Curiosities of Literature Volume Ii Part 25

Thus much have I written in favour of Sir Symonds D'Ewes's keen relish of a "stingie anagram;" and on the error of those literary historians, who do not enter into the spirit of the age they are writing on.

We find in the Scribleriad, the ANAGRAMS appearing in the land of false wit.

But with still more disorder'd march advance, (Nor march it seem'd, but wild fantastic dance,) The uncouth ANAGRAMS, distorted train, s.h.i.+fting, in double mazes, o'er the plain.

C. ii. 161.

The fine humour of Addison was never more playful than in his account of that anagrammatist, who, after shutting himself up for half a year, and having taken certain liberties with the name of his mistress, discovered, on presenting his anagram, that he had misspelt her surname; by which he was so thunderstruck with his misfortune, that in a little time after he lost his senses, which, indeed, had been very much impaired by that continual application he had given to his anagram.

One Frenzelius, a German, prided himself on perpetuating the name of every person of eminence who died by an anagram; but by the description of the bodily pain he suffered on these occasions, when he shut himself up for those rash attempts, he seems to have shared in the dying pangs of the mortals whom he so painfully celebrated. Others appear to have practised this art with more facility. A French poet, deeply in love, in one day sent his mistress, whose name was _Magdelaine_, three dozen of anagrams on her single name!

Even old Camden, who lived in the golden age of anagrams, notices the _difficilia quae pulchra_, the charming difficulty, "as a whetstone of patience to them that shall practise it. For some have been seen to bite their pen, scratch their heads, bend their brows, bite their lips, beat the board, tear their paper, when their names were fair for somewhat, and caught nothing therein." Such was the troubled happiness of an anagrammatist: yet, adds our venerable author, notwithstanding "the sour sort of critics, good anagrams yield a delightful comfort and pleasant motion in honest minds."[115]

When the mania of making ANAGRAMS prevailed, the little persons at court flattered the great ones at inventing anagrams for them; and when the wit of the maker proved to be as barren as the letters of the name, they dropped or changed them, raving with the alphabet, and racking their wits. Among the ma.n.u.scripts of the grave Sir Julius Caesar, one cannot but smile at a bundle emphatically endorsed "Trash." It is a collection of these court-anagrams; a remarkable evidence of that inept.i.tude to which mere fas.h.i.+onable wit can carry the frivolous.

In consigning this intellectual exercise to oblivion, we must not confound the miserable and the happy together. A man of genius would not consume an hour in extracting even a fortunate anagram from a name, although on an extraordinary person or occasion its appositeness might be worth an epigram. Much of its merit will arise from the a.s.sociation of ideas; a trifler can only produce what is trifling, but an elegant mind may delight by some elegant allusion, and a satirical one by its causticity. We have some recent ones, which will not easily be forgotten.

A similar contrivance, that of ECHO VERSES, may here be noticed. I have given a specimen of these in a modern French writer, whose sportive pen has thrown out so much wit and humour in his ECHOES.[116] Nothing ought to be contemned which, in the hands of a man of genius, is converted into a medium of his talents. No verses have been considered more contemptible than these, which, with all their kindred, have been anathematised by Butler, in his exquisite character of "a small poet" in his "Remains," whom he describes as "tumbling through the hoop of an anagram" and "all those gambols of wit." The philosophical critic will be more tolerant than was the orthodox church wit of that day, who was, indeed, alarmed at the fantastical heresies which were then prevailing.

I say not a word in favour of unmeaning ACROSTICS; but ANAGRAMS and ECHO VERSES may be shown capable of reflecting the ingenuity of their makers.

I preserve a copy of ECHO VERSES, which exhibit a curious picture of the state of our religious fanatics, the Roundheads of Charles I., as an evidence, that in the hands of a wit even such things can be converted into the instruments of wit.

At the end of a comedy presented at the entertainment of the prince, by the scholars of Trinity College, Cambridge, in March, 1641, printed for James Calvin, 1642, the author, Francis Cole, holds in a print a paper in one hand, and a round hat in the other. At the end of all is this humorous little poem.

THE ECHO.

Now, Echo, on what's religion grounded?

_Round-head!_ Whose its professors most considerable?

_Rabble!_ How do these prove themselves to be the G.o.dly?

_Oddly!_ But they in life are known to be the holy, _O lie!_ Who are these preachers, men or women-common?

_Common!_ Come they from any universitie?

_Citie!_ Do they not learning from their doctrine sever?

_Ever!_ Yet they pretend that they do edifie: _O fie!_ What do you call it then, to fructify?

_Ay._ What church have they, and what pulpits?

_Pitts!_ But now in chambers the Conventicle; _Tickle!_ The G.o.dly sisters shrewdly are belied.

_Bellied!_ The G.o.dly number then will soon transcend.

_End!_ As for the temples, they with zeal embrace them.

_Rase them!_ What do they make of bishop's hierarchy?

_Archie!_[117]

Are crosses, images, ornaments their scandall?

_All!_ Nor will they leave us many ceremonies.

_Monies!_ Must even religion down for satisfaction?

_Faction!_ How stand they affected to the government civil?

_Evil!_ But to the king they say they are most loyal.

_Lye all!_ Then G.o.d keep King and State from these same men.

_Amen_!

ORTHOGRAPHY OF PROPER NAMES.

We are often perplexed to decide how the names of some of our eminent men ought to be written; and we find that they are even now written diversely. The truth is, that our orthography was so long unsettled among us, that it appears by various doc.u.ments of the times which I have seen, that persons were at a loss how to write their own names, and most certainly have written them variously. I have sometimes suspected that estates may have been lost, and descents confounded, by such uncertain and disagreeing signatures of the same person. In a late suit respecting the d.u.c.h.ess of Norfolk's estate, one of the ancestors has his name printed _Higford_, while in the genealogy it appears _Hickford_. I think I have seen Ben _Jonson's_ name written by himself with an _h_; and _Dryden_ made use of an _i_. I have seen an injunction to printers with the sign-manual of Charles II., not to print Samuel _Boteler_ esquire's book or poem called Hudibras, without his consent; but I do not know whether Butler thus wrote his name. As late as in 1660, a Dr. _Crovne_ was at such a loss to have his name p.r.o.nounced rightly, that he tried six different ways of writing it, as appears by printed books; Cron, Croon, Crovn, Crone, Croone, and Crovne; all of which appear under his own hand, as he wrote it differently at different periods of his life.

In the subscription book of the Royal Society he writes _W. Croone_, but in his will at the Commons he signs _W. Crovne_. _Ray_ the naturalist informs us that he first wrote his name _Wray_, but afterwards omitted the _W_. Dr. _Whitby_, in books published by himself, writes his name sometimes _Whiteby_. And among the Harleian Ma.n.u.scripts there is a large collection of letters, to which I have often referred, written between 1620 and 1630, by Joseph _Mead_; and yet in all his printed letters, and his works, even within that period, it is spelt _Mede_; by which signature we recognise the name of a learned man better known to us: it was long before I discovered the letter-writer to have been this scholar. Oldys, in some curious ma.n.u.script memoirs of his family, has traced the family name through a great variety of changes, and sometimes it is at such variance that the person indicated will not always appear to have belonged to the family. We saw recently an advertis.e.m.e.nt in the newspapers offering five thousand pounds to prove a marriage in the family of the Knevetts, which occurred about 1633. What most disconcerted the inquirers is their discovery that the family name was written in six or seven different ways: a circ.u.mstance which I have no doubt will be found in most family names in England. Fuller mentions that the name of _Villers_ was spelt _fourteen_ different ways in the deeds of that family.

I shall ill.u.s.trate this subject by the history of the _names_ of two of our most ill.u.s.trious countrymen, Shakspeare and Rawleigh.

We all remember the day when a violent literary controversy was opened, nor is it yet closed, respecting the spelling of our poet's name. One great editor persisted in his triumphant discovery, by printing _Shakspere_, while another would only partially yield, _Shakspeare_; but all parties seemed willing to drop the usual and natural derivation of his name, in which we are surely warranted from a pa.s.sage in a contemporary writer, who alludes by the name to a conceit of his own, of the _martial_ spirit of the poet.[118] The truth seems to be, then, that personal names were written by the ear, since the persons themselves did not attend to the accurate writing of their own names, which they changed sometimes capriciously, and sometimes with anxious nicety. Our great poet's name appears _Shakspere_ in the register of Stratford church; it is _Shakspeare_ in the body of his will, but that very instrument is indorsed Mr. _Shackspere's_ will. He himself has written his name in two different ways, _Shakspeare_ and _Shakspere_. Mr. Colman says, the poet's name in his own county is p.r.o.nounced with the first _a_ short, which accounts for this mode of writing the name, and proves that the orthoepy rather than the orthography of a person's name was most attended to; a very questionable and uncertain standard.[119]

Another remarkable instance of this sort is the name of Sir Walter _Rawley_, which I am myself uncertain how to write; although I have discovered a fact which proves how it should be p.r.o.nounced.

Rawley's name was spelt by himself and by his contemporaries in all sorts of ways. We find it Ralegh, Raleigh, Rawleigh, Raweley, and Rawly; the last of which at least preserves its p.r.o.nunciation. This great man, when young, subscribed his name "Walter _Raweley_ of the Middle Temple"

to a copy of verses, prefixed to a satire called the Steel-Gla.s.s, in George Gascoigne's Works, 1576. Sir Walter was then a young student, and these verses, both by their spirit and signature, cannot fail to be his; however, this matter is doubtful, for the critics have not met elsewhere with his name thus written. The orthoepy of the name of this great man I can establish by the following fact. When Sir Walter was first introduced to James the First, on the King's arrival in England, with whom, being united with an opposition party, he was no favourite, the Scottish monarch gave him this broad reception: "Rawly! Rawly! true enough, for I think of thee very _Rawly_, mon!" There is also an enigma contained in a distich written by a lady of the times, which preserves the real p.r.o.nunciation of the name of this extraordinary man.

What's bad for the stomach, and the word of dishonour, Is the name of the man, whom the king will not honour.

Thus our ancient personal names were written down by the ear at a period when we had no settled orthography; and even at a later period, not distant from our own times, some persons, it might be shown, have been equally puzzled how to write their names; witness the Thomsons, Thompsons; the Wartons, Whartons, &c.

NAMES OF OUR STREETS.

Lord Orford has in one of his letters projected a curious work to be written in a walk through the streets of the metropolis, similar to a French work, ent.i.tled "Anecdotes des Rues de Paris." I know of no such work, and suspect the vivacious writer alluded in his mind to Saint Foix's "Essais Historiques sur Paris," a very entertaining work, of which the plan is that projected by his lords.h.i.+p. We have had Pennant's "London," a work of this description; but, on the whole, this is a superficial performance, as it regards manners, characters, and events.

That antiquary skimmed everything, and grasped scarcely anything; he wanted the patience of research, and the keen spirit which revivifies the past. Should Lord Orford's project be carried into execution, or rather should Pennant be hereafter improved, it would be first necessary to obtain the original names, or the meanings, of our streets, free from the disguise in which time has concealed them. We shall otherwise lose many characters of persons, and many remarkable events, of which their original denominations would remind the historian of our streets.

I have noted down a few of these modern misnomers, that this future historian may be excited to discover more.

_Mincing-lane_ was _Mincheon-lane_; from tenements pertaining to the Mincheons, or nuns of St. Helen's, in Bishopsgate-street.

_Gutter-lane_, corrupted from _Guthurun's-lane_; from its first owner, a citizen of great trade.

_Blackwall-hall_ was _Bakewell's-hall_, from one Thomas Bakewell; and originally called _Basing's-haugh_, from a considerable family of that name, whose arms were once seen on the ancient building, and whose name is still perpetuated in _Basing's-lane_.

_Finch-lane_ was _Finke's-lane_, from a whole family of this name.

_Thread-needle-street_ was originally _Thrid-needle-street_, as Samuel Clarke dates it from his study there.

_Billiter-lane_ is a corruption of _Bellzetter's-lane_, from the first builder or owner.

_Crutched-friars_ was _Crowched_ or _Crossed-friars_.

_Lothbury_ was so named from the noise of founders at their work; and, as Howell pretends, this place was called _Lothbury_, "disdainedly."

_Garlick-hill_ was _Garlicke-hithe_, or _hive_, where garlick was sold.

_Fetter-lane_ has been erroneously supposed to have some connexion with the _fetters_ of criminals. It was in Charles the First's time written _Fewtor-lane_, and is so in Howell's "Londinopolis," who explains it from "_Fewtors_ (or idle people) lying there as in a way leading to gardens." It was the haunt of these _Faitors_, or "mighty beggars." The _Faitour_, that is, a _defaytor_, or _defaulter_, became _Fewtor_; and in the rapid p.r.o.nunciation, or conception, of names, _Fewtor_ has ended in _Fetter-lane_.