Notes and Queries, Number 182, April 23, 1853

Mr. Wright's Glossary refers to these last two instances as follows:

"More (A.-S.) 330, 331., the main or larger part, body (?)"

At p. 334. we meet with the word again:

"On o more thei growed."

And again, at p. 416.:

"And bite a-two the mores."

May I, in passing, venture to inquire of the editor on what authority he explains waselede (p. 476.) to be "the pret. of waselen (A.-S.) to become dirty, dirty oneself?"

"This Troilus withouten rede or lore,
As man that hath his joies eke forlore,
Was waiting on his lady evermore,
As she that was sothfast croppe and more,
Of all his lust or joyes here tofore."

    Chaucer's Troilus and Creseide, b.v.
Afterwards, in the same book, a few stanzas further on, he joins "crop" and "root" together.

"Last of all, if these thinges auayle not the cure, I do commend and allow above all the rest, that you take the iuyce of Celendine rootes, making them cleane from the earth that doth vse to hang to the moores."—The Booke of Falconrie, by George Turbervile, 1611, p. 236.

"Chiefely, if the moare of vertue be not cropped, but dayly rooted deepelyer."—The Fyrste Booke of the Nobles or of Nobilitye, translated from Laurence Humfrey.

The next and last example from the "Second Booke" of this interesting little volume I will quote more at large:

"Aristotle mencioneth in his Politikes an horrible othe vsed in certaine states, consistinge of the regimente of fewe nobles, in maner thus: I will hate the people, and to my power persecute them. Which is the croppe and more of al sedition. Yet too much practised in oure liues. But what cause is there why a noble man should eyther despise the people? or hate them? or wrong them? What? know they not, no tiranny maye bee trusty? Nor how yll garde of cotinuance, feare is? Further, no more may nobilitie misse the people, then in man's body, the heade, the hande. For of trueth, the common people are the handes of the nobles, sith them selues bee handlesse. They labour and sweate for them, with tillinge, saylinge, running, toylinge: by sea, by lad, with hads, w

feete, serue them. So as w'oute theyr seruice, they nor eate, nor drink, nor are clothed, no nor liue. We reade in y

taleteller Esope, a doue was saued by the helpe of an ant. A lyon escaped by the benefit of a mowse. We rede agayne, that euen ants haue theyr choler. And not altogether quite, the egle angered the bytle bee."

The reader will notice in this citation another instance of the verb miss, to dispense with. I have now done for the present; but should the collation of sundry passages, to illustrate the meaning of a word, appear as agreeable to the laws of a sound philology, as conducive to the integrity of our ancient writers, and as instructive to the public as brainspun emendations, whether of a remote or modern date, which now-a-days are pouring in like a flood—to corrupt long recognised readings in our idolised poet Shakspeare, in order to make his phraseology square with the language of the times and his readers' capacities—I will not decline to continue endeavours such as the present essay exhibits with a view to stem and roll back the tide.

    W. R. Arrowsmith.

Broad Heath, Presteign, Herefordshire.

A WORK ON THE MACROCOSM

I intended to have contributed a series of papers to "N. & Q." on the brute creation, on plants and flowers, &c.; and in a Note on the latter subject I promised to follow it up. However, as circumstances have changed my intentions, I think it may be well to mention that I have in hand a work on Macrocosm, or World of Nature around us, which shall be published in three separate parts or volumes. The first shall be devoted to the Brute Creation; the second shall be an Herbal, with a Calendar of dedicated Flowers prefixed; the third shall contain Chapters on the Mineral Kingdom: in the last I shall treat of the symbolism of stones, and the superstitions respecting them. I purpose in each case, as far as possible, to go to the fountain-head, and shall give copious extracts from such writers as St. Ildefonso of Toledo, St. Isidore of Seville, Vincent of Beauvais, St. Basil, Origen, Epiphanius, and the Christian Fathers.

As the work I have sketched out for myself will require time to mature, I shall publish very shortly a small volume, containing a breviary of the former, which will give some idea of the manner in which I shall treat the proposed subject.

Many correspondents of "N. & Q." have evinced great interest in the line I intend to enter upon. (See Vol. i., pp. 173. 457.; Vol. iv., p. 175.; Vol. vi., pp. 101. 272. 462. 518.) Their Queries have produced no satisfactory result. I myself made a Query in my "Chapter on Flowers," some months ago, respecting Catholic floral directories, and two works in particular, about which I was most anxious, and which were quoted in The Catholic Florist, London, 1851, and I have received no answer. Mr. Oakley, indeed, wrote to me to say that he "only edited it, and wrote a preface," and that he forwarded my Query "to the compiler:" the latter personage, however, has not favoured me with a reply.

In spite of all these discouragements, I have taken the step of bringing my contemplated work before the readers of "N. & Q.," and I shall gratefully acknowledge any communications relative to legends, folk-lore, superstitions, symbolism, &c. bearing on the subjects proposed. As I intend inserting a bibliographical list of the chief works which come under the scope of each volume, I might receive much valuable assistance on this point, especially as regards Oriental and other foreign books, which might escape my researches. As regards the brute creation, I have gotten, with the kind assistance of the editor of "N. & Q.," Hildrop's famous reply to Father Bougeant; and I have sent to Germany for Dr. Kraus's recent work on the subject.

    Eirionnach.

DR. SOUTH'S LATIN TRACT AGAINST SHERLOCK

None of South's compositions are more striking or characteristic than his two English tracts against Sherlock, his Animadversions on Sherlock'sVindication of the Trinity, 1693-94, 4to., and his Tritheism charged on Sherlock's new Notion of the Trinity, 1694, 4to. For caustic wit and tremendous power of vituperation, I scarcely know any controversial works which surpass, or even equal them. South looked upon Sherlock with profound scorn as a Sciolist, and hated him most cordially as a heretic and a political renegade. He accordingly gives him no quarter, and seems determined to draw blood at every stroke. Mrs. Sherlock is of course not forgotten, and one of the happiest passages in the Tritheism charged is the well-known humorous illustration of Socrates and Xantippe, p. 129. It is somewhat curious that, notwithstanding these two works of South have attracted so much notice, it seems to be quite unknown that he also published a Latin tract against Sherlock, in further continuation of the controversy, in which the attack is carried on with equal severity. The title of the tract in question is, Decreti Oxoniensis Vindicatio in Tribus ad Modestum ejusdem examinatorem modestioribus Epistolis a Theologo Transmarino. Excusa Anno Domini 1696, 4to., pp. 92. The tract, of which I have a copy, is anonymous, but it is ascribed to South in the following passages in The Agreement of the Unitarians with the Catholic Church, part i. 1697, 4to., which is included in vol. v. of the 4to. Unitarian Tracts, and evidently written by one who had full information on the subject. His expressions (p. 62.) are—"Dr. South, in his Latin Letters, under the name of a Transmarine Divine;" and a little further on, "Dr. South, in two (English) books by him written, and in three Latin letters, excepts against this (Sherlock's) explication of the Trinity." In confirmation of this ascription, I may observe that the Latin tract is contained in an extensive collection of the tracts in the Trinitarian Controversy formed by Dr. John Wallis, which I possess, and in which he has written the names of the authors of the various anonymous pieces. He took, as is well known, a leading part in the controversy, and published himself an anonymous pamphlet (not noticed by his biographers), also in defence of Oxford decrees. On the title-page of the Latin tract he has written "By Dr. South." I have likewise another copy in a volume which belonged to Stephen Nye, one of the ablest writers in the controversy, and who ascribes it in the list of contents in the fly-leaf, in his handwriting, to Dr. South. These grounds would appear to be sufficient to authorise our including this tract in the list of South's works, though, from the internal evidence of the tract itself alone, I should scarcely have felt justified in ascribing it to him.

    Jas. Crossley.

SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE

Parallel Passages.—

"You leaden messengers,
That ride upon the violent wings of fire,
Fly with false aim; move the still-piecing air,
That sings with piercing,—do not touch my lord!"

    All's Well that Ends Well, Act III. Sc. 2.
"the elements,
Of whom your swords are tempered, may as well
Wound the loud winds, or with bemock'd at stabs
Kill the still-closing waters, as diminish
One dowle that's in my plume."

    The Tempest, Act III. Sc. 3.
There can be little doubt that the clever corrector of Mr. Collier's folio had the last of these passages in view when he altered the word move of the first, into wound of the second: but in this instance he overshot the mark, in not perceiving the nice and subtle distinction which exists between them. The first implies possibility: the second impossibility.

In the second, the mention of, to "wound the loud wind, or kill the still-closing water," is to set forth the absurdness of the attempt; but in the first passage there is a direct injunction to a possible act: "Fly with false aim, move the still-piecing air." To say "wound the still-piecing air" would be to direct to be done, in one passage, that which the other passage declares to be absurd to expect!

If it were necessary to disturb move at all, the word cleave would be, all to nothing, a better substitution than wound.

Whether the annotating of Mr. Collier's folio be a real or a pseudo-antique, it is impossible to deny that its executor must have been a clever, as he was certainly a slashing hitter. It cannot, therefore, be wondered that he should sometimes reach the mark: but that these corrections should be received with that blind and superstitious faith, so strangely exacted for them, can scarcely be expected. Indeed, it is to be regretted that they have been introduced to the public with such an uncompromising claim to authority; as the natural repugnance against enforced opinion may endanger the success of the few suggestive emendations, to be found amongst them, which are really new and valuable.

    A. E. B.

Leeds.

P.S.—With reference to the above Note, which, although not before printed, has been for some time in the Editor's hands, I have observed in a Dublin paper of Saturday, April 9th, a very singular coincidence; viz. the recurrence of the self-same misprint corrected by Malone, but retained by Messrs. Collier and Knight in their respective editions of Shakspeare. Had the parallel expressions still-closing, still-piecing, which I have compared in the above paper, been noticed by these editors, they would no more have hesitated in accepting Malone's correction than they would object to the same correction in the misprint I am about to point out; viz.

"Two planks were pointed out by the witnesses, viz. one with a knot in it, and another which was piered with strips of wood," &c.—Saunders's Newsletter, April 9th, 3rd page, 1st col.

The Passage in "King Henry VIII.," Act III. Sc. 2. (Vol. vii., pp. 5. 111. 183.).—Is an old Shakspearian to talk rashly in "N. & Q." without being called to account? "If 'we can,'" says Mr. Singer, "'by no means part with have,' we must interpolate been after it, to make it any way intelligible, to the marring of the verse." Now, besides the passage in the same scene—

——"my loyalty,
Which ever has, and ever shall be growing,"

pointed out by your Leeds correspondent, there is another equally in point in All's Well that Ends Well, Act II. Sc. 5., which, being in prose, settles the question as to whether the omission of the past participle after the auxiliary was customary in Shakspeare's time. It is Lafeu's farewell to Parolles:

"Farewell, Monsieur: I have spoken better of you, than you have or will deserve at my hand; but we must do good against evil."