Notes and Queries, Number 50, October 12, 1850

    P.C.S.S.

FURTHER NOTES ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKSPEARE'S HENRY VIII

The Gentleman's Magazine for the present month contains a letter from Mr. Spedding, the author of the essay which appeared in the August number of that magazine on the authorship of Henry VIII. After expressing himself "gratified but not surprised" by the coincidence between his views and those of Mr. Hickson in "NOTES AND QUERIES" (Vol. ii., p. 198.), Mr. Spedding proceeds:

"The resemblance of the style, in some parts of the play, to Fletcher's, was pointed out to me several years ago by Alfred Tennyson (for I do not know why I should not mention his name); and long before that, the general distinctions between Shakspeare's manner and Fletcher's had been admirably explained by Charles Lamb in his note on the Two Noble Kinsmen, and by Mr. Spalding in his Essay. And in respect to this I had myself derived additional light, more, perhaps, than I am aware of, from Mr. Hickson himself, if he be (as I suppose he is) the S.H. of the Westminster Review. But having been thus put upon the scent and furnished with principles, I followed the inquiry out by myself, without help or communication. That two independent inquirers should thus have arrived at the same conclusions upon so many particulars, must certainly be considered very singular, except upon one supposition; viz., that the conclusions are according to reason. Upon that supposition, nothing is more natural; and I must confess, for my own part, that I should have been more surprised if the coincidence had been less exact."

We will borrow one more paragraph from Mr. Spedding's communication (which is distinguished throughout by the liberality of tone of a true scholar), and we doubt not that the wish expressed at its conclusion is one in which our readers join as heartily as ourselves:—

"I hope, however, that Mr. Hickson may be induced to pursue his own investigation further, and to develop more fully the suggestion which he throws out as to a difference of style discernible in the scenes which he attributes to Shakspeare. If I understand him rightly, he sees traces in this play of the earlier as well as the later hand of both poets. I cannot say that I perceive any indications of this myself, nor, if it be so, can I well make out how it should have come to pass. But I should be glad to hear more about it."

It will be seen by the following extract from Mr. Emerson's Representative Men, for which we are indebted to our correspondent A.R., that the subject had attracted the attention of that distinguished writer.—

"In Henry VIII., I think I see plainly the cropping out of the original rock on which his (Shakspeare's) own finer stratum was laid. The first play was written by a superior, thoughtful man, with a vicious ear. I can mark his lines, and know well their cadence. See Wolsey's Soliloquy, and the following scene with Cromwell, where, instead of the metre of Shakspeare, whose secret is, that the thought constructs the tune, so that reading for the sense will best bring out the rhythm; here the lines are constructed on a given tune, and the verse has even a trace of pulpit eloquence. But the play contains, through all its length, unmistakeable traits of Shakspeare's hand; and some passages, as the account of the coronation, are like autographs. What is odd, the compliment to Queen Elizabeth is in the bad rhythm."

QUEEN ELIZABETH AND SIR HENRY NEVILL

Many years ago I copied the following note from a volume of Berkshire pedigrees in the British Museum, my reference to which is unluckily lost.

"Queen Elizabeth, in her first progress at Maidenhithe Bridge, being mett by all the Nobility, Kn'ts, and Esquires of Berks, they kneeling on both sides of her way, shee alighted at the bridge foot, and walked on foote through the midst, and coming just agaynst Sir Henry Nevill of Billingbear, made a stay, and leyd her glove on his head, saying, 'I am glad to see thee, Brother Henry.' Hee, not pleased with the expression, swore she would make the court believe hee was a bastard, at which shee laughed, and passed on."

The masquing scene in Henry VIII., as described by Holinshed, perhaps furnishes a clue to the Queen's pleasantry, though Shakspeare has omitted the particular incident relating to Sir Henry Nevill. The old chronicler, after giving an account of Wolsey's banquet, and the entrance of a noble troop of strangers in masks, amongst whom he suspected that the king made one, proceeds as follows:—

"Then the Lord Chamberlain said to the Cardinal, Sir, they confesse that among them there is such a noble personage whom, if your Grace can appointe out 'from the rest, he is content to disclose himself and to accept your place.' Whereupon the Cardinal, taking good advisement among them, at the last quoth he, 'Me seemeth the gentleman in the black beard should be even he.' And with that he arose out of his chaire and offered the same to the gentleman in the black beard, with his cap in his hand. The person to whom he offered the chaire was Sir Edward Nevill, a comelie knight, that much more resembled the king's person in that mask than anie other. The King perceiving the Cardinal so deceived, could not forbear laughing, and pulled down his visor and Maister Nevill's too."

Sir Edward Nevill of Aldington, in Kent, was the second surviving son of George Nevill, Lord Abergavenny, and the father of Sir Henry Nevill above mentioned, who laid the foundation-stone and built the body and one wing of Billingbear House, which still belongs to his descendant. Sir Edward Nevill was beheaded for high treason in 1538, his likeness to Henry VIII. not saving him from the fate which befell so many of that king's unhappy favourites.

    BRATHBROOKE.

Audley End.

MINOR NOTES

Whales.—Tychsen thinks the stories of whales mistaken for islands originated in the perplexities of inexperienced sailors when first venturing from the Mediterranean into a sea exposed to the tides. I think Dr. Whewell mentions that in particular situations the turn of the current occurs at a sufficient interval from the time of high or low water to perplex even the most experienced sailors.

    F.Q.

Bookbinding.—While the mischief of mildew on the inside of books has engaged some correspondents to seek for a remedy (Vol. ii., 103. 173.), a word may be put in on behalf of the outside, the binding. The present material used in binding is so soft, flabby, and unsound, that it will not endure a week's service. I have seen a bound volume lately, with a name of repute attached to it; and certainly the workmanship is creditable enough, but the leather is just as miserable as any from the commonest workshop. The volume cannot have been bound many months, and yet even now, though in good hands, it is beginning to rub smooth, and to look, what best expresses it emphatically, shabby, contrasting most grievously with the leather of another volume, just then in use, bound some fifty or seventy years ago, and as sound and firm as a drum's head—common binding too, be it observed—as the modern cover is flabby and washy. Pray, sir, raise a voice against this wretched material, for that is the thing in fault, not the workmanship; and if more must be paid for undoctored outsides, let it be so.

    NOVUS.

Scott's Waverley.—Some years ago, a gentleman of my acquaintance, now residing in foreign parts, told me the following story:—

"Once upon a time," the great unknown being engaged in a shooting-match near his dwelling, it came to pass that all the gun-wadding was spent, so that he was obliged to fetch paper instead. After Sir Walter had come back, his fellow-shooter chanced to look at the succedaneum, and was not a little astonished to see it formed part of a tale written by his entertainer's hand. By his friend's urgent inquiries, the Scotch romancer was compelled to acknowledge himself the author, and to save the well nigh destroyed manuscript of Waverley.

I do not know whether Sir Walter Scott was induced by this incident to publish the first of his tales or not; perhaps it occurred after several of his novels had been printed. Now, if any body acquainted with the anecdote I relate should perchance hit upon my endeavour to give it an English garb, he would do me a pleasure by noting down the particulars I might have omitted or mis-stated. I never saw the fact recorded.

    JANUS DOUSA.

Satyavrata.—Mr. Kemble, Salomon and Saturn, p. 129., does not seem to be aware that the Satyavrata in question was one of the forgeries imposed on, and afterwards detected, by Wilford.

    F.Q.

QUERIES

BLACK ROOD OF SCOTLAND

Can any of your correspondents give me any information on the following points connected with "the Black Rood of Scotland?"

1. What was the history of this cross before it was taken into Scotland by St. Margaret, on the occasion of her marriage with Malcolm, king of Scotland? Did she get it in England or in Germany?

2. What was its size and make? One account describes it as made of gold, and another (Rites of Durham, p. 16.) as of silver.

3. Was the "Black Rood of Scotland" the same as the "Holy Cross of Holyrood House?" One account seems to make them the same: for in the Rites of Durham, p. 16., we read,—

"At the east end of the south aisle of the choir, was a most fair rood, or picture of our Saviour, in silver, called the Black Rood of Scotland, brought out of Holyrood House by King David Bruce, and was won at the battle of Durham, with the picture of our Lady on the one side, and St. John on the other side, very richly wrought in silver, all three having crowns of gold," &c. &c.

Another account, in p. 21 of the same work, seems to make them different; for, speaking of the battle of Neville's Cross (18th October, 1346), it says—

"In which said battle a holy Cross, which was taken out of Holyrood House, in Scotland, by King David Bruce, was won and taken," &c., p. 21.

And adds,—

"In which battle were slain seven earls of Scotland.... and also lost the said cross, and many other most worthy and excellent jewels … together with the Black Rood of Scotland (so termed) with Mary and John, made of silver, being, as it were, smoked all over," &c., p. 22.

4. If they were the same, how is the legend concerning its discovery by the king, upon Holyrood day, when hunting in a forest near Edinburgh, to be reconciled with the fact of its being taken by St. Margaret into Scotland? If they were not the same, what was the previous history of each, and which was the cross of St. Margaret?

5. How is the account of Simeon of Durham, that the Black Rood was bequeathed to Durham Priory by St. Margaret, to be reconciled with the history of its being taken from the Scotch at the battle of Neville's Cross?

6. May there not be a connexion between the legend of the discovery of the "Holy Cross" between the horns of a wild hart (Rites of Durham, p. 21.), and the practice that existed of an offering of a stag annually made, on St. Cuthbert's day, in September, by the Nevilles of Raby, to the Priory of Durham? May it not have been an acknowledgement that the cross won at the battle of Neville's Cross was believed to have been taken by King David from the hart in the forest of Edinburgh? In the "Lament for Robert Neville," called by Surtees "the very oldest rhyme of the North" we read—

"Wel, qwa sal thir hornes blaw
Haly rod thi day?
Nou is he dede and lies law
Was wont to blaw thaim ay."

7. Is it known what became of the "Holy Cross" or "Black Rood" at the dissolution of Durham Priory?

    P.A.F.

Newcastle-on-Tyne.

MINOR QUERIES

Trogus Pompeius.—In Hannay and Dietrichsen's Almanuck for the Year 1849, I find the following statement under the head of "Remarkable Occurrences of the Year 1847:"—

"July 21. A portion of the history of Trogus Pompeius (the author abridged by Justin) is discovered in the library of Ossolinski at Berlin."