Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 4.djvu/537

 ii s. iv. DEC. so, ion.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

531

Hallett ; but MB. ROBERTS'S later com- munication (p. 435) seems to show that she cannot have been, for the note he quotes states that she was born in 1714, and married to William Hallett the first (as his second wife) in 1756, three years after the marriage of William Hallett the second. The fact that her name was Lettice is most significant ; indeed, the evidence seems conclusively to show that her father was the same James Hallett who married Sir Ambrose Crowley's daughter. Sir Ambrose, as may be seen in my book, died in 1713, the year before her birth, and in his will mentioned no Hallett grandchildren except Ambrose and Mary.

If the date of 1756 is correct for the date of William Halle tt's second marriage, it is clear that the Halletts of Canons were not descended (in the female line) from James Hallett and Mary Crowley, but from Wil- liam Hallett' s unknown first wife. I have no evidence as to whether the two Hallett families were of common descent, but their intermarriage rather points to it.

Foster's ' Alumni Oxonienses ' shows that Ambrose, son of James Hallett of Middle- sex, armiger, matriculated 19 May, 1729, aged 17, from Pembroke College, Oxford ; while his brother James, described as son of James Hallett of St. Andrew's, Holborn, armiger, matriculated from the same college, aged 18, on 16 May, 1728, was of Dun- mow Priory, Essex, and died in 1767.

MR. ROBERTS does not tell us positively that William Hallett of Philliols, Dorset (ante, p. 282), was son of William Hallett of Candys, but there can be no doubt on the point, for he is so described in the ' Radclyffe of Foxdenton ' pedigree in Burke's ' Landed Gentry,' 1853, p. 1091.

These are only a few notes collected on the spur of the moment, which do not, I fear, bear very closely upon MR. ROBERTS' s inquiries. But they might be useful to any one inclined to follow up more closely, by reference to original records, the question of the exact connexion between the two Hallett families.

ALEYN LYELL READE.

Park Corner, Blundellsands, nr. Liverpool.

WORDSWORTH : " QTJAM NIHIL AD GENIUM, PAPINIANE, TUUM ! " (11 S. iv. 325.) It has been pointed out by COL. PRIDEAUX (10 S. v. 1 1 6) that Selden, in the ' Address to the Reader ' prefixed to Dray ton's ' Polyolbion ' (ed. 1622), speaks of " a representation of them, whose language and best learning is

purchast from such volumes as Rablais reckons in S. Victor's Library, or barbarous glosses :

Quam nihil ad Genium, Papiniane, tuum ! "

I had long suspected that Selden was the author of this line, partly because his eminence as a jurist must have made him familiar with Papinian, and partly because of his skill as a writer of elegiac verse. That skill may be inferred from the fact that, when he was only ten years of age, he com- posed the Latin couplet carved on the lintel of his home. I quote the lines with a slight correction of the unmetrical form in which they are cited from G. W. Johnson^ ' Memoirs ' in Arber's edition of Selden' s 'Table-Talk' : Gratus, honeste, mihi ; non claudar, inito, sedebis ;

fur abeas ; non sum facta soluta tibi.

I have seen it suggested, in the current number of The Eagle, that the line in Papinian is quoted by Selden as an example of a " barbarous gloss." On the contrary, I prefer to accept the line as Selden' s own, and as expressing his own condemnation of the " barbarous glosses." So far from being a " gloss," it implies that such " bar- barous glosses " are absolutely worthless in comparison with the genius of Papinian. I observe that Rabelais, only a few pages after giving the list of the library of St. Victor's, honourably mentions Papinian, by the side of Plato and Cicero (W. F. Smith's translation of Rabelais, vol. i. pp. 236-43, and p. 246).

J..E. SANDYS.

Cambridge.

TIMOTHY BRIGHT (11 S. iv. 464). DR. PALMER'S note on Bright's ' Treatise. . . .of English Medicines ' will settle any lingering doubt as to the authorship of this little sixteenth-century tract ; but Bright's claim has not yet been recognized in the British Museum and other catalogues.

Since publishing my ' Timothe Bright I have lighted upon a small additional scrap of information which may be worth preserving. It is known from the dedication of one of his books that the doctor was in Ipswich in 1584, and I find that the register of St. Mary-at-the-Quay records the baptism of Peter Bright, " sonne of docter Bright, on 5 July, 1584. This son, according to Thoresby, was buried at Barwick-in-Elmet eleven years later. It is curious to note that Bright's four sons were christened suc- cessively Timothy, Titus, Peter, and Paul. W. J. CARLTON.

47, Ravenswood Road, Balham, S.W.