Notes and Queries, Number 56, November 23, 1850

(14.) In what year was the improved woodcut of the Prelum Ascensianum used for the first time? And has it been observed that the small and separated figures incised on the legs of this insigne of Jodocus Badius may sometimes be taken as a safe guide with reference to the exact date of the works in which this mark appears? As an argument serving to justify the occasional adoption of this criterion I would adduce the fact, that the earliest edition of Budæus De Contemptu Rerum fortuitarum is believed to have been printed in 1520 (Greswell's Parisian Greek Press, i. 39.), and this year is accordingly visible in the title-page on the print of the Prelum Ascensianum. That recourse must, however, be had with caution to this method of discovering a date, is manifest; from the circumstance, that 1521, or perhaps I should say an injured 1520, appears on the Badian Device in the third impression of the same treatise (the second with the expositio), though it was set forth "postridie Cal. April 1528."

(15.) Is it owing to the extreme rarity of copies of the first edition of the Pagninian version of the Scriptures that so many writers are perplexed and ignorant concerning it? One might have expected that such a very remarkable impression in all respects would have been so well known to Bishop Walton, that he could not have asserted (Proleg. v.) that it was published in 1523; and the same hallucination is perceptible in the Elenchus Scriptorum by Crowe (p. 4.) It is certain that Pope Leo X. directed that Pagnini's translation should be printed at his expense (Roscoe, ii. 282.), and the Diploma of Adrian VI. is dated "die, xj. Maij. M.D.XXIII.," but the labours of the eminent Dominican were not put forth until the 29th of January, 1527. This is the date in the colophon; and though "1528" is obvious on the title-page, the apparent variation may be accounted for by remembering the several ways of marking the commencement of the year. (Le Long, by Masch, ii. 475.; Chronol. of Hist., by Sir H. Nicolas, p. 40.) Chevillier informs us (Orig. de l'Imp. p. 143.) that the earliest Latin Bible, in which he had seen the verses distinguished by ciphers, was that of Robert Stephens in 1557. Clement (Biblioth. iv. 147.) takes notice of an impression issued two years previously; and these bibliographers have been followed by Greswell (Paris. G. P. i. 342. 390.). Were they all unacquainted with the antecedent exertions of Sante Pagnini (See Pettigrew's Bibl. Sussex. p. 388.)

(16.) Why should Panzer have thought that the true date of the editio princeps of Gregorius Turonensis and Ado Viennensis, comprised in the same small folio volume, was 1516? (Greswell, i. 35.) If he had said 1522, he might have had the assistance of a misprint in the colophon, in which "M.D.XXII." was inserted instead of M.D.XII.; but the royal privilege for the book is dated, "le douziesme iour de mars lan milcinqcens et onze," and the dedication of the works by Badius to Guil. Parvus ends with "Ad. XII Kalendas Decemb. Anni huius M.D.XII."

(17.) Who was the author of Peniteas cito? And is it not evident that the impression at Cologne by Martinus de Werdena, in 1511, is considerably later than that which is adorned on the title-page with a different woodcut, and which exhibits the following words proceeding from the teacher: "Accipies tanti doctoris dogmata sancta?"

R.G.

DRYDEN'S "ESSAY UPON SATIRE."

On what evidence does the statement rest, that the Earl of Mulgrave was the author of the Essay upon Satire, and that Dryden merely corrected and polished it? As at present advised, I have considerable doubt upon the point: and although, in modern editions of Dryden's Works, I find it headed An Essay upon Satire, written by Mr. Dryden and the Earl of Mulgrave, yet in the State Poems, vol. i. p. 179., originally printed in the lifetime of Dryden, it is attributed solely to him—"An Essay upon Satyr. By J. Dryden, Esq." This gets rid of the assertion in the note of "D.," in the Aldine edition of Dryden (i. 105.), that "the Earl of Mulgrave's name has been always joined with Dryden's, as concerned in the composition." Was it not first published without notice that any other person was concerned in it but Dryden?

The internal evidence, too, is strong that Dryden was the author of it. I do not here refer to the free, flexible, and idiomatic character of the versification, so exactly like that of Dryden; but principally to the description the Essay upon Satire contains of the Earl of Mulgrave himself, beginning,

"Mulgrave had much ado to scape the snare,Though learn'd in those ill arts that cheat the fair;For, after all, his vulgar marriage mocks,With beauty dazzled Numps was in the stocks;"

And ending:

"Him no soft thoughts, no gratitude could move;To gold he fled, from beauty and from love," &c.

Could Mulgrave have so written of himself; or could he have allowed Dryden to interpolate the character. Earlier in the poem we meet with a description of Shaftesbury, which cannot fail to call to mind Dryden's character of him in Absalom and Achitophel; which, as we know, did not make its appearance, even in its first shape, until two years after Dryden was cudgelled in Rose Street as the author of the Essay upon Satire. Everybody bears in mind the triplet,

"A fiery soul, which working out its way,Fretted his pigmy body to decay,And o'er-inform'd the tenement of clay;"

And what does Dryden (for it must be he who writes) say of Shaftesbury in the Essay upon Satire?

"As by our little Machiavel we find,That nimblest creature of the busy kind:His limbs are crippled, and his body shakes,Yet his hard mind, which all this bustle makes,No pity on its poor companion takes."

If Mulgrave wrote these lines, and Dryden only corrected them, Dryden was at all events indebted to Mulgrave for the thought of the inequality, and disproportion between the mind and body of Shaftesbury. Moreover, we know that Pope expunged the assertion subsequently made, that Dryden had been "punished" (not beaten, as "D." quotes the passage) "for another's rhimes," when he was bastinadoed, in 1679, at the instigation of Rochester, for the character of him in the Essay upon Satire.

It might suit Mulgrave's purpose afterwards to claim a share in this production; but the evidence, as far as I am acquainted with it, seems all against it. There may be much evidence on the point with which I am not acquainted, and perhaps some of your readers will be so good as to point it out to me. The question is one that I am, at this moment, especially interested in.

THE HERMIT OF HOLYPORT.

MINOR QUERIES

Æneas Silvius (Pope Pius II.).—A broadsheet was published in 1461, containing the excommunication and dethronement of the Archbishop and Elector Dietrich of Mayence, issued and styled in the most formidable terms by Pius II. This broadsheet, consisting of eighteen lines, and printed on one side only, appears from the uniformity of its type with the Rationale of 1459, to be the product of Fust and Schöffer.

No mention whatever is made of this typographical curiosity in any of the standard bibliographical manuals, from which it seems, that this broadsheet is UNIQUE. Can any information, throwing light upon this subject, be given?

QUERIST.November, 1850.

"Please the Pigs" is a phrase too vulgarly common not to be well known to your readers. But whence has it arisen? Either in "NOTES AND QUERIES," or elsewhere, it has been explained as a corruption of "Please the pix." Will you allow another suggestion? I think it possible that the pigs of the Gergesenes (Matthew viii. 28. et seq.) may be those appealed to, and that the invocation may be of somewhat impious meaning. John Bradford, the martyr of 1555, has within a few consecutive pages of his writings the following expressions:

"And so by this means, as they save their pigs, which they would not lose, (I mean their worldly pelf), so they would please the Protestants, and be counted with them for gospellers, yea, marry, would they."—Writings of Bradford, Parker Society ed., p.390.

Again:

"Now are they willing to drink of God's cup of afflictions, which He offereth common with His son Christ our Lord, lest they should love their pigs with the Gergenites." p. 409.

Again:

"This is a hard sermon: 'Who is able to abide it?' Therefore, Christ must be prayed to depart, lest all their pigs be drowned. The devil shall have his dwelling again in themselves, rather than in their pigs." p. 409.

These, and similar expressions in the same writer, without reference to any text upon the subject, seem to show, that men loving their pigs more than God, was a theological phrase of the day, descriptive of their too great worldliness. Hence, just as St. Paul said, "if the Lord will," or as we say, "please God," or, as it is sometimes written, "D.V.," worldly men would exclaim, "please the pigs," and thereby mean that, provided it suited their present interest, they would do this or that thing.

ALFRED GATTY.Ecclesfield.

[We subjoin the following Query, as one so closely connected with the foregoing, that the explanation of the one will probably clear up the obscurity in which the other is involved.]

To save One's Bacon.—Can you or any of your correspondents inform me of the origin of the common saying, "He's just saved his bacon?" It has puzzled me considerably, and I really can form no conjecture why "bacon" should be the article "saved."

C.H.M.

Arabic Numerals.—I should be glad to know something about the projected work of Brugsh, Berlin, referred to in Vol. ii., p. 294.,—its size and price.

J.W.H.

Cardinal.—"Never did Cardinal bring good to England."—We read in Dr. Ligard's History (vol. iv. p. 527.), on the authority of Cavendish, that when the Cardinals Campeggio and Wolsey adjourned the inquiry into the legality of Henry VIII.'s marriage with Catharine of Arragon, "the Duke of Suffolk, striking the table, exclaimed with vehemence, that the 'old saw' was now verified,—'Never did Cardinal bring good to England.'" I should be glad to know if this saying is to be met with elsewhere, and what gave rise to it?

O.P.Q.

"By the bye," &c.—What is the etymology of the phrases "by the bye," "by and by," and such like?

J.R.N.

Poisons.—Our ancestors believed in the existence of poisons made so artfully that they did not operate till several years after they were administered. I should be greatly obliged by any information on this subject obtained from English books published previously to 1600.

M.

Cabalistic Author.—Who was the author of a chemical and cabalistical work, not noticed by Lowndes, entitled:

"A philosophicall epitaph in hierogliphicall figures. A briefe of the golden calf (the world's idol). The golden ass well managed, and Midas restored to reason. Written by J. Rod, Glauber, and Jehior, the three principles or originall of all things. Published by W.C., Esquire, 8vo. Lond. Printed for William Cooper, at the Pellican, in Little Britain, 1673."

With a long catalogue of chemical books, in three parts, at the end. My copy has two titles, the first being an engraved one, with ten small circles round it, containing hieroglyphical figures, and an engraved frontispiece, which is repeated in the volume, with some other cuts. There are two dedications, one to Robert Boyle, Esq., and the other to Elias Ashmole, Esq.; both signed "W.C. or twice five hundred," which signature is repeated in other parts of the book. What is the meaning of "W.C. or twice five hundred"?

T. CR.

Brandon the Juggler.—Where is any information to be obtained of Brandon the Juggler, who lived in the reign of King Henry VIII.?

T. CR.

Jacobus Præfectus Siculus.—I have a beautiful copy of a poem by this person, entitled De Verbo DEI Cantica. The binding expresses its date: "Neapoli, 1537." It is not, I believe, the work which suggested to Milton his greater songs, though it is a pretty complete outline of the Paradise Lost and Regained/ What is known about the author, or any other works of his?

J.W.H.

The Word "after" in the Rubric—Canons of 1604.—

1. Can any of your correspondents who may have in their possession any old Greek, or Latin, or other versions, of the Book of Common Prayer, kindly inform me how the word after is rendered in the rubrics of the General Confession, the Lord's Prayer in the Post Communion, and the last prayer of the Commination Service? Is it in the sense of post or secundum?

2. Where can any account of the translation of the Canons of 1604 into English be found? It is apprehended the question is one more difficult to answer than might be supposed.

T.Y.

Hard by.—Is not hard by a corruption of the German hierbei? I know no other similar instance of the word hard, that is to say, as signifying proximity, without the conjoint idea of pressure or pursuit.

K.

Thomas Rogers of Horninger.—Can any of the readers of your valuable publication give me, or put me in the way of obtaining, any information about one Thomas Rogers, who was in some way connected with the village of Horninger or Horringer, near Bury St. Edmunds, was author of a work on the Thirty-nine Articles, and died in the year 1616?

S.G.Corpus Christi Col., Cambridge.

Armorial Bearings.—Three barrulets charged with six church bells, three, two, and one, is a shield occurring in the Speke Chauntry, in Exeter Cathedral. Can this coat be assigned?

J.W.H.

Lady Compton's Letter to her Husband.—In Bishop Goodman's Court of King James I., edited by John S. Brewer, M.A. (vol. ii. p. 127..), is a letter from Lady Compton to her husband, William Lord Compton, afterwards Earl of Northampton, written upon occasion of his coming into possession of a large fortune. This letter, with some important variations, is also given in Knight's London (vol. i. p. 324.), and, if my memory does not deceive me, in Hewitt's Visits to Remarkable Places. This letter is very curious, but I can hardly think it genuine. Can any of your correspondents throw any light on the matter? Was it printed before 1839, when Mr. Brewer's work appeared? Where is the original, or supposed original, to be seen? Above all, is it authentic? If not, is it known when, and by whom, and under what circumstances it was written?

C.H. COOPER.Cambridge, November 15. 1850.

Romagnasi's Works.—In a "Life of G.D. Romagnasi," in vol. xviii. Law Mag., p. 340., after enumerating several of his works, it is added, "All these are comprised in a single volume, Florentine edit. of 1835." I have in vain endeavoured to procure the work, and have recently received an answer from the first book establishment in Florence, to the effect that no such edition ever appeared either at Florence or elsewhere.

This is strange after the explicit statement in the Law Mag., and I shall be obliged to receive through the medium of your useful pages any information regarding the work in question.

F.R.H.

Christopher Barker's Device.—I have often been puzzled to understand the precise meaning of the inscription on Christopher Barker's device. Whether this arises from my own ignorance, or from any essential difficulty in it, I cannot tell; but I should be glad of an explanation. I copy from a folio edition of the Geneva Bible, "imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, printer to the Queene's Majesty, 1578."

The device consists of a boar's head rising from a mural crown, with a scroll proceeding from its mouth, and embracing a lamb in the lowest fold. The inscription on this scroll is as follows:—

"Tigre . Reo.Animale . Del.Adam . Vecchio.Figliuolo . Merce.L'Evangelio . Fatto.N'Estat . Agnello."

I venture my own solution:—The tiger, the wicked animal, of the old Adam, being made, thanks to the Gospel, a son, is hence become a lamb."

I presume N'Estat to be an abbreviation of "ne è stato." Any correction or illustration of this will oblige.

C.W. BINGHAM.Bingham's Melcombe, Blandford.

REPLIES

LICENSING OF BOOKS

(Vol. ii., p.359.)

On the 12th November, 5 & 6 Philip and Mary, 1558, a bill "That no man shall print any book or ballad, &c., unless he be authorized thereunto by the king and queen's majesties licence, under the Great Seal of Englande," was read for the first time in the House of Lords, where it was read again a second time on the 14th. On the 16th it was read for the third time, but it did not pass, and probably never reached the Commons; for Queen Mary died on the following day, and thereby the Parliament was dissolved. (Lords' Journal, i. 539, 540.) Queen Elizabeth, however did by her high prerogative what her sister had sought to effect by legislative sanction. In the first year of her reign, 1559, she issued injunctions concerning both the clergy and the laity: the 51st Injunction was in the following terms:—

"Item, because there is great abuse in the printers of books, which for covetousness chiefly regard not what they print, so they may have gain, whereby ariseth the great disorder by publication of unfruitful, vain, and infamous books and papers; the queen's majesty straitly chargeth and commandeth, that no manner of person shall print any manner of book or paper, of what sort, nature, or in what language soever it be, except the same be first licensed by Her Majesty by express words in writing, or by six of her privy council; or be perused and licensed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishop of London, the chancellors of both universities, the bishop being ordinary, and the archdeacon also of the place, where any such shall be printed, or by two of them, whereof the ordinary of the place to be always one. And that the names of such, as shall allow the same, to be added in the end of every such work, for a testimony of the allowance thereof. And because many pamphlets, plays, and ballads be oftentimes printed, wherein regard would be had that nothing therein should be either heretical, seditious, or unseemly for Christian ears; Her Majesty likewise commandeth that no manner of person shall enterprise to print any such, except the same be to him licensed by such Her Majesty's commissioners, or three of them, as be appointed in the city of London to hear and determine divers clauses ecclesiastical, tending to the execution of certain statutes made the last parliament for uniformity of order in religion. And if any shall sell or utter any manner of books or papers, being not licensed as is abovesaid, that the same party shall be punished by order of the said commissioners, as to the quality of the fault shall be thought meet. And touching all other books of matters of religion, or policy, or governance, that have been printed, either on this side the seas, or on the other side, because the diversity of them is great, and that there needeth good consideration to be had of the particularities thereof, Her Majesty referreth the prohibition or permission thereof to the order, which her said commissioners within the city of London shall take and notify. According to the which, Her Majesty straitly chargeth and commandeth all manner her subjects, and especially the wardens and company of stationers, to be obedient.

"Provided that these orders do not extend to any profane authors and works in any language, that have been heretofore commonly received or allowed in any of the universities or schools, but the same may be printed, and used as by good order they were accustomed."—Cardswell's Documentary Annals, i. 229.

This injunction was, I take it, the origin of the licensing of the press of this country. On the 23d June, 28 Eliz. 1586 (not 1585, as in Strype), Archbishop Whitgift and the Lords of the Privy Council in the Star Chamber made rules and ordinances for redressing abuses in printing. No printing-press was to be allowed elsewhere than in London (except one in each University); and no book was to be printed until first seen and perused by the Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London; with an exception in favour of the queen's printer, and books of the common law, which were to be allowed by the Chief Justices and Chief Baron, or one of them. Extensive and arbitrary powers of search for unlicensed books and presses were also given to the wardens of the Stationers' Company. (Strype's Life of Archbishop Whitgift, 222.; Records, No.XXIV.) On the 1st July, 1637, another decree of a similar character was made by the Court of Star Chamber. (Rushworth's Historical Collections, Part ii. p.450.) The Long Parliament, although it dissolved the Star Chamber, seems to have had no more enlightened views as respects the freedom of the press than Queen Elizabeth or the Archbishops Whitgift and Laud; for on the 14th June, 1643, the two Houses made an ordinance prohibiting the printing of any order or declaration of either House, without order of one or both Houses; or the printing or sale of any book, pamphlet, or paper, unless the same were approved and licensed under the hands of such persons as both or either House should appoint for licensing the same. (Parliamentary History, xii. 298.) The names of the licensers appointed are given in Neal's History of the Puritans (ed. 1837, ii. 205.). It was this ordinance which occasioned the publication, in or about 1644, of Milton's most noble defence of the liberty of the press, entitled Areopagitica; a Speech for the Liberty of unlicensed Printing, To the Parliament of England. After setting out certain Italian imprimaturs, he remarks:

"These are the pretty responsories, these are the dear antiphonies that so bewitched of late our prelates and their chaplains with the godly echo they made and besotted, as to the gay imitation of a lordly imprimatur, one from Lambeth House, another from the west end of Paul's; so apishly romanising, that the word of command still was set down in Latin, as if the learned grammatical pen that wrote it would cast no ink without Latin; or, perhaps, as they thought, because no vulgar tongue was worthy to express the pure conceit of an imprimatur; but rather, as I hope, for that our English, the language of men ever famous and foremost in the achievements of liberty, will not easily find servile letters enow to spell such a dictatory presumption englished."

On the 28th September, 1647, the Lords and Commons passed a still more severe ordinance, which imposed pains and penalties on all persons printing, publishing, selling, or uttering any book, pamphlet, treatise, ballad, libel, or sheet of news, without the licence of both, or either House of Parliament, or such persons as should be thereunto authorised by one or both Houses. Offending hawkers, pedlars, and ballad-chappers were to be whipped as common rogues. (Parliamentary History, xvi. 309.) We get some insight into the probable cause of this ordinance from a letter of Sir Thomas Fairfax to the Earl of Manchester, dated "Putney, 20th Sept., 1647." He complains of some printed pamphlets, very scandalous and abusive, to the army in particular, and the whole kingdom in general; and expresses his desire that these, and all of the like nature, might be suppressed for the future. In order, however, to satisfy the kingdom's expectation for intelligence, he advises that, till a firm peace be settled, two or three sheets might be permitted to come out weekly, which might be licensed; and as Mr. Mabbott had approved himself faithful in that service of licensing, and likewise in the service of the House and the army, he requested that he might be continued in the said place of licenser. (Lords' Journals, ix. 457.) Gilbert Mabbott was accordingly appointed licenser of such weekly papers as should be printed, but resigned the situation 22nd May, 1649. (Commons' Journals, vi. 214.) It seems he had conscientious objections to the service, for elsewhere it is recorded, under the same date, "Upon Mr. Mabbott's desire and reasons against licensing of books to be printed, he was discharged of that imployment." (Whitelock's Memorials, 389.) On the 20th September, 1649, was passed a parliamentary ordinance prohibiting printing elsewhere than in London, the two Universities, York, and Finsbury, without the licence of the Council of State (Scobell's Ordinances, Part ii. 90.); and on the 7th January, 1652-3, the Parliament passed another ordinance for the suppression of unlicensed and scandalous books. (Scobell's Ordinances, Part ii. 231.) In 1661 a bill for the regulation of printing passed the Lords, but was rejected by the Commons on account of the peers having inserted a clause exempting their own houses from search; but in 1662 was passed the statute 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 33., which required all books to be licensed as follows:—Law books by the Lord Chancellor, or one of the Chief Justices, or Chief Baron; books of history and state, by one of the Secretaries of State; of heraldry, by the Earl Marshal, or the King-at-Arms; of divinity, physic, philosophy, or whatsoever other science or art, by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London: or if printed at either University, by the chancellor thereof. The number of master printers (exclusive of the king's printers and the printers of the Universities) was to be reduced to twenty, and then vacancies were to be filled up by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London, and printing was not to be allowed elsewhere than in London, York (where the Archbishop of York was to license all books), and the two Universities. This Act was to continue for two years, from 10th June, 1662. It was renewed by the 16 Car. II. c. 8.; 16 & 17 Car. II. c. 7.; and 17 Car. II. c. 4., and expired on the 26th May, 1679,—a day rendered ever memorable by the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act: but in less than a year afterwards the judges unanimously advised the king that he might by law prohibit the printing and publishing of all news-books and pamphlets of news not licensed by His Majesty's authority; and accordingly on the 17th May, 1680, appeared in the Gazette a proclamation restraining the printing of such books and pamphlets without license. The Act of 1662 was revived for seven years, from 24th June, 1685, by 1 Jac. II. c. 17. s. 15., and, even after the Revolution, was continued for a year longer by 4 & 5 Wm. and Mary, c. 24. s. 14. When that year expired, the press of England became free; but on the 1st of April, 1697, the House of Commons, after passing a vote against John Salusbury, printer of the Flying Post, for a paragraph inserted in that journal tending to destroy the credit and currency of Exchequer Bills, ordered that leave should be given to bring in a bill to prevent the writing, printing, and publishing any news without licence. Mr. Poultney accordingly presented such a bill on the 3rd of April. It was read a first time; but a motion to read it a second time was negatived. (Commons' Journals, xi. 765. 767.) This attempt again to shackle the press seems to have occasioned