Scene 2. Page 20.
Duch. With Margery Jourdain, the cunning witch.
It appears from Rymer's Fœdera, vol. x. p. 505, that in the tenth year of King Henry the Sixth, Margery Jourdemayn, John Virley clerk, and friar John Ashwell, were, on the ninth of May 1433, brought from Windsor by the constable of the castle, to which they had been committed for sorcery, before the council at Westminster, and afterwards, by an order of council, delivered into the custody of the Lord Chancellor. The same day it was ordered by the lords of council that whenever the said Virley and Ashwell should find security for their good behaviour they should be set at liberty, and in like manner that Jourdemayn should be discharged on her husband's finding security. This woman was afterwards burned in Smithfield, as stated in the play and also in the chronicles.
Scene 3. Page 64.
Pet. Here Robin, an if I die, I give thee my apron.
Minsheu and others conceived that this word was derived from afore one, an etymology that perfectly accords with the burlesque manner of Dean Swift. It has been also deduced from the Greek words προ and περι; the Latin porro and operio, &c. &c. Skinner, with more plausibility, has suggested the Saxon aꝼoꞃan. After all, an apron is no more than a corruption of a napron, the old and genuine orthography. Thus in The mery adventure of the pardonere and tapstere:
We have borrowed the word from the old French naperon, a large cloth. See Carpentier Suppl. ad Cangium, v. Naperii. So napkin, which has perplexed our dictionary-makers, is only a little cloth, from nappe.
Scene 3. Page 66.
The real names of these combatants were John Daveys and William Catour, as appears from the original precept to the sheriffs still remaining in the Exchequer, commanding them to prepare the barriers in Smithfield for the combat. The names of the sheriffs were Godfrey Boloyne and Robert Horne; and the latter, which occurs in the page of Fabian's chronicle that records the duel, might have suggested the name of Horner to Shakspeare. Stowe is the only historian who has preserved the servant's name, which was David. Annexed to the before mentioned precept is the account of expenses incurred on this occasion, duly returned into the Exchequer. From this it further appears that the erection of the barriers, the combat itself, and the subsequent execution of the armourer, occupied the space of six or seven days; that the barriers had been brought to Smithfield in a cart from Westminster; that a large quantity of sand and gravel was consumed on the occasion, and that the place of battle was strewed with rushes. Mr. Steevens has inferred from the above record that the armourer was not killed by his opponent, but worsted, and immediately afterwards hanged. This, however, is in direct contradiction to all the historians that have mentioned the circumstance, who, though they differ in some particulars, are certainly agreed as to the death of the accused by the hands of his servant. Halle's words are, "whose body was drawen to Tyborn and there hanged and beheaded;" a mode of expression which, though ambiguous, seems rather to refer to the previous death of the party. Fabian, Grafton, Stowe, and Holinshed, state that he was slain. It is possible that Mr. Steevens, in making the above inference, conceived that because the man was hanged he must necessarily have been alive at the time of his execution: but the mercy of the law on this occasion certainly made no such distinction; and the dead body of the vanquished was equally adjudged to the punishment of a convicted traitor, in order that his posterity might participate in his infamy. Indeed, the record itself seems decisive; for it states that the dead man was watched after the battle was done, and this probably means before it was conveyed to Tyborn for execution and decapitation. The same rule was observed in cases of appeal for murder, as we learn from the laws or assizes of Jerusalem made there in the fourteenth century; by which he that was slain or vanquished from cowardice in the field of battle, was adjudged to be drawn and hanged; his horse and arms being given to the constable. See Thaumassiere Assises de Jerusalem, ch. 104, and Selden's Duello, p. 30. The hanging and beheading were confined to cases of murder and treason; in a simple affair of arms the vanquished party was only disarmed and led forth ignominiously from the lists.
Since this note was written, the whole of the curious record in the Exchequer has been printed in Mr. Nicholls's valuable and interesting work entitled, "Illustrations of the manners and expences of antient times in England", 1797, 4to. As intimately connected with the present subject, the following extract cannot fail of being acceptable. It is taken from Gaguin, Gestes Romains, printed at Paris by Ant. Verard, without date, in folio, a volume of extreme rarity, and is part of the ceremony of an appeal for treason as regulated by Thomas Duke of Gloucester, high constable to Richard the Second. "Et si la dicte bataille est cause de traison, celluy qui est vaincu et desconfit sera desarmé dedans les lices, et par le commandement du conestable sera mis en un cornet et en reprehencion de luy sera traisné hors avec chevaulx du lieu mesme ou il est ainsi desarmé parmy les lices jusques au lieu de justice, ou sera decolé ou pendu selon lusaige du pays, laquelle chose appartient au mareschal veoir par fournir par son office, et le mettre a execution," fo. 148:—that is, "If the said battle be on account of treason, he that is vanquished and discomfited shall be disarmed within the lists, and by the authority of the constable put into a little cart; then having received a proper reprimand he shall be drawn by horses from the spot where he has been disarmed, through the lists, to the place of public execution, and there hanged or beheaded according to the custom of the country: which matter the marshal, by virtue of his office, is to see performed and executed."
Scene 1. Page 74.
Suf. I think, I should have told your grace's tale.
On this expression Dr. Johnson remarks that "majesty was not the settled title till the time of King James the First." In a note to vol. i. p. 97, of the lives of Leland, Hearne, and Wood, it is said that our kings had not the title of majesty in the reign of Henry the Eighth; and another note in Dr. Warburton's edition of the Dunciad, b. iv. l. 176, states that James was the first who assumed the title of sacred majesty; all which information is unsupported by authority.
On the other hand, Camden more correctly says, that "majesty came hither in the time of King Henry the Eighth, as sacred majesty lately in our memory."—Remains concerning Britain, p. 198, edit. 1674, 8vo. Selden, referring to this passage, wishes it to be understood so far as it relates to the title being "commonly in use and properly to the king applied," because he adduces an instance of the use of majesty so early as the reign of Henry the Second. In a letter from queen Elizabeth to Edward the Sixth, she signs "Your majesties humble sister," and addresses it "To the kinges most excellent majestie."—Harl. MS. No. 6986. In the same volume is a most extraordinary letter in Italian to Elizabeth, beginning, "Serenissima et sacratissima maesta," which shows that Camden, who wrote what he says above early in 1603, must rather refer to Elizabeth than James the First.
The use of majesty is ascribed by the learned authors of the Nouveau traité de diplomatique to Gondemar king of the Visigoths, and to the kings of Lorraine in the seventh century; but in France it is not traceable before the year 1360, about which time Raoul de Presle, in the dedication to his translation of Saint Augustin De civitate Dei, thus addresses Charles the Fifth: "si supplie à vostre royalle majesté." It was however but sparingly used till the reign of Louis XI. In the treaty of Créssy the emperor Charles V. is called imperial majesty, and Francis I. royal majesty. In that of Château Cambresis, Henry II. is entitled most christian majesty, and Philip II. catholic majesty. Pasquier has some very curious remarks in reprobation of the use of majesty. See Recherches de la France, liv. viii. ch. 5.
Both Camden and Selden agree that the title of Grace began about the time of Henry the Fourth, and of excellent Grace under Henry the Sixth.
Scene 1. Page 91.
However just Dr. Johnson's explanation of Morisco may be in an etymological point of view, it is at least doubtful whether it mean in this place a real or even personated Moor. Nothing more may be intended than simply a performer in a morris dance. It may be likewise doubted whether in the English morris dance, a single Moorish character was ever introduced. The quotation from Junius is extremely perplexing; yet it must be remembered that he was a foreigner, and speaking perhaps conjecturally.
Scene 2. Page 96.
Bartholomæus, with whom it has been shown that Shakspeare was well acquainted, speaking of the basilisk or cockatrice, says, "In his sight no fowle nor birde passeth harmelesse, and though he be farre from the foule, yet it is burnt and devoured by his mouth.... Plinius also sayth there is a wilde beast called Catobletas [which is] great noyeng to mankinde: for all that see his eyen should dye anone, and the same kinde hath the cockatrice."—De propriet. rer. lib. xviii. c. 16. The same property is also mentioned by Pliny of the basilisk, but Holland's translation was not printed till after this play was written. It is true that if Shakspeare did not write the lines in question, the original author might have used a Latin Pliny.
Scene 2. Page 103.
War. Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost.
It has been very plausibly suggested that timely-parted signifies in proper time, as opposed to timeless; yet in this place it seems to mean early, recently, newly. Thus in Macbeth, Act II. Scene 3,
"He did command me to call timely on him."
Again, in The unfaithful lover's garland,
Porter, in his comedy of the Two angry women of Abingdon, 1599, 4to, seems to have had Warwick's speech in view when he wrote these lines:
Scene 2. Page 105.
War. But see, his face is black and full of blood.
The accounts given by the English historians of the Duke of Gloucester's death are very discordant and unsatisfactory. They relate that he was smothered between feather-beds; that he was found dead in his bed; that a red hot spit was thrust through him; and that he died of grief. There is another account of this event, which, as it seems to have been quite unnoticed in our histories, and may deserve as much attention as either of the foregoing, shall here be given.
George Chastellain, a celebrated soldier, poet, and historian, was by birth a Flemming, and is said to have been in the service of Philip duke of Burgundy. He travelled into various countries, and wrote an account of what he had seen, under the title of The wonderful occurrences of his time. Speaking of his visit to England, he says,
This alludes to the flight of Henry the Sixth into Scotland. In another place he speaks as an eye witness of the death of duke Humphrey, and relates that he was strangled in a cask of wine, adding also the reason,
What credit he may deserve may be worth the inquiry of some future historian. His work in general will strike every reader as a strange mixture of veracity and credulity.
The above singular mode of inflicting death seems to have prevailed about this time; for we find not long afterwards another instance of it in the execution of George duke of Clarence, who, as is generally agreed, was drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine. He appears to have chosen the manner of his death, on which Mr. Hume makes the following observation: "A whimsical choice, which implies that he had an extraordinary passion for that liquor."[16] It should rather be inferred that the punishment in question was more frequent than is commonly known, and made use of for culprits of rank and eminence when dispatched in secret. Jean Molinet, the continuator of the above work of Chastellain, has thus described this event:
Scene 2. Page 116.
Q. Mar. Away! though parting be a fretful corrosive.
A learned commentator has stated that this word was generally written corsive in Shakspeare's time, and he has indeed proved that it was so written sometimes. The fact is, it was written as at present in prose, and in poetry either way, as occasion required. Thus Drant in his translation of Horace's satyres, 1566, 4to:
In the text it should be printed cor'sive.
Scene 3. Page 116.
It was the belief of our pious ancestors, that when a man was on his death-bed the devil or his agents attended in the hope of getting possession of the soul, if it should happen that the party died without receiving the sacrament of the eucharist, or without confessing his sins. Accordingly in the ancient representations of this subject, and more particularly in those which occur in such printed services of the church as contain the vigils or office of the dead, these busy meddling fiends appear, and with great anxiety besiege the dying man; but on the approach of the priest and his attendants, they betray symptoms of horrible despair at their impending discomfiture. In an ancient manuscript book of devotions, written in the reign of Henry the Sixth, there is a prayer addressed to Saint George, with the following very singular passage: "Judge for me whan the moste hedyous and damnable dragons of helle shall be redy to take my poore soule and engloute it in to theyr infernall belyes."
Shakspeare, who in many instances has proved himself to have been well acquainted with the forms and ceremonies of the Romish church, has, without doubt, on the present occasion availed himself of the above opinion. Whether this had happened to that pre-eminent painter, who, among the numerous monuments of his excellence that have immortalized himself and done honour to his country, has depicted the last moments of Cardinal Beaufort with all the powers of his art, cannot now be easily ascertained. He has been censured for personifying the fiend, on the supposition that the poet's language is merely figurative; with what justice this note may perhaps assist in deciding. Some might disapprove the renovation of Popish ideas; whilst others, more attentive to ancient costume, and regardless of popular or other prejudices, might be disposed to defend the painter on the ground of strict adherence to the manners of the times.
The reader may not be displeased at being introduced to a more intimate acquaintance with the ancient mode of representing a dying man as above referred to. It is copied from a print in a later edition of the Ars moriendi, one of those books on which the citizens of Haarlem found their claim to the invention of printing; whereas it is in fact no more than a collection of wooden engravings made for pious purposes, and explained by writing cut on the same blocks, and by no means a real specimen of the above art. To this is added another exhibition of the same subject, but very superior in point of art. It is copied from an engraving in wood by an unknown artist of considerable merit; and from the striking resemblance which it bears to the picture of our great painter above alluded to, much cannot be hazarded in supposing that he might have taken some hints from it, as it is well known that he collected many prints with the view of making such use of preceding excellence as the most exalted genius will ever condescend to do.
The Greeks, when persons were dying, drove away evil spirits by placing at the door branches of bramble or buckthorn. They likewise made a noise by beating brazen vessels for the same purpose.
Scene 2. Page 139.
Cade. ... the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops.
The note here is not sufficiently explanatory. The old drinking pots, being of wood, were bound together, as barrels are, with hoops; whence they were called hoops. Cade promises that every can which now had three hoops shall be increased in size so as to require ten. What follows in the notes about "burning of cans," does not appear to relate to the subject.
Scene 2. Page 140.
Smith. The clerk of Chatham.
This person is a nonentity in history, and in all probability a character invented by the writer of the play. It is presumed that few will be inclined to agree with Mr. Ritson in supposing him to have been Thomas Bayly, a necromancer at Whitechapel, and Cade's bosom friend.
Scene 7. Page 161.
Cade. Then break into his son in law's house, Sir James Cromer.
Mr. Ritson cites William of Worcester to show that this sheriff's name was William. The author of the play, if wrong, may be justified by the examples of Halle, Grafton, Stowe, in his early editions, and Holinshed, who call him James. Fabian, as if doubtful, leaves a blank for Crowmer's Christian name. As to the fact itself, the evidence of William of Worcester, a contemporary writer, is entitled to the preference. Fuller's list of the sheriffs of Kent likewise makes the name William.
Scene 10. Page 173.
Cade. I think this word sallet was born to do me good: for many a time, but for a sallet, my brain-pan had been cleft with a brown bill.
The notes on this occasion may admit of correction as well as curtailment. It is possible that we have borrowed sallet from the French salade, in the sense of a helmet: but the original word is the old Teutonic schale, which signifies generally a covering. Hence shell, scale, scull, shield, &c. Wicliffe does not use brain-pan for scull, in Judges ix. 53, as Mr. Whalley supposes, but brain, simply.
[16] One should almost suppose that the historian had recollected Cyrano de Bergerac's dream of a visit to the infernal regions, where he saw the Duke of Clarence, "who," says he, "voluntarily drowned himself in a barrel of Malmsey, seeking for Diogenes, in hopes of getting half his tub to lodge in."