Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 7.djvu/105

 9 th S. VII. FEB. 2, 1901.]

NOTES AND QUERIES.

97

fri

III

1(T

to the dates. Before writing, I consulte( numerous books of reference, including th 'D.N.B.,' but found no notice of either of th knights. I have, however, come across a not in the new edition of Walton's * Lives ' (Den & Co.), vol. i. p. 72, which shows clearly th family relationship, but furnishes no dates Strange to say, it contains the same epitapl we have been discussing, but it is quoted from Weever's* 'Ancient Funerall Monuments (1631), and applied to the wrong Sir Henry As Mr. Austin Dobson has " contributed the supplementary notes," and we all know how carefully he writes, I am not at all sorry t< find myself in such good company. A distin guished member of the present Government speaking in this city a few weeks ago, citec the proverb, " A man who never makes a mis take will never make anything"; but, after this correspondence, I think there will be no excuse for confounding the two Goodyers anc attributing the epitaph, written on the uncle to the nephew ; for the " tetrastich ," as Camden calls it, was in the first edition o: his 'Remaines' (1605), as it is without the asterisk which he prefixed to the portions added to the second (1614). That settles the matter ; and MR. SIMPSON is irresistible whe he says that the lines were written on the first Sir Henry. But lam not at all inclined to accept his somewhat pontifical declaration when he denies that they are by Jonson. They are, at the least, quite as good as some of the occasional pieces printed in the folio of 1616, and the fourth, which we are informed is "decasyllabic," admirably sums up, in well- chosen epithets, the character of a man whom it must have been an honour to know. But MR. SIMPSON says that the epitaph "does not even refer to Jon son's friend," for which as- sertion he furnishes no evidence whatever, the very thing we want in 'N. & Q.'

Now I consider it extremely probable that the poet was acquainted with Sir Henry Good- yer the elder. Camden's friends were Jonson's friends, for the master was justly proud of his distinguished pupil, and introduced him everywhere to those whom he loved and honoured ; and they were many. It is quite clear from the old historian's language that "Sir Henry Goodyer of Polesworth, a knight memorable for his vertues," was one of these friends. If in nothing else, they shared in

eir sympathy with Mary, Queen of Scots ;

r Camden, if not a partisan, was certainly

firm believer in the innocence of that most lovely and unhappy lady, whose story it is a

He himself was an epigrammatist of note. See Lowndes.
 * Weever's name is mentioned in Epigram xviii.

sorrow to read. Why should not Ben Jonson have known and loved this good knight, and been the "affectionate friend of his (who) framed this tetrastich," said, in a borrowed epithet, to be " crude," but which is " short and sufficient," and full of tender feeling ? Though young, he was a married man, and his great abilities were not unknown. In the year following the uncle's death, if MR. SIMPSON'S dates be correct, the great comedy 'Every Man in his Humour ' was acted, and what the author must have been for years before he could produce such a masterpiece any one can infer. The beautiful epigram (xxii.) on his first daughter, whose name was Mary, must have been written in his early youth, of which there is plain proof in the lines, which are "octosyllabic." I firmly believe that Jonson was, at that time, capable of composing even the epigrams (lxxxv.-vi.) on Sir Henry Goodyer, first published in 1616, in which year he became Poet Laureate ; but when they were written is another matter that cannot now be dis- cussed. What is most remarkable is the almost perfect resemblance of character in these two worthy knights, whom I honour for their kindness to the men of letters of bheir times From this cause, and from their bearing the same names, has arisen the con- fusion.

I cannot help thinking of Becky Sharp when MR. SIMPSON thrusts Webster's 'Dic- tionary ' into my face and bids me look for the meaning of the word "spill." Now he must not blow hot and cold. This word occurs in the poem, a part of which he quoted to show that Gifford was no judge of lyrical

poetry, and that Ben Jonson, on this occasion, wrote balderdash. But since I gave an ex-
 * ract from Mr. Swinburne's ' Study ' he has

pparently modified his opinion, and dis- covered, so to speak, that " she, who was an igly old hag at night, rose a beautiful maid n the morning." The change is all the more

astonishing when we learn that he is familiar vith the book, and has "always" been dis- atisfied with the phraseology of one of the entences quoted. That does not concern me.

The illustrious writer is still among us, and

would, if addressed, be willing, I am sure, to

isentangle the "knot "which has troubled

IR. SIMPSON all these long years.

There can be no doubt that the use of the

rord "spill" is the great flaw in the poem

mentioned. It is equivocal in meaning, and, or that reason, should have been avoided, efore commenting on it in my last note, I onsulted the sixth edition of Dr. Johnson's Dictionary,' 1785, in two mighty volumes,