Notes and Queries, Number 68, February 15, 1851 | Page 9

difficult but little less extravagant preceding one; in the other,
each is unmeaning (in reference to the speaker), unsuggested, and,
unconnected with the other; and, regarding the order an artist would
observe, out of place.
SAMUEL HICKSON.
St. John's Wood, Jan. 27. 1851.
P.S. In replying to Mr. G. STEPHENS, in reference to the meaning of a
passage in the Tempest, I expressed a wish that he would give the

meaning of what he called a "common ellipsis" "stated at full." This
stands in your columns (Vol. ii., p. 499.) "at first," in which expression
I am afraid he would be puzzled to find any meaning.
* * * * *
I might safely leave H. K. S. C. to the same gentle correction bestowed
upon a neighbour of his at Brixton some time since, by MR. HICKSON,
but I must not allow him to support his dogmatic and flippant
hypercriticism by falsehood and unfounded insinuation, and I therefore
beg leave to assure him that I have no claim to the enviable distinction
of being designated as the friend of MR. HICKSON, to whom I am an
utter stranger, having never seen him, and knowing nothing of that
gentleman but what his very valuable communications to your
publication conveys.
I have further to complain of the want of truth in the very first
paragraph of your correspondent's note: the question respecting the
meaning of "Eisell" does not "remain substantially where Steevens and
Malone left it;" for I have at least shown that Eisell meant Wormwood,
and that Shakspeare has elsewhere undoubtedly used it in that sense.
Again: the remark about the fashion of extravagant feats, such as
swallowing nauseous draughts in honour of a mistress, was quite
uncalled for. Your correspondent would insinuate that I attribute to
Shakspeare's time "what in reality belongs to the age of Du Guesclin
and the Troubadours." Does he mean to infer that it did not in reality
equally belong to Shakspeare's age? or that I was ignorant of its earlier
prevalence?
The purport of such remarks is but too obvious; but he may rest assured
that they will not tend to strengthen his argument, if argument it can be
called, for I must confess I do not understand what he means by his
"definite quantity." But the phrase drink up is his stalking-horse; and as
he is no doubt familiar with the Nursery Rhymes[1], a passage in
them--
"Eat up your cake, Jenny, Drink up your wine."

may perhaps afford him further apt illustration.
The proverb tells us "It is dangerous playing with edge tools," and so it
is with bad puns: he has shown himself an unskilful engineer in the use
of MR. HICKSON's canon, with which he was to have "blown up" MR.
HICKSON's argument and my proposition; with what success may be
fairly left to the judgment of your readers. I will, however, give him
another canon, which may be of use to him on some future occasion:
"When a probable solution of a difficulty is to be found by a
parallelism in the poet's pages, it is better to adopt it than to charge him
with a blunder of our own creating."
The allusion to "breaking Priscian's head" reminds one of the remark of
a witty friend on a similar occasion, that "there are some heads not
easily broken, but the owners of them have often the fatuity to run them
against stumbling-blocks of their own making."
S. W. SINGER.
[Footnote 1: Nursery Rhymes, edited by James Orchard Halliwell, Esq.,
F. R. S., &c.]
* * * * *
DESCENT OF HENRY IV.
(Vol. ii., p. 375.)
Under the head of "Descent of Edward IV.," S. A. Y. asks for
information concerning "a popular, though probably groundless
tradition," by which that prince sought to prove his title to the throne of
England. S. A. Y., or his authority, Professor Millar, is mistaken in
ascribing it to Edward IV.--it was Henry IV. who so sought to establish
his claim.
"Upon Richard II.'s resignation ... Henry, Duke of Lancaster, having
then a large army in the kingdom ... it was impossible for any other title
to be asserted with safety, and he became king under the title of Henry

IV. He was, nevertheless, not admitted to the crown until he had
declared that he {121} claimed, not as a conqueror (which he was
much inclined to do), but as a successor descended by right line of the
blood royal.... And in order to this he set up a show of two titles: the
one upon the pretence of being the first of the blood royal of the entire
male line; whereas the Duke of Clarence (Lionel, elder brother of John
of Gaunt) left only one daughter, Philippa: the other, by reviving an
exploded rumour, first