318 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 78. 



rally advertised ia the Perfect Diurnal, and a few 

 curious specimens of these advertisements may be 

 seen in Lysous' Environs of London, ed. 1795, 

 vol. ii. p. 30. 



Balthazar Gerbier was born at Antwerp about 

 1591, came young into England, and was a re- 

 tainer of the Duke of Buckingham as early as 

 1613. Upon the accession of Charles the First, he 

 was employed in Flanders to negociate privately 

 a treaty with Spain. In 162S he was kniglited at 

 Hampton Court ; and, as he says himself in one of 

 his books, was promised by the king the oflice of 

 surveyor-general of the works, after the death of 

 Inigo Jones. In 1637 he was employed in some 

 private transactions of state; and on the 13th of 

 July, 1641, he took the o.atlis of allegiance and 

 supremacy, having a bill of naturalisation. In 

 1648 he appears to have projected the above- 

 named academy, the failure of which very soon 

 happened. Sir Balthazar then went to America, 

 where he seems to have been very ill treated by 

 the Dutch, and narrowly escaped witli his life. 

 He afterwards returned to England, and designed 

 the triumphal arch for the reception of Charles 

 the Second. He died at Hempsted-marshal, in 

 1667, wliilst engaged in superintending the man- 

 sion of Lord Craven, and was buried in the 

 chancel of that church. 



In conclusion, it may be as well to mention, 

 that, prior to the establishment of the " Museum 

 Minerva?," a committee had been appointed in 

 the House of Lords, consisting of the Duke of 

 Buckingham and .others, for taking into con- 

 sideration the state of the public schools, and 

 method of education. What progress was made 

 in this inquiry is not known, but in all probability 

 the academies of Sir Francis Kynaston and Sir 

 Balthazar Gerbier owed their origin to the meet- 

 insrs of this committee. Edward F. Kimbault. 



«HAKSPEAEE AND FLETCHER. 



I feel greatly obliged to your correspondent 

 C. B. for the attention he has bestowed on the 

 question of Fletchers connexion with Hen?-i/ VIII., 

 as it is only through the concurrent judgments of 

 those who tlmik the subject worthy of their full 

 and impai-tial consideration, that we can hope 

 to asTive at the truth. His remarks (Vol. iii., 

 p. 190.) arc the more valuable, as they coincide 

 with a doubt in my own mind, which has, t& a 

 great extent, ripened since I last communicated 

 with you on the subject; and, indeed, I have no 

 need to hesitate in saying, that I had more diffi- 

 culty in coming to a conclusion with regard to the 

 scene (Act III. Sc. 2.) in which the passages 

 occur (pioted by C. B., than with any otlier scene 

 in the whole play. The suggestion, that Shak- 

 speare might have touched scenes of which the 

 mass had been written by Fletcher, is a point 



which I had not overlooked, and which indeed, to 

 some extent, might be said to follow from the 

 view I took of the relation of Shnkspeare and 

 Fletcher as master and scholar. Yet this sug- 

 gestion is especially valuable regarding this scene, 

 and may account for that which, without it, is not 

 so easily explained. 



If, however, there be any lurking notion In 

 your correspondent's mind, that the scene in 

 Antony and Cleopatra (Act III. Sc. 1.) referred 

 to by X. Z. (Vol. iii., p. 139.) is, judging from 

 certain coincidences of expression, an interpola- 

 tion, and not by Shakspeare, I beg at once to be 

 allowed to express my total dissent from such a 

 view. Whether, also, there may have been any 

 secondary allusion to some known event of tiie day, 

 as X. Z. supposes, and as is by no means impro- 

 bable, I cannot say; but I protest against its 

 being said that the scene referred to is "totally 

 unconnected with what goes before, and what 

 follows." Antony is the hero of the play ; and 

 this scene shows the culminating point of Antony's 

 fortunes, when his very successes turn against 

 him. 



To return to Henry VIII., the compliment to 

 the Queen, to which your correspondent refers, is, 

 as he very justly observes, brought in in a vei'y 

 forced manner. This, to my mind, is very strong 

 evidence ; otherwise I should not think it un- 

 worthy of Shakspeare. And it still has to be 

 borne in mind, that he would have had to ac- 

 commodate his characters and circumstances to 

 the views of another writer. Shakspeare's spirit 

 was too catholic, too universal, to have allowed, 

 in a work entirely his own, even his Wolsey to 

 have made use of the term " a spleeny Lutheran ;" 

 yet neither in the passage in which this expi-ession 

 occurs, nor in the one above referred to, is the 

 versification characteristic of Fletcher. For my 

 own part, however, I cannot recognise Shakspeare's 

 spirit in this antagonism of creeds, which is, per- 

 h.ips, even more strongly displayed in the pi'o- 

 phetic sjieech of Cranmer's in the last scene, 

 wherein he says, "God shall be truly known!" 

 It may be said, that in both these instances the 

 expressions are true to the characters of AVolsey 

 and Cranmer. It may be so ; for both are wanting 

 in that ideal elevation which Shakspeare never 

 fails to give. That, with this reservation, he be- 

 comes the mouth-piece of each character, is most 

 true ; and a curious instance of the writer's utter 

 forgetfulness of his assumed character of con- 

 temporary with the events he is relating, occurring 

 in Act. IV. Sc. 2,, where Griffiths says — 



" He was most princely : ever witness for him 

 Those twins of learning, tliat lie rais'd in you, 

 Ipswioli and Oxford ! one of w Iii ch fill wit/i him. 

 Unwilling to outlive llie good lliat did it ; 

 The other, though luilinlsh'd, yet so famous, 

 So excellent in art, and still so rising," — 



