  Junius thus wrote to H. S. Woodfall in a private note, to which Dr. Good has affixed the date July 21st, 1769 (vol. i. p. 174.*)
This paragraph has given rise to a great deal of speculation, large inferences have been drawn from it, yet no one has satisfactorily answered the question, who was "that Swinney?" That neither Dr. Good nor Mr. George Woodfall, the editors of the edit. of 1812, knew anything about him, is manifest from their own bald note of explanation, "A correspondent of the printers." Some reports say that he was a collector of news for the Public Advertiser, and subsequently a bookseller at Birmingham, but I never saw any one fact adduced tending to show that there was any person of that name so employed. Others that the Rev. Dr. Sidney Swinney was the party referred to: and Mr. Smith, in his excellent notes to the Grenville Papers, vol. iii. p. lxviii., assumes this to be the fact. I incline to agree with him, but have only inference to strengthen conjecture. What may be the value of that inference will appear in the progress of this inquiry, Who was Dr. Sidney Swinney? Reports collected by Mr. Butler, Mr. Barker, Mr. Coventry, and others, say that the Doctor had been chaplain to the Russian Embassy, chaplain to the Embassy at Constantinople, and chaplain to one of the British regiments serving in Germany. Mr. Falconer, in his Secret Revealed, p. 22., quotes a paragraph from one of Wray's letters to Lord Hardwick with reference to the proceedings at the Royal Society:
Swinney's father-in-law, here called Howell, was John Zephaniah Holwell, a remarkable man, whose name is intimately associated with the early history of British India, one of the few survivors of the Black Hole imprisonment, the successor of "Holwell, Clive, York, Lawrence, Adams, Coote, Of Draper, Bath-strung for his baffled suit." And he refers, in a note, to those
I learn farther, from a volume of Fugitive Pieces, published by Dr. Swinney, that he was the son of Major Mathew Swinney, whom after his flourishing fashion he calls on another occasion "Mathew Swinney of immortal memory;" from one of his dedications that the Doctor himself was educated at Eton; from the books of the Royal Society that he was of Clare Hall, Cambridge; from dates and dedications, that from 1764 to 1768, he was generally resident at Scarborough; and from the Gentleman's Magazine, that he died there 12th November, 1783. That Swinney had been chaplain to the Russian Embassy I have no reason to believe; but that he had been in the East for a time, possibly as chaplain to the Embassy at Constantinople, is asserted in the brief biographical notice in the Gentleman's Magazine, and would seem to be proved by a work which he published in 1769, called—
Nothing, however, can be inferred from a title-page of Swinney's. Here we have two or three distinct works referred to:—A Tour, including "An Account of the Seven Churches," and the "Explanation of the Apocalypse." Now I must direct attention to the fact, that from the peculiar punctuation and phraseology—the full-stop after Asia in this title-page—it may have been Swinney's intention to indicate, without asserting, that the Account of the Apocalypse only was by Sidney Swinney. If so, though Swinney's name alone figures in the title-page of the work, he is responsible only for one or two notes! I would not have written conjecturally on this subject if I could have avoided it; but though Swinney was a F.A.S. F.R.S., and though the work is dedicated to the Fellows of those Societies, no copy of it is to be found in the libraries of either, or in the British Museum. I cannot, therefore, be sure that my own copy is perfect. What that copy contains is thus set forth in half a dozen lines of introduction:
It must be obvious, after this declaration, that the Tour set forth so conspicuously in the title-page, was not written by Swinney. Now the "Itinerary" which follows is advowedly "wrote by the author of the preceding account," and this brings the reader and the work itself to "The End!" The truth I suspect to have been this:—Swinney was not prudent and was poor, and raised money occasionally, after the miserable fashion of the time, by publishing books on subscription, and receiving subscriptions in anticipation of publication. About this time, from 1767 to 1769, he published a Sermon; The Ninth Satire of Horace, a meaningless trifle of a hundred lines, swollen, by printing the original and notes, into a quarto; a volume of Fugitive Pieces; and the first canto of The Battle of Minden, a Poem in three Books, enriched with critical Notes by Two Friends, and with explanatory Notes by the Author. Of the latter work, as of the Tour, I have never seen but one copy, a splendid specimen of typography, splendidly bound, containing the first and second canto. Whether the third canto was ever published is to me doubtful; some of your correspondents may be able to give you information. My own impression is that it was not, and for the following reasons. Swinney, it appears, had received subscriptions for the work, and promised in his prospectus a plan of the battle, and portraits of the heroes, which the work does not contain. "However, to make some little amends" to his "generous subscribers," Swinney announces his intention to present them with "three books instead of one." The first book is dedicated to Earl Waldegrave, who commanded "the six British regiments of infantry" on the "ever memorable 1st August, 1759," and a note affixed states that "Book the Second" will be published on 1st January, and "Book the Third" on 1st of August. But the public, as Swinney says, were kept "in suspense" almost three years for the second book, which was not published until 1772; and in the dedication of this second book, also to Earl Waldegrave, Swinney says:
This leads me to doubt whether the third book was ever published, for I think the most "partial" of his friends—those who had given "four, five, and six times over and above the subscription price"—must have had enough in two books. If it were not published, it is a curious fact that, in a poem called The Battle of Minden, the battle of Minden is not mentioned; though not more extraordinary perhaps than the omissions of the "Explanation of the Apocalypse" in his previous work. I come now to the question, Why did Junius speak so passionately and disrespectfully of Swinney, and what are the probabilities that Swinney had never before (July) 1769 spoken to Lord G. Sackville? These I must defer till next week. MONUMENTAL INSCRIPTION IN PETERBOROUGH CATHEDRAL.The following Notes occur on a fly-leaf at the end of a copy of Gunton's History of Peterborough Cathedral, and appear to have been written soon after that book was printed:
A marginal note states that "The Chapter-house and Cloyster sold in 1650 for 800l., to John Baker, Gent., of London." FOLK LORE.Superstition of the Cornish Miners (Vol. viii., p. 7.).—I cannot find the information desired by your correspondent in the Cornish antiquaries, and have in vain consulted other works likely to explain this tradition; but the remarks now offered will perhaps be interesting in reference to the nation alluded to. The Carthaginians being of the same race, manners, and religion as the Phoenicians, there are no particular data by which we can ascertain the time of their first trading to the British coast for the commodity in such request among the traders of the East. The genius of Carthage being more martial than that of Tyre, whose object was more commerce than conquest, it is not improbable that the former might by force of arms have established a settlement in the Cassiterides, and by this means have secured that monopoly of tin which the Phoenicians and their colonies indubitably enjoyed for several centuries. Norden, in his Antiquities of Cornwall, mentions it as a tradition universally received by the inhabitants, that their tin mines were formerly wrought by the Jews. He adds that these old works are there at this day called Attal Sarasin, the ancient
Northamptonshire Folk Lore (Vol. vii., p. 146.).—In Norfolk, a ring made from nine sixpences freely given by persons of the opposite sex is considered a charm against epilepsy. I have seen nine sixpences brought to a silversmith, with a request that he would make them into a ring; but 13½d. was not tendered to him for making, nor do I think that any threehalfpences are collected for payment. After the patient had left the shop, the silversmith informed me that such requests were of frequent occurrence, and that he supplied the patients with thick silver rings, but never took the trouble to manufacture them from the sixpences. A similar superstition supposes that the sole of the left shoe of a person of the same age, but opposite sex, to the patient, reduced to ashes is a cure for St. Anthony's fire. I have seen it applied with success, but suppose its efficacy is due to some astringent principle in the ashes. SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE.On Two Passages in Shakspeare.—Taking up a day or two since a Number of "N. & Q.," my attention was drawn to a new attempt to give a solution of the difficulty which has been the torment of commentators in the following passage from the Third Act of Romeo and Juliet: "Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds, Towards Phoebus' mansion; such a waggoner As Phaeton would whip you to the West, And bring in cloudy night immediately.— Spread thy close curtain, love-performing Night, That runaways' eyes may wink, and Romeo Leap to these arms, untalk'd of and unseen." "Runaways'" being a manifest absurdity, the recent editors have substituted "unawares," an uncouth alteration, which, though it has a glimmering of sense, appears to me almost as absurd as the word it supplies. In this dilemma your correspondent Mr. Singer ingeniously suggests the true reading to be,— "That rumourers' eyes may wink, and Romeo Leap to these arms, untalk'd of and unseen." No doubt this is a felicitous emendation, though I think it may be fairly objected that a rumourer, being one who deals in what he hears, as opposed to an observer, who reports what he sees, there is a certain inappropriateness in speaking of a rumourer's eyes. Be this as it may, I beg to suggest another reading, which has the merit of having spontaneously occurred to me on seeing the word "runaways'" in your correspondent's paper, as if obviously suggested by the combination of letters in that word. I propose that the passage should be read thus: "Spread thy close curtain, love-performing Night, That rude day's eyes may wink, and Romeo Leap to these arms, untalk'd of and unseen." A subsequent reference to Juliet's speech has left no doubt in my mind that this is the true reading, and so obviously so, as to make it a wonder that it should have been overlooked. She first asks the "fiery-footed steeds" to bring in "cloudy night," then night to close her curtain (that day's eyes may wink), that darkness may come, under cover of which Romeo may hasten to her. In the next two lines she shows why this darkness is propitious, and then, using an unwonted epithet, invokes night to give her the opportunity of darkness: "Come, civil night, Thou sober suited matron all in black, And learn me how to lose a winning game," &c. The peculiar and unusual epithet "civil," here applied to night, at once assured me of the accuracy of the proposed reading, it having evidently suggested itself as the antithesis of "rude" just before applied to day; the civil, accommodating, concealing night being thus contrasted with the unaccommodating, revealing day. It is to be remarked, moreover, that as this epithet civil is, through its ordinary signification, brought into connexion with what precedes it, so is it, through its unusual meaning of grave, brought into connexion with what follows, it thus furnishing that equivocation of sense of which our great dramatist is so fond, rarely missing an opportunity of "paltering with us in a double sense." I think, therefore, I may venture to offer you the proposed emendation as rigorously fulfilling all the requirements of the text, while at the same time it necessitates a very trifling literal disturbance of the old reading, since by the simple change of the letters naw into ded, we convert "runaways'" into "rude day's," of which it was a very easy misprint. Having offered you an emendation of my own, I cannot miss the opportunity of sending you
On reading this passage as thus printed, it will be seen that the two sentences of which it is composed are in direct contradiction to each other; the first asserting that we have philosophers who give a causeless and supernatural character to things ordinary and familiar: the second stating as the result of this, "that we make trifles of terrors," whereas the tendency would necessarily be to make "terrors of trifles." The confusion arises from the careless pointing of the first sentence. By simply shifting the comma at present after "things," and placing it after "familiar," the discrepancy between the two sentences disappears, as also between the two members of the first sentence, which are now at variance. It should be pointed thus:
It is singular that none of the editors should have noticed this defect, which I have no doubt will hereafter be removed by the adoption of a simple change, that very happily illustrates the importance of correct punctuation. Shakspeare's Skull.—As your publication has been the medium of many valuable comments upon Shakspeare, and interesting matter connected with him, I am induced to solicit information, if you will allow me, on the following subject. I have the Works of Shakspeare, which being in one volume 8vo., I value as being more portable than any other edition. It was published by Sherwood without any date affixed, but probably about 1825. There is a memoir prefixed by Wm. Harvey, Esq., in which, p. xiii., it is stated that while a vault was being made close to Shakspeare's, when Dr. Davenport was rector, a young man perceiving the tomb of Shakspeare open, introduced himself so far within the vault that he could have brought away the skull, but he was deterred from doing so by the anathema inscribed on the monument, of—
This is given upon the authority of Dr. Nathan Drake's work on Shakspeare, in two vols. 4to. Now in this work much is given which is copied into the memoir, but I do not there find this anecdote, and perhaps some reader of "N. & Q." may supply this deficiency, and state where I may find it. I may be allowed to state, that Pope's skull was similarly stolen and another substituted. I annex Wheler's remark that no violation of the grave had, up to the time of his work, taken place.
On a Passage in "Macbeth."—Mr. Singleton (Vol. vii., p. 404.) says, "Vaulting ambition, that o'erleaps itself," is nonsense—the thing is impossible; and proposes that "vaulting ambition" should "rest his hand upon the pommel, and o'erleap the saddle (sell)," a thing not uncommon in the feats of horsemanship. Did Mr. Singleton never o'erleap himself, and be too late—later than himself intended? Did he never, in his younger days, amuse himself with a soprasalto; or with what Donne calls a "vaulter's sombersault?" Did he never hear of any little plunderer, climbing a wall, o'erreaching himself to pluck an apple, and falling on the other side, into the hands of the gardener? "By like," says Sir Thomas More, "the manne there overshotte himself." What was the manne about? Attempting such a perilous gambol, perhaps, as correcting Shakspeare. To {overleap, overreach, overshoot} himself are merely, to {leap, reach, shoot}, over or beyond the mark himself intended. Bloomsbury. P.S.—Mr. Arrowsmith reminds us of the old saw, that "great wits jump." He should recollect also that they sometimes nod. |
|
