Part 2

When a publisher issues a series of such works as are comprised in _Bohn's Standard Library_, and thereby brings expensive publications within the reach of the multitude, he is entitled to the gratitude and the active support of the reading portion of the public; but, if he wish to be ranked amongst the respectable booksellers, he ought to see to the accuracy of his reprints. Bohn's edition of Woodfall's _Junius_, in two volumes, purports to contain "the entire work, as originally published." This it does not. Some of the notes are omitted; and the text is, in many instances, incorrect. I have examined the first volume only; and I shall state some of the errors which I have found, on comparing it with Woodfall's edition, three volumes 8vo., 1814. The pages noted are those of Bohn's first volume.

P. 87. In his Dedication, Junius says: "If an honest, and, I may truly affirm, a laborious zeal." Bohn turns it into nonsense, by printing it: "If an honest _man_, and I may truly," &c.

P. 105. In Letter I., Junius speaks of "distributing the _offices_ of state, by rotation." Bohn has it "_officers_."

P. 113. In Letter II., Sir W. Draper says that "all Junius's _assertions_ are false and scandalous." Bohn prints it "_exertions_."

P. 206. In Letter XXII., Junius says, "it may be advisable to _gut_ the resolution." Bohn has it "to _put_."

P. 240. In Letter XXX., Junius says: "And, if possible, to perplex _us with_ the multitude of their offences." Bohn omits the words "_us with_."

P. 319. In Letter XLII., Junius speaks of the "future _projects_" of the ministry. Bohn prints it "future _prospects_."

P. 322. In the same letter, Junius says: "How far people may be animated _to resistance_, under the present administration." Bohn omits "_to resistance_."

P. 382. In Letter LIII., Horne says: "And in case of refusal, _threaten_ to write them down." Bohn omits "_threaten_."

P. 428. In Letter LXI., Philo-Junius says, "his view is to change a court of _common law into a court of_ equity." Bohn omits the words "_common law into a court of_."

P. 437. In Letter LXIII., Junius writes, "love _and kindness_ to Lord Chatham." Bohn omits "_and kindness_."

P. 439. In Letter LXIV., Junius speaks of "a multitude of _prerogative writs_." Bohn has it "a multitude of _prerogatives_."

P. 446. In Letter LXVIII., Junius says to Lord Mansfield: "If, on your part, you should have no plain, substantial _defence_." Bohn substitutes "_evidence_" for "_defence_."

These are the most important errors, but not all that I have found in the text. I now turn to the reprint of Dr. Mason Good's Preliminary Essay. The editor says: "The omission of a quotation or two, of no present interest, and the correction of a few inaccuracies of language, are the only alterations that have been made in the Preliminary Essay." We shall see how far this is true. Such alterations as "arrogance" for "insolence," p. 2.; "classic purity" for "classical chastity," p. 3.; "severe" for "atrocious," p. 15., I shall not particularise farther; but merely observe that, so far from being merely "corrections {585} of inaccuracies of language," they are frequently changes of meaning.

At pp. 4. and 5., extracts from speeches by Burke and North are introduced into the text. In Woodfall, they are given in a note, so as not to interrupt the writer's argument.

Occasionally, a sentence is partly rewritten. I take one specimen. Dr. Good says that, "But for the Letters of Junius, the Commons of England might still ... have been exposed to the absurd and obnoxious harassment of parliamentary arrests, upon a violation of privileges undefined and incapable of being appealed against--defrauded of their estates upon an arbitrary and interested claim of the crown." In Bohn, p. 5., the words are altered to "have been exposed to arbitrary violations of individual liberty, under undefined pretexts of parliamentary privileges, against which there _were_ (?) no appeal--defrauded of their estates upon capricious and interested claims of the crown."

Dr. Good, to show that Burke could not be Junius, cites several passages from his works; and then proves, by quotations from Junius, that the opinions of the one were opposed to those of the other. In Bohn's edition all these quotations, which occupy twelve octavo pages in Woodfall, are omitted as unnecessary, although the writer's argument is partly founded upon them; and yet the editor has retained (evidently through carelessness), at p. 66., Dr. Good's subsequent reference to these very quotations, where, being about to give some extracts from General Lee's letters, he says: "They may be compared with those of Junius, _that follow the preceding extracts from Mr. Burke_." This reference is retained, but the extracts spoken of are omitted.

Some of Woodfall's notes are wholly left out; but I will not lengthen these remarks by specially pointing them out. The new notes of Bohn's editor offer much matter for animadversion, but I confine myself to one point. In a note to Sir W. Draper's first letter (p. 116.), we are told that Sir William "married a Miss De Lancy, who died in 1778, _leaving him a daughter_." In another note relating to Sir William (p. 227.), it is stated that "he married a daughter of the second son of the Duke of St. Alban's. Her ladyship died in 1778, _leaving him no issue_." How are we to reconcile these statements?

H. MARTIN.

Halifax.

[The work professes to be edited by Mr. Wade. Mr. Wade therefore, and not Mr. Bohn, is responsible for the errors pointed out by our correspondent.--ED.]

* * * * *

Minor Notes.

_Mutilating Books._--Swift, in a letter to Stella, Jan. 16, 1711, says, "I went to Bateman's the bookseller, and laid out eight-and-forty shillings for books. I bought three little volumes of Lucian in French, for our Stella." This Bateman would never allow any one to look into a book in his shop; and when asked the reason, he would say, "I suppose you may be a physician, or an author, and want some recipe or quotation; and if you buy it I will engage it to be perfect before you leave me, but not after; as I have suffered by leaves being torn out, and the books returned, to my very great loss and prejudice.

ABHBA.

_The Plymouth Calendar._--To your collection of verses (Vol. vii. _passim_) illustrative of local circumstances, incidents, &c., allow me to add the following:

"The West wind always brings wet weather, The East wind wet and cold together; The South wind surely brings us rain, The North wind blows it back again. If the Sun in red should set, The next day surely will be wet; If the Sun should set in grey, The next will be a rainy day."

BALLIOLENSIS.

_Divinity Professorships._--In the last number of _The Journal of Sacred Literature_ (April, 1854), there is a well-deserved eulogium on the biblical labours of Dr. Kitto; who, though in the enjoyment of the title of D.D. (conferred on him some years ago by a Continental University), is nevertheless a layman, and not, as is very commonly imagined, in orders. The article, however, to which I refer, contains a curious mistake. Michaelis is cited (p. 122.) as an instance of a layman being able, on the Continent, to hold a professorship relating to theology and biblical science, in contrast to what is assumed to be the invariable system at the English Universities. It is true, indeed, that for the most part such professorships are here held by clergymen; but from several of them laymen are not excluded by any law. At Cambridge, the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, for example, may be a layman.

With respect to the degree of D.D., it is observed by the Writer of the article, p. 127.:

"In Germany this degree is given to laymen, but in England it is exclusively appropriated to the clergy. This led to the very general impression among strangers, that Dr. Kitto is a clergyman."

ABHBA.

[We have frequently seen the celebrated Nonjuror Henry Dodwell noticed as in orders, perhaps from his portrait exhibiting him in gown and bands as Camden Professor of History at Oxford. Miss Strickland, too, in her _Lives of the Queens of England_, vol. vii. p. 202., and vol. viii. p. 352., edit. 1853, speaks of that worthy layman, Robert Nelson, both as a _Doctor_ and a clergyman!--ED.]

{586}

* * * * *

Queries.

SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS.

(_Concluded from_ p. 539.)

A divine, reasoning philosophically with a lady on the possibility of the appearance of ghosts, was much perplexed by her simple inquiry as to where the clothes came from. If then the mediæval effigies are alive, how can the costume be reconciled with their position? Where do their clothes come from? The theory advanced in the two preceding Numbers seems to offer a ready solution. Another corroborative fact remains to be stated, that when a kneeling attitude superseded the recumbent, the brasses were placed upon the wall, testifying, in some degree at least, that the horizontal figures were not traditionally regarded as living portraits. In anticipation of objections, it can only be said that "they have no speculation in their eyes;" that out of the thousands in existence, a few exceptions will only prove the rule; and that their incongruities were conventional.

It is now my purpose to offer a few more reasons for releasing the sculptors of the present day from a rigid adherence to the uplifted hands and the straight head. That there is grace, dignity, and pious serenity occasionally perceptible in these interesting relics of bygone days, which so appropriately furnish our magnificent cathedrals, and embellish numbers of our parochial churches, is freely admitted; but that they are formal, conventional, monotonous, and consequently unfitted for modern imitation, cannot reasonably be denied by a person with pretensions to taste. From the study of anatomy, the improvement in painting, the invention of engraving, our acquaintance with the matchless works of Greece, and other causes, this branch of art has made considerable advance. Why, then, should a sculptor be now "cabin'd, cribb'd, confined, bound in," by such inflexible conditions? If some variation is discoverable in the ancient types, why should he not have the advantage of selection, and avail himself of that attitude best adapted to the situation of the tomb and the character of the deceased? Not to multiply examples of deviation--the Queen of Henry IV., in Canterbury Cathedral, has one arm reposing at her side, and the other upon her breast. The arms of Edward III., in Westminster Abbey, are both stretched at his side. An abbot of Peterborough, in that cathedral, holds a book and a pastoral staff. The hands of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, in his beautiful chapel, are raised, but separate. Several have the arms crossed, expressive of humility and resignation. Others (lay as well as clerical) press a holy book to their bosom; and some place the right hand upon the heart, denoting the warmth of their love and faith. In his description of Italian monuments, Mr. Ruskin remarks, that "though in general, in tombs of this kind, the face of the statue is slightly turned towards the spectator, in one case it is turned away" (_Stones of Venice_, vol. iii. p. 14.); and instances are not unfrequent of similar inclinations of the head at home. Why then should this poor choice be denied? Why should he be fettered by austere taskmasters to this stereotyped treatment, to the proverbial stiffness of "our grandsires cut in alabaster." Indignation has been excited in many quarters against that retrograde movement termed "pre-Raphaelism," yet what in fact is this severe, angular, antiquated style, but identically the same thing in stone? What but pre-Angeloism? Upon the supposition that the effigies have departed this life, or even that the spirit is only about to take its flight, anatomical and physiological difficulties present themselves, for strong action would be required to hold the hands in this attitude of prayer. The drapery, too, hanging in straight folds, has been always apparently designed from upright figures, circumstances evincing how little the rules of propriety were then regarded. Their profusion occasions a familiarity which demands a change, for the range is here as confined as that of the sign-painter, who could only depict lions, and was therefore precluded from varying his signs, except by an alteration in the colour. Such is the yearning of taste for diversity, that in the equestrian procession on the frieze of the Parthenon, out of about ninety horses, not two are in the same attitude; yet to whatever extent our churches may be thronged with these sepulchral tombs, all must be, as it were, cast in the same mould, till by repetition their beauty

"Fades in the eye and palls upon the sense."

It is evidently imitating the works of antiquity under a disadvantage, inasmuch as modern costume is far inferior in picturesque effect to the episcopal vestments, the romantic armour, and numerous elegant habiliments of an earlier day. Every lesser embellishment and minuteness of detail are regarded by an artist who has more enlarged views of his profession as foreign to the main design; yet the robes, millinery, jewellery, and accoutrements usually held a place with the carvers of that time of equal importance with the face, and engaged as large a share of their attention.

The comparative easiness of execution forms another argument. Having received the simple commission for a monument (specifications are needless), the workmen (as may be imagined) fixes the armour of the defunct knight upon his table, places a mask moulded from nature on the helmet-pillow, fits on a pair of hands with which, like an {587} assortment of gloves, his studio is provided, diligently applies his compasses to insure exact equality by means of a receipt, perchance imparts some devotional expression, and the work is ready to be transferred to stone.

Mr. Petit, in the preface (page x.) to his _Architectural Studies_, after due praise, asserts--

"That no sculptor anxious to advance his own reputation and art will ever set up a mediæval statue as his model. He may acknowledge its merits, and learn much from a careful examination of it, but still he will not look up to its designer as his master and guide."

Again, the efforts of genius are cramped by such uncompromising terms. The feet must unavoidably be directed towards the east; still, whatever the situation of the tomb may chance to be, from whatever point it may be viewed, or whether the light may fall on this side or on that, no way of escape is open, and no ingenuity can be employed to grapple with the uncontrollable obstruction. Portrait painters can choose the position most favourable to the features, but the monumental sculptor of the nineteenth century may only exhibit what is generally shunned, the direct profile; the contour of the face, and the wide expanse of brow, which might probably give the most lively indications of intellectual power, amiability of disposition, and devout tranquillity of soul, must be sacrificed to this unbending law "which altereth not." Sculptors, we are told, should overcome difficulties; but here they are required to "strive with impossibilities, yea, get the better of them." Whether painted windows, or some other ornament, or a tomb alone in harmony with the architecture (the form and features of the individual being elsewhere preserved), may constitute a more desirable memorial, is a separate question, but as statues are only admissible in a recumbent posture, some little latitude must be allowed. Like our reformers in higher things, it behoves us to discard what is objectionable in art, while we cherish that which is to be admired. Instead of treading in the footsteps of those lofty spirits, we should endeavour to follow the same road. Fully appreciating their excellences, let us avoid the distorted drawing of their brilliant glass, their irregularities in architectural design, the irreverence of their carving, and the conventionalism of their monumental sculpture.

C. T.

I agree with C. T. in thinking that the usual recumbent figure on mediæval tombs was intended to represent a dead body, and more particularly to represent the body as it had lain in state, or had been borne to the grave; and I will add one or two additional reasons for this opinion. In the description in Speed, of the intended monument of Henry VIII., taken from a MS. given to Speed by that industrious herald master, Charles Lancaster, the following direction occurs:--

"Item, upon the same basement shall be made two tombes of blacke touch, that is to say, on either side one, and upon the said tombes of blacke touch shall be made the image of the King and Queen, on both sides, not as death [dead], but as persons sleeping, because to shewe that famous princes leaving behind them great fame never doe die, and shall be in royall apparels after the antique manner."--Speed's _Hist. of Great Brit._, p. 1037. ed. 1632.

The distinction here taken between a dead and a sleeping figure, and the reason assigned for the latter, show, I think, that at that time a recumbent figure generally was supposed to represent death. In a monument of Sir Roger Aston, at Cranford, Middlesex, in Lysons' _Environs of London_, the knight and his two wives are represented praying, and by the side of the knight _lies_ the infant son who had died in his lifetime. In the monument of Pope Innocent VIII. (Pistolesi, _Il Vaticano_, vol. i. plate 63.), the Pope is in one part represented in a living action, and in another as lying on his tomb, and from the contrast which would thus be afforded between life and death, the latter representation seems to indicate death.

The hands raised in prayer are accounted for by C. T. Open eyes, I think, may be intended to express, by their direction towards heaven, the hope in which the deceased died. This is suggested by the description of the funeral car of Henry V.

"Preparations were made to convey the body of Henry from Rouen to England. It was placed within a car, on which reclined his figure made of boiled leather, elegantly painted. A rich crown of gold was on its head. The right hand held a sceptre, and the left a golden ball. _The face seemed to contemplate the heavens._"--Turner's _Hist. of Eng._, vol. ii. p. 465.

I must, however, add that on referring to Monstrelet, I doubt whether Turner does not go too far in this last particular. Monstrelet merely says, "le visage vers le ciel." (Monst. _Chron._ vol. i. 325. ed. 1595.) Speed adds an additional circumstance: "The body (of this figure) was clothed with a purple roabe furred with ermine." From the mutilated state of the tomb it is impossible to say how far the recumbent effigy resembled this boiled figure, but it is evidently just such a representation of the king as might have been laid on his tomb, and so far it tends to support the opinion that the effigy on a tomb represents the deceased as he had lain in state, or was borne to and placed in his tomb, an opinion fully borne out by the agreement which, in some cases, has been found to exist between the effigy on a tomb and the body discovered within it, or between the effigy and the description of the body as it had lain in state. See the tombs of King {588} John, Robert Lord Hungerford, and Henry II., in Stothard's _Monumental Effigies of Great Britain_, and the Introduction to that work.

I think it is not irrelevant to remark that at a very early period a recumbent figure was sometimes placed on a tomb as in a state of death. The recumbent Etruscan figures generally represent a state of repose or of sensual enjoyment; but there is one given by Micali (_Monumenti inediti a Illustrazione degli Antichi Popoli Italiani_, Tav. 48. p. 303.), which is, undoubtedly, that of a dead person. In his description of it, Micali says, "On the first view of it one would say it was a sepulchral monument of the Middle Ages, so greatly does it resemble one." Mrs. Gray, too (_Tour to the Sepulchres of Etruria_, p. 264.), mentions a sepulchral urn, "very large, with a woman robed, and with a dog upon it, exactly like an English monument of the Middle Ages." If it were not for the dog, I should suppose this to be the one given by Micali. Though it may be too much to suppose that this form of representation may have been not uncommon, and may have passed into early Christian monuments, the instance in Micali at least shows that the idea of representing a dead body on a tomb is a very ancient one. It may be added, perhaps, that it is an obvious one.

Though the reasons for thinking that the ordinary mediæval figure represents death may not be conclusive, still that opinion is, I think, entitled to be looked upon as the more probable one, until some satisfactory reason is given why a _living_ person should be represented outstretched, and lying on his back--a position, as it seems to me, more inconsistent with life than the open eyes and hands joined in prayer are with death. For too much weight is not to be attached to slight inconsistencies. These would probably be disregarded for the sake of expressing some favourite idea or sentiment. Thus, in the proposed monument of Henry VIII., though the king and queen are directed to be represented as living, their souls are to be represented in the hand of "the Father."

In modern tombs the mediæval idea has been entirely departed from, and the recumbent position sometimes expresses neither death, nor even sleep, but simple repose, or contemplation, resignation, hope, &c. If it is proper or desirable to express these or other sentiments in a recumbent figure, it seems unreasonable to exclude them for the sake of a rigid adherence to a form, of which the import is either obscure, or, if rightly conjectured, has, by the change of customs, become idle and unmeaning.

F. S. B. E.

* * * * *

ROGER ASCHAM AND HIS LETTERS.

To the epistles of Roger Ascham, given in Elstob's edition, have since been added several to Raven and others[1], two to Cecil[2], and several to Mrs. Astley, Bp. Gardiner, Sir Thos. Smith, Mr. Callibut, Sir W. Pawlett, Queen Elizabeth, the Earl of Leicester, and Mr. C. H.[owe].[3] Some of your correspondents will, doubtless, be able farther to enlarge this list of printed letters.

In a MS. volume, once belonging to Bp. Moore, now in the University Library, Cambridge, is a volume of transcripts[4], containing, amongst other documents, letters from Ascham to Petre[5] and to Cecil; one (p. 44.) "written by R. A., for a gent to a gentlewoman, in waie of marriage," and one to the B. of W.[inchester], which, though without a signature, is certainly Ascham's. In another MS. volume, in the same collection (Ee. v. 23.), are copies of Ascham's letter to his wife on the death of their child[6], and of a letter to Mr. Richard Goodrich. Lastly, Ascham's College (St. John's) possesses his original letter to Cardinal Pole, written on the fly-leaf of a copy of Osorius _De nobilitate civili_[7]; and also the original MS. of the translation of Oecumenius, accompanied by a Latin letter to Seton.[8]

These unpublished letters will shortly be printed for the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. Early information respecting any other MS. works of Ascham, or collations of his published letters with the originals, will be thankfully acknowledged.

J. E. B. MAYOR.

St. John's College, Cambridge.

P. S.--I may add that we have at St. John's a {589} copy of Ascham's Letters (ed. Elstob), with many dates and corrections in Baker's hand. There may be something new in Kennett's biographical notice of Ascham (Lansdowne MSS. 981. art. 41.)