238 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2nd s. NO 116., Mak. 20. '58. 



pears to have been mother of the second Robert 

 Rich, Earl of Warwick (the Admiral), and also of 

 Henry Rich, Earl of Holland, who was beheaded 

 in 1649. Can any one inform me who she was ? 



B. S. J. 



[Robert third Lord Rich was created Earl of Warwick 

 by James I., 1618, and died eight months subsequent to 

 bis creation. He was twice married : his second wife was 

 Frances, daughter of Sir Christoplier Wray, Knight, by 

 wliom he had no issue. He was succeeded in his title by 

 Robert, liis eldest son by Penelope, his first wife (who 

 was daughter of Walter, Earl of Essex), and mother also 

 of two other sons besides four daughters. Vide Bankes's 

 Dormant and Extinct Baronage, vol. iii. p. 733.] 



Rev. Caleb Colton. — Where and in what year 

 was l-.e bnrn ? Was he a member of Oxford or 

 of Cambridge ? and in what year did he enter ? 

 In what year did he die at Paris ? E. Beedell. 



[Caleb Colton was born about 1780, and was the son of 

 the Rev. Barfnot Colton, Canon Residentiary of Sarum. 

 Caleb was educated at Eton, and afterwards at King's 

 College, Ciimbridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1801, 

 M.A. in 1804, and obtained a fellowship. He was for 

 many years perpetual curate of Tiverton Prior's Quarter; 

 and in 1818 was presented to the vicarage of Kew and 

 Petersham, a vicarage formerlj' held by another gifted 

 but unfortunate clergyman, Stephen Duck, the thrasher 

 poet. After a life chequered by nearl}- every scoie of 

 good and adverse fortune, Colton retired to Fontainebleau, 

 and to escape from a painful surgical operation, which his 

 medical advisers informed him he must undergo, died by 

 his own hand on April 28, 1832.] 



The Schoolmen. — Who and what were they ? 



C. Mansfield Ingleby. 



[The title of Schoolmen was given to a class of theo- 

 logians who flourished in the Middle Ages, and were so 

 called from the schools attached to the cathedrals or uni- 

 versities in which they lectured. Some make Lanfranc, 

 Archbishop of Canterbury, the first author of scholastic 

 theology, others, the famous Abelard, or his master Ros- 

 celinus; and others, again, his pupil Peter Lombard. The 

 most celebrated of the Schoolmen were Albertus Magnus ; 

 Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor ; Thomas Aquinas, the 

 Angelic Doctor ; John Duns Scotus, the Subtile Doctor ; 

 William Ocham, the Singular Doctor; Ra^'moiid Lullv; 

 Durandus, the most resolving Doctor. To these may be 

 added Giles, Archbishop of Bourges, the Doctor who had a 

 good Foundation ; Peter Aureolus, Archbishop of Aix, the 

 Eloquent Doctor ; Augustin Triumphus, of Ancona ; Al- 

 bert of Padua ; Francis Mairon, of Digne in Provence ; 

 Robert Holkot, an English divine ; Thomas Bradwardin, 

 the Profound Doctor ; and Gregory of Rimini. See Hook's 

 Church Dictionary, and « N. & Q." !»» S. x. 464. : xi. 36. 

 70,] 



hacon's essays. 



C2"''S. V. 181.203.) 



I sliould have been grateful to youe correspon- 

 dent, EiRiojjNACH, for pointing out what he con- 

 ceives to be errors in my Notes to Bacon's Essays 

 and Wisdom of the Ancients, had it been done in a 



fair and candid spirit of criticism ; but as it is, in 

 justice to my publishers, I must appeal to your 

 readers against the carpings of a determined fault- 

 finder, who studiously avoids allowing to the book 

 one particle of merit except the beauty of the 

 volume. He however allows that all the notices 

 of it have been unqualifiedly favourable, and the 

 publishers have, from its public reception, good 

 reason to know that it has been considered at 

 least a step to what was most desirable — a more 

 correct copy of the Essays ; the notes being prin- 

 cipally confined to pointing out the references of 

 the principal quotations. 



The mystery why my insignificant book is the 

 subject of your correspondent's animadversion, 

 when the nobler game of Archbishop Whately's 

 edition, with its prolix commentary, was open to 

 him, is apparent under the thin veil of approba- 

 tion given to two disjointed extracts from my 

 remarks upon that edition, in which the following 

 essential words are omitted, without which my 

 objections lose their point : 



"The writer of these notes has manifested on the very 

 first page his deficiency in at least one of the requisites 

 for the office he has undertaken by the following note : 



'"Impose upon, to lay restraint vpon. Bacon's Latin 

 original is, cogitationibus imponitur captivitas.' Now 

 nothing is more certain than that the Latin translation 

 was not the original, or written bj' Bacon, a fact which a 

 commentator on him ought to have known." 



Again : 



"Archbishop Whately remarks that Bacon is, 'espe- 

 cially in his Essays, one of the most suggestive authors 

 that ever wrote ; ' and it has been urged that this is a 

 good argument against the necessitj' of a commentary ; 

 for ' the cultivated readers of Bacon do not want expan- 

 sions of an author whose compactness and fulness are his 

 greatest charms; and that it is doing mischief to those 

 who would find in this suggestiveness, if left to them- 

 selves, a valuable mental discipline." 



It will be apparent as we proceed how repug- 

 nant these passages are to Eiuionnach's notions. 

 They have the merit at least of not being pseu- 

 donymous, or meant to wound in the dark. 



I will take your correspondent's tirade of ob- 

 jections seriatim; and, first, of what he is pleased 

 to call " trivial notes." These are the explana- 

 tions of the words Beautiful, Creatures, Cabinet' 

 councils, Pack the cards, Nice and Marish. These 

 may be trivial enough, but the words explained 

 are for the most part used in a peculiar sense, 

 where they are not archaisms ; and the notes of 

 this kind are extremely fe^ff. 



The next objection is to three notes which he 

 thinks " of questionable accuracy and propriety." 

 Obnoxious to, which I have explained liable to 

 opposition from, he thinks better explained by sub- 

 ject to, subsei'vient to, influenced by. Surely this is 

 hypercriticism ? Where is the difference but iii 

 the choice of words ? He queries whether Prac- 

 tic$ is correctly explained by Intrigue, Conf^ic' 



