|
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 14
D.
_Scandal against Queen Elizabeth_ (Vol. ii., p. 393.).--Although many of
your correspondents must be well able to reply to P.T.'s Query, I have seen
no notice of it as yet. The note to Burton's _Diary_, in citing Osborn,
ought to have begun with the word which precedes the words quoted. The note
would then have run thus:--
"That Queen Elizabeth had a son, &c., I neglect to insert, as fitter
for a romance than to mingle with so much truth and integrity as I
profess."
In the Add. MSS. 5524. is an apparently modern note, stated to be in the
handwriting of Mr. Ives, to the following effect:--
"I have heard it confidently asserted, that Queen Elizabeth was with
child by the Earl of Essex, and that she was delivered of a child at
Kenilworth Castle, which died soon after its birth, was interred at
Kenilworth, and had a stone put over it, inscribed '_Silentium_.'"
This is doubtless one of the many tales, which, as Osborn says, "may be
found in the black relations of the Jesuits, and some French and Spanish
Pasquilers." These slanderers were chiefly, I believe, Parsons or Persons,
and Sanders, who scrupled at nothing that would tend to blacken the
character and reputation of Elizabeth. Thus besides the above, and other
stories of Elizabeth {12} herself, it was stated by Sanders that her
mother, Anne Boleyn, was Henry VIII.'s own daughter; and that he intrigued,
not only with Anne's mother, but with her sister. P.T. will find these
points, and others which are hardly suited for public discussion, noticed
in the article on ELIZABETH in Bayle's _Dictionary_.
CUDYN GWYN.
_Church of St. Saviour, Canterbury_ (Vol. ii., p. 478.).--I would submit to
Sir Henry Ellis, that the church at Canterbury which is mentioned in the
charter from which he quotes, is termed _Mater et Domina_, not on account
of its greater antiquity, but by reason of its superior dignity; and that
the church referred to is clearly the cathedral church. The charter is one
of confirmation of privileges: it proceeded upon the "admonition of the
most pious Archbishop Liuingus," and "upon consideration of the liberties
_of the monasteries_ situated within Kent." It granted that the church of
the Saviour (_ecclesia Salvatoris_), situated in Canterbury, the mother and
lady of all the churches in the kingdom of England, should be free, and
that no one should have any right therein _save the archbishop and the
monks there serving God_. The whole tenor of the charter, and more
particularly the words last referred to, "archiepiscopum et monachos ibidem
deo famulantes," seem to me to indicate the cathedral church, and no other.
If it be inquired, How then came it to pass that the cathedral, which is
dedicated to Christ, should be described as _ecclesia Salvatoris?_ some
persons may answer, that this apparent blunder is an indication that the
charter is not genuine. But that is not my opinion. The charter is printed
from the register of the cathedral, and if it had been forged by the monks,
they would scarcely have made a mistake upon such a point as the dedication
of their own church. Coming out of such custody, the unusual designation,
as we now esteem it, seems clear proof that the charter is genuine. I would
suggest, either that the cathedral, or a part of it, was really dedicated
to the Saviour; or that the words are to be understood not as indicating
the church of St. Saviour, but the church of the Saviour, that is, Christ.
JOHN BRUCE.
_Pope Ganganelli_ (Vol. ii., p. 464.).--In reply to the inquiry of CEPHAS,
I give you the following anecdote, in the words of the Rev. Dr. Kirk, of
Lichfield, who still survives (and long may he yet survive!) to bear
testimony to its correctness:--
"Charles Plowden travelled with Mr. Middleton; and when at Rome, he
called with Mr. Thorpe to see me at the English college. We walked
together for some time in St. George's Hall, and he quite scandalised
me with the manner in which he spoke of Ganganelli. There is no doubt
that Mr. Plowden had a principal hand in the _Life of Ganganelli_,
which was published in London in 1785. Father Thorpe supplied the
materials (J.T. is subscribed to the letters printed), and Mr. Plowden
arranged them. I brought a packet of letters from Mr. Thorpe to Mr. C.
Plowden, and one or two other packets were brought from him to Mr.
Plowden by other students. 'The contents were so scandalous,' said
Bishop Milner in my hearing, at Oscott, 'that Mr. Weld, with whom Mr.
C. Plowden lived, insisted on the work being suppressed.' The copies
were all bought up, and I have never seen or heard of a copy since I
saw it in Coghlan's shop in 1785. Mr. Cordell, of Newcastle, wrote some
observations upon it. Mr. Conolly, S.J., told me at Oxford, October 17,
1814, that he 'once saw in a corner of Mr. C. Plowden's room, a heap of
papers, some torn, and put there apparently to be burnt. I took up one
of them,' he said, 'which was torn in two.' It contained anecdotes and
observations _against Ganganelli_."
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|