|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 12
I had originally supposed that this lady was a member of the house of
_Sousa_, which bore a coat of four crescents, quartered with the arms of
Portugal (without the border); and in that belief a paragraph was written
by Sir H. Nicolas, accompanied by a pedigree, to show the connexion of
Beatrix Lady Talbot, through her great-great-grandfather, with the royal
line of Portugal, and, consequently, with Beatrix Countess of Arundel; but
these were subsequently struck out. By an oversight, however, the note
referring to some works on the genealogy of the house of Sousa has been
allowed to remain at p. 87. of the _Collectanea_; and as it stands at
present, it has no corresponding passage in the text. For the information
that Lady Talbot bore the arms of Pinto, I was really indebted to a
Portuguese gentleman, the Chevalier M.T. de Moraes Sarmento, who published
(anonymously) a small volume entitled _Russell de Albuquerque, Conto Moral,
por um Portuguez_, 12mo. Cintra, 1833, at p. 331-2. of which work is a
brief notice of the two Beatrixes, from memoranda furnished by myself. At
the time I collected the information given to Sir H. Nicolas, I wrote to
the Earl of Shrewsbury, to inquire whether among the family papers any
evidence could be found, to clear up the history of his ancestress; but his
lordship informed me he had no means of elucidating the difficulty, and
that in the earliest pedigree in his possession (drawn up in the reign of
Elizabeth), Beatrix Lady Talbot was not only described as daughter of the
King of Portugal, but had the royal arms of Portugal assigned to her,--a
proof, by the way, that even in pedigrees compiled and attested by heralds,
there are statements which are not borne out by historic documents. I am
still, therefore, like SCOTUS, anxious to know more about this lady, and
hope some of your correspondents versed in Portuguese genealogies may
supply the required information.
F. MADDEN.
* * * * *
REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES.
_Passage in Hamlet_ (Vol. ii., p.494.).--The word _modern_, instead of
_moderate_, in my editions of Shakspeare, is a printer's error, which shall
be corrected in the edition I am now publishing. To a person unfamiliar
with printing, it might appear impossible that any compositor, with this
copy before him,--
"While one with moderate haste might tell a hundred,"
should substitute--
"While one with modern haste might tell a hundred."
And yet such substitution of one word for another is a constant anxiety to
every editor. Some may consider that a competent editor would detect such a
gross blunder. Unfortunately, the more familiar the mind is with the
correct reading, the more likely is such an error to escape the eye. Your
correspondent who did me the favour to point out this blunder will, I
trust, receive this explanation, as also your other readers, in a candid
spirit. The error has run through three editions, from the circumstance
that the first edition furnished the copy for the subsequent ones. The
passage in question was not a doubtful text, and therefore required no
special editorial attention. The typographical blunder is, however, an
illustration of the difficulties which beset the editors of our old
dramatists especially. Had the word _modern_ occurred in an early edition
of Shakspeare, it would have perplexed very commentator; but few would have
ventured to substitute the correct word, _moderate_. The difficulty lies in
finding the just mean between timidity and rashness. With regard to
typographical errors, the obvious ones naturally supply their own
correction; but in the instance before us, as in many others, it is not
easy to detect the substitution, and the blunder is perpetuated. If a
compositor puts _one_ for _won_--a very common blunder--the context will
show that the ear has misled the eye; but if he change an epithet in a
well-known passage, the first syllable of the right and the wrong words
being the same, and the violation of the propriety not very startling, the
best diligence may pass over the mistake. It must not be forgotten that
many gross errors in typography occur after the sheet is gone to press,
through the accidents that are constantly happening to the movable types.
CHARLES KNIGHT.
_Passage in Tennyson_ (Vol. ii., p. 479.)--The following extract from Sir
James Mackintosh's _History of England_ vol. ii. p. 185., will explain this
passage:
"The love of Margaret Roper continued to display itself in those
outwardly unavailing tokens of tenderness to his (her father, Sir
Thomas More's) remains, by which affection seeks to perpetuate itself;
ineffectually, indeed, for the object, but very effectually for {11}
softening the heart and exalting the soul. She procured his head be
taken down from London Bridge, where more odious passions had struggled
in pursuit of a species of infernal immortality by placing it. She kept
it during her life as a sacred relic, and was buried with that object
of fondness in her arms, nine years after she was separated from her
father."
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|