Notes and Queries, Number 203, September 17, 1853

Arms of Richard, King of the Romans.—This celebrated man, the second son of King John, Earl of Cornwall and Poictou, was elected King of the Romans at Frankfort on St. Hilary's Day (Jan. 13th) 1256. His earldom of Cornwall was represented by—Argent, a lion rampant gules crowned or; his earldom of Poictou by a bordure sable, bezantée, or rather of peas (poix) in reference to the name Poictou; and as king of the Romans he is said to have borne these arms upon the breast of the German double-headed eagle displayed sable, which represented that dignity. I do not recollect having seen them under this last form, but I have "made a Note of" several other variations I have met with:—

1. In Dorchester Church, Oxfordshire, in painted glass: Argent, a lion rampant, gules crowned or, within a bordure sable bezantée.

2. On the seal of a charter granted by the earl to the monks of Okeburry: a lion rampant crowned. No bordure.

3. On an encaustic tile in the old Singing-school at Worcester: A lion rampant not crowned, with a bordure bezantée. Another tile has the eagle, single-headed, displayed.

4. Encaustic tiles at Woodperry, Oxfordshire: A row of tiles with the lion rampant, apparently within a bordure, but without the bezants; followed by another row which has the eagle displayed, but not double-headed.

5. On an encaustic tile at Hailes Abbey, Gloucestershire, founded by him: The double-headed eagle only, countercharged.

6. On a tile in the Priory Church of Great Malvern: The double-headed eagle displayed, within a circular bordure bezantée.

7. On a tile which I have seen, but cannot just now recollect where: The double-headed eagle, bezantée, without any bordure.

A curious instance of ex-officio arms added to the paternal coat, occurs on the monument of Dr. Samuel Blythe, at the east end of St. Edward's Church, Cambridge. He was Master of Clare Hall, and in this example his paternal arms—Argent, a chevron gules, between three lions rampant sable—occupy the lower part of the shield, being divided at the fess point by something like an inverted chevron, from the arms of Clare Hall, which thus occupy the upper half of the shield. The date is 1713. Is this way of dividing the arms a blunder of the painter's, or can any of your readers point out a similar instance?

    Norris Deck.

SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE

Difficulty of avoiding Coincident Suggestions on the Text of Shakspeare.—A correspondent in Vol. viii., p. 193., is somewhat unnecessarily severe on Mr. Collier and Mr. Singer, for having overlooked some suggestions in Jackson's work: the enormous number of useless conjectures in that publication rendering it so tedious and unprofitable to consider them attentively, the student is apt to think his time better engaged in investigating other sources of information. I think, therefore, little of Mr. Collier overlooking the few coincident suggestions in Jackson, which are smaller in number than I had anticipated; the real cause for wonder consisting in the ignoring so many conjectures that have been treated of years ago, often at great length, by some of the most distinguished critics this country has produced. Generally speaking, however, there is in these matters such a tendency for reproduction, I should for one hesitate to accuse any critic of intentional unfairness, merely because he puts forth conjectures as new, when they have been previously published; and I have found so many of my own attempts at emendation, thought to be original, in other sources, that I now hesitate at introducing any as novel. These attempts, like most others, have only resulted occasionally in one that will bear the test of examination after it has been placed aside, and carefully considered when the impression of novelty has worn off. I think we may safely appeal to all critics who occupy themselves much with conjectural criticism, and ask them if Time does not frequently impair the complacency with which they regard their efforts on their first production.

Vol. viii., p. 216., contains more instances of coincident suggestions, R. H. C. indulging in two conjectures, both supported very ably, but in the perfect unconsciousness that the first, rude day's, was long since mentioned by Mr. Dyce, in his Remarks, 1844, p. 172., and that the second, the change of punctuation in All's Well that Ends Well, is the reading adopted by Theobald, and it is also introduced by Mr. Knight in the text of his "National Edition," p 262., and has, I believe, been mentioned elsewhere. It may be said that this kind of repetition might be obviated by the publication of the various readings that have been suggested in the text of Shakspeare, but who is there to be found Quixotic enough to undertake so large and thankless a task, one which at best can only be most imperfectly executed: the materials being so scattered, and often so worthless, the compiler would, I imagine, abandon the design before he had made great progress in it. No fair comparison can be entertained in this respect between the text of Shakspeare and the texts of the classic authors. What has happened to R. H. C., happens, as I am about to show, to all who indulge in conjectural criticism.

Any reader who will take a quantity of disputed passages in Shakspeare, and happens to be ignorant of what has been suggested by others, will discover that, in most of the cases, if he merely tries his skill on a few simple permutations of the letters, he will in one way or another stumble on the suggested words. Let us take, for example, what may be considered in its way as one of the most incomprehensible lines in Shakspeare—"Will you go, An-heires?" the last word being printed with a capital. Running down with the vowels from a, we get at once an apparently plausible suggestion, "Will you go on here?" but a little consideration will show how extremely unlikely this is to be the genuine reading, and that Mr. Dyce is correct in preferring Mynheers—a suggestion which belongs to Theobald, and not, as he mentions, to Hanmer. But what I maintain is, that on here would be the correction that would occur to most readers, in all probability to be at once dismissed. Mr. Collier, however, says "it is singular that nobody seems ever to have conjectured that on here might be concealed under An-heires;" and it would have been singular had this been the case, but the suggestion of on here is to be found in Theobald's common edition. Oddly enough, about a year before Mr. Collier's volume appeared, it was again suggested as if it were new.

Let us select a still more palpable instance (Measure for Measure, Act II. Sc. 1.): "If this law hold in Vienna ten years, I'll rent the fairest house in it after threepence a bay." If this reading be wrong, which I do not admit, the second change in the first letter creates an obvious alteration, day, making at least some sort of sense, if not the correct one. Some years ago, I was rash enough to suggest day, not then observing the alteration was to be found in Pope's edition, and Mr. Collier has fallen into the same oversight, when he gives it as one of the corrector's new emendations. I regard these oversights as very pardonable, and inseparable from any extensive attempt to correct the state of the text. All Shakspearian conjectures either anticipate or are anticipated.

Mr. Dyce being par excellence the most judicious verbal critic of the day, it will scarcely be thought egotistical to claim for myself the priority for one of his emendations—"Avoid thee, friend," in the Few Notes, p. 31., a reading I had mentioned in print before the appearance of that work. This is merely one of the many evidences that all verbal conjecturers must often stumble on the same suggestions. Even the MS. corrector's alteration of the passage is not new, it being found in Pope's and in several other editions of the last century; another circumstance that exhibits the great difficulty and danger of asserting a conjecture to be absolutely unknown.

    J. O. Halliwell

P.S. The subject is, of course, capable of almost indefinite extension, but the above hasty notes will probably occupy as much space as you would be willing to spare for its consideration.

Alcides' Shoes.—There is merit, in my opinion, in elucidating, if it were only a single word in our great dramatist. Even the attempt, though mayhap a failure, is laudable. I therefore have made, and shall make, hit or miss, some efforts that way. For example, I now grapple with that very odd line—

"As great Alcides' shoes upon an ass."—King John, Act II. Sc. 1.

out of which no one has as yet extracted, or I think ever will extract, any good meaning: Argal, it is corrupt. Now it appears to me that the critic who proposed to read shows, came very near the truth, and would have hit it completely if he had retained Alcides', for it is the genitive with robe understood. To explain:

Austria has on him the "skin-coat" of Cœur-de-Lion, and Blanch cries,—

"O! well did he become that lion's robe,
That did disrobe the lion of that robe."

"It lies," observes the Bastard,

"It lies as sightly on the back of him (Austria)
As great Alcides' (robe) shows upon an ass:—
But, ass, I'll take that burden from your back," &c.

Were it not that doth is the usual word in this play, I might be tempted to read does. In reading or acting, then, the cæsura should be made at Alcides', with a slight pause to give the hearer time to supply robe. I need not say that the robe is the lion's skin, and that there is an allusion to the fable of the ass.

Now to justify this reading. Our ancestors knew nothing of our mode of making genitives by turned commas. They formed the gen. sing., and nom. and gen. pl., by simply adding s to the nom. sing.; thus king made kings, kings, kings (not king's, kings, kings'), and the context gave the case. If the noun ended in se, ce, she, or che, the addition of s added a syllable, as horses, princes, &c., but it was not always added. Shakspeare, for example, uses Lucrece and cockatrice as genitives. I find the first instances of such words as James's, &c., about the middle of the seventeenth century, but I am not deeply read in old books, so it may have been used earlier.

In foreign words like Alcides, no change ever took place; it was the same for all numbers and cases, and the explanation was left to the context. Here are a couple of examples from Shakspeare himself:

"My fortunes every way as fairly ranked—
If not with vantage—as Demetrius."

    —Midsummer Night's Dream, Act I. Sc. 1.

"To Brutus, to Cassius. Burn all. Some to Decius house, and some to Cascas; some to Ligarius. Away! go!"—Julius Cæsar, Act III. Sc. 3.

All here are genitives, as well as Cascas. If any doubt, Brutus and Cassius, we have just been told, "Are rid like madmen through the gates of Rome," so they could not be burned. I say now, judicet lector!

I must not neglect to add that there was another mode of forming the genitive, namely, by the possessive pronoun, as the king his palace. "A fly that flew into my mistress her eye," is the title of one of Carew's poems.

    Thos. Keightley.

Minor Notes

Longfellow's Poetical Works.—One of the best printed editions of Longfellow's Poetical Works which has appeared in England is ushered in by "An Introductory Essay" by the Rev. G. Gilfillan, A.M. I had lived in hopes, through each successive edition, that either the good taste of the publishers would strike out the preface entirely, or the amended taste of its author curtail some of its redundancies. As neither has been the case, but the 4th edition of the book now lies before me, I beg to offer the following examples:

1. Of Ancient History:

"His [Longfellow's] ornaments, unlike those of the Sabine maid, have not crushed him."

2. Of Modern History—Dickens a Poet:

"A prophet may wrap himself up in austere and mysterious solitude: a poet must come 'eating and drinking.' Thus came Shakspeare, Dryden, Burns, Scott, Göthe; and thus have come in our day, Dickens, Hood, and Longfellow."

Is the song of "The Ivy Green" in Pickwick sufficient to justify this appellation? I do not remember any other "Poem" by Charles Dickens.

3. Of Metaphors. Out of sixteen pages it is difficult to make a selection, but the following are striking:

"If not a prophet, torn by a secret burden, and uttering it in wild tumultuous strains,… he has found inspiration … in the legends of other lands, whose native vein, in itself exquisite, has been highly cultivated and delicately cherished."

"Excelsion," we are told, "is one of those happy thoughts which seem to drop down, like fine days, from some serener region, or like moultings of the celestial dove, which meet instantly the ideal of all minds, and run on afterwards, and for ever, in the current of the human heart."

Does not this almost come up to Lord Castlereagh's famous metaphor? It certainly goes beyond Mr. Gilfillan's own praise of Longfellow, whose sentiment is described as "never false, nor strained, nor mawkish. It is always mild,… and sometimes it approaches the sublime." Mr. G. goes one step farther.

    W. W.

Northamptonshire.

Sir Walter Raleigh.—I find the following remonstrance in defence of this distinguished man, against the imputation of Hume, in a letter addressed by Dr. Parr to Charles Butler: