314
NOTES .AND QUERIES. [9 th s. vm. OCT. 12, 1901.
"The English lions which first appear on the
seals of Richard I., 1195, 1198 (Demay, ' Le Costume
d'apres les Sceaux,' p. 124), were in the reign of
Henry III., and for two centuries afterwards, more
generally designated leopards, and that not only
(as has been said) in derision by the French, but by
the English themselves. In token of their being
his armorial insignia, three leopards were seno to
Henry III. by the Emperor Frederick II. Glover s
Roll, c. 1250, which gives lions to six of the English
earls, begins with ' Le roy d'Angleterre porte,
Goules, trois lupards d'or.' The designation of
leopards continued to be generally adhered to throughout the reigns of the three Edwards, though the identity of the animals was occasionally dis- puted ; and Nicholas Serby was Leopard Herald in the reign of Henry V. But by the end of the fif- teenth century it seems to have been decided by competent authority that the three beasts in the royal coat were lions ; and the early armorialists, John of Guildford, Nicholas Upton, and the rest, protest strongly against their being called anything else."
And Dr. Woodward cites, apparently with approval, the late Mr. Planche's opinion, that from an historical point of view these writers are in the right, and for the following reason :
"In the early days of coat-armour, more espe- cially in England, the animals most commonly met with were lions and leopards, which in the rude drawing of the day were distinguishable only by their respective attitudes. The lion's normal posi- tion was ' rampant'; that of a leopard was what
came to be defined as ' passant-gardant.' "
And at p. 224 he goes on to say :
"In French blazon the old distinction between the lion and the leopard is still preserved. The lion is our lion rampant. The leopard is the same beast, but passant-gardant ; while the name lian- Uoparctt is given to our lion passant, and that of Uopard-lionne" to the lion rampant-gardant."
In a very useful little work on heraldry by S. T. Aveling (1891), which is stated to in- clude Boutell's ' Heraldry ' (though I do not see how the less can include the greater), and which is the only other heraldic work I have with me in the West Indies, at p. 79 the author states :
"There has been much controversy about the term leopard, and the subject has been fairly ex- hausted ; and it has now been pretty well decided that the term ' leopard' did not actually mean the animal of that name, but was a term applied to the lion when in the particular position represented in the royal shield of England.
And the same author supports the view ex- pressed by Dr. Woodward that the English themselves used the word leopard with refer- ence to the royal lions by referring to the statute 28 Edward I. c. 20 (A.D. 1300), which ordains that all pieces of gold or silver plate, when assayed, should be u signee deune teste de leopart marked with the king's lion.
Antigua, W.I. J ' S ' UDAL '
SHAKESPEAEE THE "KNAVISH" AND RABE-
LAIS (9 th S. vii. 162, 255, 330, 474 ; viii. 206).
ME. JOHN T. QUERY, in reply to ME. THOEPE,
cites Marston to prove his case as follows :
"In Marston's two sets of satires, the former printed in 1598 and the latter in 1599, there are two clear references to Shakespeare which both
bear witness to his popularity :
A man, a man, a kingdome for a man ! The second is more interesting, and is as follows : Luscus, what's plaid to day ? Faith now I know I set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flowe Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo."
But ME. CUEEY appears not to know that the writings of Marston evidence the fact that he and Shakespeare were enemies. The topic requires more space than *N. & Q.' would probably care to devote to it ; but as to ME. CUEEY'S two citations, it may be said that the satirist parodied Richard's famous saying in not less than three of his plays, and that other expressions of the dramatist were also ridiculed, or, at least, put into the mouth of a ridiculous character. As to the ' Romeo and Juliet ' citation, I beg to remind ME. CUEEY that he is skating on very thin ice, for if he will read the balance of the passage which he quotes, he will find himself in a precious dilemma nothing less, in fact, than the statement of the satirist that ' Romeo and Juliet ' was being played at the Curtain Theatre (Halliwell-Phillipps and Bullen both spell it with a capital C). Believers in Shake- speare's authorship of this play shy and balk at this passage, and well they may, for if Marston's statement is true, the history of Shakespeare's dramatic career should be re- written. Collier's explanation is so lame that it cannot get about even on crutches. But the truth probably is that the play was not written by Shakespeare. The history of the Quartos should be convincing, to which should be added the very strong implication in one of the ' Return from Parnassus ' plays that Samuel Daniel was the author of the play. ME. CUEEY holds " that the ' Poetaster ' contains the first of the eulogies on Shake- speare by his great contemporary." Symonds has already guessed that Virgil was Shake- speare, and Fleay surmised that in Virgil and Ovid, Jonson intended Chapman and Donne. But it is fairly certain that the descriptions given could have been intended only for the real Virgil and Ovid. Further, if Shakespeare be the author of ' Romeo arid Juliet,' ME. CUEEY will not fail to note that Act IV. sc. ix. (edition 1640) of the 'Poet- aster' is a huge burlesque of the balcony scene. And Gifford, who could be so blind where his prejudices were involved, has a
