Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 7.djvu/120

 96 NOTES AND QUERIES. [12 s. vn. JULY si, 1020. PELADAN (12 S. vii. 70). This was Josephin Peladan, a French mystic, novelist, and art critic, born in Lyons, 1859. He was a disciple of Barbey d'Aurevilly, posed as a descendant of the last kings of Babylonia, assuming the title Le Sar (the chief) and a theatrical costume, and attracted attention by a series of novels under the general title of ' La decadence Latine.' In 1892 he founded the order of La Rose Croix, Croix du Temple. He died in 1918. For a full list of his works see the ' New International Encyclopaedia,' and ' Nouveau Larousse Illustre.' ARCHIBALD SPARKE. ' Josephin Peladan, romancier et Critique d'Art, ne a Lyon en 1859, mort a Neuilly- sur-Seine en 1918 ' (v. Lorenz-Jordell's ' Catalogue General de la Librairie Francaise,' tome26 e, p. 635, par. 1918). H. K. ETYMOLOGY OF "LIVERPOOL" (12 S. vii. 68). The derivation as meaning " Shelter Pool," given by MR. R. GLADSTONE, is as interesting as it is probably correct. Between Cockington and Tor Bay is a sheltered valley named Livermead, down which the drainage from the springs, which give Cockington (Chochintona of ' Domesday ') its name, finds access to the sea. In the Cartulary of Torre Abbey (folio 44a) this place-name is spelt " Lafremede," in the charter of Roger de Cokyngtone which must elate from the first years of the thir- teenth century. HUGH R. WATKIN. Chelston Hall, Torquay. SHAKESPEARE'S ' SHYLOCK ' (12 S. vi. 244; vii. 5, 18). MR. M. L. R. BRESLAR'S note is a welcome rejoinder to my paper at the first reference, and an able vindication of his race. I was in hopes, when I penned the article, that some such dementi would follow from his pen, as I have always felt that Shakespeare's delineation of the Venetian Jew was a travesty and not a '-'genuine em- bodiment of one of the sons of Shem." All that can be said in palliation of such a conception is supplied by MR. BRESLAR'S own statement that it was due to " the spirit of the age not being ready to under- stand a better " one, and the matter can well rest in that verdict. My own contention was simply to uphold the poet's originality in this creation against ungenerous charges of plagiarism, though I did hint at my long- held belief in its gross misrepresentation of Jewish human nature in the sentence, " how- ever much we may be disposed to question in some phases its absolute truth to nature " ; and when I further stated that ' Shylock is~- neither a caricature nor a type " my unex- pressed meaning was, <as MR. BRESLAB has- put it. that the character was a- product or reflection of "the spirit of the age," albeit, taken generically, a libellous travesty and caricature, which I venture to disbelieve it was Shakespeare's intention to- fling a-t an honoured race. J. B. McGovEHN. St. Stephen's Rectory, C.-on-M., Manchester. My attention has only now been drawn* to the REV. J. B. McGovERN's letter in. your issue of the 3rd inst., in which he- expresses his regret that I, too-, " have- joined the ranks of those who question his- [i.e., Shakespeare's] originality in his- character of Shylock." It matters, of course, little* what I may or may not be thinking of the originality of Shakespeare's works and of his creative- genius, but my letter, from which MR. McGovERN quotes, certainly does not war- rant the deduction read into it by your learned contributor. My sole object was to- prove that Canon Hanauer was wrong in attributing to Shakespeare want o-f moratv character and distortion of facts, and I can... only imagine that MR. McGovERN takes exception to my statement that Shakespeare "was indebted for his materials to some- earlier form of the tale" of the cruel Jew creditor. But does this necessarily imply that I am questioning the originality of his delineation of the character of Shylock ? One can hardly imagine an intelligent student of Shakespeare not knowing how diligently and impartially the great drama- tist collected the materials for his plays wherever he could find them. Now it is^ Plutarch, now some English chronicle, and then some obscure Italian novel, or an old; legend. And it is equally well known how closely he often followed his original as far as its framework is concerned. But does this impair his claim to originality in the treatment of his characters ? Quite the reverse. One cannot help marvelling how the frequently raw and crude material becomes" aglow with life, replete with art,, or throbs with passion, when it has passed through the crucible of the great master's mind. It is the same with every true artist. Goethe's ' Faust ' is not less a work of originality, because the same subject was handled, by Marlowe and^Lessing before-