« AnteriorContinuar »
Dr. Johnson, Mr. Pettigrew, and Mr. Dyce. There might have been less scope for criticism, if he had read those biographers of Akenside; and, especially, the Rev. Alexander Dyce-whose classical attainments, conscientions spirit of research, and discriminative taste, have on various occasions been very successfully exercised in the illustration of our national literature.
In lieu of specimens of the slipshod style of this part of the work, I shall briefly advert to dates. The account of Giovanni ALDINI has no date. To Art. Jacques AIMAR- Vernai, there is no date: M. Biot gives the date of one of his adventures, viz. 1692.-In Art. Giovanni degli AGOSTINI, the dates of
birth and decease are omitted: M. Weiss records both dates, viz. 1701 and 1755.-The dates affixed to АKBAR are 1543-1604; but he is afterwards stated to have died in his 64th year. The dates affixed to AKBEH
Ben Hejadi are 736-741: the youth is described as a reformist-an extirpator of robbers-a founder of mosques and schools!-William ALABASTER IS said to have been incorporated M.A. at Oxford 7 June 1792: it should be the 11 July 1592!
I have had so much occasion to censure this work (the anticipated masterpiece of Metropolitan literature) that it would be superfluous in me to sum up its character. I conclude, rather, with a remark of the learned Chardon de la Rochette, the proper application of which presents no diffi. culty: "Les compilateurs de dictionnaires historiques sont incorrigibles; ils semblent prendre plaisir à perpétuer les erreurs."
I VENTURE to suggest the following interpretation of the two singular Latin lines, inscribed on the tomb of John Wiles, in Lavenham Churchyard. I think a clue to their meaning is found in the tenor or general purport of the two quotations from Holy Writ, which accompany them.
I propose the following punctuation::
Quod fuit esse, quod est ? quod non fuit esse quod esse,
Esse, quod est? Non esse quod est non est, erit esse.
And I would thus paraphraze them, in explanation of the above translation ::
"What hath been to be, what is it?" What is it to have been, or existed? or, What is past mortal life? ("To be," signifies life; "what hath been to be," life past, or gone.)
"To be what hath not been to be what it is to be, what is it?" What is it to be in a new and future state of being? or, What is a coming future life? ("To be what it is to be," signifies a coming state of existence; "What hath not been to be," that it is new and untried. The expression, "What hath not been [hitherto] to be what it is to be," is the contrary, or opposite to the previous description of past mortal life: This last is expressed, as "What hath been to be." Future life is expressed, as "What hath not been to be what it is to be.")
The last clause, "Not to be, what is is not, will be to be," I paraphraze thus :
To live for ever, will be the future state or a future state will be never to cease to be, or to exist. (" Will be to be," is equivalent to futurity is: "not to be what is is not," that is, to live for ever; or, to die no more; or, no more to be, not being.)
In this suggested translation, there is no * transposition of any word: only the insertion of two interrogatives and some stops. However quaint and fanciful the Latin lines may be, they must be allowed to contain a very intelligible sense, and one very appropriate to their situation-on a tombstone; as well as according with the rest of the inscription.
*The first "esse," in the second line, I have, in the literal translation, placed at the beginning of the second interrogatory; but this is not essential, for that second question might quite as properly be thus translated :-"What hath not been to be what it is to be, To be (i. e. to be this), what is it?"
In Johnson's Dictionary, and also in Mr. Todd's enlarged edition, the word obverse, relating to medals, is omitted.
I have sometimes heard patriotic Welshmen make a complaint that Sir William Jones turned his back on his native language, and regret that he did not leave a single sentence in commendation of its study. But, in point of fact, the complaint is unjust. In his letter to R. Morris, Esq. dated Calcutta, Oct. 30, 1790, Sir William says—“As one of the Cymro-dorians, I am warmly interested in British antiquities and literature." In a letter to Lord Althorpe, Dec. 28, 1777, he says- -"I prefer Evans's harp to the Theban lyre, as much as I prefer Wales to ancient or modern Egypt."
It would hardly be supposed that the Beth-Gellert legend is to be found in Hindostan. Yet such is actually It occurs in the Hitopadesa, and is given in some extracts made from it by Sir W. Jones. (See his Life by Lord Teignmouth, edited by the Rev. S. C. Wilkes, in the editor's supplement.) The moral is this -"He who knows not the first principle, and first cause,-who is, besides, in subjection to wrath,—is tormented like a fool, as the Brahmin was who killed the ichneumon." The story is this, that the Brahmin, having occasion to go from home, committed his infant daughter to the care of an ichneumon, whom he had long cherished. "Soon after which, the ichneumon, seeing a black serpent near the child, killed him and cut him in pieces; and
then, seeing the Brahmin returning, went hastily, his mouth and paws being smeared with blood, and fell at the feet of his master; who, seeing him in that condition, and saying to himself 'He has devoured my child!' stamped on him and killed him. Afterwards, going into his house, he saw his child asleep, and the dead snake lying by him; at looking, therefore, at the ichneumon, his benefactor, he was greatly afflicted." The Hitopadesa (i. e. Friendly Instructions) is considered by Sir W. Jones to be the most splendid collection of Fables in the world. It was written, about eleven centuries ago, by a Brahmin named Vishnu Sarma. It is the basis of the work known in Europe by the name of Pilpay.
ancient Latines, caiat signified a kind Bryant mentions that, among the of whip or thong. I wonder that, in his rage for etymology, he did not derive the cat-of-nine tails from this source.
Anecdotal literature finds materials
for its history even in Turkey. The following paragraph appeared in the papers in January 1836. tinople, Dec. 3.-Abdi Bey, the Sultan's favourite jester, died last week. He held his post under different Sultans for forty years, and in the early part of his career his profession was no sinecure, as the jokes were then practical and at his expense, such as mounting him on a giraffe, immersing him in cold water, &c. &c. But Sul. tan Mahmoud having no relish for such amusements, he was principally employed to keep him in good spirits,
by smart sayings and diverting stories. That his wit served him to some purpose, is proved by the circumstance of his leaving behind him 150,000l. the fruits of it."
Great as are the complaints about "Taxes on Knowledge," they have at least one good effect. Mr. Órme observes, in his Bibliotheca Biblica, art. Deyling, that "the cheapness of paper and of the labour of the press on the Continent, and the ready access to innumerable books in the vast libraries in Germany, encourage a prolixity in treating even trifles, which dare not be attempted in this country."
NOTICES OF THE CASTLE AND LORDSHIP OF LAUGHARNE,
(Continued from p. 22.)
THE Castle, as the view has shewn, is now a picturesque ruin, profusely overgrown with ivy. The foss by which it was formerly surrounded was probably a dry one; its site is still indicated by a slight depression of the ground. The approach to it is by an ancient gateway, that of the outer precinct. The inner inclosure only can, however, be reckoned a fortress, or rather fortalice, surrounding a courtyard of about thirty-five yards in length from east to west, eighteen in breadth from north to south.
Sir John Perrot made considerable additions to the building, which gave it more of the air of a baronial house than a military stronghold. Adjoining the principal tower of the northwest angle he threw out a large projecting gateway, over which were spacious apartments enlightened by bay windows, flanked by two round towers, between which still arises a pointed gable, a very unmilitary feature; these towers are seen in the extreme left of the view of the south or seaward front of the castle, represented in the engraving.
The fire of the parliament forces was directed against the eastern face of the building, and especially on a circular tower at the north-east angle, in the massive walls of which it made a huge breach -from that tower to the south-west angle the curtain wall has been entirely levelled and rased, so that the fortress was rendered quite untenable at any future time; and the destruction of its spacious lodging rooms and hall was moreover effected by fire. These are strong indications of revenge for a gallant resistance. The battery of the Parliamentarians, of a semicircular form, was established on a rising ground about seven hundred yards north-east of the Castle, as its remains still testify. Many of the cannon balls striking against the compact red stone of the walls split in half, and are from time to time turned up by the gardener
of Mrs. Starke when digging in the site of the moat.
I have said of Sir J. Perrot, the possessor of Laugharne Castle in the sixteenth century, that he was reputed a natural son of Henry VIII. and consequently half-brother of Queen Elizabeth. He was distinguished by considerable talents, alloyed by a certain bluntness or roughness of manner. Both in his person and deportment he strongly resembled Henry. He was employed as Lord Deputy of Ireland, and became popular in the administration of that office. Christopher Hatton conceived a jealousy against him, and he was impeached of treason on very doubtful and insufficient grounds. Burleigh was greatly averse to his prosecution. Lord Hunsdon, Sir Thomas Buckhurst, Sir Robert Cecil, Sir John Fortescue, Sir John Wolley, &c. were constituted commissioners for his trial at Westminster, and the constitution of a court was generally in those days equal to the condemnation of the accused. He was charged with using disrespectful words against the Queen, with relieving known traitors, Romish priests, &c. with holding communication with the Prince of Parma, encouraging the rebellion of O'Rourke, and other Irish malcontents. He defended his expressions relative to the Queen as merely proceeding from impatience, not from a malicious or disloyal heart. He denied that he had given any criminal patronage to papists, being most averse to their pernicious doctrines; or that he had held any correspondence with the enemies of the Queen. The arguments of Popham the Attorney-general against this gallant Cambrian were too effectual: he was found guilty, and condemned to death.
On quitting the tribunal he exclaimed "God's death! will the Queen suffer her brother to be offered up a sacrifice to the envy of his frisking * adver
* In allusion to their accomplishments in "the brawls" or dances, then so much in fashion at the court.
GENT. MAG, VOL. XII.
saries!" Burleigh shed tears at the sentence, and the Queen herself now frequently praised the quality of mercy and quoted that decree of the Emperor Theodosius," Should any one have spoken evil of the Emperor, if through levity it ought to be despised, if through insanity pitied, if through malice forgiven." The Queen's mercy, if intended, was too long delayed to take effect, and Perrot expired in the Tower in September 1592, six months after his conviction. His lands, which he had alienated previous to his trial, were suffered to descend to his son, who had espoused the sister of the Earl of Essex.*
Sir John Perrot, when resident in Wales, was frequently engaged in the prosecution of the daring and atrocious pirates who at that time infested the Severn sea, and in amercing the inhabitants of the counties of Pembroke and Caermarthen, who furnished them with provisions or purchased of them commodities which they had captured from trading vessels or carried off from lands bordering on the sea-coast. These articles consisted chiefly of corn, beeves, sheep, and salt. An original document, of which an extract is subjoined, gives particulars of some of these "water thieves."
"Presentment by the oaths of the persons undernamed, taken 12th December 1573, before Sir John Perrot, Knight, John Wogan of Boulston, and John Barlow, Esqrs. by virtue of a commission under the great seal to them directed; as also by letters from the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council, for and concerning all such persons as have bargained and contracted with the late pirate Robert Hexte, and been victuallers of the now pirate Thomas Clerke; together with the value of their lands and goods, so near as the said Commissioners could learn, as particularly upon the oaths of the said contractors and victuallers doth appear."
Here follow the names of the jurors, twenty-three in number. Of the presentments the following are speci
"David Allan of Laughern and Richard Hamon of Tynbie had their bark, being of the burthen of twelve tons or
therabouts, laden with salt from the said Hext, by whom we know not. Valent in bonis, viz. Allyn 37. and Hamon 31.—John Butler of Laughern had from the said
Hexte one bark of fifteen tons or therabouts, laden with salt, &c. &c.-James ap Rodds, Robert Elliot, and George White, with divers others, at the commandement of Sir John Perrot, Knight, took two pynnaces of one Roger ap Richard, alias Parry, of Aberystith in the county of Cardigan, from the said Hext his ship side. The one having in her thirty-eight barrels of salt, the other
bushels of corne-which corne was by them restored to one Harman Rancke and Bernard Jordane, being the true owners therof, from whence the said Hexte took it; and they had given unto them by the said owners for their paynes, the one moytie with an acquittance under the owners hands and seales, which acquittance was seene by us the jury. John Humfry sold the said Clarke one carcase of a beef, and one mutton. Thomas Hexte of the Nangle went on board the said Clerke in a payer of velvet breeches, layde on with gold lace, a dublett of satten and a velvett cap, and brought Clerke as much tallow as drest his ship."
By this it would appear that as much attention to personal attire was used by these Welshmen in boarding a pirate's vessel as others might observe in going to court. But the depredations of Hexte or Clerke, or the state they might affect when on board their roving vessels, sink into insignificance when compared with the deeds of the redoubtable pirate Captain Thomas Salkeld, as may be gathered from a deposition made 17th April 1610, before William Wogan and John Wogan, knights, and Alban Stepneth, Esq. William Young, of Pembroke, stated that Captain Salkeld captured him and his bark (laden with coals, goods, and passengers, from Tredarth, and bound for Ireland,) in Milford Haven, on the 8th March 1609, carried them afterwards to Lundy Island, where he set the vessel adrift on the rocks, and she was totally lost!
On the same day he went ashore at Milford Haven, and killed eight beeves, thirty young lambs, and many wethers, conveying them all on board his ship. On the 13th of the same month he
*Camden's Annals, Miss Aikin's Memoirs of Elizabeth, and State Trials, 43 Eliz. † An ox is to this day at Laugharne called “a beef," the plural beeves is familiar. "Now he hath land and beeves." Shakspeare.
landed at Dale, a town at the entrance of Milford Haven, spoiled the inhabitants of their goods, and set their houses on fire! At the same time he took from the quay a bark belonging to an inhabitant of Dale, laden with iron, train oil and beer, set her adrift, and she was dashed to pieces on the adjacent rocks. On the 20th of March he took Mr. George Escott's bark of Bridgwater, bound for France, and made him and his men prisoners; the same fate attended the vessel of one John Bennet, of Appledore ; and both these vessels Salkeld, after taking out such portion of their cargoes as he thought fit, together with their sails, abandoned to the wild impulse of the waves, and they were shattered to fragments on the rocks of Lundy.
On the 23rd he landed on Lundy Island with his men, with colours displayed, in defiance of the King of England; wished his Majesty's heart were on the point of his sword, and proclaimed himself King of Lundy; and on the 25th March, being Sunday morning, he obliged his prisoners to carry stones for the purpose of forming a quay for a port in his newly acquired territory. He divided them into three several companies, lest they should attempt any refractory movement: one portion he sent to an islet south of Lundy, another he marched to the north of the island, four miles distant; they were not to communicate with each other on pain of death. In the evening of the same Sunday a Flemish ship of two hundred tons burthen from Rochelle, laden with salt, and bound for Bristol, came into the road of Lundy. Salkeld sent his long boat off to her, instructing the crew to say that she belonged to a king's ship, and to offer to supply her with a pilot. A storm arose in the night, and the ship was constrained to make sail, carrying with her a few of Salkeld's men. A Weymouth vessel, which he had captured on the same day, also escaped under cover of the storm, leaving, however, two of her crew in Salkeld's spower.
On the 26th he called his men and prisoners together, and threatened those who would not abjure their King and country, and receive him for their sovereign, with execution on a gallows, which he had in readiness.
He caused the heads of some of his captives to be shaved, in token of slavery, and set them to building walls for a fort, and constructing a platform for cannon to command the road: he brought three pieces of cast-iron ordnance on shore, and a cannon, styled in the warlike language of the day a murtherer," to be planted on the fort, and on an old ruinous castle adjacent; but honest George Escott of Bridgwater defeated, by a coup-demain, the measures of this daring and infatuated ruffian. Escott had been confined by Salkeld in a little house, "too badde (says my authority) for dogs to lye in." There he concerted, with some of his fellow captives, the recovery of liberty. Issuing forth with his companions through a hole in the dilapidated hovel, Escott, who alone was armed, "having a poniard in his hand, and noe more, did enter his (Salkeld's) fort vyolently through his courte of guarde, and there did discerne Salkeld's confederates, who were rebels, traitors and pirates, and some he toke and some he put to flight; then all the company by one consent made Escott their commander for the king. Then, presently, Salkeld fled away with Escott's bark and goods; and if this enterprise had not took effect, all had surely died, for," continues the manuscript, "this Salkeld did mean to have kept the island during his life," &c. The above deposition is formally subscribed, “ William Young of Pembroke." Of the ultimate fate of Salkeld, pseudo-king of Lundy, I have no knowledge; but suppose his elevation on a gallows superseded all other dignities; his story is as romantic as it is well authenti. cated, and if known to Sir Walter Scott would probably have been incorporated with some of his admirable romances. Salkeld acted upon precedent, for as early as the reign of Henry the Third, William de Marisco, a mischievous pirate, made that iron-bound and almost inaccessible island his head quarters. It was occupied by another pirate in the reign of Henry VIII.*
To return from this incidental digression. Sir John Perrot, when at Laugharne, erected a building on an eminence which rises on the southwest of the mouth of the harbour, from * Of the island of Lundy, and its very remarkable history, a memoir by G. Steinman Steinman, esq. F.S.A, has been recently published in the Collectanea Topogra phica, Part XVI, `Edit,