464
NOTES AND QUERIES.
[9 th S. I. JUNE 11, '98.
I also meet with no acceptable evidence
to uphold the contention that the original
monument differed in any important parti-
cular from the same as restored by Lescot. On
the contrary, his contract, which makes no
mention of a figure of Christ (except, pro-
bably, as to "putting a large piece to the
stomach"), was for repair and restoration;
and it seems to me impossible for any reason-
able person to imagine that he, having the
partly broken and battered remains before
him, would have gone to the unnecessary
trouble and expense, either of employing a
competent artist to remodel, in a new and
entirely different form, and of recasting,
some of the principal figures in the group,
or of adding thereto anything of conse-
quence ; and it is not at all likely that
he would have unnecessarily altered the
disposition of the figures. Moreover, the sum
he was to receive for the work, even at the
then value of money, entirely precludes such
an idea.
The drawing in my possession represents the monument as a whole in situ, having on its unenclosed carved stone pediment neither inscriptions nor " tables " for the same, but with the cross, group of figures, and acces- sories almost precisely as before described to have been on its first restoration (by Lescot), except that there is no nimbus to Christ or the Virgin ; that the chaplet of thorns is not at Christ's feet, but at the junction of the cross; and that the helmets of Charles VII. and the Maid are not in profile, but in full front, that of the king surmounting his shield of arms, and not at his feet. From the representation of the restoration of 1771 it, however, I need hardly state, differs considerably. All the details are shown in their proper colours, and the figures, helmets, shield, <fec., gilt as they probably were in the original.
After the fullest and most careful con- sideration I can come to no other conclusion than that my drawing represents the monu- ment in its original state ; that it was executed on the spot, and is therefore con- temporary ; that it is the only reliable repre- sentation known (either drawn or engraved) of the same at any period prior to the second restoration, and consequently of inestimable value in every sense. W. I. R. V.
A READING IN MILTON. Mr. A. J. Wyatt has edited ' Paradise Regained ' for the " Uni- versity Tutorial Series" (Clive). He has revised the text with the aid of the first edition, and one of his editorial decisions is seen in the restoration of he for the commonly accepted here of II. 309. He thus gives, no
doubt, the reading of Milton's edition ; but
the question remains whether in so doing he
expresses the idea the poet meant to convey.
May not Milton himself have overlooked the
point, and so have left what Todd considers
"an unnoticed error of the press" 1 ? This
seems quite likely. It is hard to attach an
exact meaning to the reading of the original
edition which Mr. Wyatt adopts. Hagar and
Ishmael (poetically introduced under the
name of his eldest son) are thus depicted in
modern texts :
The fugitive bond- woman with her son Out-cast Nebaioth, yet found here relief By a providing angel.
What editors have had to face is the presence in the poet's edition of he in the second line, the clause thus running "yet found he relief," fec. It was, of course, Hagar to whom the relief came in her great despair, Ishmael himself being incapable of realizing the nature of the situation in which his mother and himself were encompassed. Then here recurs prominently in the context. "The race of Israel," says the speaker, " here had famished "; and he adds " that prophet bold
wand'ring here was fed," concluding with
this personal reference :
Of thee these forty days none hath regard, Forty and more deserted here indeed.
Altogether here seems to be the preferable reading in the doubtful passage. It is in accordance with the drift of the Scriptural narrative ; it is consistent with the method of the context ; and it gives a distinct and
Erecise meaning, which the earlier reading ills to do. Here was introduced into the edition of 1692. THOMAS BAYNE.
Helensburgh, N.B.
OBSCURITIES OF AUTHORS. Being an author myself, I am unwilling to be hypercritical ; but, for the honour of the brethren in the craft, I must repudiate what tarnishes its fairness. Authors are often obscure in style and allusion and quotation. Thus Mr. Le Gallienne has published some passable volumes, and, though his style has been (with some justice) severely handled by competent critics, I am far from " kicking a man when he is down," yet there are some slips which even the freemasonry of letters cannot possibly let pass. Now Mr. Le Gallienne, in his ' Quest of the Golden Girl,' quotes I presume they are quotations the following sentences one at the commencement, the other at the close of his volume " Genuem de Meage til Eu ! " and " Tout par soullas," and, I submit, ^t is very questionable taste to adorn his oook with such (to the majority of readers)
