THE GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE, For MAY, MAY, 1820. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE. Mr. URBAN, April 26. A that an alteration is about to S it has been generally stated take place in the Royal Crown of England, by the omission of the fleur de lis upon its circle, I beg leave, through the medium of your pages, to call the attention of those who may be interested in the enquiry, to a suggestion whether the form of this regal ornament has been improved by the depression of the arches by which it is surmounted, and by the squareness of outline which is thus given to it. To such of your Readers as are familiar with delineations of the Crowns of our last Plantagenets and Tudors, the circumstance above described will, I believe, be perfectly intelligible: they will recollect examples, in particular, of the highraised Crown of Elizabeth, the most opposite, in this respect, from that of the present age. There are, however, others of a less elevation, though of the same character, which I have often regarded as extremely graceful: perhaps a better instance cannot be given than that afforded by the coins of Henry VII. Perhaps, Mr. Urban, I must not venture so far as to recommend a revival of this antient form, but I think I may safely advise a comparison of the present Crown with those which have preceded it, at a time when its fabric must necessarily be new modelled. I may also be permitted to hope that, as the barbarous taste which prevailed after the Restoration (when, by the way, our present Regalia were made), is now fortunately exploded, the more appropriate style of antient English art will be appealed to in whatever concerns either these, or the august ceremony to which they particularly belong. With regard to the change of ornaments on the rim of the Crown, I suppose the place of the fleur de lis will be supplied by the beautiful leaf which is often seen on antient Crowns, and now on the ducal coronets. The circle will in that case resemble that assigned to Nephews of the blood Royal-crosses and leaves alternate. The substitution of thistles and shamrock,--a conceit of some of the newspapers,-is of course too absurd for notice. I had forgotten to mention that most of the Crowns of foreign Sovereigns are of the form to which I have referred above; - the bows forming a regular obtuse arch above the head: and this appears to be also the case in that of Hanover, judging from the representation of it on the shield of our new half-crowns. There is another point connected with the subject of this Letter upon which you will allow me to add a few words. The Coins of all our Kings, from the earliest time down to the Restoration, are rendered particularly interesting to the student of Regal Antiquities, by their presenting figures of the Crowns, and in some instances the Sceptres also, which were in use at different periods of our history. Surely, Sir, there is much reason to regret that the practice of exhibiting the Sovereign's head with its peculiar and appropriate ornament hath since been laid aside. The laurel wreath, however justly we may have been used to admire it on the brow of a Roman Emperor, ceases to be classical when applied to an English King; its adoption is contrary to good taste, for it is in violation of historical truth and consistency. Let us hope, then, that this may be considered in the forthcoming Coinage of his present Majesty. Yours, &c. I Mr. URBAN, A. T. May 10. LATELY made an accidental purchase of a copy of Isaac Wal ton's 388 Dr. Donne.-Mr. Dunbar.-Sea-Bathing Infirmary. [May, ton's Lives of Dr. Donne, Sir H. Wotton, Hooker, and Herbert, which, upon inspection, proved to be the identical Volume presented, or intended for presentation, to his brother, by the amiable and learned author, as appears from his autograph Iz. Wa. which is in a very small neat character above the portrait of Dr. Donne, facing the title-page, together with the words "ffor my brother Mr. ...” The name struck through with a pen so as to bave become illegible. It is not, however, on account of this particular (although every particular relative to that excellent man is deserving of notice), that I presume to obtrude upon you at present, but in order to mention that in the same "Honest on have mentioned, and not recollecting to have met with it before; perhaps some of your Correspondents will ture respecting its author: and if this either confirm or correct my conjecshould happen to meet the eye of the learned Editor of the Athenæ Oxonimany curious particulars relative to enses, in whose elaborate work so many of our antient worthies are embalmed for the benefit of posterity, nent in the writer to request informahe may perhaps not think it impertition whether these lines have before appeared as the accredited production of the noble person whose name is annexed to them?. C. R.O. Mr. URBAN, Cambridge, May 15. a blank in the 81st page at the close A LATE popular Work, entitled of the life of Dr. Donne, and immediately preceding the Epitaph upon the Dean by Dr. Corbet, Bishop of Oxford, there appears the following Elegy, which I copy verbatim et literatim: "An Elegy on Dr. Donne. I cannot blame those men yt know yee well, Yet dare not help ye world to ring thy knell In tunefull Elegies. There's no language knowen Fit for thy mention but was first thine [owne. The Epitaphs ya writtst have so bereft Our Tongue of Witt, there is no ffancie left Enough to weep thee. What henceforth wee see Of Art or Nature must result from thee. There may p'chance some busy gath'ring Reward of Conscience, never can of ffame, [Arts. Ffaith to ye World, command it to be- The above I presume to be the composition of the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, but not finding any account of it in the Volume which I "Peter's Letters to his Kinsfolks," concludes its account of Mr. Edinburgh, with informing its readers DUNBAR, the Greek Professor at that he is the author of some pieces in the " Cambridge Classical Re searches." Having lately perused a publication bearing the name of Mr. Dunbar, I felt great surprise at the quire of the Editor of our Classical above assertion, and was led to enResearches, whether there was any foundation for it. He assured me Thinking it right that an assertion should be contradicted which is injurious to the character of a respectsity, I take the liberty of begging able Work, as well as of our Univeryou to notice this mistatement, which occurs in vol. I. p. 172, of " Peter's Letters to his Kinsfolks." Yours, &c. CANTABRIGIENSIS. page 392; and in the Review department of that for April 1820, pp. 337, 338; your numerous Readers are informed of certain differences whereby an excellent London Charity has been partially injured.-Allow your present Correspondent to refull view the sweet contrast of unaverse the picture, and to exhibit to nimity in benevolence. On Saturday, May 13, 1820, I dined with the Directors and Stewards at the the London Coffee-House in Ludgatestreet. The Meeting was unusually large. At the head of the table sat the Right Hon. the Earl of Liverpool, K.G. When his Lordship, after dinner, gave the first toast, "THE KING," he delighted his auditors with the intelligence that his Majesty declared himself PATRON of the Institution, and directed that henceforth its name be changed from the General Sea Bathing Infirmary to THE ROYAL SEA BATHING INFIRMARY. In terms pithy, eloquent, and deeply pathetic, the noble Chairman eulogized the Charity, and expressed his own firm determination to support drinking his health, and assured them On the Extent of the Historic Rela- it. Sir William Blizard, John Blades, be surprised at HUME and ADAM Esq. Sir Everard Home, Rev. Dr. Yates, Rev. Weeden Butler, Dr. Brown, Thos. Chevalier, Esq. and various other warm friends to the Charity, spoke their sentiments in the course of the evening. Sir W. B. recommended the Infirmary to all medical gentlemen as a grand necessary adjunct to the London Hospitals; J. B. Esq. noticed a splendid act of liberality by Thomas Warre, Esq. and professed his own readiness to co-operate in a similar manner. Sir E. H. cheerfully agreed to accept the office of Steward at the next Anniversary, and avowed his wish thereby to demonstrate his attachment as a professional man to the interests of the diseased Poor. Dr. Y. reported the good government and accommodation of the Building, aud the sense entertained by its happy patients; he made his luminous report from personal survey. He left to his clerical brother at his elbow to express more at large their common satisfaction. Rev. W. B. gave a concise narrative of the Establishment, from its origin to its present state of stability: and figuratively observed, that he had watched the PLANT throughout its growth, under various changes in its atmosphere. It was now mature. Its soil was rich: its culture was most favourable. Thank God! its roots had struck deep into British hearts; it was protected by his Lordship, and nurtured by public munificence; it was now warmed by the rays of Royal Patronage; and often, indeed, would it be watered in silence by tears of grati tude from the Poor. Dr. B. very neatly thanked the company for SMITH of the French school having lost their way, for want of the historical clew that guides us through the knowledge of things? For three quarters of a century these men, endowed with genius, and having followers of no ordinary sagacity, have been gravely enquiring, "How, and by what means the mind prefers one tenor of conduct to another :-how it denominates one right, and the other wrong: and wherefore it considers ONE as the object of approbation or reward, and the OTHER of reprobation or punishment?" To illustrate this more satisfactorily, let us here notice the leading points in the most celebrated speculations upon Ethics and Philology. The French were not the original inventors of those speculations-for they invent nothing-they only give a name and a fashion to the discoveries of others. The spirit of these speculations was re-produced in our modern times, first, in the reign of Charles II. It was an essence formed out of the fanatic acid of those days, mixed with the lees and dregs of that intoxicating speculation called DEISM: the wine of a profligate, gambling, and corrupt court. But to drop the figure:-this philosophy of HOBBES, MANDEVILLE, and finally of LORD BOLINGBROKE, made it necessary for the great Dr. CLARKE to ascertain and fix what he calls the eternal relations and fitnesses of things. He has thus made it even a matter of demonstration, the historical order. He was preceded by NEWTON, and accompanied by Bishop BUTLER : the former had to ascertain and fix even the the laws of the creation, a standing fact and by a scientific chronology, to lay down the authentic Chart of History. While the latter (Bishop BUTLER) showed the grand historical analogy of things, human and divine. As LOCKE and BISHOP BERKELEY (though both of them virtuous men, in fact) are admitted to have lost their way, in speculations upon paper-it is hardly necessary for us, here, to follow them, if we had time even, which we have not. The philosophy of the good Dr. HUTCHESON has laboured to show that BENEVOLENCE is the principle of virtue. But to what extent is this true? By what medium is it measured, and regulated? His principle of benevolence is plainly referable to our historical relations: 1. That to the Deity as our common FATHER: 2. To his creature, man, who is our BROTHER. But, thirdly, it is a matter of the highest record, that these two relative duties were enjoined in positive, express terms by the author of Chris tianity at the Jewish Reformation -revealed from the Deity himself. This is a fact, therefore, contained in SACRED history. Then follow the wandering systems, till speculation is lost in the inextricable labyrinth of Scepticism:the centre of which is occupied by a fatal atheism, that mare mortuum, or dead sea. One system is that "virtue consists merely in the wise and prudent pursuit of our own real and solid happiness." Upon which we may observe, by the way, that to make happiness your direct object, is the very way to be miserable:-just as the very way to spoil your physical constitution, is to be ever running after health. Those who never think of health or happiness, but of their active duties, are found to attain indirectly both these objects! This system precisely inverts the historical or natural order. One would think that Philosophers were meaning to give the world a specimen of irony, or a piece of the most exquisite and refined pleasantry, when in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries they are thus gravely inquiring (like Diogenes with his lanthorn in noon-day) “what is happiness? and wherein does virtue consist? What recommends it to us more than any other, the most indifferent thing? Is there any stan dard of truth? What is truth-and where is it-How do we know that there is any such thing as truth?" &c. &c. One would suppose we had fallen among a set of disguised Jews bly of Philosophers, to hear it gravely and Stock-jobbers, and not an assem asked, whether conscience is a real, or an imaginary faculty! But by following the historic relature, all these things will be discotion, as above indicated by Scripvered, defined, and attained, as well as we can reasonably expect in this given state of things. Or, to use the emphatic language of LORD BACON, public and private virtues, and all -"we shall be endued with all the AT ONCE." It has been a favourite enquiry whether we have any peculiar organ this principle is a modification only called the moral sense? Whether of some other principle in human nature, to which it is reducible: reason, good taste, sympathy, and the like? as Conscience is that inward record upon the consciousness of any thing we have intended, said, or done-put golden rule-relating historically to ia apposition with the memory of the God and our neighbour. For as to the sympathy borrowed by ADAM French school-this sympathy is the SMITH from the petite morale of the accord or musical harmony of two or more minds-whether one is contemplating the composed picture of imagines a composed spectator. It the other suffering or this other belongs to the fine arts, not to morals-What else is the standard of propriety, but the historical order of things? What else are even prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice? Do as you would be done by : Do no SMITH, in his Theory of Moral Sen- tribute tribute to encourage praiseworthy, and to discourage blameable disposi tions." What else, in the name of common sense, should be expected from professed systems of morals! In an enquiry after right and wrong, this star-gazing philosopher overlooks the well of truth at his feet, till falling down, he finds it at the bottom-and thus verifies the proverb. In this masquerade of philosophy, MANDEVILLE mistakes vanity, and SHAFTSBURY ridicule, for historical guide: while HUME takes up with interest and pleasure-softened down by the names of the useful and the agreeable. It is evident that these men, moving in the atmosphere of a corrupt court, calculated their systems for the meridian of France. Thus HUME, in his history, calls the adulteries practised in the then court of France," the tender passions." But the historical relation of the golden rule-besides its immutable truth, and its authority, as a positive divine injunction, is really the most natural, the most useful, and most agreeable. YORICK. (To be continued.) Ancient Anecdotes, &c. from VALERIUS MAXIMUS, by Dr. CAREY, West Square. (Continued from p. 326.) F congenial spirit with young munication) was young Cassius, who afterward rendered himself so conspicuous, as the associate of Brutus in heading the party who killed Julius Cæsar. While yet a boy, he evinced his abhorrence of tyranny and cruelty, by an act at once expressive and dangerous. Being at the same school with Faustus Sylla, son of Sylla the dictator, and hearing that youth commend his father's bloody proscription, and declare that he himself, when arrived at a proper age, would imitate the paternal example, Cassius gave him a violent box on the ear; a deed, which seemed likely to cost him his life; though he bad the good fortune to escape with impunity.-Lib. 3, 1, 5. The celebrated Alcibiades, also, at an early age, displayed a prognostic trait of his future character as a politician. When a boy, he one day found his uncle Pericles sitting alone, and deeply immersed in gloomy meditation. On inquiring the cause, and receiving for answer that his uncle was utterly at a loss to make out his account of a considerable sum of public money which he had expended in the architectural embellishment of the Athenian citadel, he asked him why he did not rather devise some expedient to avoid the necessity of producing his accounts. Pericles adopted the boy's suggestion, and soon contrived to involve his country in a war, which wholly engrossed the public attention, and completely diverted it from the consideration of his accounts.—Lib. 3, 1, ext. 1. Of the respect paid to acknowledged worth and integrity, a notable instance occurred in the person of the philosopher Xenocrates. Being summoned as a witness on a trial at Athens, and having given his evidence, he was (according to the established custom) advancing to the altar, to swear to the truth of his deposition; when the judges, all together rising from their seats, unanimously declared his bare assertion to be sufficient, without the oath; although they themselves were not, in any case, allowed to pronounce judgment, without being previously sworn.-Lib. 2, 10, ext. 2. On the night preceding Julius Cæsar's death, Porcia, the daughter of Cato, and wife of Brutus, received from her husband the first intimation of the plot formed for killing the usurper on the following day. After this confidential disclosure, Brutus having quitted her apartment, she called for a knife or razor, for the ostensible purpose of paring her nails : and, letting it fall, as if by accident, she thus contrived to wound herself. Her maids shrieking at the sight of her blood, the sound reached the ears of Brutus, who hastily returned to, the apartment, and, having learned' the cause of their alarm, affectionately chid her for having undertaken to perform that office herself, instead of employing the usual ministry of the barber*. But Porcia, in a whisper, informed him, that what had happened, was not the effect of accident, but a deliberate deed, and, in Barber-So in the original-Tonsor the same who shaved and trimined his master. |
