Notes and Queries, Number 23, April 6, 1850

PERIPLUS OF HANNO THE CARTHAGINIAN

I am not sufficiently Quixotic to attempt a defence of the Carthaginians on the western coast of Africa, or any where else, but I submit that the accusation brought against them by Mr. S. Bannister, formerly Attorney-General of New South Wales, is not sustained by the only record we possess of Hanno's colonising expedition. That gentleman, in his learned Records of British Enterprise beyond Sea, just published, says, in a note, p. xlvii.:—

"The first nomade tribe they reached was friendly, and furnished Hanno with interpreters. At length they discovered a nation whose language was unknown to the interpreters. These strangers they attempted to seize; and, upon their resistance, they took three of the women, whom they put to death, and carried their skins to Carthage" (Geogr. Græci Minores, Paris, 1826, p. 115.).

Hanno obtained interpreters from a people who dwelt on the banks of a large river, called the Lixus, and supposed to be the modern St. Cyprian. Having sailed thence for several days, and touched at different places, planting a colony in one of them, he came to a mountainous country inhabited by savages, who wore skins of wild beasts, δερματα θηρεια ενημμενων. At a distance of twelve days' sail he came to some Ethiopians, who could not endure the Carthaginians, and who spoke unintelligibly even to the Lixite interpreters. These are the people whose women, Mr. Bannister says, they killed. Hanno sailed from this inhospitable coast fifteen days, and came to a gulf which he calls Νοτου Κερα, or South Horn.

"Here," says the Dr. Hawkesworth, of Carthage, "in the gulf, was an island, like the former, containing a lake, and in this another island, full of wild men; but the women were much more numerous, with hairy bodies (δασειαι τοισ σωμασιν), whom the interpreters called γοριλλασ. We pursued the men, who, flying to precipices, defended themselves with stones, and could not be taken. Three women, who bit and scratched their leaders, would not follow them. Having killed them, we brought their skins to Carthage."

He does not so much as intimate that the creatures who so defended themselves with stones, or those whose bodies were covered with hair, spoke any language. Nothing but the words ανθρωποι αγριοι and γυναικεσ can lead us to believe that they were human beings at all; while the description of the behaviour of the men, and the bodies of the women, is not repugnant to the supposition that they were large apes, baboons, or orang-outangs, common to this part of Africa. At all events, the voyagers do not say that they flayed a people having the faculty of speech.

It is not, however, improbable that the Carthaginians were severe taskmasters of the people whom they subdued. Such I understand those to have been who opened the British tin mines, and who, according to Diodorus Siculus, excessively overworked the wretches who toiled for them, "wasting their bodies underground, and dying, many a one, through extremity of suffering, while others perished under the lashes of the overseer." (Bibl. Hist. l. v. c. 38.)

POPE VINDICATED

"P.C.S.S." is too great an admirer of Pope not to seek to vindicate him from one, at least, of the blunders attributed to him by Mr. D. Stevens, at p. 331. of the "Notes and Queries."

Now, if Mr. S. will refer to Homer, he will find that the original fully justifies the use of "brows" and "lids" in the plural. It runs thus (Od. ix. v. 389.):

"P.C.S.S." wishes that he could equally remove from Pope the charge of inaccuracy respecting the three cannibal meals of Polyphemus. He fears that nothing can be alleged to impugn Mr. Stevens's perfectly just criticism.

While on the subject of Pope, "P.C.S.S." would wish to advert to a communication (No. 16. p. 246.) in which it is insinuated that Pope was probably indebted to Petronius Arbiter for the well-known passage—

With all respect for the ingenious author of that communication, "P.C.S.S." confesses that he is unable to discover such a similitude of expression as might warrant the notion that Pope had been a borrower from Petronius. He cannot suppose that Mr. F. could have been led away by any supposed analogy between corium and coricillum. The latter, Mr. F. must know, is nothing more than a diminutive of a diminutive (coricillum, not corcillum, from corculum); and the word is coined by Petronius to ridicule one of the affectations of Trimalchio (Nero), who was wont to indulge, to an absurd extent, in the use of such diminutives (vide Burmann, in loco). "P.C.S.S." will now subjoin such translations of the passage in question as he has hitherto had opportunities of referring to. The first is from The Works of Petronius Arbiter, translated by several hands, Lond. 8vo. 4th edit. 1714. At the beginning of the translation itself there is this heading—"Made English by Mr. Wilson, of the Middle Temple, and several others." The passage in question is thus rendered:—

"Come, my friends, let us see how merry you can be! for in my time, I have been no better than yourselves; but, by my own industry, I am what I am. 'Tis the heart makes the man; all the rest is but stuff!"

In another translation, which, with Grub-Street audacity, the publisher, in his title-passage, presumes to attribute to Addison! and which appeared in 1736 (Lond. 8vo.), the passage is as follows:—

"I was once as you are: but now, thanks to my industry, I am what I am. It is the heart that makes the man; all the rest is but stuff!"

Be the translator who he may, this version, so impudently ascribed to the moral Addison, is written with much spirit and power, and with a remarkable comprehension of the author's meaning. Some of the poetical fragments at the end are, indeed, singularly well done.

Of the two French versions which "P.C.S.S." has examined, the one by Levaur (Paris, 8vo. 1726) thus translates the passage:

"Je vous prie, mes amis … C'est le coeur qui fait les hommes; je compte le reste pour un fétu."

In that of Boispreaux (Lond. 1742), it is simply rendered—

"Mon sçavoir faire m'a tiré du pair. C'est le coeur qui fait l'homme …"

No attempt is made to translate the quisquilia.

"THE SUPPER OF THE LORDE."

I shall be glad to find that your correspondent "C.H." (No. 21. p. 333.) receives a satisfactory answer to his inquiry, as such a reply would also satisfy my earlier query, No. 7. p. 109. I perceive, however, from his letter, that I can give him some information on other points noticed in it, though the absence of papers now passing through the press with the Parker Society's reprint of a third volume of Tyndale, will prevent my replying with such precision as I could wish. That ancient tract on "The Supper of the Lorde, after the true meanyng of the sixte of John," &c., of which "C.H." says he possesses a copy, was reprinted at different intervals with the same date, viz., MCCCCCXXXIII, Apryll v., on its title-page. The original edition has a final colophon, stating that it was "imprinted at Nornberg, by Nielas Twonson," and is so rare, that I have not been able to discover the existence of any copy, but one recently deposited in the Bodleian. That "C.H.'s" copy is not a specimen of that first edition, is apparent from two circumstances. The first is, that he has given you a quotation from his copy as follows:—"And as for M. More, whom the verity most offendeth, and doth but mocke it," whereas the original edition has, "And as for M. Mocke," &c., and Sir Thomas More notices this mockage of his name in his reply. The next is, that his copy contains "Crowley's Epistle to the Reader," which does not appear in any edition of an earlier date than 1551. When first attached to this treatise, the epistle was anonymous, as may be seen in the Lambeth copy; but Crowley eventually affixed his name to the epistle, as it appears in "C.H.'s" and in other copies. Robert Crowley was a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate; a printer and publisher; but to his singular combination of titles, we cannot add that of author of the treatise in question. "C.H." has seen that he did not enter Oxford till 1534; and in his Prefatory Epistle, Crowley speaks of the author of the treatise as a person distinct from himself.

I do not wish, however, to be considered as positively affirming the treatise to be Tyndale's. Foxe, the martyrologist, edited Tyndale's works for Day, and he has only said that this treatise was "compiled, as some do gather, by M. Wm. Tyndale, because the method and phrase agree with his, and the time of writing are [sic] concurrent." On the other hand, the authorship is unhesitatingly assigned to Tyndale by Mr. C. Anderson (Annals of the English Bible, §ix. ad finem), and by Mr. Geo. Offer (Mem. of Tyndale, p. 30.), the two most pains-taking and best informants as to his works. But still there are objections of such force, that I must confess myself rather inclined to attribute the treatise to Joy's pen, if I could but be satisfied that he was capable of writing so correctly, and of keeping so clear of vulgarity in a controversy with a popish persecutor.

FOLK LORE

ON AUTHORS AND BOOKS, NO. VI

In the union of scholarship, polished manners, and amiability of character, we have had few men to surpass the reverend Joseph Spence. His career was suitable to his deserts. He was fortunate in his connections, fortunate in his appointments, and fortunate in his share of fame.

His fame, however, is somewhat diminished. His Essay on the Odyssey, which procured him the friendship of Pope, has ceased to be in request; his Polymetis, once the ornament of every choice library, has been superseded by the publications of Millin and Smith; his poems are only to be met with in the collections of Dodsley and Nichols. If we now dwell with pleasure on his name, it is chiefly as a recorder of the sayings of others—it is on account of his assiduity in making notes! I allude to the volume entitled Anecdotes, observations, and characters of books and men, which was edited by my friend Mr. Singer, with his wonted care and ability in 1820.

The Essay on the Odyssey was first published anonymously in 1726-7. It was reprinted in 1737 and 1747. A copy of the latter edition, now in my possession, contains this curious note:—

"It is remarkable that of twelve passages objected to in this critique on the English Odyssey, two only are found in those books which were translated by Pope.

"From Mr. Langton, who had his information from Mr. Spence.

"When Spence carried his preface to Gorboduc in 1736 to Pope, he asked him his opinion. Pope said 'It would do very well; there was nothing pert or low in it.' Spence was satisfied with this praise, which however, was in implied censure on all his other writings.—He is very fond of the familiar vulgarisms of common talk, and is the very reverse of Dr. Johnson.

The note is not signed at length, but there can be no doubt as to its authorship, as I purchased the volume which contains it at the sale of the unreserved books of Mr. Malone in 1818.

NICHOLAS BRETON'S "CROSSING OF PROVERBS."

Although my query respecting William Basse and his poem, "Great Britain's Sun's Set," (No. 13. p. 200), produced no positive information touching that production, it gave an opportunity to some of your correspondents to communicate valuable intelligence relating to the author and to other works by him, for which I, for one, was very much obliged. If I did not obtain exactly what I wanted, I obtained something that hereafter may be extremely useful; and that I could not, perhaps, have obtained in any other way than through the medium of your pleasant and welcome periodical.

I am now, therefore, about to put a question regarding another writer of more celebrity and ability. Among our early pamphleteers, there was certainly none more voluminous than Nicholas Breton, who began writing in 1575, and did not lay down his pen until late in the reign of James I. A list of his pieces (by no means complete, but the fullest that has been compiled) may be seen in Lowndes's Bibl. Manual; it includes several not by Breton, among them Sir Philip Sidney's Ourania, 1606, which in fact is by a person of the name Backster; and it omits the one to which my present communication refers, and regarding which I am at some loss.

In the late Mr. Heber's Catalogue, part iv. p. 10., I read as follows, under the name of Nicholas Breton:—

"Crossing of Proverbs. The Second Part, with certaine briefe Questions and Answeres, by N.B., Gent. Extremely rare and very curious, but imperfect. It appears to contain a portion of the first part, and also of the second; but it appears to be unknown."

Into whose hands this fragment devolved I know not; and that is one point I am anxious to ascertain, because I have another fragment, which consists of what is evidently the first sheet of the first part of the tract in question, with the following title-page, which I quote totidem literis:—

"Crossing of Proverbs. Crosse-Answeres. And Crosse-Humours. By B.N., Gent. At London, Printed for John Wright, and are to be solde at his Shop without Newgate, at the signe of the Bible, 1616."

It is in 8vo., as Heber's fragment appears to have been; but then the initials of the author are given as N.B., whereas in my fragment they stand B.N., a usual inversion with Nicholas Breton; the brief address "To the Reader" is also subscribed B.N.; and then begins the body of the work, thus headed: "Crosse and Pile, or, Crossing of Proverbs." It opens as follows:

And so it proceeds, not without humour and point, here and there borrowing from known sources, as in the following:—

However, my object is not to give specimens of the production further than are necessary for its identification. My queries are, 1st, Who bought Mr. Heber's fragment, and where is it now to be found? 2nd, Are any of your correspondents aware of the existence of a perfect copy of the work?

I naturally take a peculiar interest about Nicholas Breton, because I have in my possession an unknown collection of amatory and pastoral poems by him, printed in quarto in 1604, in matter and measure obvious imitations of productions in "The Passionate Pilgrim," 1599, imputed to Shakespeare, and some of which are unquestionably by Richard Barnfield.

Any new information regarding Breton and his works will be most acceptable to me. I am already in possession of undoubted proof that he was the Nicholas Breton whose epitaph is on the chancel-wall of the church of Norton, in Northamptonshire, a point Ritson seems to have questioned.

March 30. 1850.

THE SWORD CALLED CURTANA

In the wardrobe account for the year 1483, are "iij swerdes, whereof oon with a flat poynte, called curtana, and ij other swords, all iij swords covered in a yerde di of crymysym tisshue cloth of gold."

The name of curtana for many ages continued to be given to the first royal sword in England. It existed as long ago as the reign of Henry III., at whose coronation (A.D. 1236) it was carried by the Earl of Chester. We find it at the coronations of Edward II. and Richard II.; also in the time of Henry IV., Richard III., and Henry VII.; and among the royal arms of Edward VI. we read of "a swerde called curtana."

Can any of your readers explain the origin of the name curtana, a sword so famous that it carries us back to the days of ancient chivalry, when it was wielded by the Dane Uggiero, or by the still more famed Orlando.

IS THE DOMBEC THE DOMESDAY OF ALFRED?

I beg to propose the following "Query":—Is the Dombec, a work referred to in the Laws of Edward the Elder, the same as what has been called the Domesday or Winchester Book of Alfred the Great? I incline to think that it is not, and shall be much obliged to any of your correspondents, learned in the Anglo-Saxon period of our history, who will give himself the trouble of resolving my doubts.

Sir Henry Spelman, in his Glossary voce Dombec, calls it the Liber Judicialis of the Anglo-Saxons; and says it is mentioned in the first chapter of the laws of Edward the Elder, where the king directs his judges to conduct themselves in their judicial proceedings as on [Old English: thaere dom bec stand], that is, as is enjoined in their Dome Book.—"Quod," he continues, "an de præcedentium Regum legibus quæ hodie extant, intelligendum sit: an de alio quopiam libro hactenus non prodeunte, incertum est."

But this uncertainty does not seem to have attached itself to the mind of Sir William Blackstone; for in the third section of the Introduction prefixed to his Commentaries on the Laws of England, he informs us that our antiquaries "tell us that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his Dome Book, or Liber Judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom." This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of King Edward IV., but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law, the penalties for misdemeanors, and the forms of judicial proceedings. Thus much may be at least collected from that injunction to observe it, which we find in the Laws of King Edward the Elder, the son of Alfred.—"Omnibus qui reipublicæ præsunt etiam atque etiam mando, ut omnibus æquos se præbeant judices, perinde ac in judiciali libro (Saxonice, [Old English: dom bec]) scriptum habetur: nec quidquid formident quin jus commune (Saxonice, [Old English: folcrihte]) audactes libereque dicant."

But notwithstanding this, it appears to me by no means conclusive, that the Dombec referred to in the Laws of Edward the Elder and the Liber Judicialis of Alfred are the same; on the contrary, Alfred's Liber Judicialis seems to have been known not under the name of Dombec, but under that of the Winchester Roll, from the circumstance of its having been principally kept at Winchester: and Sir Henry Spelman says, the Domesday Book of William the Conqueror was sometimes called Rotulus Wintoniæ, a similitudine antiquoris, from its resemblance to an older document preserved at Winchester. And he quotes Ingulphus Abbot of Croyland, who says, "Iste rotulus (i.e. the Domesday Book of William) vocatus est Rotulus Wintoniæ, et ab Anglicis pro sua generalitate, omnia tenementa totius terræ integre continente Domesday cognominatur." And the he proceeds, "Talem rotulum et multum similem; ediderat quondam Rex Alfredus, in quo totam terram Angliæ per comitatus, centurias, et decurias descripserat, sicut prænotatur. Qui quidem Rotulus Wintoniæ vocatus est, quia deponebatur apud Wintoniam conservandus," &c.

Here is nothing said of this work being called [Old English: dom bec]: neither does Spelman, in his enumeration of the works of Alfred, give the least intimation that any one of his collections of laws was called [Old English: dom bec].

We know, indeed, that Alfred compiled a code of laws for his subjects; but whether any part of them has been preserved, or how much of them is embodied in subsequent codes, cannot now be determined. Asser mentions that he frequently reprimanded the judges for wrong judgments; and Spelman, that he wrote "a book against unjust magistrates," but any complete body of laws, if such was ever framed by Alfred, is now lost; and that attributed to him in Wilkin's Leges Anglo-Saxon, is held in suspicion by most writers.

For these reasons, and considering that Sir William Blackstone's knowledge of English history was rather superficial, I incline to the belief, that the [Old English: dom bec] referred to in the laws of Edward the Elder, was some collection of laws made prior to the time of Alfred: this might clearly be the case, as Sharon Turner informs us that the Saxon laws were committed to writing as early as the commencement of the 7th century.

The opinions of your learned correspondents on this disputed point may be of much interest to many of your readers, and to none more than to

East Winch.

MINOR QUERIES