Livery Stables.
—What is the meaning of livery stables, and when were they first so called?
J. C. W.
[Livery, i.e. delivery, from the French livrer, to deliver. To the origin of this word (says Junius) these words of Chaucer allude, "that is the conisance of my livery, to all my Servants delivered." Richardson also gives the following quotation from Spenser explanatory of it:—"What livery is, wee by common use in England know well enough, namely, that it is allowance of horse-meate, as they commonly use the word in stabling, as to keepe horses at livery:—the which word, I guesse, is derived of livering or delivering forth their nightly foode. So in great houses the livery is said to be served up for all night, that is, their evening's allowance for drinke. And livery is also called the upper weede which a serving man weareth, so called (as I suppose) for that it was delivered and taken from him at pleasure."—Spenser on Ireland.]
Replies.
MABILLON'S CHARGE AGAINST THE SPANISH CLERGY.—CAMPANELLA AND ADAMI.—WILKES MSS.
It may seem a little too late to notice a criticism nearly two years old; but, though I had casually looked at "NOTES AND QUERIES," it is but lately that I have, with very great pleasure, read through the volumes which have appeared. I was therefore ignorant of some remarks relating to myself, which from time to time have been made. Greatly as I am open to the charge of too frequent inaccuracy in what I have published, I can defend myself from some strictures of your correspondents.
The first of these is contained in a letter signed CANTAB (Vol. i., p. 51.), and relates to a passage in my History of the Middle Ages, where I have said, on the authority of Mabillon, "Not one priest in a thousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a common letter of salutation to another." CANTAB produces the passage in Mabillon, which contains exactly what I have said; but assigns as a reason for it, that the Christians, that is, the clergy, had wholly devoted themselves to the study of Arabic and Hebrew books. And this excuse CANTAB accepts. "They were devoting all their energies to Arabic and Chaldean science, and in their pursuit of it neglected other literature. A similar remark might be made respecting many distinguished members of the university to which I belong." In order to make this a parallel case, it should be asserted, not that many senior wranglers would be at a loss in a Greek chorus, but that they cannot write a good English letter. CANTAB seems to forget, that in the age of Charlemagne, all that was necessary towards writing a Latin letter in Spain was to substitute regular grammar for the corrupt patois, the lingua Romana rustica, which was soon to become Castilian. The truth is, that the reasons assigned by Mabillon's authority, whoever it might be, is wholly incredible. I am not convinced that it was more than a sarcasm on the ignorance which it affects to excuse. Does CANTAB believe that the whole body of the Spanish clergy relinquished at once, not other literature, but the most elementary knowledge, for the sake of studying Arabic and Chaldee books? And this is not alleged to have been for the purpose of converting Moors and Jews, but as a literary pastime. They are expressly said to have neglected the Scriptures. The object that I had in view was to show the general ignorance of various nations in those ages and this charge of ignorance, as to what lay most open to the Spanish clergy, would hardly be alleviated, even if it were true, that some of them had taken to the study of Arabic.
Another criticism in Vol. i., p. 435., relating to what I have said in Hist. of Literature, vol. iii. p. 149. (1st edition), concerning Campanella and Adami, is better founded, though your correspondent C. is himself not wholly accurate. I have said of Tobias Adami, that he "dedicated to the philosophers of Germany his own Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ (Instauratio is, of course, an error of the press), prefixed to his edition of Campanella's Compendium de Rerum Naturâ, published at Frankfort in 1617." C. says, "This Prodromus is a treatise of Campanella's, not, as Mr. Hallam says, of Adami. Adami published the Prodromus for Campanella, who was in prison; and he wrote a preface, in which he gives a list of other writings of Campanella, which he proposes to publish afterwards. What Mr. Hallam calls an edition, was the first publication."
The words Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ, which appear only on the title-page, are of Adami himself, not of Campanella. The work of the latter is called Compendium de Rerum Naturâ, and is printed, after the preface, with this running title. The error into which I fell was to refer the words Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ to the preface of Adami, and not to the entire work. It may be satisfactory to give the title-page, and one or two extracts from the preface:—