Notes and Queries, Number 78, April 26, 1851

Notwithstanding Tyrwhitt's assertion of a difficulty only removable by changing the Ram into the Bull, there are no less than two ways of understanding the seventh and eighth lines of the prologue so as to be perfectly in accordance with the rest of the description. One of these would be to suppose the sign Aries divided into two portions (not necessarily equal in the phraseology of the time), one of which would appertain to March, anal the other to April—and that Chaucer, by the "halfe cours yronne," meant the last, or the April, half of the sign Aries. But I think a more probable supposition still would be to imagine the month of April, of which Chaucer was speaking, to be divided into two "halfe cours," in one of which the sun would be in Aries, and in the other in Taurus; and that when Chaucer says that "the yonge Sonne had in the Ram his halfe cours yronne," he meant that the Aries half of the month of April had been run through, thereby indicating in general terms some time approaching to the middle of April.

Both methods of explaining the phrase lead eventually to the same result, which is also identical with the interpretation of Chaucer's own contemporaries, as appears in its imitation by Lydgate in the opening of his "Story of Thebes:"

"Whan bright Phebus passed was the Ram,
Midde of Aprill, and into the Bull came."

And it is by no means the least remarkable instance of want of perception in Tyrwhitt, that he actually cites these two lines of Lydgate's as corroborative of his own interpretation, which places the sun in the middle of Taurus.

I enter into this explanation, not that I think it necessary to examine too curiously into the consistency of an expression which evidently was intended only in a general sense, but that the groundlessness of Tyrwhitt's alleged necessity for the alteration of "the Ram" into "the Bull" might more clearly appear.

I have said that Tyrwhitt was not a competent critic of Chaucer's practical science, and I may perhaps be expected to point out some other instance of his failure in that respect than is afforded by the subject itself. This I may do by reference to a passage in "The Marchante's Tale," which evinces a remarkable want of perception not only in Tyrwhitt, but in all the editors of Chaucer that I have had an opportunity of consulting.

The morning of the garden scene is said in the text to be "er that dayes eight were passed of the month of Juil"—but, a little further on, the same day is thus described:

"Bright was the day and blew the firmament,
Phebus of gold his stremes doun hath sent
To gladen every flour with his warmnesse;
He was that time in Geminis, I gesse,
But litel fro his declination
In Cancer."

How is it possible that any person could read these lines and not be struck at once with the fact that they refer to the 8th of June and not to the 8th of July? The sun would leave Gemini and enter Cancer on the 12th of June; Chaucer was describing the 8th, and with his usual accuracy he places the sun "but litel fro" the summer solstice!

Since "Juil" is an error common perhaps to all previous editions, Tyrwhitt might have been excused for repeating it, if he had been satisfied with only that: but he must signalise his edition by inserting in the Glossary attached to it—"Juil, the month of July," referring, as the sole authority for the word, to this very line in question of "The Marchante's Tale!"

Nor does the proof, against him in particular, end even there; he further shows that his attention must have been especially drawn to this garden scene by his assertion that Pluto and Proserpine were the prototypes of Oberon and Titania; and yet he failed to notice a circumstance that would have added some degree of plausibility to the comparison, namely, that Chaucer's, as well as Shakspeare's, was a Midsummer Dream.

It is, perhaps, only justice to Urry to state that he appears to have been aware of the error that would arise from attributing such a situation of the sun to the month of July. The manner in which the lines are printed in his edition is this:—

"ere the dayis eight
Were passid, er' the month July befill."

It is just possible to twist the meaning of this into the eighth of the Kalends of July, by which the blunder would be in some degree lessened; but such a reading would be as foreign to Chaucer's astronomy as the lines themselves are to his poetry.

    A. E. B.

Leeds, April 8. 1851.

THE ACADEMIES OF SIR FRANCIS KYNASTON AND SIR BALTHAZAR GERBIER

Among the many interesting associations connected with old Covent Garden and its neighbourhood, we ought not to overlook Sir Francis Kynaston's "Museum Minervæ."

In the year 1635, King Charles the First granted his letters patent to Sir Francis Kynaston, "Esquire of the body to his Majesty," whereby a house in Covent Garden, which Sir Francis had purchased, and furnished with books, manuscripts, musical and mathematical instruments, paintings, statues, antiques, &c., was appropriated for ever as a college for the education of the young, nobility, and others, under the name of the "Museum Minervæ." Sir Francis Kynaston was made the governor with the title of "regent;" Edward May, Thomas Hunt, Nicholas Phiske, John Spidell, Walter Salter, Michael Mason, fellows and professors of philosophy and medicine, music, astronomy, geometry, languages, &c. They had power to elect professors also of horsemanship, dancing, painting, engraving, &c.; were made a body corporate, were permitted to use a common seal, and to possess goods and lands in mortmain. (Pat. 11 Car. pt. 8. No. 14.) In the following year, 1636, was published, dedicated to the "Regent and Professors," The Constitutions of the Museum Minervæ; giving an Account of an Academy for teaching chiefly Navigation, Riding, Fortification, Architecture, Painting, and other useful Accomplishments.

The "Museum" seems to have been highly patronised, for we find that on the 27th February, 1635 (the year of its foundation), Prince Charles, the Duke of York, and the Lady Mary their sister, honoured it with their presence to witness a masque, entitled "Corona Minervæ," which was written and prepared for the occasion by Sir Francis Kynaston. This masque was, I believe, printed in the year of its production, but I do not find it mentioned in the last edition of the Biographia Dramatica.

Mr. Cunningham, in his Handbook of London, mentions (p. 42.) that

"Sir Francis Kynaston, the poet, was living in Covent Garden in 1636, on the east side of the street towards Berrie" (Bedfordbury).

And again, in his notice of Bedford Street (p. 44.), he says, Sir Francis resided "on the west side in 1637." Both these entries refer to the same residence—a noble mansion, built in the year 1594, which, after being inhabited by several important families, finally passed into the possession of Sir Francis Kynaston, who altered and adapted it (rebuilding some portions) as the college of the "Museum Minervæ." The ground plan, which is now before me, exhibits a well-arranged and commodious building with two fronts, one in what is now Bedfordbury, and the other (probably added by Sir Francis) in the street now called Bedford Street. The building, when Sir Francis Kynaston purchased it in 1634, stood in the centre of a large garden. The surrounding streets,—King Street, New Street, Bedford Street, Chandos Street, Henrietta Street, and Bedfordbury, were not commenced building until the year 1637.

The "Museum Minervæ" is not named in Mr. Cunningham's excellent Handbook; but when we take into consideration the enormous amount of information required for a work of the kind, we ought not to blame the author for a few trifling omissions.

Sir Balthazar Gerbier, an enterprising projector of the same century, by profession a painter and an architect, but now scarcely remembered as either, seems to have imitated the "Museum Minervæ" in an academy opened at Bethnal Green in 1649. Here, in addition to the more common branches of education, he professed to teach astronomy, navigation, architecture, perspective, drawing, limning, engraving, fortification, fireworks, military discipline, the art of well speaking and civil conversation, history, constitutions and maxims of state, and particular dispositions of nations, "riding the great horse," &c. Once in each week, at three o'clock in the afternoon, Sir Balthazar gave a public lecture gratis on the various sciences. The lectures were generally advertised in the Perfect Diurnal, and a few curious specimens of these advertisements may be seen in Lysons' Environs of London, ed. 1795, vol. ii. p. 30.

Balthazar Gerbier was born at Antwerp about 1591, came young into England, and was a retainer of the Duke of Buckingham as early as 1613. Upon the accession of Charles the First, he was employed in Flanders to negociate privately a treaty with Spain. In 1628 he was knighted at Hampton Court; and, as he says himself in one of his books, was promised by the king the office of surveyor-general of the works, after the death of Inigo Jones. In 1637 he was employed in some private transactions of state; and on the 13th of July, 1641, he took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, having a bill of naturalisation. In 1648 he appears to have projected the above-named academy, the failure of which very soon happened. Sir Balthazar then went to America, where he seems to have been very ill treated by the Dutch, and narrowly escaped with his life. He afterwards returned to England, and designed the triumphal arch for the reception of Charles the Second. He died at Hempsted-marshal, in 1667, whilst engaged in superintending the mansion of Lord Craven, and was buried in the chancel of that church.

In conclusion, it may be as well to mention, that, prior to the establishment of the "Museum Minervæ," a committee had been appointed in the House of Lords, consisting of the Duke of Buckingham and others, for taking into consideration the state of the public schools, and method of education. What progress was made in this inquiry is not known, but in all probability the academies of Sir Francis Kynaston and Sir Balthazar Gerbier owed their origin to the meetings of this committee.

    Edward F. Rimbault.

SHAKSPEARE AND FLETCHER

I feel greatly obliged to your correspondent C. B. for the attention he has bestowed on the question of Fletcher's connexion with Henry VIII., as it is only through the concurrent judgments of those who think the subject worthy of their full and impartial consideration, that we can hope to arrive at the truth. His remarks (Vol. iii., p. 190.) are the more valuable, as they coincide with a doubt in my own mind, which has, to a great extent, ripened since I last communicated with you on the subject; and, indeed, I have no need to hesitate in saying, that I had more difficulty in coming to a conclusion with regard to the scene (Act III. Sc. 2.) in which the passages occur quoted by C. B., than with any other scene in the whole play. The suggestions, that Shakspeare might have touched scenes of which the mass had been written by Fletcher, is a point which I had not overlooked, and which indeed, to some extent, might be said to follow from the view I took of the relation of Shakspeare and Fletcher as master and scholar. Yet this suggestion is especially valuable regarding this scene, and may account for that which, without it, is not so easily explained.

If, however, there be any lurking notion in your correspondent's mind, that the scene in Antony and Cleopatra (Act III. Sc. 1) referred to by X. Z. (Vol. iii., p. 139.) is, judging from certain coincidences of expression, an interpolation, and not by Shakspeare, I beg at once to be allowed to express my total dissent from such a view. Whether, also, there may have been any secondary allusion to some known event of the day, as X. Z. supposes, and as is by no means improbable, I cannot say; but I protest against its being said that the scene referred to is "totally unconnected with what goes before, and what follows." Antony is the hero of the play; and this scene shows the culminating point of Antony's fortunes, when his very successes turn against him.

To return to Henry VIII., the compliment to the Queen, to which your correspondent refers, is, as he very justly observes, brought in in a very forced manner. This, to my mind, is very strong evidence; otherwise I should not think it unworthy of Shakspeare. And it still has to be borne in mind, that he would have had to accommodate his characters and circumstances to the views of another writer. Shakspeare's spirit was too catholic, too universal, to have allowed, in a work entirely his own, even his Wolsey to have made use of the term "a spleeny Lutheran;" yet neither in the passage in which this expression occurs, nor in the one above referred to, is the versification characteristic of Fletcher. For my own part, however, I cannot recognise Shakspeare's spirit in this antagonism of creeds, which is, perhaps, even more strongly displayed in the prophetic speech of Cranmer's in the last scene, wherein he says, "God shall be truly known!" It may be said, that in both these instances the expressions are true to the characters of Wolsey and Cranmer. It may be so; for both are wanting in that ideal elevation which Shakspeare never fails to give. That, with this reservation, he becomes the mouth-piece of each character, is most true; and a curious instance of the writer's utter forgetfulness of his assumed character of contemporary with the events he is relating, occurring in Act. IV. Sc. 2 where Griffiths says—

"He was most princely: ever witness for him
Those twins of learning, that he rais'd in you,
Ipswich and Oxford! one of which fell with him,
Unwilling to outlive the good that did it;
The other, though unfinish'd, yet so famous,
So excellent in art, and still so rising,"—

has no parallel in Shakspeare's works. To John Fletcher, indeed, at the close of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, these things were known; but scarcely to the attendant of Queen Katherine, who has but just narrated the circumstances, then newly happened, of Wolsey's fall. On maturer consideration, then, I am inclined to think that the whole of the scene (Act III. Sc. 2.) to which your correspondent refers, was originally written by Fletcher, although, as it now stands, it is strongly marked by the hand of Shakspeare. In the same category, also, I am inclined to place Scenes 3. and 4. of Act II. It will be observed that these changes are not inconsistent with the view I had previously taken; the effect being merely, that I am inclined to ascribe a little more than in the first instance to the hitherto unsuspected participator in the work. I am not sure, too, that I shall not be coming nearer to Mr. Spedding; as, if I am not mistaken, it is in some of these scenes that he imagines he detects "a third hand;" a theory which, though I do not adopt, I certainly have not confidence enough to reject altogether. But this view affects so very small a portion of the play, that it is of very little consequence.

    Samuel Hickson.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF TENNYSON

That great poets are sometimes obscure, needs no proof. That the greatest poets will necessarily be so to the ordinary reader, seems to me equally indisputable.

Not without effort can one enter into the spontaneous thought of another, or even of himself in another mood. How much more when that other is distinguished from his fellows by the greatness and singularity of his thoughts, and by the extreme subtilty of their connecting links. Obscurity is not a blemish but an excellence, if the pains of seeking are more than compensated by the pleasures of finding, the luxury of μαθησις, where the concentrated energy of a passage, when once understood, gives it a hold on the imagination and memory such as were ill sacrificed to more diluted clearness.

Grandis præfatio tenui incepto—a sort of apology to Tennyson for implying that he needs illustration. Some time ago I made a few notes on particular passages in Locksley Hall, which I now enclose. Some of them are, I dare say, superfluous—some, possibly, erroneous. If so, they will stand a fair chance of being corrected in your valuable publication.

By the bye, if a "Notes and Queries" had existed in the days of Æschylus, we might have been saved from many a recourse to "corrupt text" and "lacunæ admodum deflendæ."

Notes on Locksley Hall

Stanza 2. "Dreary gleams:" in apposition with "curlews." I know the construction of this line has puzzled a good many readers.

Stanza 23. "Yet it shall be." Yet "decline" thou certainly wilt.

Stanza 28. "He will answer," &c. With an oath, it may be—at the least with a coarse rebuff.