"Pour qui se donne la peine de chercher, il y a toujours quelque trouvaille À faire, mÊme dans ce qui a ÉtÉ le plus visitÉ.—Henry Patin. I take up a work of European celebrity, and reflect awhile on its bibliographic peculiarities—which may almost pass for romance. It is a Scottish work with regard to the family connexion of its author: it is an Irish work with regard to the place of his nativity. It is an English work as to the scenes which it represents; a French work as to the language in which it was written; a Dutch work as to the country in which it came to light. It was formerly printed anonymously: it has since borne the name of its author. It was formerly printed for public sale: it has been twice printed for private circulation. It was formerly classed as fiction: it is now believed to be history. But we have too many enigmas in the annals of literature, and I must not add to the number. The work to which I allude is the MÉmoires du comte de Grammont par le comte Antoine Hamilton. The various indications of a projected re-impression of the work remind me of my portefeuille Hamiltonien, and impose on me the task of a partial transcription of its contents. Of the numerous editions of the MÉmoires de Grammont as recorded by Brunet, Renouard, or QuÉrard, or left unrecorded by those celebrated bibliographers, I shall describe only four; which I commend to the critical examination of future editors:
The above is the first edition. The imprint is fictitious. It was much used by the ElzÉvirs, and by other Dutch printers. The second edition, with the same imprint, is dated in 1714 (Cat. de Guyon de SardiÈre, No. 939.). The third edition was printed at Rotterdam in 1716. The avis is omitted in that edition, and in all the later impressions which I have seen. Its importance as a history of the publication induces one to revive it. There is also an edition printed at Amsterdam in 1717 (Cat. de Lamy, No. 3918.); and another at La Haye in 1731 (Cat. de Rothelin, No. 2534*). Brunet omits the edition of 1713. Renouard and QuÉrard notice it too briefly.
If the above avertissement first appeared in 1746, which I have much reason to conclude, this is certainly a very important edition. The biographical portion of the advertisement is the foundation of the later memoirs of Hamilton. In the MorÉri of 1759, we have it almost verbatim, but taken from the Œuvres du comte Antoine Hamilton, 1749. Neither Brunet, nor Renouard, nor QuÉrard notice the edition of 1746. The copy which I have examined has the book-plate G.III.R.
This edition has the same avertissement as that of 1746. The imprint is M.DCC.LX. The type resembles our small pica, and the paper has the water-mark Auvergne 1749. At the end of the second part appears, De l'imprimerie de Didot, rue PavÉe, 1760. This must be M. FranÇois Didot of Paris. I find the same colophon in the Bibliographie instructive, 1763-8. v. 631. This very neat edition has also escaped the aforesaid bibliographic trio!
Such are the inscriptions on the Strawberry-Hill gem. Much has been said of its brilliancy—and so, for the sake of novelty, I shall rather dwell on its flaws. The volume was printed at the private press of M. Horace Walpole at Strawberry-Hill, and the impression was limited to one hundred copies, of which thirty were sent to Paris. So much for its attractions—now for its flaws. In reprinting the dedication to madame du Deffand, I had to insert eight accents to make decent French of it! The avis is a mere medley of fragments: I could not ask a compositor to set it up! The avertissement is copied, without a word of intimation to that effect, from the edition of 1746. The notes to the ÉpÎtre are also copied from that edition, except L'abbÉ de Chaulieu; and two of the notes to the memoirs are from the same source. The other notes, in the opinion of sir William Musgrave, are in part taken from an erroneous printed Key. Where are the Éclaircissements? I find none except a list of proper names—of which about one-third part is omitted! In quoting Brunet, I have used the fourth edition of the Manuel du libraire, 1842-4; in quoting Renouard, I refer to the avis prefixed to the Œuvres du comte Antoine Hamilton, 1812; in quoting QuÉrard, to La France littÉraire, 1827-39. The other references are to sale catalogues. The titles of the books described, and the extracts, are given literatim, and, except as above noted, with the same accentuation and punctuation. To revert to the question of a new edition: I should prefer the French text, for various reasons, to any English translation that could be made. That of Abel Boyer is wretched burlesque! The chief requirements of a French edition would be, a collation of the editions of 1713 and 1746—the rectification of the names of persons As the indications of a projected re-impression may be fallacious, I shall conclude with a word of advice to inexperienced collectors. Avoid the jolie Édition printed at Paris by F.A. Didot, par ordre de monseigneur le comte d'Artois, in 1781. It is the very worst specimen of editorship. Avoid also the London edition of 1792. The preface is a piratical pasticcio; the verbose notes are from the most accessible books; the portraits, very unequal in point of execution, I believe to be chiefly copies of prints—not d'aprÈs des tableaux originaux. The most desirable editions are, 1. The edition of 1760; 2. That of 1772, as a curiosity; 3. That edited by M. Renouard, Paris, 1812, 18o. 2 vols.; 4. That edited by M. Renouard in 1812, 8o. with eight portraits. The latter edition forms part of the Œuvres du comte Antoine Hamilton in 3 vols. It seldom occurs for sale. THE "ANCREN RIWLE."The publication of this valuable semi-Saxon or Early English treatise on the duties of monastic life, recently put forth by the Camden Society, under the editorship of the Rev. James Morton, is extremely acceptable, and both the Society and the editor deserve the cordial thanks of all who are interested in the history of our language. As one much interested in the subject, and who many years since entertained the design now so ably executed by Mr. Morton, I may perhaps be allowed to offer a few remarks on the work itself, and on the manuscripts which contain it. Mr. Morton is unquestionably right in his statement that the Latin MS. in Magdalen College, Oxford, No. 67., is only an abridged translation of the original vernacular text. Twenty-three years ago I had access to the same MS. by permission of the Rev. Dr. Routh, the President of Magdalen College, and after reading and making extracts from it[1], I came to the same conclusion as Mr. Morton. It hardly admits, I think, of a doubt; for even without the internal evidence furnished by the Latin copy, the age of the manuscripts containing the Early English text at once set aside the supposition that Simon of Ghent (Bishop of Salisbury from 1297 to 1315) was the original author of the work. The copy in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, I have not seen, but of the three copies in the British Museum I feel confident that the one marked Cleopatra C. vi. was actually written before Bishop Simon of Ghent had emerged from the nursery. This copy is not only the oldest, but the most curious, from the corrections and alterations made in it by a somewhat later hand, the chief of which are noticed in the printed edition. The collation, however, of this MS. might have been, with advantage, made more minutely, for at present many readings are passed over. Thus, at p. 8., for unweote the second hand has congoun; at p. 62., for herigen it has preisen; at p. 90., for on cheafle, it reads o muÞe, &c. The original hand has also some remarkable variations, which would cause a suspicion that this was the first draft of the author's work. Thus, at p. 12., for scandle, the first hand has schonde; at p. 62., for baldeliche it reads bradliche; at p. 88., for nout for, it has anonden, and the second hand aneust; at p. 90., for sunderliche it reads sunderlepes, &c. All these, and many other curious variations, are not noticed in the printed edition. On the fly-leaf of this MS. is written, in a hand of the time of Edward I., as follows: "Datum abbatie et conventui de Leghe per Dame M. de Clare." The lady here referred to was doubtless Maud de Clare, second wife of Richard de Clare, Earl of Hereford and Gloucester, who, at the beginning of the reign of Edward I., is known to have changed the Augustinian Canons of Leghe, in Devonshire, into an abbess and nuns of the same order; and it was probably at the same period she bestowed this volume on them. The conjecture of Mr. Morton, that Bishop Poore, who died in 1237, might have been the original author of the Ancren Riwle, is by no means improbable, and deserves farther inquiry. The error as to Simon of Ghent is due, in the first place, not to Dr. Smith, but to Richard James (Sir Robert Cotton's librarian), who wrote on the fly-leaves of all the MSS. in the Cottonian Library a note of their respective contents, and who is implicitly followed by Smith. Wanley is more blamable, and does not here evince his usual critical accuracy, but (as remarked by Mr. Morton) he could only have looked at a few pages of the work. The real fact seems to be that Simon of Ghent made the abridged Latin version of the seven books of the Riwle now preserved in Magdalen College, and this supposition may well enough be reconciled with the words of Leland, who says of him,—
A second copy of the Latin version was formerly in the Cottonian collection (Vitellius E. vii.), but no fragment of it has hitherto been recovered from the mass of burnt crusts and leaves left after the fire of 1731. I am happy, however, to add, that within the last few months, the manuscript marked Vitellius F. vii., containing a French translation of the Riwle, made in the fourteenth century (very closely agreeing with the vernacular text), has been entirely restored, except that the top margins of the leaves have been burnt at each end of the volume. This damage has, unfortunately, carried away the original heading of the treatise, and the title given us by Smith is copied partly from James's note. This copy of the French version appears to be unique, and is the more interesting from its having a note at the end (now half obliterated by the fire), stating that it belonged to Eleanor de Bohun, Duchess of Gloucester, whose motto is also added, "Plesance. M [mil]. en vn." The personage in question was Eleanor, daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, and wife of Thomas of Woodstock, who ended her days as a nun in the convent at Barking in 1399. Is any other instance known of the use of this motto? Before I conclude these brief remarks, I may mention a fifth copy of the Ancren Riwle, which has escaped the notice of Mr. Morton. It is buried in the enormous folio manuscript of old English poetry and prose called the Vernon MS., in the Bodleian Library, written in the reign of Richard II., and occurs at pp. 371b.—392. In the table of contents prefixed to this volume it is entitled "The Roule of Reclous;" and although the phraseology is somewhat modernised, it agrees better with the MS. Cleopatra C. vi, than with Nero A. xiv., from which Mr. Morton's edition is printed. This copy is not complete, some leaves having been cut out in the sixth book, and the scribe leaves off at p. 420. of the printed edition. It is very much to be wished that Mr. Morton would undertake the task of editing another volume of legends, homilies, and poems, of the same age as the Ancren Riwle, still existing in various manuscripts. One of the homilies, entitled "Sawles Warde," in the Bodley MS. 34., Cott. MS. Titus D. xviii., and Old Royal MS. 17A. xxvii., is very curious, and well deserves to be printed. British Museum. At p. viii. of Mr. Morton's preface, for "yerze" (eye), my extracts read "yze." ORDER FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF VAGRANCY, A.D. 1650-51.At a time when the question of "What is to be done with our vagrant children?" is occupying the attention of all men of philanthropic minds, it may be worth while to give place in your pages to the following order addressed by the Lord Mayor of London to his aldermen in 1650-51, which applies, amongst other things, to that very subject. It will be seen that some of the artifices of beggary in that day were very similar to those with which we are now but too familiar. The difference of treatment between vagrant children over and under nine years of age, is worthy of observation.
I suppose this to have been the ancient building known by the name of The Royal, or The Tower Royal, used for a time as the Queen's Wardrobe. It will be seen that it was occupied in 1650 as a workhouse. LETTERS OF EMINENT LITERARY MEN.
Yours faithfully, Henry Ellis. British Museum, Dec. 26, 1853. I.Dean Swift to * * * * * * *. [MS. Addit., Brit. Mus., 12,113. Orig.]
I am, Sir, Your most humble Servt. Jonath. Swift. II.The Rev. Thomas Baker to Mr. Humphry Wanley. [Harl. MS. 3778, Art. 43. Orig.]
I am, Sir, Your most ob. humble Servant, Tho. Baker.
A note in Wanley's hand says, "Mrs. Elstob has only paid a few small scores." III.Extract of a Letter from Wm. Bickford, Esq., to the Rev. Mr. Amory of Taunton, dated Dunsland, March 7, 1731. [MS. Addit., Brit. Mus., 4309, fol. 358.]
(To be continued.) BURIAL-PLACE OF ARCHBISHOP LEIGHTON.On a visit this autumn with some friends to the picturesque village and church of Horsted-Keynes, Sussex, our attention was forcibly arrested by the appearance of two large pavement slabs, inserted in an erect position on the external face of the south wall of the chancel. They proved to be those which once had covered and protected the grave of the good Archbishop Leighton, who passed the latter years of his life in that parish, and that of Sir Ellis Leighton, his brother. On inquiry, it appeared that their remains had been deposited within a small chapel on the south side of the chancel, the burial-place of the Lightmaker family, of Broadhurst, in the parish of Horsted. The archbishop retired thither in 1674, and resided with his only sister, Saphira, widow of Mr. Edward Lightmaker. Broadhurst, it may be observed, is sometimes incorrectly mentioned by the biographers of Archbishop Leighton as a parish; it is an ancient mansion, the residence formerly of the Lightmakers, and situated about a mile north of the village of Horsted. There it was that Leighton made his will, in February, 1683; but his death occurred, it will be remembered, in singular accordance with his desire often expressed, at an inn, the Bell, in Warwick Lane, London. The small chapel adjacent to the chancel, and opening into it by an arch now walled up, had for some time, as I believe, been used as a school-room; more recently, however, either through its becoming out of repair, or from some other cause, the little structure was demolished. The large slabs which covered the tombs of the good prelate and his brother were taken up and fixed against the adjoining wall. The turf now covers the space thus thrown into the open churchyard; nothing remains to mark the position of the graves, which in all probability, ere many years elapse, will be disturbed through ignorance or heedlessness, and the ashes of Leighton scattered to the winds. In times when special respect has been shown to the tombs of worthies of bygone times, with the recent recollection also of what has been so well carried out by Mr. Markland in regard to the grave of Bishop Ken, shall we not make an effort to preserve from desecration and oblivion the resting-place of one so eminent as Leighton for his learning and piety, so worthy to be held in honoured remembrance for his high principles and his consistent conduct in an evil age? |