Kitabı oku: «Notes and Queries, Number 68, February 15, 1851», sayfa 4
Replies
MEANING OF EISELL
(Vol. iii., p. 66.)
I must beg a very small portion of your space to reply to your correspondent H. K. S. C., who criticises so pleasantly my remarks on the meaning of "eisell." The question is: Does the meaning Mr. Singer attaches to this word require in the passage cited the expression of quantity to make it definite? I am disposed to think that a definite quantity may be sometimes understood, in a well-defined act, although it be not expressed. On the other hand, your correspondent should know that English idiom requires that the name of a river should be preceded by the definite article, unless it be personified; and that whenever it is used without the article, it is represented by the personal pronoun he. Though a man were able "to drink the Thames dry," he could no more "drink up Thames" than he could drink up Neptune, or the sea-serpent, or do any other impossible feat.
I observed before, that "the notion of drinking up a river would be both unmeaning and out of place." I said this, with the conviction that there was a purpose in everything that Shakspeare wrote; and being still of this persuasion, allow me to protest against the terms "mere verbiage" and "extravagant rant," which your correspondent applies to the passage in question. The poet does not present common things as they appear to all men. Shakspeare's art was equally great, whether he spoke with the tongues of madmen or philosophers. H. K. S. C. cannot conceive why each feat of daring should be a tame possibility, save only the last; but I say that they are all possible; that it was a daring to do not impossible but extravagant feats. As far as quantity is concerned, to eat a crocodile would be more than to eat an ox. Crocodile may be a very delicate meat, for anything I know to the contrary; but I must confess it appears to me to be introduced as something loathsome or repulsive, and (on the poet's part) to cap the absurdity of the preceding feat. The use made by other writers of a passage is one of the most valuable kinds of comment. In a burlesque some years ago, I recollect a passage was brought to a climax with the very words, "Wilt eat a crocodile?" The immediate and natural response was—not "the thing's impossible!" but—"you nasty beast!" What a descent then from the drinking up of a river to a merely disagreeable repast. In the one case the object is clear and intelligible, and the last feat is suggested by the not so difficult but little less extravagant preceding one; in the other, each is unmeaning (in reference to the speaker), unsuggested, and, unconnected with the other; and, regarding the order an artist would observe, out of place.
Samuel Hickson.
St. John's Wood, Jan. 27. 1851.
P.S. In replying to Mr. G. Stephens, in reference to the meaning of a passage in the Tempest, I expressed a wish that he would give the meaning of what he called a "common ellipsis" "stated at full." This stands in your columns (Vol. ii., p. 499.) "at first," in which expression I am afraid he would be puzzled to find any meaning.
I might safely leave H. K. S. C. to the same gentle correction bestowed upon a neighbour of his at Brixton some time since, by Mr. Hickson, but I must not allow him to support his dogmatic and flippant hypercriticism by falsehood and unfounded insinuation, and I therefore beg leave to assure him that I have no claim to the enviable distinction of being designated as the friend of Mr. Hickson, to whom I am an utter stranger, having never seen him, and knowing nothing of that gentleman but what his very valuable communications to your publication conveys.
I have further to complain of the want of truth in the very first paragraph of your correspondent's note: the question respecting the meaning of "Eisell" does not "remain substantially where Steevens and Malone left it;" for I have at least shown that Eisell meant Wormwood, and that Shakspeare has elsewhere undoubtedly used it in that sense.
Again: the remark about the fashion of extravagant feats, such as swallowing nauseous draughts in honour of a mistress, was quite uncalled for. Your correspondent would insinuate that I attribute to Shakspeare's time "what in reality belongs to the age of Du Guesclin and the Troubadours." Does he mean to infer that it did not in reality equally belong to Shakspeare's age? or that I was ignorant of its earlier prevalence?
The purport of such remarks is but too obvious; but he may rest assured that they will not tend to strengthen his argument, if argument it can be called, for I must confess I do not understand what he means by his "definite quantity." But the phrase drink up is his stalking-horse; and as he is no doubt familiar with the Nursery Rhymes1, a passage in them—
"Eat up your cake, Jenny,
Drink up your wine."
may perhaps afford him further apt illustration.
The proverb tells us "It is dangerous playing with edge tools," and so it is with bad puns: he has shown himself an unskilful engineer in the use of Mr. Hickson's canon, with which he was to have "blown up" Mr. Hickson's argument and my proposition; with what success may be fairly left to the judgment of your readers. I will, however, give him another canon, which may be of use to him on some future occasion: "When a probable solution of a difficulty is to be found by a parallelism in the poet's pages, it is better to adopt it than to charge him with a blunder of our own creating."
The allusion to "breaking Priscian's head" reminds one of the remark of a witty friend on a similar occasion, that "there are some heads not easily broken, but the owners of them have often the fatuity to run them against stumbling-blocks of their own making."
S. W. Singer.
DESCENT OF HENRY IV
(Vol. ii., p. 375.)
Under the head of "Descent of Edward IV.," S. A. Y. asks for information concerning "a popular, though probably groundless tradition," by which that prince sought to prove his title to the throne of England. S. A. Y., or his authority, Professor Millar, is mistaken in ascribing it to Edward IV.—it was Henry IV. who so sought to establish his claim.
"Upon Richard II.'s resignation … Henry, Duke of Lancaster, having then a large army in the kingdom … it was impossible for any other title to be asserted with safety, and he became king under the title of Henry IV. He was, nevertheless, not admitted to the crown until he had declared that he claimed, not as a conqueror (which he was much inclined to do), but as a successor descended by right line of the blood royal.... And in order to this he set up a show of two titles: the one upon the pretence of being the first of the blood royal of the entire male line; whereas the Duke of Clarence (Lionel, elder brother of John of Gaunt) left only one daughter, Philippa: the other, by reviving an exploded rumour, first propagated by John of Gaunt, that Edmond Earl of Lancaster (to whom Henry's mother was heiress) was in reality the elder brother of King Edward I., though his parents, on account of his personal deformity, had imposed him on the world for the younger."—Blackstone's Commentaries, book i. ch. iii. p. 203. of edit. 1787.
This Edmond, Earl of Lancaster, was succeeded by his son Thomas, who in the fifteenth year of the reign of Edward II. was attainted of high treason. In the first of Edward III. his attainder was reversed, and his son Henry inherited his titles, and subsequently was created Duke of Lancaster. Blanche, daughter of Henry, first Duke of Lancaster, subsequently became his heir, and was second wife to John of Gaunt, and mother to Henry IV.
Edward IV.'s claim to the throne was by descent from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., his mother being Cicely, youngest daughter of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland. Lionel married Elizabeth de Burgh, an Irish heiress, who died shortly after, leaving one daughter, Philippa. As William of Hatfield, second son of Edward III., died at an early age, without issue, according to all our ideas of hereditary succession Philippa, only child of Edward III.'s third son, ought to have inherited before the son of his fourth son; and Sir Edward Coke expressly declares, that the right of the crown was in the descent from Philippa, daughter and heir of Lionel, Duke of Clarence. Henry IV.'s right, however, was incontestable, being based on overwhelming might. Philippa married Edward Mortimer, Earl of March. Roger, their son, succeeded his father in his titles, and left one daughter, Anne, who married Richard, Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund Langley, Duke of York, which Edmund, Duke of York, was the fifth son of Edward III.; and thus the line of York, though a younger branch of the royal family, took precedence, de jure, of the Lancaster line. From this union sprang Richard, Duke of York, who was killed under the walls of Sandal Castle, and who left his titles and pretensions to Edward, afterwards the fourth king of that name.
The above is taken from several authorities, among which are Blackstone's Comm., book i. ch. iii.; and Miss Strickland's Lives of the Queens of England, vols. ii. iii. iv.
Tee Bee.
