Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 3.djvu/451

 us. m. JUNE 10, mi.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

445

It would certainly be hard to account for such an admiration, but is there any occasion for us to try ? We turn to the Appendix in Trevelyan's ' Life,' and find Macaulay's opinion of the * Punica ' among the pencilled notes in his Greek and Latin books :

" Finished Silius Italicus ; for which heaven be praised ! [hardly a grace after meat !] December 24, 1835. Pope must have read him before me. In the ' Temple of Fame,' and the ' Essay on Criticism,' are some touches plainly suggested by Silius;"

When dealing with ' The Life and Writings of Addison ' Macaulay shows us pretty plainly what he thought :

" The folly of Silius Italicus, in particular, is positively nauseous. He undertook to record in verse the vicissitudes of a great struggle between generals of the first order; and his narrative is made up of the hideous wounds which these generals inflicted with their own hands."

I do not remember where it is that Mac- aulay depreciates ' The Vicar of Wakefield,' but I do remember that by a slip of the pen he wrote at the beginning of his essay on Warren Hastings, " It would be unjust to estimate Goldsmith by * The Vicar of Wake- field,' or Scott by the ' Life of Napoleon,' ' and so it appeared in The Edinburgh Review. Sir G. O. Trevelyan comments :

" It is difficult to conceive any calamity which Macaulay would regard with greater consternation than that, in the opening sentences of an article which was sure to be read by everybody who read anything, he should pose before the world for three mortal months in the character of a critic who thought ' The Vicar of Wakefield ' a bad book."

When the essays were collected the falsa lectio gave place to ' The History of Greece.' EDWARD BENSLY.

CABLYLE ox CROMWELL'S HEAD. In view of the recent controversy about Cromwell's head, the following extract from an un-

Eublished letter, written by Carlyle to my ither in 1849, may be interesting :

There does not seem the slightest sound basis for any of the pretended heads of Oliver. The one at present in yogue was visited the other day by a friend of mine ; it has hair, flesh, beard, a written history bearing evidence that it was purchased for 100 (I think, and a bad debt) about 50 years ago, it also appears to have once had resinous unguents, or embalming substances in it, and to have stood upon a spike: likely enough the head of some decapitated man of distinction ; but by the size of the face, by the very width of the jawbone, were there no other proof, it has not any claim to be Oliver's head. A professional sculptor, about a year ago, gave me the same report of it. "A very much smaller face than Oliver's ; quite another face." The story told of a high wind, a sentinel, &c., is identical with what your old neighbour heard long since of the_.Oliver head in the shape of a scull.

In short the whole affair appears to be fraudulent moonshine an element not pleasant to glance into, especially in a case like Oliver's. I remain always

Yours with sincere thanks,

T. CARLYLE.

A. L. F.

HENRY, DUKE OF SUFFOLK. Among the uncalendared proceedings in the Court of Requests temp. Elizabeth, bundle 377, is a letter, in a very shaky handwriting, to Messrs. Ralph Rokeby, John Herbert, and Dr. Awbrey from John, Bishop of London, concerning a suit between Thomas Fenton and Frances his wife, naming herself Frances Anne Fortune, plaintiff, and Thomas Duport, Esq. The plaintiffs suppose the said Frances the base daughter of Henry, late Marquess of Dorset, and afterwards Duke of Suffolk, and that the said Duke in his lifetime delivered to Thomas Duport 100 in money, and certain goods and chattels, to the use of the said Frances, which sup- posed delivery defendant upon his oath denied. Bishop Aylmer says :

I have thought good to signify my knowledge and opinion concerning the premises, the rather as I was divers years resident and abiding in ye said Duke's house, having the charge of instructing and teaching of ye lady Jane, his eldest daughter and of ye residue of his children, and also of ye children of divers other noblemen. These are therefore to certifie that the said Duke of Suffolke, during the time y* I was towards him, which was about 14 or 15 yeres after he came to his lands, even till his decease, was not knowen or reputed to have any such base daughter y* ever I heard of. It is now one and fifty yeres or very nere there- about since my first entertainment into y e service of y e said Duke, and if he had begotten any such base child neere the time of my first coming to him, it is very like the same would have been discovered and knowen during mine abode with hym so many yeres. And touching the gent him- self, I meane Mr. Duport, he hath alwaies, to my knowledge, ben taken to be of such upright and sound dealing towards all men, that I am fully perswaded of him he would not wittingly speak untruly upon his othe, to gain the whole Kingdom. Further, I do remember in y c time of my service imployed towards y e said Duke of Suffolk, he, the said Duke, had in his house a certain chaplen called Cowper, a man not only unlerned, but also reputed to be of dissolute and loose life and con- versation. Thus much I thought convenient to signifie unto you at y e special instance of mine old fellow and friend Mr. Duport, for y e more playne and manifest declaracion of y* truth in this behalf, the further tryall whereof I referr to your own good consideracion, and so do cqmmitt you to y* merciful protection of y c most mightie.

From my house in Paules Churchyard this 6 th November, 1590. Your very loving friend in Christ, JOHN LONDON

In such ways do slanders often rise.

C. C. STOPES.