Chapter 1

"'_Falstaff._ I myself sometimes having the fear of heaven on the left hand, and hiding mine honour in my necessity, am fain to shuffle, to hedge, and to lurch; and yet you, you rogue, will esconce your _rags_, your cat-a-mountain looks, your red-lattice phrases and your bold-beating oaths, under the shelter of your honour.'

"Pistol, to whom this was addressed, was an ensign, and therefore _rags_ can hardly bear the ordinary interpretation. A _rag_ is a beggarly fellow, but that will make little better sense here. Associated as the phrase is, I think it must mean _rages_, and I find the word used for _ragings_ in the compound _bard-rags_, border-ragings or incursions, in Spenser's _Fairy Queen_, ii. x. 63., and _Colin Clout_, v. 315."

Having on one occasion found that a petty larceny committed on the received text of the poet, by taking away a superfluous _b_, made all clear, perhaps I may be allowed to restore the abstracted letter, which had only been _misplaced_ and read _brags_, with, I trust, the like success? Be it remembered that Pistol, a braggadocio, is made up of _brags_ and slang; and for that reason I would also read, with Hanmer, _bull-baiting_, instead of the unmeaning "_bold-beating_ oaths."

I well know with what extreme caution conjectural emendation is to be exercised; but I cannot consent to carry it to the excess, or to preserve a vicious reading, merely because it is warranted by the _old copies_.

Regretting, as I do, that Mr. Collier's, as well as Mr. Knight's, edition of the poet, should both be disfigured by this excess of caution, I venture to subjoin a cento from George Withers, which has been inscribed in the blank leaf of one of them.

"Though they will not for a better Change a syllable or letter, Must the _Printer's_ spots and stains Still obscure THE POET'S Strains? Overspread with antique rust, Like whitewash on his painted bust Which to remove revived the grace And true expression of his face. So, when I find misplaced B's, I will do as I shall please. If my method they deride, Let them know I am not tied, In my free'r course, to chuse Such strait rules as they would use; Though I something miss of might, To express his meaning quite. For I neither fear nor care What in this their censures are; If the art here used be Their dislike, it liketh me. While I linger on each strain, And read, and read it o'er again, I am loth to part from thence, Until I trace the poet's sense, And have the _Printer's errors_ found, In which the folios abound."

PERIERGUS BIBLIOPHILUS.

October.

* * * * *

Minor Notes.

_Chaucer's Damascene._--Warton, in his account of the physicians who formed the Library of the Doctor of Physic, says of John Damascene that he was "Secretary to one of the caliphs, wrote in various sciences before the Arabians had entered Europe, and had seen the Grecian philosophers." (_History of English Poetry_, Price's ed., ii. 204.) Mr. Saunders, in his book entitled _Cabinet Pictures of English Life_, "Chaucer", after repeating the very words of this meagre account, adds, "He was, however, more famous for his religious than his medical writings; and obtained for his eloquence the name of the Golden-flowing" (p 183.) Now Mr. Saunders certainly, whatever Warton did, has confounded Damascenus, the physician, with Johannes Damascenus Chrysorrhoas, "the {323} last of the Greek Fathers," (Gibbon, iv. 472.) a voluminous writer on ecclesiastical subjects, but no physician, and therefore not at all likely to be found among the books of Chaucer's Doctour,

"Whose studie was but litel on the Bible."

Chaucer's _Damascene_ is the author of _Aphorismorum Liber_, and of _Medicinæ Therapeuticæ_, libri vii. Some suppose him to have lived in the ninth, others in the eleventh century, A.D.; and this is about all that is known about him. (See _Biographie Universelle_, s.v.)

ED. S. JACKSON.

_Long Friday, meaning of._--C. Knight, in his _Pictorial Shakspeare_, explains Mrs. Quickly's phrase in _Henry the Fourth_--"'Tis a _long_ loan for a poor lone woman to bear,"--by the synonym _great_: asserting that _long_ is still used in the sense of great, in the north of England; and quoting the Scotch proverb, "Between you and the long day be it," where _we_ talk of the _great_ day of judgment. May not this be the meaning of the name _Long Friday_, which was almost invariably used by our Saxon forefathers for what we now call Good Friday? The commentators on the Prayer Book, who all confess themselves ignorant of the real meaning of the term, absurdly suggest that it was so called from the great _length of the services_ on that day; or else, from the length of the fast which preceded. Surely, The Great Friday, the Friday on which the great work of our redemption was completed, makes better sense?

T.E.L.L.

_Hip, hip, Hurrah!_--Originally a war cry, adopted by the stormers of a German town, wherein a great many Jews had taken their refuge. The place being sacked, they were all put to the sword, under the shouts of, _Hierosolyma est perdita_! From the first letter of those words (_H.e.p._) an exclamation was contrived. We little think, when the red wine sparkles in the cup, and soul-stirring toasts are applauded by our _Hip, hip, hurrah!_ that we record the fall of Jerusalem, and the cruelty of Christians against the chosen people of God.

JANUS DOUSA.

_Under the Rose_ (Vol. i., p. 214.).--Near Zandpoort, a village in the vicinity of Haarlem, Prince William of Orange, the third of his name, had a favourite hunting-seat, called after him the Princenbosch, now more generally known under the designation of the Kruidberg. In the neighbourhood of these grounds there was a little summer-house, making part, if I recollect rightly, of an Amsterdam burgomaster's country place, who resided there at the times I speak of. In this pavilion, it is said, _and beneath a stucco rose_, being one of the ornaments of the ceiling, William III. communicated the scheme of his intended invasion in England to the two burgomasters of Amsterdam there present. You know the result.

Can the expression of "being under the rose" date from this occasion, or was it merely owing to coincidence that such an ornament protected, as it were, the mysterious conversation to which England owes her liberty, and Protestant Christendom the maintenance of its rights?

JANUS DOUSA.

Huis te Manpadt.

_Albanian Literature.--Bogdano, Pietro, Archivescovo di Scopia, L'Infallibile Verita della Cattolica Fede_, in Venetia, per G. Albrizzi, MDXCI, is I think much older than any Albanian book mentioned by Hobhouse. The same additional characters are used which occur in the later publications of the Propaganda, in two parts, pp. 182. 162.

F.Q.

* * * * *

Queries.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL QUERIES.

1. Has anything recently transpired which could lead bibliographers to form an absolute decision with regard to the "unknown" printer who used the singular letter R which is said to have originated with Finiguerra in 1452? That Mentelin was the individual seems scarcely credible; and there is a manifest difference between his type and that of the anonymous printer of the _editio princeps_ of Rabanus Maurus, _De Universo_, the copy of which work (illuminated, ruled, and rubricated) now before me was once in Heber's possession; and it exhibits the peculiar letter R, which resembles an ill-formed A, destitute of the cross stroke, and supporting a round O on its reclined back. (Panzer, i. 78.; Santander, i. 240.)

2. Is it not quite certain that the acts and decrees of the synod of Würtzburg, held in the year 1452, were printed in that city previously to the publication of the _Breviarium Herbiplense_ in 1479? The letter Q which is used in the volume of these acts is remarkable for being of a double semilunar shape; and the type, which is very Gothic, is evidently the same as that employed in an edition of other synodal decrees in Germany about the year 1470.

3. When and where was the _Liber de Laudibus gloriosissime Dei genitricis Marie semper Virginis_, by Albertus Magnus, first printed? I do not mean the supposititious work, which is often confounded with the other one; but that which is also styled _Super Evangelium_ Missus est _Quæstiones_. And why are these Questions invariably said to be 230 in number, when there are 275 chapters in the book? Beughem asserts that the earliest edition is that of Milan in 1489 (_Vid._ Quetif et Echard, i. 176.), but what I believe to be a volume of older date is "sine ullâ notâ;" and a bookseller's observation respecting it is, that it is "very rare, and unknown to De Bure, Panzer, Brunet, and Dibdin." {324}

4. Has any discovery made as to the author of the extraordinary 4to. tract, _Oracio querulosa contra Inuasores Sacerdotum?_ According to the Crevenna _Catalogue_ (i. 85.), the work is "inconnu à tous les bibliographes." Compare Seemiller, ii. 162.; but the copy before me is not of the impression described by him. It is worthy of notice, that at signature A iiiij the writer declares, "nostris jam temporibus calchographiam, hoc est impressioram artem, in nobilissima Vrbanie germe Maguncia fuisse repertam."

5. Are we to suppose that either carelessness or a love of conjectures was the source of Chevillier's mistake, not corrected by Greswell (_Annals of Paris. Typog._, p. 6.), that signatures were first introduced, anno 1476, by Zarotus, the printer, at Milan? They may doubtless be seen in the _Opus Alexandride Ales super tertium Sententiarum_, Venet. 1475, a book which supplies also the most ancient instance I have met with of a "Registrum Chartarum." Signatures, however, had a prior existence; for they appear in the _Mammetractus_ printed at Beron Minster in 1470 (Meermau, ii. 28.; Kloss, p. 192.), but they were omitted in the impression of 1476. Dr. Cotton (_Typ. Gaz._, p. 66.), Mr. Horne (_Introd. to Bibliog._, i. 187. 317), and many others, wrongly delay the invention or adoption of them till the year 1472.

6. Is the edition of the _Fasciculus Temporum_, set forth at Cologne by Nicolaus de Schlettstadt in 1474, altogether distinct from that which is confessedly "omnium prima," and which was issued by Arnoldus Ther Huernen in the same year? If it be, the copy in the Lambeth library, bearing date 1476, and entered in pp. 1, 2. of Dr. Maitland's very valuable and accurate _List_, must appertain to the third, not the second, impression. To the latter this Louvain reprint of 1476 is assigned in the catalogue of the books of Dr. Kloss (p. 127.), but there is an error in the remark that the "Tabula" prefixed to the _editio princeps_ is comprised in _eight_ leaves, for it certainly consists of _nine_.

7. Where was what is probably a copy of the second edition of the _Catena Aurea_ of Aquinas printed? The folio in question, which consists of 417 unnumbered leaves, is an extremely fine one, and I should say that it is certainly of German origin. Seemiller (i. 117.) refers it to Esslingen, and perhaps an acquaintance with its water-marks would afford some assistance in tracing it. Of these a rose is the most common, and a strigilis may be seen on folio 61. It would be difficult to persuade the proprietor of this volume that it is of so modern a date as 1474, the year in which what is generally called the second impression of this work appeared.

8. How can we best account for the mistake relative to the imaginary Bologna edition of Ptolemy's _Cosmography_ in 1462, a copy of which was in the Colbert library? (Leuglet du Fresnoy, _Méth. pour étud. l'Hist._, iii. 8., à Paris, 1735.) That it was published previously to the famous Mentz Bible of this date is altogether impossible; and was the figure 6 a misprint for 8? or should we attempt to subvert it into 9? The _editio princeps_ of the Latin version by Angelus is in Roman letter, and is a very handsome specimen of Vicenza typography in 1475, when it was set forth "ab Hermano Leuilapide," alias Hermann Lichtenstein.

9. If it be true, as Dr. Cotton remarks in his excellent _Typographical Gazetteer_, p. 22., that a press was erected at Augsburg, in the monastery of SS. Ulric and Afra, in the year 1472, and that Anthony Sorg is believed to have been the printer, why should we be induced to assent to the validity of Panzer's supposition that Nider's _Formicarius_ did not make its appearance there until 1480? It would seem to be more than doubtful that Cologne can boast of having produced the first edition, A.D. 1475/7; and it may be reasonably asserted, and an examination of the book will abundantly strengthen the idea, that the earliest impression is that which contains this colophon, in which I would dwell upon the word "_editionem_" (well known to the initiated): "Explicit quintus ac totus formicarii liber uxta editionem fratris Iohannis Nider," &c., "Impressum Auguste per Anthonium Sorg."

10. In what place and year was _Wilhelmi Summa Viciorum_ first printed? Fabricius and Cave are certainly mistaken when they say Colon. 1479. In the volume, which I maintain to be of greater antiquity, the letters _c_ and _t_, _s_ and _t_, are curiously united, and the commencement of it is: "Incipit summa viciorum seu tractatus moral' edita [_sic_] a fratre vilhelmo episcopo lugdunes. ordinsq. fratrû predicator." The description given by Quetif and Echard (i. 132.) of the primary impression of Perault's book only makes a bibliomaniac more anxious for information about it: "in Inc. typ. absque loco anno et nomine typographi, sine numeris reclamat. et majusculis."

11. Was Panormitan's _Lectura super primo Decretalium_ indubitably issued at Venice, prior to the 1st of April, 1473? and if so, does it contain in the colophon these lines by Zovenzonius, which I transcribe from a noble copy bearing this date?

"Abbatis pars prima notis que fulget aliemis Est vindelini pressa labore mei: Cuius ego ingenium de vertice palladis ortum Crediderim. veniam tu mihi spira dabis."

12. Is it not unquestionable that Heroldt's _Promptuarium Exemplorum_ was published at least as early as his _Sermones_? The type in both works is clearly identical, and the imprint in the latter, at the end of _Serm._ cxxxvi., vol. ii., is Colon. 1474, an edition unknown to very nearly all bibliographers. For instance, Panzer and Denis commence with that of Rostock, in 1476; Laire {325} with that of Cologne, 1478; and Maittaire with that of Nuremberg, in 1480. Different statements have been made as to the precise period when this humble-minded writer lived. Altamura (_Bibl. Domin._, pp. 147. 500.) places him in the year 1400. Quetif and Echard (i. 762.), Fabricius and Mansi (_Bibl. Med. et inf. Latin._), prefer 1418, on the unstable ground of a testimony supposed to have proceeded from the author himself; for whatever confusion or depravation may have been introduced into subsequent impressions, the _editio princeps_, of which I have spoken, does not present to our view the alleged passage, viz., "à Christo autem transacti sunt _millequadringenti decem et octo_ anni," but most plainly, "M.cccc. & liij. anni." (_Serm._ lxxxv., tom. ii.) To this same "Discipulus" Oudin (iii. 2654.), and Gerius in the Appendix to Cave (p. 187.), attribute the _Speculorum Exemplorum_, respecting which I have before proposed a Query; but I am convinced that they have confounded the _Speculum_ with the _Promptuarium_. The former was first printed at Deventer, A.D. 1481, and the compiler of it enters upon his prologue in the following striking style: "Impressoria arte jamdudum longe lateque per orbem diffusa, multiplicatisque libris quarumcunque fere materiarum," &c. He then expresses his surprise at the want of a good collection of _Exempla_; and why should we determine without evidence that he must have been Heroldus?

R.G.

* * * * *

FAIRFAX'S TASSO.

In a copy of Fairfax's _Godfrey of Bulloigne_, ed. 1600 (the first), which I possess, there occurs a very curious variorum reading of the first stanza of the first book. The stanza, as it is given by Mr. Knight in his excellent modern editions, reads thus:

"The sacred armies and the godly knight, That the great sepulchre of Christ did free, I sing; much wrought his valour and foresight, And in that glorious war much suffer'd he; In vain 'gainst him did hell oppose her might, In vain the Turks and Morians armed be; His soldiers wild, to brawls and mutines prest, Reduced he to peace, so heaven him blest."

By holding up the leaf of my copy to the light, it is easy to see that the stanza stood originally as given above, but a cancel slip printed in _precisely the same type_ as the rest of the book gives the following elegant variation:

"I sing the warre made in the Holy Land, And the Great Chiefe that Christ's great tombe did free: Much wrought he with his wit, much with his hand, Much in that braue atchieument suffred hee: In vaine doth hell that Man of God withstand, In vaine the worlds great princes armed bee; For heau'n him fauour'd; and he brought againe Vnder one standard all his scatt'red traine."

Queries.--1. Does the above variation occur in any or many other copies of the edition of 1600?

2. Which reading is followed in the second old edition?

T.N.

Demerary, September 11. 1850.

* * * * *

MINOR QUERIES.

_Jeremy Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium._--Book I. chap. 2. Rule 8. § 14.--

"If he (the judge) see a stone thrown at his brother judge, as happened at Ludlow, not many years since."

(The first ed. was published in 1660). Does any other contemporary writer mention this circumstance? or is there any published register of the assizes of that time?

_Ibid._ Chap. 2. Rule 3. § 32.--

"The filthy gingran."

Apparently a drug or herb. Can it be identified, or its etymology pointed out?

_Ibid._ §. 50.--

"That a virgin should conceive is so possible to God's power, that it is possible in nature, say the Arabians."

Can authority for this be cited from the ancient Arabic writers?

A.T.

_First Earl of Roscommon._--Can you or any of your correspondents put me on any plan by which I may obtain some information on the following subject? James Dillon, first Earl of Roscommon, married Helen, daughter of Sir Christopher Barnwell, by whom he had seven sons and six daughters; their names were Robert, Lucas, Thomas, Christopher, George, John, Patrick. Robert succeeded his father in 1641, and of his descendants and those of Lucas and Patrick I have some accounts; but what I want to know is, who are the descendants of Thomas (particularly), or of any of the other three sons?

Lodge, in his _Peerage_, very kindly kills all the sons, Patrick included; but it appears that he did not depart this life until he had left issue, from whom the late Earl had his origin. If Lodge is thus wrong in one case, he may be in others, and I have reason to believe that Thomas left a son settled in a place in Ireland called Portlick.

FRANCIS.

_St. Cuthbert._--The body of St. Cuthbert, as is well known, had many wanderings before it found a magnificent resting-place at Durham. Now, in an anonymous _History of the Cathedral Church of Durham_, without date, we have a very particular account of the defacement of the shrine of St. {326} Cuthbert, in the reign of Henry VIII. The body was found "lying whole, uncorrupt, with his face bare, and his beard as of a fortnight's growth, with all the vestments about him as he accustomed to say mass withal." The vestments are described as being "fresh, safe, and not consumed." The visitors "commanded him to be carried into the Revestry, till the king's pleasure concerning him was further known; and upon the receipt thereof the prior and monks buried him in the ground under the place where his shrine was exalted." Now, there is a tradition of the Benedictines (of whose monastery the cathedral was part) that on the accession of Elizabeth the monks, who were apprehensive of further violence, removed the body in the night-time from the place where it had been buried to some other part of the building. This spot is known only to three persons, brothers of the order; and it is said that there are three persons who have this knowledge now, as communicated from previous generations.

But a discovery was made in 1827 of the remains of a body in the centre of the spot where the shrine stood, with various relics of a very early period and it was asserted to be the body of St. Cuthbert. This, however, has not been universally assented to, and Mr. Akerman, in his _Archæological Index_, has--

"The object commonly called St. Cuthbert's Cross" (though the designation has been questioned), "found with human remains and other relics of the Anglo-Saxon period, in the Cathedral of Durham in 1827."--p. 144.

There does seem considerable discrepancy in the statements of the remains found in 1827 and the body deposited 1541.

I will conclude with asking, Is there any evidence to confirm the tradition of the Benedictines?

J.R.N.

_Vavasour of Haslewood.--Bells in Churches._--It is currently reported in Yorkshire that three curious privileges belong to the chief of the ancient Roman Catholic family of Vavasour of Haslewood:

1. That he may ride on horseback into York Minster.

2. That he may specially call his house a castle.

3. That he may toll a bell in his chapel, notwithstanding any law prohibiting the use of bells in places of worship not in union with the Church of England.

Is there any foundation for this report; and what is the real story? Is there still a law against the use of bells as a summons to divine services except in churches?

A.G.

_Alteration of Title-pages._--Among the advertisements in the last _Quarterly_ and _Edinburgh Reviews_, is one which replies to certain criticisms on a work. One of these criticisms was a stricture upon its title. The author states that the reviewer had a _presentation copy_, and ought to have inquired into the title under which the book was sold to the _public_ before he animaverted upon the connexion between the title and the work. It seems then that, in this instance, the author furnished the Reviews with a title-page differing from that of the body of his impression, and thinks he has a right to demand that the reviewers should suppose such a circumstance probable enough to make it imperative upon them to inquire what the real title was. Query, Is such a practice common? Can any of your readers produce another instance?

M.

_Weights for Weighing Coins._--A correspondent wishes to know at what period weights were introduced for weighing coins.

He has met with two notices on the subject in passages of Cottonian manuscripts, and would be glad of farther information.

In a MS. Chronicle, Cotton. Otho B. xiv.--

"1418. Novæ bilances instituuntur ad ponderanda aurea Numismata."

In another Cottonian MS., Vitell. A. i., we read--

"1419. Here bigan gold balancis."

H.E.

_Shunamitis Poema._--Who was the author of a curious small 8vo. volume of 179 pages of Latin and English poems, commencing with "Shunamitis Poema Stephani Duck Latine redditum?"

The last verse of some commendatory verses prefixed point out the author as the son of some well-known character:

"And sure that is the most distinguish'd fame, Which rises from your own, not father's name. London, 21 April, 1738."

My copy has no title-page: a transcript of it would oblige.

E.D.

_Lachrymatories._--In many ancient places of sepulture we find long narrow phials which are called lachrymatories, and are supposed to have been receptacles for tears: can you inform me on what authority this supposition rests?

J.H.C.

_Egg-cups used by the Romans._--That the Romans used egg-cups, and of a shape very similar to our own, the ruins at Pompeii and other places afford ocular demonstration. Can you tell me by what name they called them?

J.H.C.

_Sir Oliver Chamberlaine._--In Miss Lefanu's _Memoirs of Mrs. Frances Sheridan_, the celebrated authoress of _Sidney Biddulph_, _Nourjahad_, and _The Discovery_, and mother of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, it is stated that "her grandfather, Sir {327} Oliver Chamberlaine," was an "English baronet." The absence of his name in any of the Baronetages induces the supposition, however, that he had received only the honour of knighthood; and the connexion of his son with Dublin, that the statement of Whitelaw and Walsh, in their history of that city, may be more correct,--viz. that "Sir Oliver Chamberlaine was descended from a respectable English family that had been settled in Dublin since the Reformation." I should be glad to be informed on this point, and also respecting the paternity of this Sir Oliver, who is not only distinguished as one of the progenitors of the Sheridans, but also of Dr. William Chamberlaine, the learned author of the _Abridgement of the Laws of Jamaica_, which he for some time administered, as one of the judges in that island; and of his grandson, the brave, but ill-fated, Colonel Chamberlaine, aide-de-camp to the president Bolivar.

J.R.W.

October 10. 1850.

_Meleteticks._--In Boyle's _Occasional Reflections_ (ed. 1669), he uses the word _meleteticks_ (pp. 8. 38.) to express the "way and kind of meditation" he "would persuade." Was this _then_ a new word coined by him, and has it been used by any other writer?

P.H.F.

_Luther's Hymns._--"In the midst of life we are in death," &c., in the Burial Service, is almost identical with one of Luther's hymns, the words and music of which are frequently closely copied from older sources. Whence?

F.Q.

_"Pair of Twises."_--What was the article, carried by gentlemen, and called by Boyle (R.B.), in his _Occasional Reflections_ (edit. 1669, p. 180.), "a pair of _twises_," out of which he drew a little penknife?

P.H.F.

_Countermarks on Roman Coin._--Several coins in my cabinet of Tiberius, Trajan, &c. bear the stamp NCAPR; others have an open hand, &c. I should be glad to know the reason of this practice, and what they denote.

E.S.T.

* * * * *

REPLIES.

GAUDENTIO DI LUCCA.

(Vol. ii., p. 247. 298.)

The _Memoirs of Sig. Gaudentio di Lucca_ have very generally been ascribed to Bishop Berkeley. In Moser's _Diary_, written at the close of the last century (MS. penes me), the writer says,--

"I have been reading Berkeley's amusing account of _Sig. Gaudentio_. What an excellent system of patriarchal government is there developed!"

See the _Retrospective Review_, vol iv. p. 316., where the work is also ascribed to the celebrated Bishop Berkeley.

EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

In the corrigenda and addenda to Kippis's _Biographia Britannica_, prefixed to vol. iii. is the following note, under the head of _Berkeley_:

"On the same authority [viz., that of Dr. George Berkeley, the bishop's son,] we are assured that his father did not write, and never read through, the _Adventures of Signor Gaudentio di Lucca_. Upon this head, the editor of the _Biographia_ must record himself as having exhibited an instance of the folly of building facts upon the foundation of conjectural reasonings. Having heard the book ascribed to Bishop Berkeley, and seen it mentioned as his in catalogues of libraries, I read over the work again under this impression, and fancied that I perceived internal arguments of its having been written by our excellent prelate. I was even pleased with the apprehended ingenuity of my discoveries. But the whole was a mistake, which, whilst it will be a warning to myself, may furnish an instructive lesson to others. At the same time, I do not retract the character which I have given of the _Adventures of Signor Gaudentio di Lucca_. Whoever was the author of that performance, it does credit to his abilities and to his heart."

After this decisive testimony of Bishop Berkeley's son, accompanied by the candid confession of error on the part of the editor of the _Biographia Britannica_, the rumour as to Berkeley's authorship of _Gaudentio_ ought to have been finally discredited. Nevertheless, it seems still to maintain its ground: it is stated as probable by Dunlop, in his _History of Fiction_; while the writer of a useful Essay on "Social Utopias," in the third volume of _Chambers's Papers for the People_, No. 18., treats it as an established fact.

L.

In addition to the remarks of your correspondent L., I may state that the first edition in 1737, 8vo., contains 335 pages, exclusive of the publisher's address, 13 pages. It is printed for T. Cooper, at the Globe, in Paternoster Row. The second edition in 1748, 8vo., contains publisher's address, 12 pages; the work itself 291 pages.

I find no difference between the two editions, except that in the first the title is _The Memoirs of Sigr. Gaudentio di Lucca_; and in the second, _The Adventures of Sigr. Gaudentio di Lucca_; and that in the second the notes are subjoined to each page, while in the first they follow the text in smaller type, as _Remarks of Sigr. Rhedi_. The second edition is--

"Printed for W. Innys in Paternoster Row, and R. Manby and H.S. Cox on Ludgate Hill, and sold by M. Cooper in Paternoster Row."

With respect to the author, it must be observed that there is no evidence whatever to justify its being attributed to Bishop Berkeley. Clara Reeve, in her _Progress of Romana_, 1786, 8vo., mentions him as having been supposed to be the author; {328} but her authority seems only to have been the anonymous writer in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. xlvii. p. 13., referred to by your correspondent. The author of an elaborate review of the work in the _Retrospective Review_, vol. iv., advocates Bishop Berkeley's claim, but gives no reasons of any validity; and merely grounds his persuasion upon the book being such as might be expected from that great writer. He was, however, at least bound to show some conformity in style, which he does not attempt. On the other hand, we have the positive denial of Dr. George Berkeley, the bishop's son (Kippis's _Biog. Brit._, vol. iii., addenda to vol. ii.), which, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, seems to be quite sufficient.

In a letter signed C.H., _Gent. Mag._, vol. vii. p. 317., written immediately on the appearance of the work, the writer observes:--

"I should have been very glad to have seen the author's name prefixed to it: however, I am of opinion that it its very nearly related to no less a hand than that which has so often, under borrowed names, employed itself to amuse and trifle mankind, in their own taste, out of their folly and vices."

This appears to point at Swift; but it is quite clear that he could not be the author, for very obvious reasons.

A correspondent of the _Gent. Mag._, who signs his initials W.H. (vol. lv.