Replies.

"LAY OF THE LAST MINSTREL."
(Vol. iii., p. 464.)

I am obliged to M. for his notice of my paper upon this poem, and gratified by his concurrence with my remarks.

Very likely M. may be right in his explanations of the "incuria" imputed by me to the great author, and I may have made a mistake, without pleading guilty to the same charge: but if M. will refer to the 4th and two following Sections of sixth canto of the Lay, he will find it thus written:

"Me lists not at this tide declare

The splendour of the spousal rite," &c.

Again, Sec. V.:

"Some bards have sung, the Ladye high

Chapel or altar came not nigh;

Nor dust the rites of spousal grace

So much she feared each holy place," &c.

Again, Sec. VI.:

"The spousal rites were ended soon."

And again, in Sect. VIII. are these words:

"To quit them, on the English side,

Red Roland Forster loudly cried,

'A deep carouse to yon fair bride!'"

Now, in the ordinary acceptation of these words the spousal rite means nuptials, and a bride means a newly married wife; and as the ceremony of the spousal rite is described as taking place with much pomp in the chapel, and at the altar, it looks very like a wedding indeed. But if, after all, it were only a betrothal, I willingly withdraw the charge of "incuria," and subscribe to the propriety of the "Minstrel's" information, that the bridal actually "befel a short space;"

"And how brave sons and daughters fair

Blest Teviot's flower and Cranstoun's heir."

And now a word touching M.'s hint of giving a corner in the "NOTES AND QUERIES" to the "Prophecy of Criticism." If he will forgive me the remark, I do not think the phrase a very happy one. Criticism does not prophecy, it pronounces, and is valuable only in proportion to the judgment, taste, and knowledge displayed in its sentence. Above all, the critic should be impartial, and by no means allow himself to be biassed by either prejudice or prepossession, whether personal or political. Still less should he sacrifice his subject in order to prove the acuteness and point of his own weapon, which is too often dipped in gall instead of honey. To what extent these qualifications are found in our modern reviewers let each man answer according to his own experience: but as critics are not infallible, and as authors generally see more, feel more, and think more than the ordinary run of critics and readers give them credit for, I doubt not that a place will always be open in the "NOTES AND QUERIES," in answer to the fallacies of criticism, wherever they may be detected.

A. BORDERER.

MEANING OF "PRENZIE."
(Vol. iv., pp. 63, 64.)

As your correspondent A. E. B. has endeavoured to strengthen the case in favour of the word precise being the proper reading of "prenzie," will you allow me to suggest a few further points for consideration in inquiring into the meaning of this word?

I am afraid your etymological readers are in danger of being misled by the plausible theory that "prenzie" is not an error of the press or copyist, but a true word. In reference to this view of the case, as taken by your several correspondents, allow me to suggest, first: that Shakspeare was no word-coiner; secondly, that, for application in a passage of such gravity, he would not have been guilty of the affectation of using a newly-imported Scotch word; and, thirdly, that, as we may reasonably infer that he was essentially popular in the choice of words, so he used such as were intelligible to his audience. A word of force and weight sufficient to justify its use twice in the passage in question, if merely popular, would surely not so entirely have gone out of use; whereas if merely literary it would still be to be found in books.

My greatest objection to the word precise is its inharmoniousness in the position it holds in the verse; and this objection would not be removed by adopting Mr. Singer's suggestion of accentuating the first syllable, which must then be short, and the word pronounced pressis? How horrible! Besides, if that were the case, as Shakspeare does not vary in his accent, the corroboratory passage on which the advocates of precise depend would read, then, thus:

"Lord Angelo is pressis,

Stands at a guard with envy, scarce confesses," &c.;

the double ending rhyme giving it the air of burlesque. The appropriateness of precise, moreover, depends chiefly upon its being assumed to express the quality of a precision, which has not only not been proved, but which I am inclined very much to doubt.

Has it not been a true instinct that has guided the early English commentators to the choice of words of the form of "princely," "priestly," and myself to "saintly," and do not the two passages taken together require this form in reference to a character such as that of a prince, a priest, or a saint? For instance, the term pious might be applied to Angelo, equally well with priestly or saintly; but it could not correctly be applied to garb or vestments, while either of the latter could.

In what respect is the "cunning" of the "livery of hell" shown, if "the damnedst body" be not invested in "guards" of the most opposite character? Shakspeare never exactly repeats himself, though we frequently find the same idea varied in form and differently applied. The following passage from Othello, Act II. Sc. 3., appears to be intended to convey the same idea as the one in question, and thus strengthens the opinion that, if not saintly, one of like form and meaning was intended:

"Divinity of hell!

When devils will their blackest sins put on,

They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,

As I do now."

Any of your readers who are acquainted with the common careless handwriting in use at the time, will greatly oblige by informing me if it be beyond likelihood that a word commencing with the letter s should have been read as though it began with p.

I have no intention of continuing the contest on the meaning of "eisell," nor should I have felt it necessary to notice the remarks of J. S. W. in No. 91., had they been avowedly in opposition to mine and MR. SINGER'S. But when the advocate assumes the ermine, and proceeds to sum up the evidence and pass judgment, I feel it only right that those points in which he has misrepresented my argument should not be passed over. I did not say "that the word cannot mean a river because the definite article is omitted before it." What I did say was, that "English idiom requires an article unless it be personified." Milton's lines merely confirm this, though I am willing to admit that the argument is of little weight When, however, J. S. W. expresses his surprise that "a gentleman who exhorts," &c., had not looked to the general drift of the passage, I fancy he cannot have read my first observations with regard to it, in which I say "the idea of the passage appears to be," &c. What is this but the "general drift?" Before finally leaving this subject, allow me to explain, that, in objecting to the terms "mere verbiage" and "extravagant rant" of a correspondent, I took them together. I included the latter perhaps hastily. But, however "extravagant" the "rant" of his real or assumed madmen may be, I am satisfied that there is no "mere verbiage" to be found in Shakspeare.

SAMUEL HICKSON.

HOUSE OF YVERY.
(Vol. iii., p. 101.)

Some years ago, in the library of a noble earl in the north of England, I met with a "fair and perfect" copy of this rare book. The following is a list of the plates which it contained:—

The copy here described contains the "folding plate" mentioned by your correspondent; and as it was a presentation copy from the Earl of Egmont to Earl Ferrers, the presumption is that it is an unmutilated one.

EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

In answer to the Query of your correspondent H.T.E., I beg to state that the folding map of part of the estate of John Perceval, Earl of Egmont, does occur in my copy of The House of Yvery, at page 92. of the first volume. Lowndes, in his list of the plates, assigns this map to the second volume; but its proper place is as above. Perhaps this mistake of Lowndes may have given rise to the doubt as to the existence of this map; but I suppose any copy of the work without it must be considered imperfect.

J. H.

QUEEN BRUNÉHAUT.
(Vol. iv., p. 86)

I am sure that you will not be sorry to hear that "NOTES AND QUERIES" is a great favourite with young people; and I hope you will have no objection to encourage our "pursuits of literature" by admitting into your delightful miscellany this little contribution.

I have been reading Thierry's History of the Norman Conquest these holidays; and when I saw MR. BREEN'S Queries respecting St. Gregory and Queen Brunéhaut, I remembered that the historian had mentioned them. On referring to the passage, at p. 11. of the translation published by Whittaker and Co., 1843, I found that (1.) "Le Saint Pape Grégoire," who "donna des éloges de gloire" to Queen Brunéhaut, was Gregory the Great;—that (2.) This illustrious Pope did actually degrade himself by flattering the bad queen;—and (3.) That the proof of his having done so is to be found in a passage of one of Gregory's letters given by Thierry, and appearing in the foot-note "12" at p. 11. of Messrs. Whittaker's edition, as follows:

"Excellentia ergo vestræ quæ proba in bonis consuevit esse operibus."—"In omnipotentis Dei timore, excelleltiæ vestræ mens soliditate firmata."—Epist. Greg. Papæ, apud Script. rer. Gallic. et Francic., tom. iv. p. 21.

EDITH C.

Preston, Aug. 1851.

It is, I think, indisputable that the St. Gregory commemorated on the tomb of Brunéhaut is Pope Gregory the Great. Among his Letters are several addressed to the Frankish queen, betokening the unqualified esteem in which she was held by the Roman pontiff. See Gregor. Opp. (tom. ii., edit. Paris, 1586), Lib. v. Indict. xiv. ep. 5; Lib. vii. Indict. i. ep. 5.; Lib. ix. Indict. vi. ep. 8.; Lib. xi. Indict. vi. ep. 8. I will give a short specimen from the first and last Letters:

"Excellentiæ vestræ prædicandam ac Deo placitam bonitatem et gubernacula regni testantur et educatio fidel manifestat."—Col. 766.

"Inter alia bona hoc apud vos præ ceteris tenet principatum, quod in mediis hujus mundi fluctibus, qui regentis animos turbulenta solent vexatione confundere, ita cor ad Divini cultus amorem et venerabilium locorum disponendam quietam reducitis ac si vos nulla alia cura sollicitet."—Col. 1061.

Much to her merit, in the eyes of Gregory, arose from her abjuration of Arianism, and the patronage she extended to religious houses. At the same time, it is impossible to acquit her of the serious charges under which she labours.

"Elle est diffamée," says Moreri, "dans les écrits des autres auteurs, par sa cruauté, sa vengeance, son avarice, et son impudicité."

C. H.

St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge.

LORD MAYOR NOT A PRIVY COUNCILLOR.
(Vol. iv., p. 9.)

I entirely dissent from your correspondent's statements that "the Lord Mayor is no more a privy councillor than he is Archbishop of Canterbury." First, as to the argument on which your correspondent's conclusion is founded. He assumes first that the title of Lord is a mere courtesy title; and, secondly, that it is because of this courtesy title that the Mayor is deemed a privy councillor. The second assumption is the erroneous one. It is not necessary to have the courtesy title of Lord in order to be a privy councillor; nor are all courtesy lords styled Right Honorables. Your correspondent's assertion in this respect is a curious blunder, which every day's experience contradicts. No one styles a courtesy Lord "Right Honorable" except such persons as will persist in the equally absurd blunder of calling a Marquis "Most Noble." The Boards of the Treasury and Admiralty are not designated "Right Honorable" merely because of the courtesy title of "Lord" being attached to their corporate name, but because these Boards are respectively the equivalents of the Lord High Treasurer and Lord High Admiral, each of whom was always a member of the sovereign's Council. No individual member of the Board is, by membership, "Right Hon." Your correspondent's precedent is equally inconclusive on the subject. He says, "Mr. Harley, when (1768) Lord Mayor of London, was sworn of His Majesty's most honorable Privy Council." This precedent does not prove the argument; and for this simple reason, that the individual who holds the office is not "Right Honorable," but the officer is. Mr. Harley was not, as an individual, a privy councillor, till he was made one: he could only have appeared in council as "the Lord Mayor," and not as "Mr. Harley." The description, therefore, of "The Right Honorable A. B., Lord Mayor," which has probably misled your correspondent, is, like the "Most Noble the Marquis," a blunder of ignorant flattery; the correct description being "A. B., the Right Honorable the Lord Mayor:" or rather, the A. B. ought to be suppressed, except the individual, for a particular reason, is to be personally designated, and the style should be written, "The Right Honorable the Lord Mayor." This distinction between the officer and the man is almost universal in our system. Our Judges are Lords in court (yet, by-the-bye, this courtesy "Lord" does not give any one of them at any time the title of Right Honorable, another instance of the fallacy of your correspondent's reasoning), and they are Sirs in individual designation. In Scotland the Judges assume the titles of Baronies during their tenure of office, but become mere Esquires on surrender of it. The Lord Mayor is always summoned to the council on the accession of a new sovereign, and was formerly, when his office was of greater practical importance than at present, accustomed to put his name very high on the list of signatures attached to the declaration of accession. A commoner might by the bare delivery of the great seal become "Lord" in the Court of Chancery, and be the President of the House of Lords, where he would sit by virtue of his office, without having any title to speak or vote. Mr. Henry Brougham did so for one if not two nights before his patent of peerage was completed. The same distinction between officer and individual applies to the Lord Mayor, who is Right Honorable as Lord Mayor, but in no other way whatever.

L. M.

COWPER OR COOPER.
(Vol. iv., pp. 24.93)

The poet's family was originally of Stroode in Slinfold, Sussex, not Kent, as Lord Campbell (Lives of the Chan., vol. iv. p. 258.) states, and spelt their names Cooper. The first person who altered the spelling was John Cooper of London, father of the first baronet, and he probably adopted the spelling in affectation of the Norman spelling; the family having in those days been styled Le Cupere, Cuper, and Coupre in Norman-French, and Cuparius in Latin, as may be seen by the grants made to Battle Abbey. The pronunciation was never changed. All the Sussex branches continued the spelling of Cooper until the time of Henry Cowper of Stroode, who died 1706. In Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors (p. 259.) the first letter is signed "William Cooper."

W. D. COOPER.

Cowper.—There is an affectation in the present day for pronouncing words, not only contrary to established usage, but in defiance of orthography. The Bar furnishes one example, and "polite society" the other. By the former, a judge on the bench is called, instead of "My Lord" and "His Lordship," "My Lud" and "His Ludship;" and in the latter, Cowper is metamorphosed into Cooper. Now, I fancy that "My Lord" is a vast deal more euphonious than "My Lud" and Cowper, as Shakspeare has it, "becomes the mouth as well" as Cooper. We don't speak of getting milk from the coo, but from the cow; and Cow being the first syllable of the poet's name should not be tortured into Coo, in compliment to a nonsensical fastidiousness, whoever may have set the example. As Cowper the poet has been hitherto known, and by that name will be cherished by posterity. John Kemble, the great actor, I remember, tried to alter the pronunciation of Rome to room, and was laughed at for his pains, though he had the authority of a pun of the bard's own for the change: "Old Rome and room enough." But Shakspeare was but an indifferent punster at the best, as is proved by Falstaff's refusing to give a reason on compulsion, even though "reasons were as plentiful as blackberries;" corrupting raisin into reason, for his purpose, which is as far-fetched as any instance of the kind on record, I think. But I digress, and beg pardon for running so away from the cow.

JOHN BULL.

Lord Campbell, in his entertaining Lives of the Chief Justices, says, in paragraph introductory to the life of Sir Edward Coke:

"As the name does not correspond very aptly with the notion of their having come over with the Conqueror, it has been derived from the British word 'Cock' or 'Coke' a 'Chief;' but, like 'Butler,' 'Taylor,' and other names now ennobled, it much more probably took its origin from the occupation of the founder of the race at the period when surnames were first adapted in England. Even in Queen Elizabeth's reign, as well as that of James I., Sir Edward's name was frequently spelt 'Cook.' Lady Hatton, his second wife, who would not assume it, adopted this spelling in writing to him, and according to this spelling, it has invariably been pronounced."

Lord Campbell, who seems rather fond of such speculations, however, in the case of Lord Cowper does not give the etymology of the name. But he gives a letter written from school by the subsequent chancellor, in which he signs his name "William Cooper." However, elsewhere, in a note he speaks of the propensity evinced by those who have risen to wealth and station to obliterate the trace of their origin by dropping, adding, or altering letters and among them he mentions "Cowper" as having its origin in "Cooper." Mr. Mark Antony Lower, too, in his Essay on English Surnames, classes Cowper among the surnames derived from trade. Possibly, therefore, notwithstanding the alteration, the original pronunciation has been continued.

TEE BEE.