« ZurückWeiter »
Stamford Winchester Worcester Хокк 3
Meteorolog. Diaries for Oct. and Nov. 1791 978 | New Tranflation of Daniel recommended 1006
URBA N, Gent.
Printed for D. HENRY by JOHN NICHOLS, Red Lion Pallage, Fleet-ftreet; where all Letters to the Editor are defired to be addreffed, Pos T-PAID.
978 Meteorological Diaries for October and November, 1791.
State of Weather in October 1791.
3. Wheat feeding upon the fallowed lands generally finished. Bufy taking up winter po tatoes.-Crops injured by the frofts in May and June; the latter-planted crops fuperior to the firft. Turneps generally good crops.-12. Gofaner upon the new ploughed lands.17. Thermometer flood at 80 out of doors 4 o'clock P.M. Goffamer floats. Lombardy poplar nearly ftripped of its foliage.-20. Lightens much at night.-21. Springs rife a little from the preceding heavy rains. Wallflowers, stocks, and fome others, in bloom.-20. A woodcock feen upon the plain.-22. Fieldfares in large flocks,-25. Some feagulls upon the wing.
METEOROLOGICAL TABLE for November, 1791.
Height of Fahrenheit's Thermometer.
Height of Fahrenheit's Thermometer.
37 29,90 cloudy
46 28,8 ain
46 ,8 rain
36 ,70 cloudy
47 50 47 29,45 rain
53 48 30,02 fair
15 rain at night
44 94 (fair
53 47 29,86 cloudy
W. CARY, Mathematical Inftrument-Maker, oppofite Arundel-Street, Strand.
BEING THE FIFTH NUMBER OF VOL. LXI. PART II.
Mr.URBAN, College of Arms, Nov. 17. XXN your last month's Magazine, p. 883, Dr. Kippis informs you, in a general way, that I have haftily and indif(criminately blamed the authors of the "Biogra phia Britannica" for faying that the Lady Arabella Stuart was "far from being either beautiful in her perfon, or from being diftinguished by any extraordinary qualities of mind." In order to free my felf from a cenfure which 13 delivered to the publick under fo very refpectable an authority, I muft request, after Dr. Kippis's example, that you will favour me by infecting what I have faid on the fubje&t, for the information of fuch of your readers as may not have feen my late publication.
"The authors of the Biographia Bri. tannica inform us, that the Lady Arabella "was far from being beautiful in her perfon." As it may be prefumed that thele gentlemen are not very ambitious of being efteemed tirit-rate judges of perfonal beauty, I hope they will not be much difplealed at the evidence which the engraving prefixed to this volume akords again their obfervation. But then they tell us, likewife, that he was "far from being ditisguished by any extraordinary qualites of mind;" and quote Winwood's Memorials, voi. 11. p. 281, in fupport of that affertion. Now it is fingularly unfortunate for them, that the information imparted by the paffage cited from Winwood directly invalidates the latter remark. It is in a letter from Mr. John More to that minifte, dated June 18, 1607. "On Saturday lali," fays Mr. More, "the Countcfs of Shrewfoury was lodged in the Tower, where the is like long to reft, as well as the Lady Arabella. The laft-named Lady an
* The reference in the last edition of the Biographia Britannica is, by miitake, to vol. Jil. p. 281.
fwered the Lords, at her examination, with good judgement and difcretion; but the other is faid to be utterly without reafon, crying out that all is but tricks and giggs, &c." To prevent a mifconception of this fair lady's character, which the accidental tranfpofition of perfons in a book of reputation might lead to, is my only reafon for noticing the mistake. Were it likely that this collection fhould merit an equal fhare of attention with that great work, the correction would be needlefs; for the
letter before us bears a fufficient teftimony of the good fenfe, refined educa tion, elegance of manners, and lively difpofition of the writer," &c. Illuftra tions of Brith Hijlory, &c. vol. 111. pp. 178, 179.
This extract, I hope, will exonerate me of Dr. Kippis's charge, by proving that I did not mean to blame the authors of the Biographia Britannica merely for uling the allertions in queftion.
How often writers are misled by falfe reprefentations, how frequently confuled by jarring and opponite accounts, every man, who hath employed himfelf in hiftorical and biographical relearches, knows by painful experience. But in this cate a favourable evidence is cited to prove an unfavourable tale, and truth is called upon to bear witnels to an error.
With regard to Dr. Kippis's note on the fecond imprettion, which accompa nies his letter to you, I freely contels that I never faw it before, though I confulted that edition. I met with a plain and pofitive declaration in the very beginning of the article, and could fcarcely expect to find it refuted, at the diftance of five pages, by a note which has no mark of reference to the objectionable plage in the text. Had it fallen under my obfervation, perhaps [ fhould not have adverted to it; for I
hould have felt no inclination to fuggett an obvious queftion, viz. Why did not the authors of the Biographia Britannica examine the letter in Winwood
980 Mr. Lodge to Dr. Kippis.-Bow-Bridge.-The Lords Ros? [Nov.
before they admitted an apparent con. tradiction to its fuppofed evidence?
I fhould have contented myself with the honour of correcting one of the few material errors in that great and valua ble work; for I must fill think it a material error, inafmuch as a fingle quotation from Winwood's Memorials is fufficient to fhake the credit of an whole library of memoirs and epigrams. I will fay no more, Mr. Urban, on this fubject, which feems to me to ie of fmall importance, except as it relates to the caufe of truth; nor would any other motive have induced me to trouble you thus far, than a wish to prove that I have too much refpect for Dr. Kippis, and too much kindness for myfelf, to differ from him haftily or wantonly on peints of biography.
Mr. URBAN, Leicester, Nov. 20. HE bridge which you once honoured with the name of RIALTO, the accidental monument of that brave king Richard III. which has been long steemed, and vifited by every curious ftranger, as one of the many fragments of antiquity with which this place abounds, dropped yesterday on the grave of that Monarch's bones *. The foundation on the fide of St, Auftin's well has been lately vifibly undermining by the fiream that palled under it. Its defludion appeared to me, fome time fince, haftily approach ing. It fell yesterday about 11 o'clock, occafioned, I apprehend, by the waters, which had fweiled by the late rains to nearly of a level with the banks. I can. not learn that any perfon was paffing at that time, although on a maiket-day, The noile it made in the water, when it fell, I find was heard at fome confiderable diftance.
The hiftory of Bow-BRIDGE is too well known to need much of a recital,
By another friend at Leicester we are informed, that "the whole bridge difappeared in an inftant during the late floods, and that not even a blade of grafs on the banks feems to have been damaged by the filing of the fide-walls. Mr. Cradock, of Gumley, proprietor of the bridge, wished much to have had it repaired; but on infpection by fome master-builders, when the flood fubfided, it was found to be demolished paft all recovery."
We have the pleafure to add, that a beautiful view of it was taken laft fummer, by Mr. Schuebbelie, for Mr. Nichols's intend ed" Hiftory of Leicesterfhire." EDIT.
Thus far may be neceffary. It was built originally for the religious of the house of the Auguftine friars as a paffage over the old river Soar, now called the BackBream. At the diffolution of religious houfes, when the monument of Richard III. was deftroyed at the Grev-friais church, Leicester, the rabble dug up his bones, carried them in derifion and triumph through the fireets, and, when tired with thus infulting his memory, they threw his bones into that part of the river over which Bow-bridge flood. Yours, &c. J. T.
ON perufing Bridges's Northampton
fhire, I am much pleafed with the following concife epitaph (vol. II. p. 340), which is faid to have formerly had place, in the church of Stoke Albany, on the altar-tomb of a man completely armed, lying on his back, with his hands clafped in the gefture of prayer:
Chic jacet Johannes Rofs
If any one can furnish a clue to the hiftory of this good companion, it will be efteemed a fingular favour; and ftill more fo, Mr. Urban, if any of your ingenious correfpondents in that neighbourhood (it is not very far either from Rockingham, Harborough, or Kettering,) would kindly turn fh you with a drawing of this curious monument, par ticularly of the figure of the knight.
Another knight of this family (Sir Robert de Ros) was deputed by King Henry VI, in 1443, to perform the of fice of Chamberlain to Abp. Stafford on the day of his inftallation at Canterbury; an office which of right belonged to his nephew Thomas Lord Ros (then a minor) from the tenure of fome manor belonging to the fee. Query, what manor was it and by whom is it now pofletfed?
One query more: Cecilia Countels of Rutland (relict of Thomas the fixth earl) is faid, in Collins's Peerage (vol. I. p. 438), to have been buried in St. bey, to lately as 1653. No trace of any Nicholas's chapel, in Weftminster Ab
monument is now to be feen there. Was there ever any epitaph, and what? The figure of a Lady Ros, who died in 1593 (fplaced from its original fituation to make room for the late Dutchels of Northumberland), is fill to be feen there, mounted on the top of an adjoining tomb. Yours, &c. J. N.
HE late truly eminent Bishop of
guage of the Old Teftament will fcarcely be called in queftion: he had his own at
TLondon is jufly characterifed in command, tu exprefs himfelf with clear
pp. 1183, 4, 5, of your last volume; and his tranflation of Ifaiah is reprefented as "executed in a manner adequate to the fuperior qualifications of the perfon who undertook it." Some learned layman, however, has been of a different opinion, and has ventured to publifh a new trantlation, with remarks on many parts of that by the Bifhop. A candid difcuffion of this new tranflation has lately appeared under the title of "Short Remarks" upon it, in a Letter to the Author, by John Sturges, LL.D;" in which the Doctor finds himfelf obliged to confefs, that, in one inftance, he " never faw plain words more ftudionfly perverted from their obvious meaning;" and that he "cannot help fmiling at the affertion "that the Bishop appears, on many occafions, to have been mifled by early prejudices, and an undue attachment to eftablished opinions." Dr. Sturges immediately adds, that "it is certain that fuch prejudices and attachments do not belong exclufively to the divines of an eftablished church." Dr. Prieftley, and h's Unitarian band of difcip es, who at fect to be denominated rational Chrif tians, fufficiently demonftrate the truth of this obfervation, notwithstanding their whining pretentions to liberality of fen
The conclufion of Dr. Sturges's pamphlet is well worthy of tranfcription: It is an eflential qualification of a tranflator of any part of the Holy Scriptures to be attached to no fyllem; to Bender the text before him as he finds it, except there be reafon to fuppofe that text to be corrupt, and capable of being amended or reftored by the aid of juft and fober criticiim. But it is betraying his truft to turn afide from the direct path into any favourite track; or to call in the aid of criticifm when it is not wanted, and ought not to be applied, to lend an indirect fupport to any preconceived opinions of his own.
"Such, I am perfuaded, was Bifhop Lowth's integrity in this refpect, that he would never intentionally make any part of Holy Scripture thus fubfervient to any partialities of his own; or mean to deliver that as the tente of it which did
not perfectly approve itlelf to his underftanding; an understanding as little capable as any you can well imagine of be. ing influenced by weak and unreasonable prejudices. His knowledge of the lan
nefs, elegance, and force: in criticat fkill, and in corre& tafte with respect to general literature, few excelled him; but hardly can one be found, who had, like hin, entered into the character, and caught the fpirit, of Hebrew poetry."
The foregoing extract cannot but be acceptable to many of your numerous readers; and, as you have not hitherto taken notice of this publication, the intelligence of it is the more readily communicated by ACADEMICUS.
AS fketches and hints of biography,
and critical remarks upon our Englith poets, have been, for a long courfe of years, favourite fubjects of I thall be performing no difagreeable your moft invaluable Mifcellany, I trust talk by fending you a series of anec dotes and remarks on many of our English Bards; particularly thofe who, though not the leaft beautiful, are the moft obfolete. That there are many fuch, who deferve a thousand times greater honour than the greater part of thole admitted into the body of English Poets, it feems to me not very difficult to prove. But, firft, a word of a modern port or two. That beautiful paffage in GRAY'S Progrefs of Poetry,
Yet oft before his infant eyes would run
With orient hues, unborrowed of the fun, is borrowed, as a gentleman of elegant literature pointed out to me, from the following, in Sir William Temple's Effay on Poetry, in his Mifcellanea. Speaking of the qualities of a poet, "there muft be," fays he, "a fpritely imagination or fancy, fertile in a thoufand productions, ranging over infinite ground, piercing into every corner, and, by the light of that true poetical fire, difcovering a thousand little bodies or images in the world, and fimilitudes among them, unfeen to common eyes, and which could not be difcovered without the rays of that fun."
Again, in the fame ode:
Till down the Eaftern cliffs afar