Notes and Queries, Number 27, May 4, 1850

We shall probably next week indulge in a few QUERIES which have suggested themselves to us, and to which Mr. Cunningham will perhaps be good enough to reply.

ANECDOTE OF CHARLES I

I have great pleasure in forwarding to you an anecdote of the captivity of Charles I., which I think will be considered interesting to your readers. Of its authenticity there can be no doubt. I extract it from a small paper book, purchased some fifty years since, at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, which contains the history of a family named Douglas, for some years resident in that town, written by the last representative, Eliza Douglas, at the sale of whose effects it came into my grandfather's hands. There are many curious particulars in it besides the anecdote I have sent you; especially an account of the writer's great-great-grandfather (the husband of the heroine of this tale), who "traded abroad, and was took into Turkey as a slave," and there gained the affections of his master's daughter, after the most approved old-ballad fashion; though, alas! it was not to her love that he owed his liberty, but (dreadful bathos!) to his skill in "cooking fowls, &c. &c. in the English taste;" which, on a certain occasion, when some English merchants came to dine with his master, "so pleased the company, that they offered to redeem him, which was accepted; and when freed he came home to England, and lived in London to an advanced age; so old that they fed him with a tea-spoon."

After his death his wife married again; and it was during this second marriage that the interview with King Charles took place.

"My mother's great-grandmother, when a-breeding with her daughter, Mary Craige, which was at y'e time of King Charles being a prisoner in Carisbrook Castle, she longed to kiss the King's hand; and when he was brought to Newport to be carried off, she being acquainted with the gentleman's housekeeper, where the King was coming to stay, till orders for him to leave the island, she went to the housekeeper, told her what she wanted, and they contrived for her to come the morning he was to go away. So up she got, and dressed herself, and set off to call her midwife, and going along, the first and second guard stopped her and asked her where she was going; she told them 'to call her midwife,' which she did. They went to this lady, and she went and acquainted his Majesty with the affair; he desired she may come up to him, and she said, when she came into the room, his Majesty seemed to appear as if he had been at prayers. He rose up and came to her, who fell on her knees before him; he took her up by the arm himself, and put his cheek to her, and she said she gave him a good hearty smack on his cheek. His Majesty then said, 'Pray God bless you, and that you go withal.' She then went down stairs to wait and see the King take coach; she got so close that she saw a gentleman in it; and when the King stept into the coach, he said, 'Pray, Sir, what is your name?' he replied, 'I am Col. Pride.' 'Not miscalled,' says the King. Then Pride says, 'Drive on, coachman.'"

    E.V.

QUERIES

THE MAUDELEYNE GRACE

The rector of Slimbridge, in the diocese of Gloucester, is bound to pay ten pounds a year to Magdalen College, for "choir music on the top of the College tower on May-day." (See Rudder's Gloucestershire.) Some years ago a prospectus was issued, announcing as in preparation, "The Maudeleyne Grace, including the Hymnus Eucharisticus, with the music by Dr. Rogers, as sung every year on May Morning, on the Tower of Magdalene College, Oxford, in Latin and English. With an Historical Introduction by William Henry Black." Can any of your readers inform me whether this interesting work ever made its appearance? I am inclined to think it did not, and have an indistinct recollection that the original MS. of the "Grace" was lost through the carelessness of the lithographer who was entrusted with it for the purpose of making a fac-simile.

Whilst making some researches in the library of Christ Church, Oxford, I accidentally met with what appears to me to be the first draft of the "Grace" in question. It commences "Te Deum Patrem colimus," and has the following note:—"This Hymn is sung every day in Magdalen College Hall, Oxon, dinner and supper throughout the year for the after grace, by the chaplains, clarkes, and choristers there. Composed by Benjamin Rogers, Doctor of Musique of the University of Oxon, 1685." It is entered in a folio volume, with this note on the fly-leaf,—"Ben Rogers, his book, Aug. 18. 1673, and presented me by Mr. John Playford, Stationer in the Temple, London." The Latin Grace, Te Deum Patrem colimus, is popularly supposed to be the Hymnus Eucharisticus written by Dr. Nathaniel Ingelo, and sung at the civic feast at Guildhall on the 5th July, 1660, while the king and the other royal personages were at dinner; but this is a mistake, for the words of Ingelo's hymn, very different from the Magdalen hymn, still exist, and are to be found in Wood's collection in the Ashmolean Museum. The music, too, of the Te Deum is in a grand religious style, and not of a festal character.

    EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

"ESQUIRE" AND "GENTLEMAN."

The custom of addressing almost every man above the rank of an artizan or a huckster as "Esquire," seems now to be settled as a matter of ordinary politeness and courtesy; whilst the degradation of the gentleman into the "Gent," has caused this term, as the title of a social class, to have fallen into total disuse. Originally, they were terms that had their respective meanings as much as Duke, Knight, Yeoman, or Hind; but now they simply mean courtesy or contempt towards the person to whom they are applied,—with the exception, indeed, of certain combinations of circumstances under which the word "Gentleman" is applied as a character.

It would be an interesting occupation to trace the mutations of meaning which these words have undergone, and the circumstances which gave rise to the successive applications of them. The subject has been often touched upon more or less slightly; but I know of no work in which it is discussed fully, though, indeed, there may be such. Of course, many of your readers are men whose pursuits have lain in other directions than social customs, social language, and social tastes; and, as one of them, I may be permitted to ask either where a full discussion can be found, or that some of your correspondents will furnish through your medium a clear and tolerably full exposition of the question. I believe it would be of general and public interest.

We naturally expect, that in official correspondence, the public boards, through their proper officers, would be very precise in assigning to every person his proper title, in the address of a letter. Yet nothing can be more negligent and capricious than the way in which this is done. I have held an appointment in the public service, which is generally considered to carry with it the title of "Esquire," (but really whether it do or not, I am unable to tell), and have at different times had a good deal of official correspondence, sometimes mere routine, and sometimes involving topics of a critical character. From my own experience I am led to think that no definite rule exists, and that the temper of the moment will dictate the style of address. For instance, in matter-of-course business, or in any correspondence that was agreeable to official persons, I was addressed as "Esq.;" but if the correspondence took a turn that was unpleasant, it was "Mr. –;" and on one occasion I received a note addressed with my name denuded of all title whatever, even of the office I filled. The note, I hardly need say, was "full of fire and fury;" and yet, in less than half an hour, I received a second (the writer having discovered his mistake), opening with "My dear Sir," and superscribed with the "Esquire" at full length. This, I think, proves the capriciousness of men in public stations in their assignment of titles of this kind.

I certainly expected to find, however, in the "List of the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries," due attention paid to this circumstance. The one just circulated was therefore referred to, and it would seem to be as full of anomalies as a "Court Guide" or a "Royal Blue Book." We have, indeed, the Knights and Baronets duly titled, and the Peers, lay and spiritual, sufficiently distinguished both by capitals and mode of insertion. All those who have no other title (as D.D. or F.R.S.) recognised by the Society, are courteously designated by the affix "Esq." In this, it will be strange indeed if all be entitled to the appellation in its legitimate sense; or, in other words, if the principle of courtesy does not supersede, amongst the otherwise untitled mass of Fellows, the principle of social rank. To this in itself, as the distinction of "Gent" after a man's name has become derogatory, there cannot be the least objection; for antiquarianism does not palliate rudeness or offensive language.

At the same time, the adoption of this principle should surely be uniform, and invidious distinctions should not be made. The title "Esq.," should not be given to one man, and left out in designating another whose social position is precisely the same. For instance, we find in this list "–, M.D.," and "–, Esq., M.D.," employed to designate two different Doctors in Medicine. We find "–, F.R.S." and "–, Esq., F.R.S." to designate two Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries, who are also Fellows of the Royal. We see one or two D.D.'s deprived of their titles of "Rev.," and, as if to make amends (in point of quantity at least), we have one Fellow with titles at each end of his name that seem incompatible with each other, viz., "Rev. –, Esq."

Anomalies like these can only be the result of sheer carelessness, or of the ignorance of some clerk employed to make out the list without adequate instructions given to him. It has, in my hearing, been held up as a specimen of invidious distinction to gratify some petty dislike; but this notion is simply absurd, and deserves no notice. At the same time, it betokens a carelessness that it is desirable to avoid.

As a mere question of dignity, it appears to me to savour too much of Clapham-Common or Hampstead-Heath grandeur, to add much to our respectability or worldly importance. It would, indeed, be more "dignified" to drop, in the lists, all use of "Esq." under any circumstances; or, if this be objected to, to at least treat "M.A.," "D.D.," "F.R.S." as higher titles, in which the "Esq." may properly be merged, and thus leave the appellation to designate the absence of any higher literary or scientific title.

A good deal of this is irrelevant to the primary object of my letter; but certainly not altogether irrelevant to the dignity of the highest English representative body of archæology, the Society of Antiquaries. I hope, at least, that this irrelevancy will give neither pain nor offence to any one, for nothing could be further from my wish or intention than such an effect. I have only wished to illustrate the necessity for an accurate description of what are really the original, subsequent, and present significations of the words "Esquire" and "Gentleman," and to urge that either some definite rule should be adopted as to their use in official and semi-official cases, or else that they should be discontinued altogether.

    BROWN RAPPEE.

April 18.

FIVE QUERIES

1. Lines by Sir John Suckling.—Is Sir John Suckling, or Owen Feltham, the real author of the poem whose first verse runs thus:

"When, dearest, I but think on thee,
Methinks all things that lovely be
Are present, and my soul delighted;
For beauties that from worth arise,
Are like the grace of deities,
Still present with us though unsighted."

I find it in the twelfth edition of Feltham's Works, 1709, p. 593., with the following title:

"This ensuing copy of the late Printer hath been pleased to honour, by mistaking it among those of the most ingenious and too early lost, Sir John Suckling."

I find it also in the edition of Suckling's Works published at Dublin, 1766. As I feel interested in all that relates to Suckling, I shall be glad to have the authorship of this short poem rightly assigned.

2. What is the origin and exact meaning of the phrase "Sleeveless errand"? It is mentioned as late even as the last century, by Swift, in his poem entitled Reasons for not building at Drapier's Hill:

"Who send my mind as I believe, less
Than others do on errands sleeveless."

3. What is the origin and derivation of the word "Trianon," the name of the two palaces, Le Grand and Le Petit, at Versailles? and why was it applied to them?

4. What is the correct blazon of the arms of Godin; with crest and motto? I have seen an imperfect drawing of the arms, Party per fess, a goblet transpierced with a dagger.

5. Whose is the line,

"With upward finger pointing to the sky."

I have heard it generally referred to Goldsmith, but cannot find it.

    HENRY KERSLEY.

Corpus Christi Hall, Maidstone, April 15. 1850.

QUERIES PROPOSED, NO. I

The non-appearance of my name as a querist has been rather fortuitous, and it shall now be made evident that I am neither so rich in materials, nor so proud in spirit, as to decline such assistance as may be derived from the information and courtesy of other contributors to the "Notes and Queries."

1. Did the following critical remarks on Shakspere, by Edward Phillips, appear verbatim in the Thesaurus of J. Buchlerus, 1669?

The Bodleian library has the London edition of 1636; and the British Museum that of 1652. Wood cites an edition of 1669. I transcribe from that of 1679.

"Hoc seculo [sc. temporibus Elizabetha reginæ et Jacobi regis] floruerunt—Gulielmus Shacsperus, qui præter opera dramatica, duo poematia Lucretiæ stuprum à Tarquinio, et Amores Veneris in Adonidem, lyrica carmina nonnulla composuit; videtur fuisse, siquis alius, re verâ poeta natus. Samuel Daniel non obseurus hujus ætatis poeta, etc....

Ex eis qui dramaticè scripserunt, primas sibi vendicant Shacsperus, Jonsonus et Fletcherus, quorum hic facundâ et polita quadam familiaritate sermonis, ille erudito judicio et usu veterum authorum, alter nativa quadam et poetica sublimitate ingenii excelluisse videntur. Ante hos in hoc genere poeseos apud nos eminuit nemo. Pauci quidem antea scripserunt, at parum foeliciter; hos autem tanquam duces itineris plurimi saltem æmulati sunt, inter quos præter Sherleium, proximum à supra memorato triumviratu. Suclingium, Randolphium, Davenantium et Carturitium—enumerandi veniunt Ric. Bromeus, Tho. Heivodus," etc.

2. What are the contents of a work entitled, [Old German script: Schaubune Englischer und Franßofischer Comædianten], printed before 1671?

This work is recorded, but without a date, in the Historia literaria of Simon Paulli, which was printed at Strasbourg in 1671. A statement of its contents would be very acceptable to myself, and to other admirers of our early dramatic literature.

3. Who is the fortunate possessor of the Lives and characters of the English dramatick poets with the marginal marks of Garrick?

The copy in question was sold with the unreserved books of Garrick in 1823, No. 1269. It contained this note: