JAN. 5. 1850.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
149 
not belong to the higher orders of the clergy ; and 
he most probably either belonged to or discharged 
the offices of some of the inferior grades, such as 
clericus, scholaris, or cantor, to whom marriage 
was permitted. ‘I'he only objection to this would 
be in the armorial bearings, which are very good, 
and would indicate a higher position than that of 
a mere clerk. A.W.F. 
“ Clericus is twofold, ecclesiasticus ... and laicus, 
_licenser of the press ? 
and in this sense is signified a pen-man, who getteth | 
his living in some court or otherwise by the use of 
his pen.” — Coke upon Littleton, 120 a. 
J.F.M. 
NAT. LEE’S CERTIFICATE. 
I have before me a copy of verses regarding 
which I request some information. The lines are 
printed upon the two sides of a half sheet of fools- 
cap, and are entitled The Character of an English- 
Man; no date is appended, but at the end is the 
following, in Italic type, signed with a name so 
celebrated, that my attention was instantly fixed 
by it:— 
“I have perused these verses, and find them com- 
posed according to the rules of poetry, and therefore 
think them fitting to be printed.” — Naru. Ler. 
It is clear, therefore, that the verses were printed 
before 1591 or 1592, when Nat. Lee died in very 
abject poverty. The first question, therefore, is, 
whether Lee was the author of them? and this I 
answer in the negative, because they are not good 
enough for him in his worst moments. ‘Take a 
specimen from the opening : — 
« By the first principles of Mother Earth 
An Englishman is noble: by his birth 
Hath a fine body, and an aspect rare, 
Shines like the stars in Northern Hemisphere ; 
He being of the purest matter made, 
As by the wise Philosopher is said, 
Crowns him in the figure of his manhood high, 
As the sun is the candle of the sky.” 
This, though intended seriously, is hardly more 
burlesque than the line — 
“ Oh Sun! thou farthing candle of the sky!” 
which, if I mistake not, is to be found in Tom 
Thumb. ‘The production closes with some lines 
headed “The Picture,” which, in fact, is a piece 
of clumsy adulation of the king — most likely 
Charles II. It begins — 
“ See and behold the English, and draw nigh 
Unto their noble prince in majesty : 
So great he is that Greatness can’t him raise, 
Cloath’d with majesty and celestiall rayes,” &c. 
It is difficult to say by what “rules of poetry,” to 
use Lee’s words, such passages were constructed, 
and I am sure I only do him justice when I ho- 
~nourably acquit him of the authorship. Who was 
the guilty party we need not inquire; but what I 
want to know is, how the distinguished name of 
Nath. Lee came to be subscribed to the production ? 
Did his poverty and not his will consent, and was 
he paid some despicable sum for his certificate in 
favour of such rubbish? On the other hand, did 
Lee hold any office at any time which rendered his 
imprimatur necessary, like that of the ordinary 
I find nothing of the sort 
in any of the memoirs of Lee. Perhaps some of 
your readers can answer my “ Queries.” 
INVESTIGATOR. 
THE EXPRESSION “ MUTUAL” FRIEND. 
Is it too late to make an effectual stand against 
the solecistic expression “ mutual friend,” which I 
see in so many books and periodicals of the present 
day, and hear from so many mouths, even of per- 
sons who must know better ? 
Mr. Macaulay, in his review of Croker’s edition 
of Boswell’s Life of Johnson (Edinburgh Review, 
vol. liv. p. 12.), strongly objects to the use of the 
expression “ mutual friend,” for “ common friend.” 
Yet, in spite of his just censure, it seems likely to 
establish itself in our language, both literary and 
conversational. 
It appears to be unknown to some, and forgotten 
by others, that the word “mutual” equals “ re- 
ciprocal,” and can only be used of that which 
passes between two, from each to each. Thus, it is 
correctly used in such expressions as “ mutual 
love,” “mutual hatred,” “ mutual reproaches,” 
“ mutual signs,” &c. But, when we speak of a 
third, as having an equal relation to two others, 
we properly use the adjective common. ‘The dif- 
ference will be best illustrated by applying the 
two epithets severally to one common substantive. 
Thus, then, “the mutual demands of England 
and France” mean “ what each demands from the 
other ;” but “the common demands of England 
and France” mean “what they both demand 
from some other party or parties.” “ Our mutual 
esteem” means “the esteem we feel for each 
other ;” “ our common esteem,” ‘ the esteem we 
both feel for some other person or persons.” 
The impropriety of the term “ mutual friend” is 
therefore obvious. We might possibly say of two 
persons that they are “mutual friends,” that is, 
“ friends to each other ;” though it would be more 
| proper to say, “ they are mutually friendly.” 
It may perhaps be urged, why offer this resist- 
ance to the deflection of one word in our language 
from its classical meaning, when we have so many 
Latin words established in senses which the old 
Romans never knew ; as “ intention,” “ prejudice,” 
“ civility,” ‘“ curiosity,” and the like? We answer, 
for this, if for no other reason: that, supposing the 
expression “ mutual friend” to be sanctioned, we 
shall have this one word “mutual” used in two 
