Mak. 8. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



197 



timonia are there at the end of the Preface? — 

 Thirty-eight pages. 



(In George III.'s copy the Teslimonia occupy 

 forty-three pages.) 



Is there in any one of these volumes the name 

 of any former owner, any book number, or any 

 other mark by which they can be recognised ; for 

 instance, that of the Duke de la Valliere ? — No. 

 Not in Mr. Grenville's, nor in George III.'s, nor 

 in the Sloane's; this last has not the Third Volume. 



Henry Foss. 



Scandal against Queen Elizabeth (Vol.iii., p.ll ). 

 — It is a tra<lition in a family with wliich I am 

 connected, that Queen Elizabeth had a son, wlio 

 was sent over to Ireland, and ])laced under the 

 care of the Earl of Ormonde. The Earl, it will 

 be remembered, was distantly related to the 

 Queen, her great-grandniothcr being the daughter 

 of Thomas, the eighth Earl. 



Papers are said to exist in the family which 

 prove the above statement. J. Bs. 



Pricate Memoirs of Queen Elizabeth. — The 

 curious little volume mentioned by Mr. Roper 

 (Vol. iii., p. 43.), is most probably the book alluded 

 to by J. E. C, p. 23, I possess a copy of much 

 later date (1767). It is worthy of note, that the 

 narrative is headed The Earl of Essex; or, the 

 Amours of Queen Elizabeth; while the title-pa'je 

 states, The secret History of the most Renown d Q. 

 Elizabeth and Earl of Essex. 



I think it can scarcely be said to be corroborative 

 of the '■ scandal" contained in Jlr. Ives's MS. note, 

 or that in Burton's Parliumeutury Diary, cited By 

 P. T., Vol.ii. p. 393. Whitaker, in his Vindication of 

 Mary Q. of Scots, has displayed immense industry 

 and research in his collection of charges against 

 the private life of Elizabeth, but makes no men- 

 tion of these reports. E. B. Price. 



Bibliographical Queries (No. 39.), Monorchia 

 Solipsorum (Vol. iii., p. 138.). — Your correspon- 

 <lent asks, Can there be the smallest doulit that the 

 veritable inventor of this satire upon the Jesuits 

 was their former as.<ociale, Jules-Clement Scotti ? 

 Having paid considi'ralile attenti(jn to the writings 

 of Scotii, Inchofer, an<l Scio])piiis, and to the evi- 

 dence as to the auiliorsliip of this work, I shotdd, 

 notwiihsianding Niceron's autiiority, on which 

 your correspondent seems to rely, venture lo assert 

 that the claim made for Scotti, as well as that for 

 Scioppius, may be at once put aside. No two 

 authors ever more carefully protected their literary 

 ofl'spring, numerous as ihey were, by tlie catalogues 

 and lists of them which ihey published or dis- 

 perseil from lime to time, than these two writers. 

 In llii'm every trart Ib claimed, however short, 

 wliich they hail written. Scotti published one in 

 1G.50, five years after the publication of the Mon- 

 urchia Solipsoruia ; and 1 have a letter of his, of 



the same period, containing a list of his writings. 

 Scioppius left one, dated 1647, now in MS. in the 

 Laurentian Library with his other MSS , and 

 which carefully mentions every tract he had written 

 against the Jesuits. The Monarchia Solipsoi'um 

 does not appear in the lists of these two writers ; 

 and no good reason can be assigned why it should 



1 not, on the supposition of its being written by 

 either of them. If not in those which were ])ub- 



' lished, it certainly would not have been ouutted 

 in those communicated to their friends, not Jesuits, 



i or which were found amongst their own MSS. 

 Then, nothing can be more distinct than the style 



i of Scotti, of Scioppius, and that of the author, 

 whoever he was, of the Monorchia. The much- 

 vexed spirit of the bitterest of critics would have 

 been still more indignant if one or two of the 

 passages in this work could ever, in his contem- 

 plation, have been imputed to his pen. 



It is in this case, as in most other similar ones, 

 much easier to conclude who is not, than who is 

 the author of the book in question. The internal 

 evidence is very strong in favour of Inchofer. It 

 was published with his name in 1652, seven years 

 only after the date of the first edition ; and the 

 witnesses are many among his contemporaries, who 

 speak positively to his being the author. I uriher, 

 tliere is no great dissiniilaritv in point of style, and 

 I have collected several parallel expressions occur- 

 ring in the Moiun-chia and Inchofer's other works, 

 which very much strengthen the claim made on 

 his behalf, but which it is scarcely necessary to 

 insert here. In my opinion, he is the real author. 

 The question might. I have no doubt, be finally 

 set at rest by an examination of his correspondence 

 with Leo Allatius, wliich is, or was, at all events, 

 in the Vatican. James Cbosslet. 



Manchester, Feb. 22. !85l. 



Touching for the Evd (Vol. iii., p. 93.). — It 

 was one ol the prool's against the Duke of Mon- 

 mouth, that he had touched for the evil when in 

 the West ; and I have seen a handbill describing 

 the cures he effected. It was sold at Sir John 

 St. Aubyn's sale of prints at Christie's some iaw 

 years since. ^' ^'' ^^ 



H. W. D. 



" Talk not of Love'' (Vol. iii., pp. 7. 77.). — In 

 answering the Query of A. M. respecting this 

 jdeasing little song, your correspondents have 

 neglected to mention that the earliest copy of it, 

 i. e. that in Johnson's Scots Musical Museum, has 

 two additioiud stanzas. This is important, because, 

 from No. 8. of Burns's Letters to Clurinda, it ap- 

 pears tliat the concluding lines were supplied l>y 

 Burns himself to suit the music, lie rem.uks 

 that — 



"Tlie IntttT hiilf of tlie first stniitn would have been 

 worthy of Siipiilio. 1 am m ra|jtinfs with it." 



