found in her cabinet; where, upon the back of it, she had writ with her own hand the promise she had made me of showing it to nobody without my consent."

In addition to the extract from Monmouth's Diary given in my former communication, Welwood publishes a letter of the Duke's to the brave and true Argyle, which is perhaps more creditable to Monmouth than any other memorial he has left. The letter, as Welwood suggests, appears to have been written shortly after the death of Charles II. I copy it; but if you think this paper too long, omit it:—

"I received both yours together this morning, and cannot delay you my answer longer than this post though I am afraid it will not please you so much as I heartily wish it may. I have weighed all your reasons, and everything that you and my other friends have writ me upon that subject; and have done it with the greatest inclination to follow your advice, and without prejudice. You may well believe I have had time enough to reflect sufficiently upon our present state, especially since I came hither. But whatever way I turn my thoughts, I find insuperable difficulties. Pray do not think it an effect of melancholy, for that was never my greatest fault, when I tell you that in these three weeks' retirement in this place I have not only looked back, but forward; and the more I consider our present circumstances, I think them still the more desperate, unless some unforeseen accident fall out which I cannot divine nor hope for. [Here follow sixteen lines all in cyphers.] Judge then what we are to expect, in case we should venture upon any such attempt at this time. It's to me a vain argument that our enemies are scarce yet well settled, when you consider that fear in some, and ambition in others, have brought them to comply; and that the Parliament, being made up, for the most part, of members that formerly run our enemy down, they will be ready to make their peace as soon as they can, rather than hazard themselves upon an uncertain bottom. I give you but hints of what, if I had time, I would write you at more length. But that I may not seem obstinate in my own judgment, or neglect the advice of my friends, I will meet you at the time and place appointed. But for God sake think in the mean time of the improbabilities that lie naturally in our way, and let us not by struggling with our chains make them straighter and heavier. For my part, I'll run the hazard of being thought anything rather than a rash inconsiderate man. And to tell you my thoughts without disguise, I am now so much in love with a retired life, that I am never like to be fond of making a bustle in the world again. I have much more to say, but the post cannot stay; and I refer the rest till meeting, being entirely

"Yours."

Monmouth's ill-concerted and ill-conducted expedition following, at no distant period, the prudent resolutions expressed in the above letter places the instability of his character in a strong light.

C. ROSS.