Notes and Queries, Number 57, November 30, 1850 | Page 2

come to a portrait of Beaton which there appears reason to think
is genuine, and I beg the favour of your correspondents to give me any
information in their power regarding it. This portrait is in the Roman
Catholic College at Blairs, near Aberdeen. It was in the Scotch College
at Rome down to the period of the French occupation of that city in
1798, and formed part of the plunder {434} from that college. It was
subsequently discovered in a sale-room by the late Abbé Macpherson,
rector of the same college, who purchased it and sent it to Blairs, where
it has been for, now, a good many years. That it is a portrait of Beaton's
time is certain; but the artist is unknown, and the picture has sustained
damage. It is attributed, by a competent judge, who has himself painted
two careful copies of it, to Titian, not only from its general style and
handling, but from certain peculiarities of canvas, &c., on which latter
circumstances, however, he does not lay much stress, taking them only
as adminicles in proof. The portrait is a half-length, about 2 ft. 6 in. by
2 ft.: it is that of a fresh-coloured, intellectual man, of forty-five or
upwards; hazel eyes; hair slightly reddish, or auburn, just becoming
tinged with grey; a thin small beard; costume similar to that of
Holbein's Cardinal Wolsey, in the hall of Christchurch, Oxford. It bears
this inscription, painted at the bottom of the portrait, and over the
original finished painting, and therefore of a subsequent date:
"David Betonius, S.R.E., Card. Archiep. S. Andreæ in Scotia, ab
Hostibus Fidei Barbare Trucidatus."
Beaton was elected to the Cardinalate in Dec. 1538; did he visit Rome
after that? He was at all events in Paris. The Scotch College at Rome
was a natural habitat for a portrait of a Scottish churchman so famous
as Cardinal Beaton, and it would be strange indeed if they had not one
of him where they affected a collecion of portraits of British prelates. I
propose to have this portrait engraved, if its probable authenticity
cannot be shaken. Did Pinkerton engrave any portrait of Beaton? There
is none in my copies of his _Iconographia Scotica_, 1797, and his
_Scottish Gallery_, 1799. These contain several duplicates; but it is rare
to meet with copies that can be warranted perfect. If the portrait be

published, it will probably be accompanied by a short memoir,
correcting from authentic documents some of the statements of his
biographers: any information either as to the portrait or his life will be
thankfully acknowledged. One or two letters from Lord Buchan, on the
subject of Scottish Portraits, appeared in the _Gentleman's Magazine_,
vol. lxv., but not relating to this particular one.
SCOTUS.
* * * * *
ON THE POINTING OF A PASSAGE IN "ALL'S WELL THAT
ENDS WELL."
_Lafeu._ "They say miracles are past: and we have our philosophical
persons, to make modern and familiar, things, supernatural and
causeless."--Act ii. Scene 3.
So the passage is pointed in Johnson and Steevens, that is, with a
comma after the word "things;" and the same pointing is used in the
recent editions of Mr. Knight, Barry Cornwall, and Mr. Collier.
It occurred to me that this pointing gave a meaning quite out of
harmony with what directly follows, and also with the spirit in which
Lafeu speaks. Let the comma be placed after "familiar", and the whole
passage be read thus:
_Lafeu._ "They say miracles are past; and we have our philosophical
persons to make modern and familiar, things supernatural and causeless.
Hence is it, that we make trifles of terrors; ensconcing ourselves into
seeming knowledge, when we should submit ourselves to an unknown
fear."
Lafeu apparently is speaking somewhat sarcastically of those who say
miracles are past, and who endeavour to explain away the wonderful
into something common and well-known. Subsequently I found that Mr.
Coleridge, in his Literary Remains (vol. ii. p. 121.), had adduced the
above-mentioned passage, placing the comma after "familiar." He does
not, however, make any observation on the other pointing; but
remarking, that Shakspeare often uses "modern" for "common,"
proceeds thus:
"Shakspeare, inspired, as it might seem, with all knowledge, here uses
the word causeless in its strict philosophical sense; cause being truly
predicable only of _phenomena_,--that is, things natural, and not of
_noumena_, or things supernatural."

It is, perhaps, rather curious, that although Mr. Collier, in his note on
Lafeu's speech, has quoted the above from Mr. Coleridge, the improved
pointing should have escaped that gentleman's notice.
Looking into Theobald's _Shakspeare_, I find that he also had placed
the comma as Mr. Coleridge has. Mr. Theobald adds this note:
"This, as it has hitherto been printed, is directly opposite to our poet's
and his speaker's meaning. As