George (1738-1820). Son of Frederick Louis. Created Prince of when a few days old. George Frederick (born 1865). Son of Edward VII. Created Prince of Wales, Nov. 9, 1901. Became George V. May, 1910. SWEDENBORG MANUSCRIPT MISSING. Several of these MSS. which had not been published in their author's lifetime some of which, indeed, he seems to have intended only for his own reference have been since printed by permission of the autho rities of the Royal Academy of Sciences, and with their co-operation. Among these is an MS. which bears no title, but which was named by Benedict Chastanier (who in 1791 issued abortive proposals for printing the work) 'Diarium Spirituale,' by which title The it has been subsequently known. 'Diarium Spirituale was printed by Dr. J. F. I. Tafel, Librarian in the University of Tübingen, at that town in 1844-50. An English translation, as 'The Spiritual Diary,' extending as far as paragraph 1538, was ONE hundred and thirty-eight years ago, published in London in 1846; and another, viz., on Sunday, 29 March, 1772, Emanuel continued to paragraph 3427, at New York Swedenborg died in his London lodging and Boston, U.S.A., in 1850–72. A comat 26, Great Bath Street, Coldbath Fields, plete English translation appeared in London s house which, judged by its present appear- in 1883-1902, and a phototyped facsimile ance, must have been a very modest habita- of the original MS. at Stockholm in 1901-5. tion for a man of his social standing. His "whole library there, we are told, had consisted of a Hebrew Bible, and it was given, as his burial fee, to his countryman Dean Ferelius. Some of Swedenborg's MSS. (probably memorandum books and indexes to his writings) had accompanied his final journey to London, and these, with his other personal effects, were immediately known from 1772 onwards. It is noted, after his death dispatched to Stockholm at No. 7, vols. iv. and v., in the aboveby his friend and man-of-business Mr. mentioned Heirs' List compiled in that Charles Lindegren. Swedenborg having left year, but is there exaggerated so as to no will, all his property passed into the include paragraphs 1 to 205, an error due hands of his heirs-at-law. His library, obviously to a too hasty glance at the MS. which had remained in Sweden, was sold which upon its surface seems to justify the at the "Bok-Auctions-Kammaren i Stock-statement. Special search has been made holm d. 28 Nov., 1772," and the printed for the missing section (e.g., by Dr. J. F. I. catalogue of the sale, reproduced in fac- Tafel at Stockholm in 1859, and by his simile by Mr. Alfred H. Stroh at Stockholm nephew, Dr. R. L. Tafel, at the same city in 1907, forms an interesting conspectus of in 1868), but without success; and its the great Swede's multifarious studies. disappearance has come to be considered absolute and complete. 22 In each of these five editions paragraphs 1 to 148 are "conspicuous by their absence"; but in the latest English version their place is occupied by a translation of the brief analyses of the contents of these paragraphs as noted by their author in his MS. index to the work. The existence of this defect has been A month before this sale, viz., on 27 October, 1772, the whole of Swedenborg's As long ago as 1842 inquiries made on extant MSS., and the "author's copies" of behalf of the Swedenborg Society elicited many of his printed works, were, on behalf the information that in the library of a of his heirs, formally presented to the Royal certain congregation of "New-Church " Academy of Sciences of Stockholm, in the people was a volume of Swedenborg's library of which institution they have been writings to which was affixed a fragment of preserved ever since, though not wholly his MS. evidently cut from some book." exempt from vicissitudes. The gift was The volume in question formed one of the accompanied by a list of the MSS., which" objects of interest " exhibited to the was printed at Stockholm in 1801, and again in 1820, and is reproduced, with similar lists, upon pp. 729 to 800 of Dr. R. L. Tafel's collection of 'Documents concerning Swedenborg,' vol. ii. part ii., London, 1877. visitors at the International Swedenborg Congress held in London throughout the week ending to-day. In his copious Bibliography of Swedenborg's Works,' issued in 1906, the editor, the Rev. James. Hyde, minutely describes this fragment, at No. 498 in his numerical system, dates it 1747, and proceeds to draw attention to the connexion of its subjectmatter with paragraphs 28 and 29 in the missing section of the 'Diarium Spirituale.' Renewing and extending his researches into this suggested parallelism, Mr. Hyde published their result in The New Church Review (Philadelphia, U.S.A.) for July, 1907. Briefly stated, Mr. Hyde's conclusions are that paragraphs 1 to 148 of these memorabilia 22 were written by Swedenborg at Stockholm within the months January to July, 1747, in a book entirely distinct from that, or those, in which he subsequently penned paragraphs 149 to 6096; and that the fragment described at No. 498 in the Swedenborg Bibliography is a part of that first used volume which is now, apparently, lost. The whole subject is discussed at length in an article, divided into three sections, which appears in The New Church Magazine for February, March, and April of the present year, to the last-named of which is prefixed a facsimile of the resuscitated fragment. The Magazine is procurable at the Swedenborg Society's house, 1, Bloomsbury Street, W.C., or it can be consulted in many Free Libraries throughout the country. Meanwhile, may I appeal to all my readers who possess, or know of, any anonymous Latin MSS. of the eighteenth century, to examine them with a view to ascertain if they include " a volume [bound or unbound] measuring 12 by 8 inches, probably without title-page or page-headings, and containing paragraphs numbered 1 to 148, whereof No. 29 lacks the concluding portion"? A copy of the facsimile of the newly identified fragment already mentioned will be forwarded to all applicants by Mr. James Speirs, 1, Bloomsbury Street, W.C. It will serve as a clue to facilitate the search for which I plead, and he or I will gladly receive particulars of any successful results. CHARLES HIGHAM. 169, Grove Lane, Camberwell, S.E. BRISTOL BOOKSELLERS AND W. C. B.'s list at 10 S. v. 141 I did not see, Eliazer Edgar, admitted to the freedom in June, 1620,"for the using of the trade of binding and selling books." J. B. Beckett, Corn Street, 1774 Henry Greep, Bridewell Lane, 1715 Mary Ward & Son, Corn Street, 1781 William Bonny, mentioned by W. C. B., was the first man to set up an independent permanent press in Bristol. He was originally in business in London, where he had met with little success. When, in 1695, Parliament omitted to continue the law subjecting all printed books and pamphlets to official censorship, and virtually confining the provincial press of England to Oxford, Cambridge, and York, Bonny obtained leave from the Corporation of Bristol to start in business as a printer in the city, but, out of consideration for the local booksellers, it was stipulated that he should carry on no other business than that of a printer. Bonny printed John Cary's 'An Essay on the State of England, in relation to its Trade, its Poor, and its Taxes. For carrying on the Present War against France,' which was published in November, 1695, and was the first book printed at Bristol by a permanently established local press. John Locke said it was the best book on the subject of trade that he had ever read. Cary was a freeman and merchant of Bristol, and his subsequent essay on pauperism led to the establishment, in May, 1696, of the Bristol Incorporation of the Poor-the first body of the kind in this country created by Act of Parliament. The name continued in use until 1898, when it was changed to Bristol Board of Guardians. We owe to Bonny the earliest newspaper published in Bristol. This was The Bristol Post-Boy. The first numbers are lost, but if No. 91, issued on 12 Aug., 1704, represents a correct numbering, then the first copy appeared in November, 1702. That must not be accepted as proved, for those early printers were a little careless in the matter of numbering. Still, there is very good reason for believing that 1702 was the year of the start of the enterprise at offices in Corn Street, where, apparently freed from the restrictions imposed when he came to Bristol, the printer dealt in charcoal, old rope, Bibles, Welsh prayer-books, music, maps, paperhangings, and forms for the use of ale-house keepers and officers on privateers. In 1713 Samuel Farley published the first number of his Postman, the ancestor of the present Times and Mirror, and the Postman soon sent the Post-Boy to oblivion, if, indeed, the latter had not gone there before the stronger paper's advent. CHARLES WELLS. Bristol. MARLOWE'S 'EPITAPH ON SIR ROGER MANWOOD. (See 11 S. i. 459.)-The copy of Marlowe and Chapman's Hero and Leander,' 1629, in which this Latin epitaph is written on the back of the title-page, is still in my possession. It was lot 1415 in Heber's sale of Old Poetry, held at Sotheby's, 8 December, 1834, and fourteen following days. The note upon the lot shows that the book was then in its present condition, except that the late Mr. Ouvry, after it had passed into his hands, had it bound in morocco by Rivière. At Heber's sale it was bought by John Payne Collier, who parted with it to Mr. Ouvry, at whose sale it came into my possession. Owing to the volume having been Collier's property, some doubt has been thrown upon the authenticity of the manuscript notes in the book, and some correspondence took place in N. & Q. on the subject (6 S. xi. 305, 352; xii. 15). Mr. Arthur Bullen, who printed the epitaph in his edition of Marlowe (Introduction, pp. xii, xiii), said that it had " every appearance of being genuine"; and a few years ago, when he contemplated bringing out a new edition of the dramatist, he borrowed the book from me, and had the page bearing the inscription photographed. The result of his examination was, I believe, to confirm him in his previous view, though it cannot, of course, be stated with absolute certainty that the epitaph was written by Marlowe. W. F. PRIDEAUX. been made a Knight of the Bath in 1464 (sic) at the coronation of Elizabeth, queen of Edward IV., 20 May (sic). My friend Dr. W. A. Shaw in his 'Knights of England,' i. 134-5, gives the same list as that which Metcalfe copies from Nicolas, but with the correct date of the coronation, viz., 26 May, 1465, and describing Philip as a "citizen of London." Unless there were two contemporary London civic knights of this name, of which there is absolutely no evidence, I am confident that the list of Knights of the Bath from which Nicolas and Dr. Shaw copied is wrong in including Philip amongst them. Philip, the alderman who was Mayor 1463-4, was not knighted till May, 1471, when he was one of twelve aldermen who received ordinary knighthood, not that of the Bath. This list, with Philip's name included, is given by Dr. Shaw in his second Volume (p. 16). There is both positive and negative evidence that Philip was not knighted before 1471, and that he was not one of the batch of Knights of the Bath made in 1465. 22 1. His name, with that of the other eleven aldermen included with him in the knighting of 1471, receives the prefix Sir in the City records after that date, and never before it. 22 2. Gregory's Chronicle '-the work of one who had himself been Mayor_and alderman-records the coronation of Elizabeth, and says: "These valdyrmen were made knyghtys of the Bathe "; and after recording their names-which, divested of orthographic variants, are those generally known as Wyche, Cooke, Josselyn, Plomer, and Waver-he adds: And no moo of the cytte but thes v, and hyt ys a grete worschyppe unto alle the cytte (p. 228). It is clear from this that Philip, who was then alderman and ex-Mayor, was not included in the list of the Knights of the Bath made at Elizabeth's coronation, nor is it probable that any other "citizen of London of the same name was then a recipient of the honour. ALFRED B. BEAVEN. Leamington. 22 THE DIPHTHONG "OU."-I have nowhere seen it definitely stated that the diphthong ou, as employed in modern English, almost invariably indicates a French spelling. This is a very useful fact. Of course, it constantly occurs, in native English words, such as out. But this is only because the Normans, who obligingly respelt our language for us, used the symbol to represent the A.-S. u, especially Past and Present' have given sufficient when long. That is how the A.-S. ut came attention. In dealing with the first plan to be respelt as out. I need not take into for the building the latter work says that consideration the hundreds of other cases. a Mr. Robinson," Secretary to the Board But it is even more interesting to notice of Works, had prepared designs for a new how the rule applies to words of wholly building :foreign origin. Thus knout is a French spelling of a Russian word, though the Russian word was itself of Scandinavian origin. Caoutchouc is a French spelling of a Caribbean word; tourmaline is a French spelling of a Cingalese word; patchouli is a French spelling of a word of Indian origin. Even in such a word as ghoul, which might have been taken immediately from Arabic, it is a fact that it first appears in Beckford's 'Vathek' as goule, which is simply the French form. I doubt if there are numerous exceptions. Many languages avoid ou altogether. WALTER W. SKEAT. case. I was born at Irthlingborough in Northamptonshire. It is not to my present purpose that the birthplace was accidental. My grandfather was rector of a neighbouring parish, and my father, a barrister living in London, rented for the summer a house in Irthlingborough. The clerk who entered my name in the Oxford Register, mistaking the registrar's flourished I for an O, wrote the village name as Orthlingborough. The editor of Alumni Oxonienses,' finding no village of that name, printed the village name as Orlingbury, the name of a parish in the same county. I could show that this form of error is common in the work, and I should like to suggest that such conjectural amendments, almost sure to be wrong, should find no place in the forthcoming Cambridge list. J. S. "These designs, as might be expected, were little better than builders' drawings for a plain substantial structure....without pretension to the first proportion and disposition of parts which distinguish true architecture." Did the writers of that remark see these plans, or is their opinion based upon the fact that they were only designed by a Secretary to the Board of Works? They add, Robinson's designs were laid aside," but qualify this by a foot-note : "Mr. Actually they were handed to Sir William Chambers, but were found to be of no service, scheme." and were not in any way embodied in the new Baretti's rendering of this incident gives a different succession of events : "The late Mr. Robinson.... was the person first appointed to conduct this great edifice; and the buildings were to be erected in a plain manner, rather with a view to convenience than ornament." Then it was decided to make it a monument of the taste and elegance of his Majesty's Reign. Mr. Robinson made some attempts upon this double idea; but he dying before anything was begun, or any of the Designs compleated, Sir William Chambers was, at the King's request, appointed to succeed him in October, 1775, and all Mr. Robinson's Designs were delivered to him; of which, however, he made no use, as he thought of a quite different disposition; nor is there the least resemblance between his Designs and those of Mr. Robinson, all of which I have more than once seen and considered with sufficient leisure and attention.". Clearly this indicates that the simplicity of the first plans was not a matter of choice, and the more decorative, but unfinished designs prepared by Robinson were disregarded, not because they were found to be of no service," but for the better reason that Chambers planned a different disposition of the buildings. 66 ALECK ABRAHAMS. THE HATLESS CRAZE.-When did English people begin to find out that all civilized nations until the last few years had been entirely wrong in wearing caps or hats out of doors? These useful articles now appear likely soon to become obsolete, and it may be well to put on record some dates connected with their disuse. Here in Durham it began with a few of the undergraduates-I cannot say exactly when, but I have notes that it was prevailing days : good old greatly in November, 1906; in June, 1908, it Records. Notwithstanding its ex parte was on the increase; and now, in June, character, the letter may doubtless be held 1910, caps are becoming quite exceptional of value for its light upon what was, in all among undergraduate men, and seem likely probability, the too common experience of soon to be confined to Dons and women the poor apprentice in the students. The cap no less than the gown is a part of the proper academical costume, and a shilling fine at the first would have stopped the irregularity in a week. One result is that the old interchange of courtesy between undergraduates and Dons by mutual cap ping is becoming impossible. The disuse of the cap is just a fashion of the day, based partly on convenience, and partly on that dislike to uniform which we now see in the Army and Navy, and among servants. We have a Territorial corps here, but none of its members would ever think of going about without their caps when on duty, because discipline is better maintained by their officers than by those of the University, and the men themselves seem to think more of their corps than of their Alma Mater. But it is not only while on duty that caps are dispensed with. One day I met a young friend returning from an afternoon walk gracefully handling a walking cane, but paper of folio size, folded and postmarked. with nothing on his head except that covering which nature had so bountifully provided. I now see The craze is extending into clerical life. I have just heard of a curate who goes about in greatcoat and gloves, but without a hat. It has also invaded the nursery. dear little boys, breeched for the first time, and the pride of their parents, going out hatless with their nursemaids, and thus doubly asserting their early manhood. Durham. J. T. F. Sunderland, May yo 10: 1723. Dear Sister, I am very sory to hear that you have Not heard from me this four months, makes me doubt you have not Received my last Letter which Menshou'd something of my hard Usage which was known to be very hard at that Time which all my neigbours can very well tell, for my master threaten'd to send me aboard of a Ship, and Likewise Hee'd make me an intire Slave dureing my prentisship in spite of my Bondesmen or any friend I could procure to Looke after me, which god knows I have none but what pleases my Bondsmen to do for me, so I leave it to their discression. crave y Favour they will Be so kind as eighther to take me away or otherwise Let me have the coorse of my Indentures. So no more at present, But I fast. Pray present my Humble Servise to all my remain your ever Loving Brother Matthias StandScoolfellows and all yt Ask after me. But I Mrs. Catherine Standfast, at Mr. Bay's in Fell WILLIAM MCMURRAY. SMOLLETT'S "HUGH STRAP." The Monthly Magazine of May, 1809, records the death at the Lodge, Villier's Walk, Adelphi, of Mr. Hugh Hewson, at the age of eighty-five, and states that he was the identical Hugh Strap whom Dr. Smollett has rendered so conspicuously interesting," &c. 66 Hewson for over forty years had kept a hairdresser's shop in the parish of St. Martin's-in-theFields. The writer of the notice says we understand the deceased left behind him an 66 22 interlined copy of Roderick Random,' with comments on some of the passages.' According to Nichols, Lit. Anec., iii. 465, the original of this character was supposed to be Lewis, a bookbinder of Chelsea. W. ROBERTS. CHAUCER'S CANTERBURY TALES: EARLY REFERENCE. The will of Richard Sotheworth, clerk (P.C.C. 44, Marche), dated the eve of St. Andrew the Apostle, 1417, and proved 20 May, 1419, makes mention, among other books, of his copy of the Canterbury Tales ("quendam libru' meu' de Cant❜bury SHROPSHIRE NEWSPAPER PRINTED Tales "). This is surely a very early note LONDON.-From a fragment of The Shropof the work. The will was sealed at South-shire Journal, with the History of the Holy morton, but the testator speaks of his church Bible, for Monday, 12 Feb., 1738/9, it of Esthenreth (East Hendred, Berks). F. S. SNELL. APPRENTICESHIP IN 1723.-The subjoined letter is contained among the papers preserved at SS. Anne and Agnes Church. Containing as it does no apparent local reference, I have thought it more suited to the columns of N. & Q.' than to the pages of my IN appears that so far from being a real local periodical it came from a metropolitan press *London: Printed by R. Walker in Fleet Lane. Of whom, and of the Person who serves this paper may be had the former numbers to compleat Sets." The paper then claimed to have reached its seventythird number. WILLIAM E. A. AXON. Manchester. |