Notes and Queries, Number 51, October 19, 1850

The Memoirs of Sig. Gaudentio di Lucca have very generally been ascribed to Bishop Berkeley. In Moser's Diary, written at the close of the last century (MS. penes me), the writer says,—

"I have been reading Berkeley's amusing account of Sig. Gaudentio. What an excellent system of patriarchal government is there developed!"

See the Retrospective Review, vol iv. p. 316., where the work is also ascribed to the celebrated Bishop Berkeley.

    EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

In the corrigenda and addenda to Kippis's Biographia Britannica, prefixed to vol. iii. is the following note, under the head of Berkeley:

"On the same authority [viz., that of Dr. George Berkeley, the bishop's son,] we are assured that his father did not write, and never read through, the Adventures of Signor Gaudentio di Lucca. Upon this head, the editor of the Biographia must record himself as having exhibited an instance of the folly of building facts upon the foundation of conjectural reasonings. Having heard the book ascribed to Bishop Berkeley, and seen it mentioned as his in catalogues of libraries, I read over the work again under this impression, and fancied that I perceived internal arguments of its having been written by our excellent prelate. I was even pleased with the apprehended ingenuity of my discoveries. But the whole was a mistake, which, whilst it will be a warning to myself, may furnish an instructive lesson to others. At the same time, I do not retract the character which I have given of the Adventures of Signor Gaudentio di Lucca. Whoever was the author of that performance, it does credit to his abilities and to his heart."

After this decisive testimony of Bishop Berkeley's son, accompanied by the candid confession of error on the part of the editor of the Biographia Britannica, the rumour as to Berkeley's authorship of Gaudentio ought to have been finally discredited. Nevertheless, it seems still to maintain its ground: it is stated as probable by Dunlop, in his History of Fiction; while the writer of a useful Essay on "Social Utopias," in the third volume of Chambers's Papers for the People, No. 18., treats it as an established fact.

    L.

In addition to the remarks of your correspondent L., I may state that the first edition in 1737, 8vo., contains 335 pages, exclusive of the publisher's address, 13 pages. It is printed for T. Cooper, at the Globe, in Paternoster Row. The second edition in 1748, 8vo., contains publisher's address, 12 pages; the work itself 291 pages.

I find no difference between the two editions, except that in the first the title is The Memoirs of Sigr. Gaudentio di Lucca; and in the second, The Adventures of Sigr. Gaudentio di Lucca; and that in the second the notes are subjoined to each page, while in the first they follow the text in smaller type, as Remarks of Sigr. Rhedi. The second edition is—

"Printed for W. Innys in Paternoster Row, and R. Manby and H.S. Cox on Ludgate Hill, and sold by M. Cooper in Paternoster Row."

With respect to the author, it must be observed that there is no evidence whatever to justify its being attributed to Bishop Berkeley. Clara Reeve, in her Progress of Romana, 1786, 8vo., mentions him as having been supposed to be the author; but her authority seems only to have been the anonymous writer in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xlvii. p. 13., referred to by your correspondent. The author of an elaborate review of the work in the Retrospective Review, vol. iv., advocates Bishop Berkeley's claim, but gives no reasons of any validity; and merely grounds his persuasion upon the book being such as might be expected from that great writer. He was, however, at least bound to show some conformity in style, which he does not attempt. On the other hand, we have the positive denial of Dr. George Berkeley, the bishop's son (Kippis's Biog. Brit., vol. iii., addenda to vol. ii.), which, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, seems to be quite sufficient.

In a letter signed C.H., Gent. Mag., vol. vii. p. 317., written immediately on the appearance of the work, the writer observes:—

"I should have been very glad to have seen the author's name prefixed to it: however, I am of opinion that it its very nearly related to no less a hand than that which has so often, under borrowed names, employed itself to amuse and trifle mankind, in their own taste, out of their folly and vices."

This appears to point at Swift; but it is quite clear that he could not be the author, for very obvious reasons.

A correspondent of the Gent. Mag., who signs his initials W.H. (vol. lv. part 2. p. 757), states "on very good authority" that the author was—

"Barrington, a Catholic priest, who had chambers in Gray's Inn, in which he was keeper of a library for the use of the Romish clergy. Mr. Barrington wrote it for amusement, in a fit of the gout. He began it without any plan, and did not know what he should write about when be put pen to paper. He was author of several pamphlets, chiefly anonymous, particularly the controversy with Julius Bate on Elohim."

Of this circumstantial and sufficiently positive attribution, which is dated October, 1785, no contradiction ever appeared that I am aware of. The person intended is S. Berington, the author of—

"Dissertations on the Mosaical Creation, Deluge, building of Babel, and Confusion of Tongues, &c." London: printed for the Author, and sold by C. Davis in Holborn, and T. Osborn in Gray's Inn, 1750, 8vo., pages 466, exclusive of introduction, 12 pages.

On comparing Gaudentio di Lucca with this extremely curious work, there seems a sufficient similarity to bear out the statement of the correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine, W.H. The author quoted in the Remarks of Sigr. Rhedi, and in the Dissertations, are frequently the same, and the learning is of the same cast in both. In particular, Bochart is repeatedly cited in the Remarks and in the Dissertations. The philosophical opinions appear likewise very similar.

On the whole, unless some strong reason can be given for questioning the statement of this correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine, I conceive that S. Berington, of whom I regret that so little is known, must be considered to be the author of The Memoirs of Gaudentio di Lucca.

    JAS. CROSSLEY.

Manchester, October 7. 1850.

ENGLEMANN'S BIBLIOTHECA SCRIPTORUM CLASSICORUM

(Vol. ii., pp. 296. 312.)

The sort of defence, explanation, or whatever it may be called, founded upon usage, and offered by ANOTHER FOREIGN BOOKSELLER, is precisely what I wanted to get out, if it existed, as I suspected it did.

If your correspondent be accurate as to Engelmann, it appears that no wrong is done to him; it is only the public which is mystified by a variety of title-pages, all but one containing a suppression of the truth, and the one of which I speak containing more.

I now ask you to put in parallel columns extracts from the title given by Engelmann with the substitutes given in that which I received.

I do not think it fair towards Mr. Engelmann, whose own title is so true and so precise, to take it for certain, on anonymous authority, that he sanctioned the above paraphrase. According to the German, the catalogue contains works from 1700 to 1846, published especially in Germany; meaning, as is the fact, that there are some in it published elsewhere. According to the English, all classics printed in Germany, and all the adjacent countries, in all times, are to be found in the catalogue. I pass over the implied compliment to this country, namely, that while a true description is required in Germany, a puff both in time and space is wanted for England. I dwell on the injurious effect of such alterations to literature, and on the trouble they give to those who wish to be accurate. It is a system I attack, and not individuals. There is no occasion to say much, for publicity alone will do what is wanted, especially when given in a journal which falls under the eyes of those engaged in research. I hope those of your contributors who think as I do, will furnish you from time to time with exposures; if, as a point of form, a Query be requisite, they can always end with, Is this right?

    A. DE MORGAN.

October 14. 1850.

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."

(Vol. ii., pp. 113. 139. 200. 234.)

I should have been content to leave the question of the meaning of the word delighted as it stands in your columns, my motive, so kindly appreciated by Mr. SINGER, in raising the discussion being, by such means to arrive at the true meaning of the word, but that the remarks of L.B.L. (p. 234.) recall to my mind a canon of criticism which I had intended to communicate at an earlier period as useful for the guidance of commentators in questions of this nature. It is as follows:—Master the grammatical construction of the passage in question (if from a drama, in its dramatic and I scenic application), deducing therefrom the general sense, before you attempt to amend or fix the meaning of a doubtful word.

Of all writers, none exceed Shakspeare in logical correctness and nicety of expression. With a vigour of thought and command of language attained by no man besides, it is fair to conclude, that he would not be guilty of faults of construction such as would disgrace a school-boy's composition; and yet how unworthily is he treated when we find some of his finest passages vulgarised and degraded through misapprehensions arising from a mere want of that attention due to the very least, not to say the greatest, of writers. This want of attention (without attributing to it such fatal consequences) appears to me evident in L.B.L.'s remarks, ably as he analyses the passage. I give him credit for the faith that enabled him to discover a sense in it as it stands; but when he says that it is perfectly intelligible in its natural sense, it appears to me that he cannot be aware of the innumerable explanations that have been offered of this very clear passage. The source of his error is plainly referable to the cause I have pointed out.

It is quite true that, in the passage referred to, the condition of the body before and after death is contrasted, but this is merely incidental. The natural antithesis of "a sensible warm motion" is expressed in "a kneaded clod" and "cold obstruction;" but the terms of the other half of the passage are not quite so well balanced. On the other hand, it is not the contrasted condition of each, but the separation of the body and spirit—that is, death—which is the object of the speaker's contemplation. Now with regard to the meaning of the term delighted, L.B.L. says it is applied to the spirit "not in its state after death, but during life." I must quote the lines once more:—

"Ay, but to die, and go we know not where;
To lie in cold obstruction, and to rot;
This sensible warm motion to become
A kneaded clod; and the delighted spirit
To bathe in fiery floods," &c.

And if I were to meet with a hundred thousand passages of a similar construction, I am confident they would only confirm the view that the spirit is represented in the then present state as at the termination of the former clause of the sentence. If such had not been the view instinctively taken by all classes of readers, there could have been no difficulty about the meaning of the word.

As a proof that this view of the construction is correct, let L.B.L. substitute for "delighted spirit", spirit no longer delighted, and he will find that it gives precisely the sense which he deduces from the passage as it stands. If this be true, then, according to his view, the negative and affirmative of a proposition may be used indifferently, in the same time and circumstances giving exactly the same meaning.

MR. SINGER furnishes another instance (Vol. ii., p. 241.) of the value of my canon. I think there can be no doubt that his explanation of the meaning of the word eisell is correct; but if it were not, any way of reading the passage in which it occurs would lead me to the conclusion that it could not be a river. Drink up is synonymous with drink off, drink to the dregs. A child, taking medicine, is urged to "drink it up." The idea of the passage appears to be that each of the acts should go beyond the last preceding in extravagance:—

"Woo't weep? Woo't fight? Woo't fast? Woo't tear thyself?
Woo't drink up eisell?"

And then comes the climax—"eat a crocodile?" Here is a regular succession of feats, the last but one of which is sufficiently wild, though not unheard of, and leading to the crowning extravagance. The notion of drinking up a river would be both unmeaning and out of place.

    SAMUEL HICKSON.

September 18. 1850.

THE COLLAR OF ESSES

I shall look with interest to the documents announced by Dr. ROCK (Vol. ii., p. 280.), which in his mind connect the Collar of Esses with the "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus" of the Salisbury liturgy: but hitherto I have found nothing in any of the devices of livery collars that partakes of religious allusion. I am well aware that many of the collars of knighthood of modern Europe, headed by the proud order of the Saint Esprit, display sacred emblems and devices. But the livery collars were perfectly distinct from collars of knighthood. The latter, indeed, did not exist until a subsequent age: and this was one of the most monstrous of the popular errors which I had to combat in my papers in the Gentleman's Magazine. A Frenchman named Favyn, at the commencement of the seventeenth century, published a folio book on Orders of Knighthood, and, giving to many of them an antiquity of several centuries,—often either fabulous or greatly exaggerated,—provided them all with imaginary collars, of which he exhibits engravings. M. Favyn's book was republished in English, and his collars have been handed down from that time to this, in all our heraldic picture-books. This is one important warning which it is necessary to give any one who undertakes to investigate this question. From my own experience of the difficulty with which the mind is gradually disengaged from preconceived and prevailing notions on such points, which it has originally adopted as admitting of no question, I know it is necessary to provide that others should not view my arguments through a different medium to myself. And I cannot state too distinctly, even if I incur more than one repetition, that the Collar of Esses was not a badge of knighthood nor a badge of personal merit; but it was a collar of livery; and the idea typified by livery was feudal dependence, or what we now call party. The earliest livery collar I have traced is the French order of cosses de geneste, or broomcods: and the term "order", I beg to explain, is in its primary sense exactly equivalent to "livery:" it was used in France in that sense before it came to be applied to orders of knighthood. Whether there was any other collar of livery in France, or in other countries of Europe, I have not hitherto ascertained; but I think it highly probable that there was. In England we have some slight glimpses of various collars, on which it would be too long here to enter; and it is enough to say, that there were only two of the king's livery, the Collar of Esses and the Collar of Roses and Suns. The former was the collar of our Lancastrian kings, the latter of those of the house of York. The Collar of Roses and Suns had appendages of the heraldic design which was then called "the king's beast," which with Edward IV. was the white lion of March, and with Richard III. the white boar. When Henry VII. resumed the Lancastrian Collar of Esses, he added to it the portcullis of Beaufort. In the former Lancastrian regions it had no pendant, except a plain or jewelled ring, usually of the trefoil form. All the pendant badges which I have enumerated belong to secular heraldry, as do the roses and suns which form the Yorkist collar. The letter S is an emblem of a somewhat different kind; and, as it proves, more difficult to bring to a satisfactory solution than the symbols of heraldic blazon. As an initial it will bear many interpretations—it may be said, an indefinite number, for every new Œdipus has some fresh conjecture to propose. And this brings me to render the account required by Dr. Rock of the reasons which led me to conclude that the letter S originated with the office of Seneschallus or Steward. I must still refer to the Gentleman's Magazine for 1842, or to the republication of my essays which I have already promised, for fuller details of the evidence I have collected; but its leading results, as affecting the origin of this device, may be stated as follows:—It is ascertained that the Collar of Esses was given by Henry, Earl of Derby, afterwards King Henry IV., during the life-time of his father, John of Ghent, Duke of Lancaster. It also appears that the Duke of Lancaster himself gave a collar, which was worn in compliment to him by his nephew King Richard II. In a window of old St. Paul's, near the duke's monument, his arms were in painted glass, accompanied with the Collar of Esses; which is presumptive proof that his collar was the same as that of his son, the Earl of Derby. If, then, the Collar of Esses was first given by this mighty duke, what would be his meaning in the device? My conjecture is, that it was the initial of the title of that high office which, united to his vast estates, was a main source of his weight and influence in the country,—the office of Steward of England. This, I admit, is a derivation less captivating in idea than another that has been suggested, viz. that S was the initial of Souveraine which is known to have been a motto subsequently used by Henry IV., and which might be supposed to foreshadow the ambition with which the House of Lancaster affected the crown. But the objection to this is, that the device is traced back earlier than the Lancastrian usurpation can be supposed to have been in contemplation. It might still be the initial of Souveraine, if John of Ghent adopted it in allusion to his kingdom of Castille: but, because he is supposed to have used it, and his son the Earl of Derby certainly used it, after the sovereignty of Castille had been finally relinquished, but also before either he or his son can be supposed to have aimed at the sovereignty of their own country, therefore it is that, in the absence of any positive authority, I adhere at present to the opinion that the letter S was the initial of Seneschallus or Steward.

    JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS.

P.S.—Allow me to put a Query to the antiquaries of Scotland. Can any of them help me to the authority from which Nich. Upton derived his livery collar of the King of Scotland "de gormettis fremalibus equorum?"—J.G.N.