[83.] Their eyes must have smarted. The natives’ houses in India have (generally) no chimneys still, and Mr Moreshwar says the smoke does make your eyes water.
[84.] Mouffet is learned on the Louse.
“In the first beginning whilest man was in his innocency, and free from wickednesse, he was subject to no corruption and filth, but when he was seduced by the wickednesse of that great and cunning deceiver, and proudly affected to know as much as God knew, God humbled him with divers diseases, and divers sorts of Worms, with Lice, Hand-worms, Belly-worms, others call Termites, small Nits and Acares ... a Lowse ... is a beastly Creature, and known better in Innes and Armies then it is wellcome. The profit it bringeth, Achilles sheweth, Iliad I. in these words: I make no more of him then I doe of a Lowse; as we have an English Proverb of a poor man, He is not worth a Lowse. The Lice that trouble men are either tame or wilde ones, those the English call Lice, and these Crab-lice; the North English call them Pert-lice, that is, a petulant Lowse comprehending both kindes; it is a certain sign of misery, and is sometimes the inevitable scourge of God.” Rowland’s Mouffet’s Theater of Insects, p. 1090, ed. 1658 (published in Latin, 1634). By this date we had improved. Mouffet says, “These filthy creatures ... are hated more than Dogs or Vipers by our daintiest Dames,” ib. p. 1093; and again, p. 1097, “Cardan, that was a fancier of subtilties, writes that the Carthusians are never vexed with Wall-lice, and he gives the cause, because they eat no flesh.... He should rather have alledged their cleanliness, and the frequent washing of their beds and blankets, to be the cause of it, which when the French, the Dutch, and Italians do less regard, they more breed this plague. But the English that take great care to be cleanly and decent, are seldom troubled with them.” Also, on p. 1092, he says, ‘As for dressing the body: all Ireland is noted for this, that it swarms almost with Lice. But that this proceeds from the beastliness of the people, and want of cleanly women to wash them is manifest, because the English that are more careful to dress themselves, changing and washing their shirts often, having inhabited so long in Ireland, have escaped that plague.... Remedies. The Irish and Iseland people (who are frequently troubled with Lice, and such as will fly, as they say, in Summer) anoint their shirts with Saffron, and to very good purpose, to drive away the Lice, but after six moneths they wash their shirts again, putting fresh Saffron into the Lye.’ Rowland’s Mouffet (1634), Theater of Insects, p. 1092, ed. 1658.
[85.] Prof. Brewer says that Erasmus, rejecting the Mediæval Latin and adopting the Classical, no doubt used salsamenta in its classical sense of salt-meat, and referred to the great quantity of it used in England during the winter, when no fresh meat was eaten, but only that which had been killed at the annual autumn slaughtering, and then salted down. Stall-fattening not being practised, the autumn was the time for fat cattle. Salsamentum, however, is translated in White and Riddle’s Dictionary, “A. Fish-pickle, brine; B. Salted or pickled fish (so usually in plural).”
[86.] If any member or reader can refer me to any other verse or prose pieces of like kind, unprinted, or that deserve reprinting, I shall be much obliged to him, and will try to put them in type.
[PREFACE TO RUSSELL.]
Though this Boke of Nurture by John Russell is the most complete and elaborate of its kind, I have never seen it mentioned by name in any of the many books and essays on early manners and customs, food and dress, that have issued from the press. My own introduction to it was due to a chance turning over, for another purpose, of the leaves of the MS. containing it. Mr Wheatley then told me of Ritson’s reference to it in his Bibliographica Poetica, p. 96; and when the text was all printed, a reference in The Glossary of Domestic Architecture (v. III. Pt. I. p. 76, note, col. 2) sent me to MS. Sloane 1315[1]—in the Glossary stated to have been written in 1452—which proved to be a different and unnamed version of Russell. Then the Sloane Catalogue disclosed a third MS., No. 2027[2], and the earliest of the three, differing rather less than No. 1315 from Russell’s text, but still anonymous. I have therefore to thank for knowledge of the MSS. that special Providence which watches over editors as well as children and drunkards, and have not on this occasion to express gratitude to Ritson and Warton, to whom every lover of Early English Manuscripts is under such deep obligations, and whose guiding hands (however faltering) in Poetry have made us long so often for the like in Prose. Would that one of our many Historians of English Literature had but conceived the idea of cataloguing the materials for his History before sitting down to write it! Would that a wise Government would commission another Hardy to do for English Literature what the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records is now doing for English History—
give us a list of the MSS. and early printed books of it! What time and trouble such a Catalogue would save!
But to return to John Russell and his Boke. He describes himself at the beginning and end of his treatise as Usher and Marshal to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, delighting in his work in youth, quitting it only when compelled by crooked age, and then anxious to train up worthy successors in the art and mystery of managing a well-appointed household. A man evidently who knew his work in every detail, and did it all with pride; not boastful, though upholding his office against rebellious cooks[3], putting them down with imperial dignity, “we may allow and disallow; our office is the chief!” A simple-minded religious man too,—as the close of his Treatise shows,—and one able to appreciate the master he served, the “prynce fulle royalle,” the learned and munificent Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, the patron of Lydgate, Occleve, Capgrave, Withamstede, Leonard Aretine, Petrus Candidus, Petrus de Monte, Tito Livio, Antoyne de Beccara, &c. &c., the lover of Manuscripts, the first great donor to the Oxford University Library which Bodley revived[4], “that prince peerless,” as Russell calls him, a man who, with all his faults, loved books and authors, and shall be respected by us as he was by Lydgate. But our business is with the Marshal, not the Master, and we will hear what John Russell says of himself in his own verse,
an vsshere y Am / ye may beholde / to a prynce of highe degre,