Notes and Queries, Number 181, April 16, 1853. VariousЧитать онлайн книгу.
all such as would disturb the church and hierarchy as by law established. But the most remarkable part of the book is that which comes under the head of "A Discouerie of the Abuses and Corruption of Officers;" and believing an abstract might interest your readers, and furnish the antiquary with a reference, I herewith present you with a list of the officials and others whom my Lord Coke recommends the Jurie to present, assuring them, at the same time, that "by God's grace they, the offenders, shall not goe unpunished for their abuses; for we have," says he, "a COYFE, which signifies a scull, whereby, in the execution of justice, wee are defended against all oppositions, bee they never so violent."
1. The first gentleman introduced by Lord Coke to the Norwich jury is the Escheator, who had power to demand upon what tenure a poor yeoman held his lands, and is an officer in great disfavour with the judge. He gives some curious instances of his imposition, and concludes by remarking that, for his rogueries, he were better described by striking away the first syllable of his name, the rest truly representing him a cheator.
2. The Clarke of the Market comes in for his share of Lord Coke's denouncements. "It was once," he says, "my hap to take a clarke of the market in his trickes; but I aduanst him higher than his father's sonne, by so much as from the ground to the toppe of the pillorie" for his bribery.
3. "A certaine ruffling officer" called a Purveyor, who is occasionally found purveying money out of your purses, and is therefore, says Lord Coke, "on the highway to the gallowes."
4. As the next officer is unknown in the present day, I give his character in extenso:
"There is also a Salt-peter-man, whose commission is not to break vp any man's house or ground without leaue. And not to deale with any house, but such as is vnused for any necessarie imployment by the owner. And not to digge in any place without leauing it smooth and leuell: in such case as he found it. This Salt-peter-man vnder shew of his authoritie, though being no more than is specified, will make plaine and simple people beleeue, that hee will without their leaue breake vp the floore of their dwelling house, vnlesse they will compound with him to the contrary. Any such fellow, if you can meete with all, let his misdemenor be presented, that he may be taught better to vnderstand his office: For by their abuse the country is oftentimes troubled."
5. There is another troublesome fellow called a Concealor, who could easily be proved no better than a cosioner, and whose pretensions are to be resisted.
6. A Promoter, generally both a beggar and a knave. This is the modern informer, "a necessarie office," says Lord Coke, "but rarely filled by an honest man."
7. The Monopolitane or Monopolist; with these the country was overrun in James' reign. "To annoy and hinder the public weale, these for their own benefit have sold their lands, and then come to beggarie by a starch, vinegar, or aqua vitæ monopoly, and justly too," adds his lordship.
8. Lord Coke has no objection to those golden fooles, the Alcumists, so long as they keep to their metaphisicall and Paracelsian studies; but science is felony committed by any comixture to multiply either gold or silver; the alchymist is therefore a suspected character, and to be looked after by the jury.
9. Vagrants to be resolutely put down, the Statute against whom had worked well.
10. The stage-players find no favour with this stern judge, who tells the jury that as they, the players, cannot perform without leave, it is easy to be rid of them, remarking, that the country is much troubled by them.
11. Taverns, Inns, Ale-houses, Bowling Allies, and such like thriftless places of resort for tradesmen and artificers, to be under strict surveillance.
12. Gallants, or riotous young gents, to be sharply looked after, and their proceedings controlled.
13. Gentlemen with greyhounds and birding-pieces, who would elude the statutes against gunnes, to be called to account "for the shallow-brain'd idlenesse of their ridiculous foolery."
14. The statute against ryotous expence in apparel to be put in force against unthriftie infractors.
There is room here for a few Queries, but I content myself with asking for a further reference to No. 4., "The Salt-peter-man."
SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE
Dogberry's Losses or Leases.—Much Ado about Nothing, Act IV. Sc. 4.:
"Dogberry. A rich fellow enough, go to: and a fellow that hath had losses; and one that hath two gowns, and everything handsome about him."
I can quite sympathise with the indignation of some of my cotemporaries at the alteration by Mr. Payne Collier's mysterious corrector, of "losses" into "leases." I am sorry to see a reading which we had cherished without any misgiving as a bit of Shaksperian quaintness, and consecrated by the humour of Gray and Charles Lamb, turned into a clumsy misprint. But we must look at real probabilities, not at fancies and predilections. I am afraid "leases" is the likelier word. It has also a special fitness, which has not been hitherto remarked. Many of the wealthy people of Elizabeth's reign, particularly in the middle class, were "fellows that had had leases." It will be recollected that extravagant leases or fines were among the methods by which the possessions of the church were so grievously dilapidated in the age of the Reformation. Those who had a little money to invest, could not do so on more advantageous terms than by obtaining such leases as the necessity or avarice of clerical and other corporations induced them to grant; and the coincident fall in the value of money increased the gain of the lessees, and loss of the corporations, to an extraordinary amount. Throughout Elizabeth's reign parliament was at work in restraining this abuse, by the well-known "disabling acts," restricting the power of bishops and corporations to lease their property. The last was passed, I think, only in 1601. And therefore a "rich fellow" of Dogberry's class was described, to the thorough comprehension and enjoyment of an audience of that day, as one who "had had leases."
May I be allowed a little space in the pages of "N. & Q." to draw Mr. Collier's attention to some passages in which the old corrector appears to me to have corrupted, rather than improved, the text? Possibly on second thoughts Mr. Collier may be induced to withdraw these readings from the text of his forthcoming edition of our great poet. I give the pages of Mr. Collier's recent volume, and quote according to the old corrector.
"That I, unworthy body, as I can,
Should censure thus a loving gentleman."
Can for am spoils the sense; it was introduced unnecessarily to make a perfect rhyme, but such rhymes as am and man were common in Shakspeare's time. Loving for lovely is another modernism; lovely is equivalent to the French aimable. "Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives," &c. The whole passage, which is indeed faulty in the old copies, should, I think, be read thus:
"'Tis a passing shame
That I, unworthy body that I am,
Should censure on a lovely gentleman.
Jul. Why not on Proteus as on all the rest?
Luc. Then thus,—of many good I think him best."
Thus crept in after censure from the next line but one. In Julia's speech, grammar requires on for of.
"For my authority bears such a credent bulk," &c.
Fols. "of a credent bulk," read "so credent bulk."
"Myself would on the hazard of reproaches
Strike at thy life."
When fathers kill their children, they run the risk not merely of being reproached, but of being hanged; but this reading