110
NOTES AND QUERIES. [io* s. i. FEB. o, 190*.
the curious story of the offer of entertain-
ment made to Coleridge by mine host of the
" Salutation " rests on the sole authority of
Joseph Cottle. This is not so. In Allsop's
'Letters, Conversations, &c., of S. T. Cole-
ridge ' we find the following confirmation of
Cottle's tale :
" ' You should have seen him twenty years ago,' said he [Lamb], with one of his sweet smiles, ' when he was with me at the "Cat and Salutation" in
Newgate Market Such were his extraordinary
powers, that when it was time for him to go and be married, the landlord entreated his stay ? and offered him free quarters if he would only talk.' "
Allsop's accuracy, of course, is by no means unimpeachable. Thus he tells us (p. 116) that "Coleridge accused Lamb of naving caused the Sonnet to Lord Stanhope to be reinserted in the joint volume [' Poems,' by Coleridge, Lamb, and Lloyd, 1797] published at Bristol." This is simply impossible ; Lamb had absolutely nothing to do with the print- ing of the 'Poems' of 1797; and we know from another source that it was Cottle (that "fool of a publisher"), and not Lamb, that Coleridge blamed in this matter. Again, the story which Allsop tells of the circumstances under which Lamb wrote the ' Old Familiar Faces' is absurd. Allsop here clearly con- founds the writing of the 'Old Familiar Faces ' with the inditing of the letter to Cole- ridge containing the famous ' Theses qusedam Theologicse,' six months later (June, 1798). Still there must, I think, be some foundation in fact for the story of Lamb's conversation about Coleridge, which Allsop here (p. 110) reports in terms so distinct. MB. J. A. RUTTER, to whom I am indebted for pointing out the error in my note of 23 January, suggests that an offer of free bed and board was actually made to Coleridge, but made by the landlord of the "Angel" in Butcher Hall Street (whither Coleridge had migrated from the "Salutation"), not by William May, of the Newgate Street tavern : and this is, most likely, what actually occurred'. At all events, by adopting MR. KUTTER'S sug- gestion, we, in a measure, save the credit of the two witnesses Joseph Cottle and Thomas Allsop without any disparagement to the theory which identifies May of Letter I. with mine host of the " Salutation and Cat."
THOMAS HUTCHINSON.
"CHAPERONED BY HER FATHER " (9 th S xii 245, 370, 431 ; 10* S. i. 54, 92).-I am not 'con cerned as to whether "chaperon "or "escort 1 is the better word, but I think that all of u; who contribute what w.e can to 'N. & O. ar if- c t oncern ed about that courtesy without which the journal cannot work smoothly. If
I remember rightly, it was stated in the
editorial article on the Jubilee of ' N. & Q.'
that in the early days of the paper there
was much doubt as to whether it would be
possible to allow communications to appear
anonymously, lest correspondents, sheltered
by concealment of their names, should be
discourteous. You, Mr. Editor, I think, de-
clared that that presentation of anonymous
signatures had given rise to no difficulties.
At the penultimate reference appears a reply signed SIMPLICISSIMUS. In it the writer refers to his earlier reply at 9 th S. xii. 370. The matter of the question and replies is inter- sting and worth discussion discussion in the ordinary, the courteous, manner of N. & Q.' Both replies appear to me to be lacking in that respect. In order that I may show that I am not writing down a suddenly formed opinion, I may mention that I made a note at the time that the reply at 9 th S. xii. 370 was discourteous.
I find in my notes a similar memorandum concerning a reply (9 th S. xii. 194) s.v. ' The English Dialect Dictionary,' to which you, Mr. Editor, appended a mild remonstrance. This reply was signed F. J. C.
Some other fairly recent examples could be quo ted, even some signed with real names, but I have given enough for my purpose. I believe that most of the objectionably worded replies are anonymous.
I have been a humble contributor to our paper for nearly twenty years. Perhaps I may be allowed to suggest that discourtesy is out of place amongst those who write for ' N. & Q.,' and contrary to your and your correspondents' desires. Many of us who give our little contributions to the paper have found that it forms for us an introduc- tion to each other, almost a bond of friend- ship. This is very pleasant, and I, for one, am very unwilling that any discourtesy should tend to weaken this bond. Surely, if a correspondent knows, or thinks that he knows, more than another, he should be satisfied by giving his knowledge without trying to hurt the feelings of him to whose suggestions or beliefs he does not consent.
i write to deprecate a growing tendency to acrimonious disputation in ' N. & Q.'
llOBERT PlERPOINT. [We hope that the tendency is not growing.]
SHAKESPEARE'S "VIRTUE OF NECESSITY" (10 th S. i. 8, 76). This phrase Shakespeare adapted, I think, from Sidney's 'Arcadia.' On p. 138, recto, ed. 1590, it occurs as follows : "learning vertue of necessity."
On this same page may also be found two other passages afterwards made famous by
