9 th 8. XI. MAY 16, 1903.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
385
the ' Promus ' phrase " a sweete dampe," and
they give reasons why some persons have a
dislike of moist perfumes. As Dr. Theobald
observes, some of Bacon's applications of the
epithet " sweet " are worth study.
We are gravely informed that the fancy that the two eyes may wear different ex- pressions or be differently employed is com- mon to Bacon and Shakespeare. But it is an old, old saying, expressed in a great variety of ways. Jonson has it :
KaroL Why do you so survey and circumscribe
me,
As if you struck one eye into my breast, And with the other took my whole dimensions?
' The Sad Shepherd,' Act III. The saying is put in a very funny way in 'Two Wise Men and all the Rest Fools,' a play attributed to George Chapman ; but as Chapman became one of Bacon's masks after the death of Marlowe, I forbear to quote the passage. Bacon may be the author of the play, as he undoubtedly was the continuator of ' Hero and Leander.'
That one man's folly or imperfection is but another man's fable is proverbial, and as good examples of the saying can be found in Jonson's 'The Fox,' 'The Staple of News,' and other plays by the same author as have been adduced from Shakespeare.
The following contains a ' Promus ' proverb which Bacon does not use, nor is it alluded to in Shakespeare. It is rarely referred to by Elizabethan writers :
Dauphine. How now, Cutbeard ! succeeds it, or no?
Cut. Past imagination, sir, omnia tecunda ; you could not have pray'd to have had it so well. Saltat tenex, as it is in the proverb.
'The Silent Woman,' II. iv.
On the other hand, Shakespeare will some- times make use of a saying in the ' Promus ' which is rarely used in trie same form by others of the time ; but Baconians do not always discover these parallels. For in- stance, in the folio version of ' 2 Henry VI.,' II. i. 24, Gloster asks, "Tantsene animis cselestibus irse?" This saying forms entry No. 391 of the 'Promus/ and is taken from the ' JEneid,' i. 11. Peele quotes it in his 'Speeches to Queen Elizabeth,' and it is to be found translated many times in writings of the period, especially in Edmund Spenser, who was fond of it, and in John Lyly. But there is nothing strange about such coinci- dences, for all writers whom I have read furnish similar material ; and for every such case from Shakespeare hundreds could be brought from John Lyly and Ben Jonson.
CHAS. CRAWFORD. (To be concluded.)
THE LETTERS OF DOROTHY OSBORNE. (See
ante, p. 319.) We are all of us in love with
this clever little lady, and the book in which
her letters to her lover are enshrined is a
dainty piece of workmanship ; but one can-
not overlook the errors in the Notes, which
detract from that helpfulness of which a
point is made in the review that I have
quoted. I venture to draw attention to a
few, in the hope that, if the feud which now
appears to be raging between the rival
editors be satisfactorily composed, they may
be corrected in a future issue.*
The very first note (Notes, p. 325) is wrong. It is said that Arlington Street is built on the site of Goring House. Goring House was built on a portion of the old Mulberry Garden, and Buckingham Palace now stands on its site. In 1653-4 the ground on which Arlington Street was built consisted of open fields. We are also referred to Evelyn's 'Diary' under date 9 February, 1665, for a visit he paid to the future Lord Arlington at Goring House. Evelyn paid no visit to Goring House on that day. It was on 29 March, 1665, that Evelyn " went to Goring House, now Mr. Secretary Bennet's, ill built, but the place capable of being made a pretty villa." He dined there on 1 March, 1668/9, with the Bishop of Hereford, and again on 18 June, 1670. On 17 April, 1673, he saw Lady Arlington's new dressing-room at Goring House, containing rich furniture and ornaments to an "excess of superfluity." On 21 September, 1674, he went to see the remains of Goring House, which, with all its rich contents, had just been destroyed by fire.
There is a curious misprint in the Note on Letter xviii. (p. 334). The " Lady Ruthin " who is several times mentioned in the Letters is said to have been the daughter of " Charles Longueville Godfrey de Ruthin." This should be "Charles Longueville, Lord Grey de Ruthin." He died in 1643, and his daughter Susan succeeded to the barony, and, as correctly stated in the book, married Sir Henry Yelverton.
In the Note on Letter xxi. (p. 335) it is incorrectly stated that Babraham was the seat of Sir Thomas Bennet, the Master in Uhancery. Babraham was purchased by Thomas Bennet, citizen and mercer, and Sheriff of London and Middlesex, 1613-14,
A few other errors, which are common to both
editions, have been pointed out by Judge Parry in
lis recently published pamphlet, ' A Report of the
Facts of the Copyright Action brought by Edward
Abbott Parry. Plainti/, against Alexander Moring
and Israel Gollancz, Defendants.'
