120 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 68. 



whether he spoke with the tongues of madmen 

 or philosophers. H. K. S. C. cannot conceive why 

 eiich feat of daring should be a tame possibility, 

 save only the last ; but I say that thuy are_ all 

 possible ; that it was a daring to do not impossible 

 but extravagant feats. As far as quantity is con- 

 cerned, to eat a crocodile would be more than to 

 eat an ox. Crocodile may be a very delicate meat, 

 for anything I know to the contrary ; but I must 

 confess it a]ipears to )ne to be introduced as some- 

 thing loathsome or repulsive, and (on the poet's 

 part) to cap the absurdity of the preceding feat. 

 The use made by other writers of a passage is one 

 of the most valuable kinds of comment. In a bur- 

 lesque some years ago, I j-ecoUect a passage was 

 brought to a climax with the very words, " Wilt 

 eat a crocodile ? " The immediate and natural 

 response was — not " the thing's impossible ! " but 

 — " you nasty beast ! " What a descent then from 

 tlie drinking up of a river to a merely disagreeable 

 repast. In the one case the object is clear and 

 intelligible, and the last feat is suggested by the 

 not sodilficult but little less extravagant preced- 

 ing one; in tiie other, each is unmeaning (in refer- 

 ence to the speaker), unsuggested, and uncon- 

 nected with the other; and, regarding the order 

 an artist would observe, out of place. 



Samuel Hickson. 



St. Jolin's Wood, Jan. 27. 1851. 



P.S. In replying to Mr. G. Stephens, in refer- 

 ence to the meaning of a passage in the Temjiest, 

 I ex[)ressed a wish that he would give the mean- 

 ing of what he called a "common ellipsis" "stated 

 at full." Tiiis stands in your columns (Vol. ii., 

 p. 499.) " at first," in which expression I am afraid 

 he would be puzzled to find any meaning. 



I might safely leave H. K. S. C. to the same 

 gentle correction bestowed upon a neighbour of 

 his at Brixton some time since, by Mr. IIickson, 

 bat I must not allow him to suppoit his dogmatic 

 and flippant hypercriticism by falsehood and un- 

 founded insinuation, and I therefore beg leave to 

 assure him that I have no claim to the enviable 

 distinction of being designated as the friend of 

 Mr. Hickson, to whom I am an utter stranger, 

 having never seen him, and knowing nothing of 

 that gentleman but what his very valuable com- 

 munications to your publication conveys. 



I have further to complain of the want of truth 

 in the very first paragraph of your correspondent's 

 note : the <juestion respecting the meaning of 

 '"Eisell" does twt "remain substantially where 

 Steevens and Malone left it;" for I have at least 

 shown that Eisell meant Wormicood, and that 

 Slialispeare has elsewhere undoubtedly used it in 

 that sense. 



Again : the remark about the fashion of ex- 

 travagant feats, such as swallowing nauseous 



draughts in honour of a mistress, was quite un- 

 called for. Your correspondent would insinuate 

 that I attribute to Shaksjieare's time "what in 

 reality belongs to the age of Du Guesclin and the 

 Troubadours." Does lie mean to inter that it did 

 not in reality equally belong to Shakspeare's age? 

 or that I was ignorant of its earlier prevalence? 



The purport of such remarks is but too obvious ; 

 but he may rest assured that tiiey will not tend to 

 strengthen his argument, if argument it can be 

 called, for I must confess 1 tio not understand 

 what he means by his "definite quantity." But 

 the phrase drink up is his stulking-horse ; an<l, 

 as he is no doubt familiar with the Nursery 

 Rhymes*, a passage in them — 



" Eat up your cake, Jenny, 

 Drink up your wine." 



may perhaps afford him further apt ilhist.rati(m. 



The proverb tells us " It is ilangerous playing 

 with edge tools," and so it is with bad puns : he has 

 shown himself an unskilful engineer in the use of 

 Mb. Hickson's canon, with which he was to have 

 " blown up " Mr. Hickson's argument and my 

 proposition; with what success may be faiily left 

 to the judgment of your readers. I will, however, 

 give him another canon, which may be of use to 

 him on some future occasion : " When a probable 

 solution of a difficulty is to be found by a paral- 

 lelism in the poet's pages, it is better to adopt it 

 than to charge him with a blunder of our own 

 creating." 



The allusion to " breaking Priscian's head " 

 reminds one of the remark of a witty friend on a 

 similar occasion, that " there are some heads not 

 easily broken, but the owners of them have often 

 the fatuity to run them against stumbling-blocks 

 of their own makin''." S. W. Singer. 



DESCENT OF HENRY IV. 



(Vol. ii., p. 375.) 



Under the head of " Descent of Edward TV." 

 S.A.Y. asks for information concerning "a popular, 

 though probably groundless tradition," by which 

 that prince sought to prove his title to the throne 

 of England. S. A. Y., or his authority. Professor 

 AHUar, is mistaken in ascribing it to Edward IV. 

 — it was Henry IV. who so sought to establish his 

 claim. 



" Upon Richard II. 's resifination Henry, 



Duke of" Lancaster, having tlien a large army in the 



kingdom it whs impossible for any otlier title 



to be asserted witli safety, and be became king under 

 the title of Henry IV. He was, nevertheless, not ad- 

 mitted to the crown until be li.id declared tlial he 



* Nursery Rlii/mes, edited by James Orchard [lal- 

 liwell, Esq., F.R.S., &c. 



