Κων.

pides, invoking the vengeance of heaven on the author of the existing evils“Ζεῦ, μὴ λάθοι σε τῶν δὲ ὅς αἴτιος και "-which Appian (De Bellis Civil. lib. iii. page 1063, ed. 1670) applies to Marc Antony. Publius Volumnius, from whose narrative of the last moments of Brutus, of which he was witness, Plutarch (in Bruto, cap. 59,) relates the circumstance, could only recollect this single verse of the two pronounced by his great friend. What the other was, became, therefore, a matter of conjecture; but, however devoid of historical sanction, that it was depreciatory of virtue, though, consequently, little worthy of his high character, has obtained general belief, nor is any line to that effect to be found in the Medea, where it is usually supposed to be.

But

Maxims, sayings, and quotations are constantly sought where not to be found, or mistaken in sense, and attributed to a wrong source. In March last, (Gent. Mag. p. 257,) I corrected the common, but erroneous, ascription to Ariosto of the hackneyed quotation, "Andava com. battendo, ed era morto," and pointed out its genuine origin in Berni's rifacciamento of Boiardo's Orlando Inamorato, lib. ii. canto xxiv. The last Edinburgh Review, however, (No. cxlii.) contains a repetition of this error, in, otherwise, a pleasing article on Ranke's "Zur Geschichte der Italienischen Poesien," p. 381, and this, in the very act of discussing the relative merits of Boiardo, Berni, and Ariosto! The sense, or rather nonsense of the line, descriptive of a hero who continued to combat after he had been slain, recalls the correction of an equal impossibility in the same month's Gent. Mag. p. 250, of Dr. Arnold's statement, "that a Roman coin had suffered a diminution in value of twelve hundred per cent.;" that is, as I observed, an impossibility eleven times repeated, the whole having evaporated on the disappearance, and been absorbed on the loss of the first hundred per cent. beyond which the reduction could not proceed. But, obvious as the slightest reflection makes this inference, the sound too frequently misleads writers as well as speakers; and I find that Lord Dudley, and M. Bignon, have fallen into the blunder, in alluding to the depreciation of the Austrian Government paper at different periods. His lordship, in his lately published Correspondence, at page 179, represents this GENT. MAG. VOL. XIV.

And we are told by Dio-Cassius, (lib. 47.) that such an appeal to his companions was made by Brutus, who found the friendly hand he solicited -" παρεκάλεσε τινα τῶν συνόντων ἵνα αὐτόν ἀποκτείνῃ, "-in his literary associate, Strato, the Egean. (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 70.) Such modifications, however, as this one proposed by Barnes, would bend any text to any purpose; but our English commentators are arraigned of the most presumptuous boldness, (Bentley, Davies, Wakefield, &c.) in their editorial labours, by the continental professors, who confidently assert a superiority over us, of critical taste or acumen, in every department of literature-even in the illustration of our own drama. How far founded in truth these foreign pretensions may be, I cannot undertake to determine; but I hail this rivalry of exertion in the field of research as the probable source of general advantage in the paths of study. "Verum hæc certamine nobis ex honesto maneant." (Tacit. iii. 55.)

paper as reduced in 1817 "by excessive issues to twelve hundred per cent. discount." And the French author, directing his observations to 1820, says, (tome ix. 164,) "A la fin de Décembre la valeur nominale du papier était huit cents pour cent de la valeur actuelle.......un mois plutot, il avait perdu jusqu'à douze cents pour cent." Both writers meant that the paper had fallen to the one-twelfth of its professed value; for the mere discount of twelve per cent. or reduction to eighty eight pounds of a hundred, could hardly warrant the language of surprise used in reference to the circumstance.

4 H

ISABEL Countess of Gloucester, the first wife of King John, was the third and youngest daughter of William Earl of Gloucester, (son and heir of Robert, surnamed Consul, Earl of Gloucester, the natural son of King Henry the First,) by Hawise, daughter of Robert Bossu, Earl of Leicester. Robert, the only son of Earl William, died unmarried in 1166. There were three daughters; Mabel, who was married to Almeric Montfort, Comte of Evreux in Normandy; Amicia, married to Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford; and this Isabel.

John, though he in some way acquired the soubriquet of Lackland, yet was in prospect well provided for by his father, Henry the Second, for with Isabel of Gloucester he received the whole Earldom; the King, it is believed, exercising therein his prerogative of bestowing upon whom he pleased the inheritance of an indivisable fief. The other sisters received for portion the sum of one hundred pounds only; though afterwards they each in turn brought the Earldom to their

sons.

The marriage of John and Isabel took place in 1176, when he was only ten years old; but Earl William survived to the year 1183. Thus, at

seventeen, John was Earl of Glouces

ter, and how he could ever seriously have acquired the name of Lackland appears unaccountable. About the year 1187 John was made Count of Mortaigne in Normandy. He was crowned King at Westminster on Ascension-day 1199, and shortly after he obtained a divorce from Isabel, on the grounds of her sterility, and consanguinity in the third degree.

Fourteen years after, John sold his former wife, with her inheritance, reserving the castle of Bristol, for the sum of 20,000 marks, to Geoffrey de Mandevile, Earl of Essex, "who thus over-marrying himself was very much impoverished, and shortly after died." (Sandford.) His death happened in 1216, being mortally wounded in a tournament held in London. Notwithstanding her "sterility," this rich heiress found a third husband in the potent Justiciary, Hubert de Burgh, afterwards Earl of Kent, who had previously married two other rich widows, and was lastly allied to a Princess of Scotland.

At length Isabel died without issue, and it is supposed to have been after her death; that the Earldom of Gloucester devolved first on her nephew Almeric de Montfort, who died without issue about the year 1226. It then came to Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Hertford, the son and heir of Amicia, the second sister; and in that family it descended for three generations, until the reign of Edward the Third.

The Seal of the Countess Isabel was not published in Sandford's Genealo gical History, nor hitherto, it is believed, in any other work. She is represented holding in her right hand a flower, and on her left a hawk. In the verge she is styled Countess of Gloucester and Moretuil or Mortaigne. The original in green wax is append ant to a confirmation of a charter to Margam Abbey, co. Glamorgan, (founded by her grandfather Earl Robert in 1147,) in the possession of C. R. Mansel Talbot, esq. of Margam Park. J. G. N.

I HEREWITH send you a lithographic print (copied in our Plate) of a jewel, and of the portrait of Mr. Barbor, whose name has been given to it, and who narrowly escaped martyrdom, as is explained in the memoir accompanying them. The jewel is

ornamented with rubies, table-diamonds, and pearls, and is estimated to have cost 200l. They are accompanied by the following documents.

"Mr. Barbor, (the father of my great grandfather,) for his firm adherence to the Protestant religion, was in Queen Mary's reign brought into Smithfield to suffer at the stake; but, while he was taking leave of some friends, news came the Queen was dead, so that the Popish party did not dare to put him to death. In remembrance of so great a preservation, the said Mr. Barbor had the effigies of Queen Elizabeth cut upon a stone, bequeathing the jewel to his eldest son, if he had a daughter, and named her Elizabeth, otherwise the jewel should descend to the second son, if the condition was fulfilled by him; but, if not, then to the third son, and so on: this is the account as it has been handed down from father to son, and hitherto there has been an Elizabeth in the family.

"And let it now be known to all whom it may concern, that I, Gabriel Barbor, of Brentwood, do give, after my decease, the said jewel, together with the portrait of the said Mr. Barbor, unto John my eldest son, provided he has a daughter named Elizabeth, and he is also to give the said jewel and picture to his son on the foregoing condition. But if the said condition is not fulfilled in my said son John, then the said jewel and picture shall go to Gabriel my second son; and in case of failure here in this son, then the said jewel and picture shall descend to Richard my third son, he performing the abovesaid condition. But should neither of my sons have a daughter named Elizabeth, then my mind and will is that the said jewel and picture go to my eldest son John Barbor, and his male heirs for

briel Barbor-if no children there, then to my brother Richard Barbor. Witness my hand the 10th day of March 1757. "JOHN BARBOR."

Mrs. Blencowe of Rayne, the present possessor, is the daughter of Richard Barbor, and the granddaughter of Gabriel Barbor of Brentwood, and has had the jewel for many years; it was awarded her on the distribution of her father's effects on account of her name being Elizabeth.

The case of Mr. Barbor is not noticed by Fox, which is unaccountable, except that, as it was not an actual martyrdom, it might not come within the scope of his work. Whiston, however, (who visited Mr. Barbor of Brentwood in 1720,) in his Memoirs, mentions the case in these terms :

"In memory of which providential delivery, Mr. Barbor had a picture of Queen Elizabeth, who saved him, made with ornaments about it; and as he said he hoped Almighty God would accept his will for the deed, and allow him to be a martyr for religion; so he ordered by his will that the same image should be transmitted down in the oldest branch of his family, to all generations, as it is preserved to this day."

If, however, any doubt should still remain of the truth of this tradition, there is this corroboration :-the late Mr. Barbor of the Charter-house, who was unknown to Mrs. Blencowe, and although it is presumed they were related, it is not known in what manner, had a portrait of a gentleman respecting whom the same tradition existed and after his deathhis effects were sold, and in the catalogue the circumstance was mentioned, which induced the Rev. Mr. Valentine of the London Hospital to purchase the portrait; and it is now in his possession.

I cannot but regard as the gem of the collection, so far as it has hitherto proceeded. I mean that upon Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, contained in the 4th Part. Allow me then to offer to your readers a brief sketch of the manifold skill displayed in its compilation-a skill by which the writer, though following in a very beaten track, has contrived to exhibit a larger number of errors than it would probably be possible to find in any other ten columns of the work. Most of these are ingeniously accomplished by a combination, or rather confusion, of the statements of the original authorities, the writer avoiding the trouble of thinking and writing for himself, by merely giving a graceful polish to the olden style, a condensation of the phrases, and a consequent alteration of the facts.

It is to be premised, that the sources from which the biography of the Prelate has been derived, are the Preface to

his Sermons by his executor Bishop Buckeridge, and his Life composed by his secretary Henry Isaacson, (the latter being an amplification of the former,) and no one could object to the words of such excellent authorities being quoted, if given in their name, and faithfully cited. But the New General Biographer does not choose to do this; the language does not satisfy his exquisite taste, and he must amend it by his own standard. How far he has succeeded, let us now proceed to examine:

1. As to the Bishop's father, we are told that he

was, during the latter years of his life, one of the masters of the Trinityhouse."

"The members of this Corporation," says Stowe, "are called Elder and Younger Brothers. Their government is by a Master," &c. and if the New General Biographer will refer to his authority he will find that Isaacson does not state that Mr. Andrewes was 66 one of the masters," but " one of the society, and master."

2. His education,

"At an early age, young Andrewes was sent to Cooper's free-school, in Radeliffe," &c.

The reader will suppose it to be a school kept or founded by a Mr.

"the

Cooper, but Isaacson says, Coopers' free schoole," i. e. the school maintained by the Company of Coopers.

3 and 4. His gratitude to his pedagogues:

under his early masters, and their care "The progress which he thus made and attention, was never forgotten by him in his most exalted state; for he ever studied to do them good, and to repay them with grateful kindness. Dr. Ward he promoted to the parsonage of Waltham; Mr. Mulcaster he assisted liberally, and left his son Peter a legacy of 201. And, as if desirous of never forgetting the respect which he owed to his early schoolly over the door, to serve as a constant master, he placed his picture conspicuousmemorial of one who had been the earliest

director of his studies."

This is an amplification of a passage of Bishop Buckeridge's preface: "Their pains and care he so carefully remembered all his life long, that he studied always how to do good to them and theirs; in which gratefulness he promoted Dr. Ward to the parsonage of Waltham: and ever loved his master, Mulcaster, during his life, and was a continual helper to him and his son; and, as if he had made Mr. Mulcaster his tutor or supervisor, he placed his picture over the door of his study, whereas, in all the rest of the house, you could scarcely see a picture.' In his tasteful paraphrase the New General Biographer (3) has overlooked the words and theirs, has lost sight of his own previous statement that the first schoolmaster was Mr. Ward, and has disregarded Isaacson's information that Dr. Ward was son of the schoolmaster, and the living was Bishop's Waltham in Hampshire. (4) He has forgotten Ward altogether, and made Mulcaster "the earliest director of his studies."

5. Dr. Watts, and his "posterity:"

"He often lamented, in after life, that he never could find a fit opportunity of showing his thankfulness to Dr. Watts, or his posterity."

onely one, upon whom (being a scholar) he bestowed preferments in Pembrooke Hall and (he dying there) his Lordship much grieved that he could heare of no more of that kinred, to whom he might expresse his further thankfulnesse." Thus we see what the Bishop wanted in this case was, not an opportunity, (he had, and made good use of, one,) but further objects of his bounty.

6. His Preferments. The Biographer details Andrewes's early preferments in this lucid manner. He tells us that Sir Francis Walsingham,

46 designing to make him a reader of controversies in Cambridge, procured for him, first, the lease of the parsonage of Alton, in Hampshire; afterwards, the vicarage of St. Giles's Cripplegate; then, in 1589, the prebend of St. Pancras, and residentiary's place of St. Paul's; and, eventually, a prebend of Southwell."

Now (6) what Bishop Buckeridge says, is, that Walsingham's "intent was to make him Reader (not a reader) of Controversies in Cambridge; " and (7) that "he assigned to him, as I am informed, the lease of the parsonage of Alton, Hants, which, after his (Walsingham's) death, he returned to his lady, which she never knew or thought of." Most biographers would term Walsingham's bounty giving, not "procuring:" but perhaps the original statement was not well founded, as Isaacson omits it, and says that Walsingham "wrought meanes to make him," that is, properly speaking (in modern language), procured him the other preferments. It may be observed that Walsingham died in 1590; having in May 1589 procured two prebends for Andrewes, which are acknowledged in an autograph letter of the divine preserved in the Harleian MSS. and here printed, it is said for the first

time.

(8) "the prebend of St. Pancras, and residentiary's place of St. Paul's." One would here suppose there was only one such "place;" but Bishop Buckeridge correctly says, "a Prebendary Residentiary's place in St. Paul's."

Again, of his higher preferments it is said,

"Some few years after this (1589), he was appointed Chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth, who was so much de

lighted with him as a preacher, that she conferred upon him, first, a prebend; and afterwards, in 1601, the deanery of Westminster, on the death of Dr. Goodman. He preached before her very frequently, in the years 1589, 1590, 1593, 1594, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, (upon the expedition of the earl of Essex,) and in 1602; but, notwithstanding his known piety and ability, like his great contemporary Hooker, he was never raised, during this reign, to any higher ecclesiastical dignity than his deanery at Westminster. He had indeed (according to his biographers) many offers of a bishopric, and might readily have obtained this promotion would he but have consented to an alienation of revenues, which he consistently and piously resisted. But though his merits were neglected by Queen Elizabeth, he was esteemed and rewarded by her successor King James, to whom (whatever may have been his faults) this country is indebted for encouraging and rewarding, and bringing into publicity, those great men whom his predecessor suffered to languish in obscurity, who have justly been esteemed, throughout the world, the glory of the English nation."

This last sentence is exceedingly fine, and I would match it for style and eloquence against any in the volume. But let us look a little closer into what is more important-its truth. Who are the great men that James brought forward from their obscurity for the benefit of the world? are they Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham ? or the worthless Philip Herbert, Earl of Dorset and Montgomery, and the profligate James Hay, Earl of Carlisle ? These are the only men, according to my historical reading, that James particularly exerted himself to bring forward; but there is one whom he suppressed and sacrificed, who will far outweigh them all. It can never be forgotten that James first kept in a course of perpetual imprisonment, and afterwards immolated to the enemies of his country, that many-gifted man Sir Walter Ralegh. Further, his reign witnessed the disgrace both of Coke and of Bacon. And whom will the New Biographer name as the really great men that rose under James that would not have risen under Elizabeth? Was not Andrewes himself in a fair course of rising? born in 1555, introduced to the Queen about 1589, he was then only thirty-four. Would the New