Mr. Fox properly states that " It is now ascertained beyond all doubt, that alliteration is the chief characteristic of Anglo-Saxon verse; and this is also accompanied with a rhythm which clearly distinguishes it from prose; but in many parts of these metres, as they stand in Junius's MS. and Rawlinson's printed edition of 1698, there is neither alliteration nor rhythm; to say nothing of the obscurity which arises from this faulty collocation. It has, therefore, been my endeavour in this edition to restore the text to what I conceive to have been its original purity, by preserving the alliteration and rhythm; and by this change in the punctuation, the sense of passages which before was in many places doubtful, is become clear and obvious. This alteration, as it is merely a change in the punctuation without any variation in the original orthography, will not, I trust, be considered an unpardonable liberty."-p. 5, Pref. "The change in punctuation occurring very frequently, it would be tedious to remark upon every case; the reader is, therefore, referred to Rawlinson's edition, if he question the correctness of the present text. As it has been my desire to present a pure and correct edition of the Saxon text, I hope those who differ with me in opinion will consider the difficulty as well as importance of the undertaking."p. 6, Pref.

There can scarcely be a greater cause for suspecting that a man is wrong, than his over-confidence that he is right; his contracted view only allows him a limited prospect, hence he sees no difficulties, and is dogmatical and dictatorial. Such a spirit injures the cause, however good, which it espouses. On the other hand, when a mind is so enlarged as to take an expanded view, difficulties are seen, and, therefore, generally avoided. It is in literature and science as in nature, the higher the mountain is ascended, the more extended is the view. One height after another has successively brought so many new objects before the mind, and enabled it to look down upon old objects with an enlarged view, in so clear a light as to bring a deep conviction that another elevation may still extend the prospect. This experience ever produces a modest dif

fidence, and an unwillingness to make unlimited assertions. Mr. Fox has

written under this conviction, and has produced a work most creditable to himself, and useful to Anglo-Saxon students. We wish the discussion concerning the Oxford professors had partaken more of the spirit here commended. When the professor's chair at Oxford next becomes vacant, we feel convinced Mr. Fox's modest but well-deserved claims cannot be forgotten.

Specimen of a New Translation of the Luciad of Camoens, &c. by Henry Christmas, of St. John's coll. Camb.

WHILE all lovers of poetry must admire the spirit and elegance of Mickle's translation of Camoen's noble Poem, they at the same time might justly desire one more faithful to the Poet's meaning, and more closely resembling the original in the form and structure of the metre. This Mr. Christmas has attempted to do in the present specimen, and not we think without success. His versification is harmonious and correct, his language elegant, and his conception spirited and poetic. We will give a short specimen of the rival versions.

Young scion of a race, far dearer care Of Heaven than all the imperial pomp and splendour, [bear! That the broad bosom of the west doth See thine own warlike shield: for present there, [tory, Gleams the dread sign of ancient vicSymbol that once Heaven's monarch deign'd to wear

The form of man, and died on earth that we [hell be free. Might from the bondage dire of sin and Lord of a thousand lands! whose empire [beam, First smiles beneath the morning's early Shines out, when in mid-heaven the sun doth ride,

wide

And glows beneath his latest evening gleam; [arm we deem Oh, King! whose sword, whose potent Full soon the power of Ishmael's sons shall shake, [dream Startle the eastern Turk from his dull Of ease and of security, and make The dark Gentoo that drinks the sacred river, quake, &c.

This specimen we consider to be quite good enough to induce the author to proceed in his undertaking. It will be seen that a few of his expressions are weak, and some not so skilfully turned as they ought to be; but his measure we decidedly prefer to Mickle's; and thus differing from his predecessor, both in the structure of his verse and in the plan of execution, we shall willingly accept two versions of Camoens, executed on different principles, as we possess two versions of Homer.

legitimation per subsequens matrimonium.' The first of these papers is the only one that possesses any great interest on this side the Tweed, and we shall take advantage of the opportunity it affords us of laying before our readers some brief remarks upon the questions respecting the death of Richard II. which have been recently agitated amongst antiquaries. We shall thus be enabled to do justice to the present author, by clearly exhibiting the new information he has contributed. Before entering, however, upon the subject, we must express our displeasure at the scornful and contemptuous style which he too frequently adopts in his allusions to Mr. Tytler. Such a style ought to be carefully abstained from in all merely literary controversies, and certainly, in the present case, is most unjust. Mr. Tytler may be right or wrong in his opinions respecting Richard II., or any other disputed point of history, but his great merits as an historian are unquestionable. His works entitle him to the respect of all his fellowlabourers, and more especially of those whose attainments do not exceed the comparatively humble standard of the present author.

On the 27th October, 1399, Richard II. was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in some unfrequented place. He was to be guarded by sure and sufficient persons; no one who had formerly belonged to his household was to be permitted about his person, and these directions were to be carried into effect with the greatest possible secresy. At the time of passing this judgment,' Richard was confined in the Tower of London. was afterwards conveyed to Leeds Castle, in Kent, and thence to Pontefract.

He

conspiracy was revealed on the 5th January, 1400, and before the middle of the same month all the principal conspirators had probably ceased to exist, and with them had ended the hope of a re-action in favour of Richard. One of the measures adopted by these conspirators, was to spread abroad reports that Richard had escaped from custody, and was stationed at Pontefract, at the head of a large army. The latter part of the rumour was certainly untrue, and, in all probability, it was equally so that he had effected his escape. True or false, however, the notion was extensively circulated, and exercised an influence over the public mind, which by no means ceased upon the total defeat of the conspiracy.

In the course of the succeeding month of February, the metropolis appears to have been agitated by contradictory rumours respecting Richard; it being asserted on the one side that he was dead, with probably many contradictions as to the manner of his death, and, on the other, that he was living either at Pontefract, or elsewhere. With a view to quiet the public mind, the council determined to speak to the King upon the subject, and to recommend to him that, if their late Sovereign were alive, he should be strictly guarded, and, if dead, that his body should be openly shewn to the people. It will be observed that at that time the council were in utter ignorance of Richard's fate, and consequently, if it were the result of foul play, it is to Henry, and not to his advisers, that the crime must be attributed.

Shortly after this recommendation, it was rumoured that Richard had died upon St. Valentine's day, and a corpse which was stated to be his, was brought from Pontefract to London, and was exhibited to the people at the principal intervening places. In London it was exposed to view at St. Paul's on two successive days, and is said to have been seen by twenty thousand persons, the face being uncovered from the lower part of the forehead to the throat. Henry attended the funeral ceremony at St. Paul's, and the body was immediately afterwards conveyed to Langley, in Hertfordshire, where it was interred. His son and successor removed the

coffin to Westminster Abbey, to a tomb prepared by Richard himself.

It is contended by one of the two parties which have arisen in the antiquarian world upon this subject, that this exhibition of a body was a mere farce intended to deceive the people; that the body exhibited was not that of Richard, and that, in point of fact, Richard was not then dead, but had escaped into Scotland. The other party insists, of course, upon the bona fides of the exhibition, and endeavours to establish the fact that Richard was at that time really dead.

Upon referring to the early authorities, there may be found three dif

ferent accounts of the manner of his death. One is, that he was assassinated by Sir Piers Exton; but that account, although rendered popular by having been adopted by Shakspeare, cannot be traced to any satisfactory authority, and has therefore been generally abandoned. The second and third accounts attribute his death to starvation, but differ as to its occasion; the one declaring it to have been voluntary, springing out of grief for the loss of his relatives and friends who were put to death on account of the defeated conspiracy, and the other enforced, by order of Henry IV. The authority of all these accounts is shaken by their being based by the Chronicles themselves upon no better foundation than mere rumour. They are all qualified by, as is reported, as is commonly said,' or similar doubtful phrases; but it will be remarked that this doubtfulness affects merely the manner of Richard's death, and, in answer to the advocates for his escape, it is sufficient if good reason can be shewn for a belief in the fact of his death, even although nothing had ever been rumoured as to the manner in which that event occurred. As to the fact of his death, all the English authorities, and they are many and of various kinds, agree, with merely this difference, that those who wrote with a favourable feeling towards Henry, attributed the event to grief and voluntary famine, those who were on the other side accused the reigning sovereign of having had a share in

The deep damnation of his taking off.'

The case set up in answer to this by the advocates for the Scottish Richard, rests principally upon two Scottish authorities. They represent that Richard found means to escape from Pontefract, and succeeded in reaching the Scottish Isles. That he was accidentally recognized when sitting in the kitchen of Donald, Lord of the Isles, by a jester who had been educated in Richard's court. That Donald sent him, under the charge of Lord Montgomery, to Robert III. King of Scotland, by whom he was honourably treated. That after that king's death he was delivered to the Duke of Albany, the Regent of Scotland, and finally died in the Castle of Stirling, A. D. 1419, and was buried in the church of the Preaching Friars in that town. There are discrepancies between the authorities as to the manner of his discovery, the inscription upon his tomb, and other minor matters, but they do not affect the main fact of his existence. Indeed, as to that there is no dispute. It is admitted on all hands that such a person did exist, but the question is, was he the true prince,' or an impostor. In support of the affirmative, Mr. Tytler first brought into the field certain extracts from the accounts of the Great Chamberlain of Scotland during the government of the Duke of Albany, from which it appears that that nobleman claimed to be a creditor upon the public purse for £733. 6s. 8d. being the amount of expenses incurred by him in the custody of Richard King of England,' for a period of eleven years. Mr. Tytler considers it extremely improbable that such an expense should have been incurred about the maintenance of an impostor, and therefore regards these entries as almost conclusive evidence that the Scottish government, who must have known the fact, were well aware that their prisoner was really the deposed sovereign of England. He further considers that this conclusion becomes almost irresistible, when coupled with the fact that the Scottish Richard is stated to have denied that he was the king. That an impostor' says Mr. Tytler, should deny that he was the king, or that in the face of his denial,

poor maniac should be supported at reat expense, and detained for more

ven years at the Scottish court,

seems to me so extravagant a supposition, that I do not envy the task of any one who undertakes to support it.' (Hist. Scotland, vol. iii. p. 340).

Mr.

Unenviable as the task was considered, Mr. Amyot, who had already distinguished himself in this dispute, by a dissertation upon the manner of the death of Richard, took it upon himself, and is generally thought to have demolished the pretensions of 'the mammet of Scotland.' His treatise, which is to be found in the 23d volume of the Archæologia, is written very pleasantly. It possesses great interest and ingenuity, and might have taught Mr. Riddell in what manner, and with what temper, literary disputation ought to be carried on. Amyot relies principally upon the four following points. I. The public exposure of the corpse, which he shews could not have been that of Maudelein, the only person suggested by the only authority who has expressed a doubt whether the body was really that of Richard. I. The subsequent removal of the body to Westminster Abbey by Henry V. which if we are to believe the Scottish story, was an impolitic and gratuitous fraud. IIl. The conduct of the Percies and of Archbishop Scrope, who in the manifestoes issued during their rebellions against Henry IV. charged him with the murder of Richard. 'Had they,' concludes Mr. Amyot, believed the true Richard to be really alive in Scotland, they would not have failed to use the king's name as a tower of strength.' IV. The marriage of Isabella, Richard's queen. This lady was sought in marriage by Henry IV. for his son, and was afterwards united to Charles Duke of Or

leans. This marriage,' says Sir James Mackintosh, affords a tolerable presumption that her family had sufficient assurance of Richard's death;' and V. The slight feeling excited in this country during the greater portion of the supposed Richard's long residence in Scotland, a period of no less than nineteen years.

With respect to the Chamberlain's accounts, Mr. Amyot remarks that the extracts furnished by Mr. Tytler supply no additional evidence as to his identity. The proofs that some person was detained in custody required no such confirmation, and it is equally