Notes and Queries, Number 51, October 19, 1850 by Various

V >> Various >> Notes and Queries, Number 51, October 19, 1850

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

{321} NOTES AND QUERIES:

A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION FOR LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES,
GENEALOGISTS, ETC.

* * * * *

"When found, make a note of."--CAPTAIN CUTTLE.

* * * * *

No. 51.]
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 19 16. 1850.
[Price, with Supplement, 6d. Stamped Edition, 7d.

* * * * *

CONTENTS.

NOTES:--
Roberd the Robber, by R.J. King 321
On a Passage in the Merry Wives of Windsor, and on Conjectural
Emendation 322
Minor Notes:--Chaucer's Damascene--Long Friday--Hip,
hip, Hurrah!--Under the Rose--Albanian Literature 322
QUERIES:--
Bibliographical Queries 323
Fairfax's Tasso 325
Minor Queries:--Jeremy Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium--First
Earl of Roscommon--St. Cuthbert--Vavasour
of Haslewood--Bells in Churches--Alteration
of Title-pages--Weights for Weighing Coins--Shunamitis
poema--Lachrymatories--Egg-cups used by
the Romans--Meleteticks--Luther's Hymns--"Pair of
Twises"--Countermarks on Roman Coin 325
REPLIES:--
Gaudentio di Lucca 327
Englemann's Bibliotheca Scriptorum Classicorum, by
Professor De Morgan 328
Shakspeare's Use of the Word "Delighted," by Samuel
Hickson 329
Collar of Esses, by John Gough Nichols 329
Sirloin, by T.T. Wilkinson, &c. 331
Riots of London, by E.B. Price, &c. 332
Meaning of "Gradely" 334
Pascal and his Editor Bossut, by Gustave Masson 335
Kings-skugg-sio, by E. Charlton, &c. 335
Gold in California 336
The Disputed Passage from the Tempest, by
Samuel Hickson, &c. 337
"London Bridge is broken down," by Dr. E.F. Rimbault 338
Arabic Numerals 339
Caxton's Printing-office, by J. Cropp 340
Cold Harbour 340
St. Uncumber, by W.J. Thoms 342
Handfasting 342
Gray's Elegy--Droning--Dodsley's Poems 343
Replies to Minor Queries:--Zuendnadel Guns--Thompson
of Esholt--Minar's Books of Antiquities--Smoke
Money--Holland Land--Caconac, Caconacquerie--Discourse
of national Excellencies of England--Saffron
Bags--Milton's Penseroso--Achilles and the
Tortoise--Stepony Ale--North Side of Churchyards--Welsh
Money--Wormwood--Puzzling Epitaph--Umbrella--Pope
and Bishop Burgess--Book of
Homilies--Roman Catholic Theology--Modum Promissionis--Bacon
Family--Execution of Charles I.,
and Earl of Stair--Watermarks on Writing-paper--St.
John Nepomuc--Satirical Medals--Passage in
Gray--Cupid Crying--Anecdote of a Peal of Bells, &c. 343
MISCELLANEOUS:--
Notes on Books, Sales, Catalogues, &c. 350
Books and Odd Volumes Wanted 351
Notices to Correspondents 351
Advertisements 351

* * * * *

NOTES.

ROBERD THE ROBBER.

In the _Vision of Piers Ploughman_ are two remarkable passages in which
mention is made of "Roberd the robber," and of "Roberdes knaves."

"Roberd the robbere,
On _Reddite_ loked,
And for ther was noght wherof
He wepte swithe soore."
Wright's ed., vol. i. p. 105.

"In glotonye, God woot,
Go thei to bedde,
And risen with ribaudie,
The Roberdes knaves."
Vol. i. p. 3.

In a note on the second passage, Mr. Wright quotes a statute of Edw. III.,
in which certain malefactors are classed together "qui sont appellez
_Roberdesmen_, Wastours, et Dragelatche:" and on the first he quotes two
curious instances in which the name is applied in a similar manner,--one
from a Latin song of the reign of Henry III.:

"Competenter per _Robert_, robbur designatur;
Robertus excoriat, extorquet, et minatur.
_Vir quicunque rabidus consors est Roberto_."

It seems not impossible that we have in these passages a trace of some
forgotten mythical personage. "Whitaker," says Mr. Wright, "supposes,
without any reason, the 'Roberde's knaves' to be 'Robin Hood's men.'" (Vol.
ii. p. 506.) It is singular enough, however, that as early as the time of
Henry III. we find the term 'consors Roberto' applied generally, as
designating any common thief or robber; and without asserting that there is
any direct allusion to "Robin Hood's men" in the expression "Roberdes
knaves," one is tempted to ask whence the hero of Sherwood got his own
name?

Grimm (_Deutsche Mythol._, p. 472.) has suggested that Robin Hood may be
connected with an equally famous namesake, Robin Goodfellow; and that he
may have been so called from the hood or hoodikin, which is a well-known
characteristic of the mischievous elves. I believe, however, it is now
generally admitted that "Robin Hood" is a corruption {322} of "Robin o' th'
Wood" equivalent to "silvaticus" or "wildman"--a term which, as we learn
from Ordericus, was generally given to those Saxons who fled to the woods
and morasses, and long held them against their Norman enemies.

It is not impossible that "Robin o' the Wood" may have been a general name
for any such outlaws as these and that Robin Hood, as well as "Roberd the
Robbere" may stand for some earlier and forgotten hero of Saxon tradition.
It may be remarked that "Robin" is the Norman diminutive of "Robert", and
that the latter is the name by which we should have expected to find the
doings of a Saxon hero commemorated. It is true that Norman and Saxon soon
came to have their feelings and traditions in common; but it is not the
less curious to find the old Saxon name still traditionally applied by the
people, as it seems to have been from the _Vision of Piers Ploughman_.

Whether Robin Goodfellow and his German brother "Knecht Ruprecht" are at
all connected with Robin Hood, seems very doubtful. The plants which, both
in England and in Germany, are thus named, appear to belong to the elf
rather than to the outlaw. The wild geranium, called "Herb Robert" in
Gerarde's time, is known in Germany as "Ruprecht's Kraut". "Poor Robin",
"Ragged Robin", and "Robin in the Hose", probably all commemorate the same
"merry wanderer of the night."

RICHARD JOHN KING.

* * * * *

ON A PASSAGE IN "THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR," AND ON CONJECTURAL
EMENDATION.

The late Mr. Baron Field, in his _Conjectures on some Obscure and Corrupt
Passages of Shakspeare_, published in the "Shakspeare Society's Papers,"
vol. ii. p. 47., has the following, note on _The Merry Wives of Windsor_,
Act ii. Sc. 2.:--

"'_Falstaff._ I myself sometimes having the fear of heaven on the left
hand, and hiding mine honour in my necessity, am fain to shuffle, to hedge,
and to lurch; and yet you, you rogue, will esconce your _rags_, your
cat-a-mountain looks, your red-lattice phrases and your bold-beating oaths,
under the shelter of your honour.'

"Pistol, to whom this was addressed, was an ensign, and therefore _rags_
can hardly bear the ordinary interpretation. A _rag_ is a beggarly fellow,
but that will make little better sense here. Associated as the phrase is, I
think it must mean _rages_, and I find the word used for _ragings_ in the
compound _bard-rags_, border-ragings or incursions, in Spenser's _Fairy
Queen_, ii. x. 63., and _Colin Clout_, v. 315."

Having on one occasion found that a petty larceny committed on the received
text of the poet, by taking away a superfluous _b_, made all clear, perhaps
I may be allowed to restore the abstracted letter, which had only been
_misplaced_ and read _brags_, with, I trust, the like success? Be it
remembered that Pistol, a braggadocio, is made up of _brags_ and slang; and
for that reason I would also read, with Hanmer, _bull-baiting_, instead of
the unmeaning "_bold-beating_ oaths."

I well know with what extreme caution conjectural emendation is to be
exercised; but I cannot consent to carry it to the excess, or to preserve a
vicious reading, merely because it is warranted by the _old copies_.

Regretting, as I do, that Mr. Collier's, as well as Mr. Knight's, edition
of the poet, should both be disfigured by this excess of caution, I venture
to subjoin a cento from George Withers, which has been inscribed in the
blank leaf of one of them.

"Though they will not for a better
Change a syllable or letter,
Must the _Printer's_ spots and stains
Still obscure THE POET'S Strains?
Overspread with antique rust,
Like whitewash on his painted bust
Which to remove revived the grace
And true expression of his face.
So, when I find misplaced B's,
I will do as I shall please.
If my method they deride,
Let them know I am not tied,
In my free'r course, to chuse
Such strait rules as they would use;
Though I something miss of might,
To express his meaning quite.
For I neither fear nor care
What in this their censures are;
If the art here used be
Their dislike, it liketh me.
While I linger on each strain,
And read, and read it o'er again,
I am loth to part from thence,
Until I trace the poet's sense,
And have the _Printer's errors_ found,
In which the folios abound."

PERIERGUS BIBLIOPHILUS.

October.

* * * * *

Minor Notes.

_Chaucer's Damascene._--Warton, in his account of the physicians who formed
the Library of the Doctor of Physic, says of John Damascene that he was
"Secretary to one of the caliphs, wrote in various sciences before the
Arabians had entered Europe, and had seen the Grecian philosophers."
(_History of English Poetry_, Price's ed., ii. 204.) Mr. Saunders, in his
book entitled _Cabinet Pictures of English Life_, "Chaucer", after
repeating the very words of this meagre account, adds, "He was, however,
more famous for his religious than his medical writings; and obtained for
his eloquence the name of the Golden-flowing" (p 183.) Now Mr. Saunders
certainly, whatever Warton did, has confounded Damascenus, the physician,
with Johannes Damascenus Chrysorrhoas, "the {323} last of the Greek
Fathers," (Gibbon, iv. 472.) a voluminous writer on ecclesiastical
subjects, but no physician, and therefore not at all likely to be found
among the books of Chaucer's Doctour,

"Whose studie was but litel on the Bible."

Chaucer's _Damascene_ is the author of _Aphorismorum Liber_, and of
_Medicinae Therapeuticae_, libri vii. Some suppose him to have lived in the
ninth, others in the eleventh century, A.D.; and this is about all that is
known about him. (See _Biographie Universelle_, s.v.)

ED. S. JACKSON.

_Long Friday, meaning of._--C. Knight, in his _Pictorial Shakspeare_,
explains Mrs. Quickly's phrase in _Henry the Fourth_--"'Tis a _long_ loan
for a poor lone woman to bear,"--by the synonym _great_: asserting that
_long_ is still used in the sense of great, in the north of England; and
quoting the Scotch proverb, "Between you and the long day be it," where
_we_ talk of the _great_ day of judgment. May not this be the meaning of
the name _Long Friday_, which was almost invariably used by our Saxon
forefathers for what we now call Good Friday? The commentators on the
Prayer Book, who all confess themselves ignorant of the real meaning of the
term, absurdly suggest that it was so called from the great _length of the
services_ on that day; or else, from the length of the fast which preceded.
Surely, The Great Friday, the Friday on which the great work of our
redemption was completed, makes better sense?

T.E.L.L.

_Hip, hip, Hurrah!_--Originally a war cry, adopted by the stormers of a
German town, wherein a great many Jews had taken their refuge. The place
being sacked, they were all put to the sword, under the shouts of,
_Hierosolyma est perdita_! From the first letter of those words (_H.e.p._)
an exclamation was contrived. We little think, when the red wine sparkles
in the cup, and soul-stirring toasts are applauded by our _Hip, hip,
hurrah!_ that we record the fall of Jerusalem, and the cruelty of
Christians against the chosen people of God.

JANUS DOUSA.

_Under the Rose_ (Vol. i., p. 214.).--Near Zandpoort, a village in the
vicinity of Haarlem, Prince William of Orange, the third of his name, had a
favourite hunting-seat, called after him the Princenbosch, now more
generally known under the designation of the Kruidberg. In the
neighbourhood of these grounds there was a little summer-house, making
part, if I recollect rightly, of an Amsterdam burgomaster's country place,
who resided there at the times I speak of. In this pavilion, it is said,
_and beneath a stucco rose_, being one of the ornaments of the ceiling,
William III. communicated the scheme of his intended invasion in England to
the two burgomasters of Amsterdam there present. You know the result.

Can the expression of "being under the rose" date from this occasion, or
was it merely owing to coincidence that such an ornament protected, as it
were, the mysterious conversation to which England owes her liberty, and
Protestant Christendom the maintenance of its rights?

JANUS DOUSA.

Huis te Manpadt.

_Albanian Literature.--Bogdano, Pietro, Archivescovo di Scopia,
L'Infallibile Verita della Cattolica Fede_, in Venetia, per G. Albrizzi,
MDXCI, is I think much older than any Albanian book mentioned by Hobhouse.
The same additional characters are used which occur in the later
publications of the Propaganda, in two parts, pp. 182. 162.

F.Q.

* * * * *

Queries.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL QUERIES.

1. Has anything recently transpired which could lead bibliographers to form
an absolute decision with regard to the "unknown" printer who used the
singular letter R which is said to have originated with Finiguerra in 1452?
That Mentelin was the individual seems scarcely credible; and there is a
manifest difference between his type and that of the anonymous printer of
the _editio princeps_ of Rabanus Maurus, _De Universo_, the copy of which
work (illuminated, ruled, and rubricated) now before me was once in Heber's
possession; and it exhibits the peculiar letter R, which resembles an
ill-formed A, destitute of the cross stroke, and supporting a round O on
its reclined back. (Panzer, i. 78.; Santander, i. 240.)

2. Is it not quite certain that the acts and decrees of the synod of
Wuertzburg, held in the year 1452, were printed in that city previously to
the publication of the _Breviarium Herbiplense_ in 1479? The letter Q which
is used in the volume of these acts is remarkable for being of a double
semilunar shape; and the type, which is very Gothic, is evidently the same
as that employed in an edition of other synodal decrees in Germany about
the year 1470.

3. When and where was the _Liber de Laudibus gloriosissime Dei genitricis
Marie semper Virginis_, by Albertus Magnus, first printed? I do not mean
the supposititious work, which is often confounded with the other one; but
that which is also styled _Super Evangelium_ Missus est _Quaestiones_. And
why are these Questions invariably said to be 230 in number, when there are
275 chapters in the book? Beughem asserts that the earliest edition is that
of Milan in 1489 (_Vid._ Quetif et Echard, i. 176.), but what I believe to
be a volume of older date is "sine ulla nota;" and a bookseller's
observation respecting it is, that it is "very rare, and unknown to De
Bure, Panzer, Brunet, and Dibdin." {324}

4. Has any discovery made as to the author of the extraordinary 4to. tract,
_Oracio querulosa contra Inuasores Sacerdotum?_ According to the Crevenna
_Catalogue_ (i. 85.), the work is "inconnu a tous les bibliographes."
Compare Seemiller, ii. 162.; but the copy before me is not of the
impression described by him. It is worthy of notice, that at signature A
iiiij the writer declares, "nostris jam temporibus calchographiam, hoc est
impressioram artem, in nobilissima Vrbanie germe Maguncia fuisse repertam."

5. Are we to suppose that either carelessness or a love of conjectures was
the source of Chevillier's mistake, not corrected by Greswell (_Annals of
Paris. Typog._, p. 6.), that signatures were first introduced, anno 1476,
by Zarotus, the printer, at Milan? They may doubtless be seen in the _Opus
Alexandride Ales super tertium Sententiarum_, Venet. 1475, a book which
supplies also the most ancient instance I have met with of a "Registrum
Chartarum." Signatures, however, had a prior existence; for they appear in
the _Mammetractus_ printed at Beron Minster in 1470 (Meermau, ii. 28.;
Kloss, p. 192.), but they were omitted in the impression of 1476. Dr.
Cotton (_Typ. Gaz._, p. 66.), Mr. Horne (_Introd. to Bibliog._, i. 187.
317), and many others, wrongly delay the invention or adoption of them till
the year 1472.

6. Is the edition of the _Fasciculus Temporum_, set forth at Cologne by
Nicolaus de Schlettstadt in 1474, altogether distinct from that which is
confessedly "omnium prima," and which was issued by Arnoldus Ther Huernen
in the same year? If it be, the copy in the Lambeth library, bearing date
1476, and entered in pp. 1, 2. of Dr. Maitland's very valuable and accurate
_List_, must appertain to the third, not the second, impression. To the
latter this Louvain reprint of 1476 is assigned in the catalogue of the
books of Dr. Kloss (p. 127.), but there is an error in the remark that the
"Tabula" prefixed to the _editio princeps_ is comprised in _eight_ leaves,
for it certainly consists of _nine_.

7. Where was what is probably a copy of the second edition of the _Catena
Aurea_ of Aquinas printed? The folio in question, which consists of 417
unnumbered leaves, is an extremely fine one, and I should say that it is
certainly of German origin. Seemiller (i. 117.) refers it to Esslingen, and
perhaps an acquaintance with its water-marks would afford some assistance
in tracing it. Of these a rose is the most common, and a strigilis may be
seen on folio 61. It would be difficult to persuade the proprietor of this
volume that it is of so modern a date as 1474, the year in which what is
generally called the second impression of this work appeared.

8. How can we best account for the mistake relative to the imaginary
Bologna edition of Ptolemy's _Cosmography_ in 1462, a copy of which was in
the Colbert library? (Leuglet du Fresnoy, _Meth. pour etud. l'Hist._, iii.
8., a Paris, 1735.) That it was published previously to the famous Mentz
Bible of this date is altogether impossible; and was the figure 6 a
misprint for 8? or should we attempt to subvert it into 9? The _editio
princeps_ of the Latin version by Angelus is in Roman letter, and is a very
handsome specimen of Vicenza typography in 1475, when it was set forth "ab
Hermano Leuilapide," alias Hermann Lichtenstein.

9. If it be true, as Dr. Cotton remarks in his excellent _Typographical
Gazetteer_, p. 22., that a press was erected at Augsburg, in the monastery
of SS. Ulric and Afra, in the year 1472, and that Anthony Sorg is believed
to have been the printer, why should we be induced to assent to the
validity of Panzer's supposition that Nider's _Formicarius_ did not make
its appearance there until 1480? It would seem to be more than doubtful
that Cologne can boast of having produced the first edition, A.D. 1475/7;
and it may be reasonably asserted, and an examination of the book will
abundantly strengthen the idea, that the earliest impression is that which
contains this colophon, in which I would dwell upon the word "_editionem_"
(well known to the initiated): "Explicit quintus ac totus formicarii liber
uxta editionem fratris Iohannis Nider," &c., "Impressum Auguste per
Anthonium Sorg."

10. In what place and year was _Wilhelmi Summa Viciorum_ first printed?
Fabricius and Cave are certainly mistaken when they say Colon. 1479. In the
volume, which I maintain to be of greater antiquity, the letters _c_ and
_t_, _s_ and _t_, are curiously united, and the commencement of it is:
"Incipit summa viciorum seu tractatus moral' edita [_sic_] a fratre
vilhelmo episcopo lugdunes. ordinsq. fratru predicator." The description
given by Quetif and Echard (i. 132.) of the primary impression of Perault's
book only makes a bibliomaniac more anxious for information about it: "in
Inc. typ. absque loco anno et nomine typographi, sine numeris reclamat. et
majusculis."

11. Was Panormitan's _Lectura super primo Decretalium_ indubitably issued
at Venice, prior to the 1st of April, 1473? and if so, does it contain in
the colophon these lines by Zovenzonius, which I transcribe from a noble
copy bearing this date?

"Abbatis pars prima notis que fulget aliemis
Est vindelini pressa labore mei:
Cuius ego ingenium de vertice palladis ortum
Crediderim. veniam tu mihi spira dabis."

12. Is it not unquestionable that Heroldt's _Promptuarium Exemplorum_ was
published at least as early as his _Sermones_? The type in both works is
clearly identical, and the imprint in the latter, at the end of _Serm._
cxxxvi., vol. ii., is Colon. 1474, an edition unknown to very nearly all
bibliographers. For instance, Panzer and Denis commence with that of
Rostock, in 1476; Laire {325} with that of Cologne, 1478; and Maittaire
with that of Nuremberg, in 1480. Different statements have been made as to
the precise period when this humble-minded writer lived. Altamura (_Bibl.
Domin._, pp. 147. 500.) places him in the year 1400. Quetif and Echard (i.
762.), Fabricius and Mansi (_Bibl. Med. et inf. Latin._), prefer 1418, on
the unstable ground of a testimony supposed to have proceeded from the
author himself; for whatever confusion or depravation may have been
introduced into subsequent impressions, the _editio princeps_, of which I
have spoken, does not present to our view the alleged passage, viz., "a
Christo autem transacti sunt _millequadringenti decem et octo_ anni," but
most plainly, "M.cccc. & liij. anni." (_Serm._ lxxxv., tom. ii.) To this
same "Discipulus" Oudin (iii. 2654.), and Gerius in the Appendix to Cave
(p. 187.), attribute the _Speculorum Exemplorum_, respecting which I have
before proposed a Query; but I am convinced that they have confounded the
_Speculum_ with the _Promptuarium_. The former was first printed at
Deventer, A.D. 1481, and the compiler of it enters upon his prologue in the
following striking style: "Impressoria arte jamdudum longe lateque per
orbem diffusa, multiplicatisque libris quarumcunque fere materiarum," &c.
He then expresses his surprise at the want of a good collection of
_Exempla_; and why should we determine without evidence that he must have
been Heroldus?

R.G.

* * * * *

FAIRFAX'S TASSO.

In a copy of Fairfax's _Godfrey of Bulloigne_, ed. 1600 (the first), which
I possess, there occurs a very curious variorum reading of the first stanza
of the first book. The stanza, as it is given by Mr. Knight in his
excellent modern editions, reads thus:

"The sacred armies and the godly knight,
That the great sepulchre of Christ did free,
I sing; much wrought his valour and foresight,
And in that glorious war much suffer'd he;
In vain 'gainst him did hell oppose her might,
In vain the Turks and Morians armed be;
His soldiers wild, to brawls and mutines prest,
Reduced he to peace, so heaven him blest."

By holding up the leaf of my copy to the light, it is easy to see that the
stanza stood originally as given above, but a cancel slip printed in
_precisely the same type_ as the rest of the book gives the following
elegant variation:

"I sing the warre made in the Holy Land,
And the Great Chiefe that Christ's great tombe did free:
Much wrought he with his wit, much with his hand,
Much in that braue atchieument suffred hee:
In vaine doth hell that Man of God withstand,
In vaine the worlds great princes armed bee;
For heau'n him fauour'd; and he brought againe
Vnder one standard all his scatt'red traine."

Queries.--1. Does the above variation occur in any or many other copies of
the edition of 1600?

2. Which reading is followed in the second old edition?

T.N.

Demerary, September 11. 1850.

* * * * *

MINOR QUERIES.

_Jeremy Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium._--Book I. chap. 2. Rule 8. Sec. 14.--

"If he (the judge) see a stone thrown at his brother judge, as happened
at Ludlow, not many years since."

(The first ed. was published in 1660). Does any other contemporary writer
mention this circumstance? or is there any published register of the
assizes of that time?

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7