Kitabı oxu: «The Origins of English Nonsense»
COPYRIGHT
Fontana Press
An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers,
1 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9GF
Published by Fontana Press 1998
First published by HarperCollins Publishers 1997
Copyright C Noel Malcolm 1997
Noel Malcolm asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.
Source ISBN: 9780006388449
Ebook Edition © MARCH 2016 ISBN: 9780007483099
Version: 2016-03-22
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse-engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e-books.
HarperCollinsPublishers has made every reasonable effort to ensure that any picture content and written content in this ebook has been included or removed in accordance with the contractual and technological constraints in operation at the time of publication.
PRAISE
From the reviews of The Origins of English Nonsense:
‘In this most original study, Noel Malcolm has discovered the first stirrings of English nonsense … it is a work of some wit, and itself tends towards parody of more solemn studies. Malcolm’s book has all the elaborate paraphernalia of scholarship, complete with learned footnotes and a lengthy bibliography designed to promote the cause of nonsense. This book is as rare, then as hedgehog’s feathers or baskets of water.’
PETER ACKROYD, The Times
‘Brilliant scholar, political journalist, an expert both on Bosnia and Thomas Hobbes, Noel Malcolm is a sort of Renaissance man himself: far-ranging in the scope of his learning, rational, elitist, impervious to the claims of political correctness or trendy jargon. His prose has a satirical edge which is a continual intellectual challenge, if not always warmly sympathetic; his quirky facts are extraordinary; and he has produced an elegant, enjoyable book which is a real contribution to literary history.’
JACKIE WULLSCHLAGER, Financial Times
‘Never happier than when he is writing against the grain of received opinion, Noel Malcolm takes full delight in making a coterie cult of poems which more solemn scholars have dismissed as irrelevant doodlings. Malcolm’s immensely erudite introduction, which explains the vogue for nonsense poetry at the turn of the seventeenth-century and traces its origins in Classical and European literature, measures its tone perfectly, managing to sound as serious and at the same time as frivolous as much of the best verse in the anthology … Malcolm’s book is a delight, in which he recovers something genuinely rich and strange about our poetic ancestors. If the best history compels our attention by making the past not more but less familiar, The Origins of English Nonsense succeeds.’
MARK ARCHER, Spectator
DEDICATION
For Euthymia,
and in memory of her father,
John
Estrangement
Se fet mun quer dolent,
Quant me purpens,
Que jo ai gaste mun tens
Sanz rimer de aucun sens
The poet ‘Richard’, in E. M. Stengel (ed.) Codicem manu scriptum Digby 86 in bibliotheca bodleiana asservatum (Halle, 1871), p. 118
Nonsense (when all is said and done) is still nonsense. But the study of nonsense, that is science.
Saul Lieberman, introducing Gershom Scholem’s lectures on the Cabbala: quoted in S. Schama, Landscape and Memory (London, 1995), p. 134
CONTENTS
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Praise
Dedication
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
The origins and development of English seventeenth-century nonsense poetry
CHAPTER 2
Fustian, bombast and satire: the stylistic preconditions of English seventeenth-century nonsense poetry
CHAPTER 3
A short history of nonsense poetry in medieval and Renaissance Europe
CHAPTER 4
The sources and resources of nonsense: literary conventions, parodic forms and related genres
POEMS
1 JOHN HOSKYNS, ‘Cabalistical Verses’
2 HENRY PEACHAM, ‘In the Utopian tongue’
3 JOHN SANFORD, ‘Punctures and Junctures of Coryate’
4 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Cabalistical, or Horse verse’
5 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Poem in the Utopian Tongue’
6 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Epitaph in the Barmooda tongue’
7 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Epitaph on Coryate’
8 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Certaine Sonnets’
9 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Barbarian verses’
10 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Great Jacke-a-Lent’
11 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Sir Gregory Nonsence His Newes from No Place’
12 MARTIN PARKER, ‘Sir Leonard Lack-wit’s speech to the Emperor of Utopia’
13 RICHARD CORBET, ‘A Non Sequitur’
14 RICHARD CORBET, ‘A mess of non-sense’
15 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Aqua-Musae’
16 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘Mercurius Nonsensicus’
17 JOHN TAYLOR, ‘The Essence of Nonsence upon Sence’
18 JOHN TAYLOR AND ANON., ‘Non-sense’
19 ANON., ‘Nonsense fragment’
20 ANON., ‘A sonnett to cover my Epistles taile peece’
21 T. W., ‘I am asham’d of Thee, ô Paracelsie’
22 ANON., ‘Pure Nonsence’
23 ANON., ‘Nonsense’
24 T. C., ‘Thou that dwarft’st mountains into molehill sense’
25 JAMES SMITH, ‘Ad Johannuelem Leporem, Lepidissimum, Carmen Heroicum’
26 ANON., ‘A Fancy’
27 ANON., ‘Interrogativa Cantilena’
28A ANON., ‘Prophecies’
28B ANON., ‘Newes’
29 ANON., ‘A Bull Droll’
30 ANON., ‘Witley’s Lies’
31 ANON., ‘From the top of high Caucasus’
32 ANON., ‘Cure for the Quartain Ague’
33 ANON., ‘How to get a Child without help of a Man’
34A MARTIN PARKER, ‘A Bill of Fare’
34B JOHN TAYLOR, ‘A Bill of Fare’
35 MARTIN PARKER, ‘An Excellent New Medley (i)’
36 MARTIN PARKER (?), ‘An Excellent New Medley (ii)’
37 ANON., ‘A New Merry Medley’
38 ANON., ‘A New made Medly’
39 JOSEPH BROOKESBANK, ‘Monosyllables’
40 GEORGE DALGARNO, ‘Mnemonic verses’
FOOTNOTES
NOTES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, INDICES
Longer Notes
Manuscript Sources
Bibliography
Index of authors of the nonsense poems
Index of titles and first lines of the nonsense poems
Index to the Introduction
About the Author
Also by Noel Malcolm
Credits
About the Publisher
PREFACE
ONE MIGHT ASSUME that the period of English literature which lies between the major works of Shakespeare and Milton was a peculiarly well-ploughed field, where little remained to be explored. Yet the purpose of this volume is to make known a genre which enjoyed real popularity in precisely that period, and which has never yet been discussed in any detail. I am not aware of a single study, not even a short article, that sets out to describe or explain the history of this minor but fascinating literary phenomenon.
It would not be true to say that the poetry itself is entirely unknown. Individual poems have been printed in anthologies such as John Broadbent’s Signet Classic Poets of the Seventeenth Century and Alastair Fowler’s New Oxford Book of Seventeenth Century Verse.1 Several of the poems printed and discussed in this volume have appeared in general nonsense anthologies, the fullest selection being provided by Hugh Haughton’s valuable Chatto Book of Nonsense Poetry. But I know of no collection specifically devoted to these seventeenth-century nonsense poems.
Nor would it be fair to suggest that literary scholars have never noticed or alluded to the existence of such a genre. Some acknowledgements of the presence of this vein of nonsense writing can be found in the scholarly literature; but notices and allusions are all that they amount to. Thus Wallace Notestein, in his path-breaking study of John Taylor, merely comments: ‘He was, I think, the first writer of nonsense verse. In The Essence … of Nonsence upon Sence (1653) he gives us nonsense verse and not without skill.’2 Similarly, a standard work on the comic poetry of the Restoration period discusses at length the ‘drolleries’ or collections of light poetry, but devotes only one sentence to the nonsense poems which they contained: ‘There are not many of these in the drolleries, but there are some.’3 Even Bernard Capp’s excellent study of John Taylor, the only full-length work ever to have been published on this seminal nonsense poet, makes only passing references to his nonsense writing, and does not attempt to assess his place in the development of the genre itself.4 The best discussion known to me of the seventeenth-century nonsense tradition is given in Timothy Raylor’s recent study of Sir John Mennes and James Smith; but it amounts to no more than two suggestive paragraphs.5
In more general works of literary history, the ignorance of this genre is even more striking. Standard works on nonsense poetry either pass over the seventeenth century in silence, or allude briefly to one or two poems which have appeared in modern nonsense anthologies without investigating the genre to which they belonged.6 Entries on ‘Nonsense’ in reference works such as the Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics make no allusion whatsoever to the seventeenth-century material. More surprisingly, there is no overall history of nonsense poetry in medieval and Renaissance European literature, even though specific aspects of this subject, and works by specific authors, have been discussed separately in some detail.7 In Chapter 3 of the Introduction to this collection I have tried to put together for the first time an overall history of medieval and Renaissance nonsense poetry in Europe, and, in doing so, to suggest some of the lines of transmission which tie together the nonsense literatures of different periods and countries.
Why bother to take such serious trouble over such a self-evidently ridiculous subject-matter? One reason must be that nonsense poetry, like any comic genre, is part of the larger literary culture which it inhabits, and to which it is connected in many ways, both direct and indirect: understanding more about those connections can only shed light on other areas of literature too. It can tell us about the ways in which writers and readers regarded the literary fashions, stylistic conventions, and canons of taste and diction of the day. In Chapter 2 of the Introduction I have tried to show how intimately the earliest seventeenth-century nonsense poetry was bound up with the development of late Elizabethan dramatic and satirical poetry. Nonsense poetry is also connected, in more tangential ways, with a wide range of minor genres, sources and traditions in European literary history; I have offered some examples of these connections in Chapter 4. Also in that chapter, I have tried to set out some more general conclusions about the nature and origins of nonsense poetry, which may be valid for other periods too; these conclusions run contrary to the theories about ‘carnivalesque’ humour which nowadays dominate most discussion of early modern comic writing.
But the most important reason for collecting these poems should not be left altogether unsaid. At their best, they are supremely enjoyable – exuberant, sonorous, and (within the confines of some soon-to-be-familiar routines) richly inventive. The best sections of Taylor’s two large-scale nonsense works (Sir Gregory Nonsence and The Essence of Nonsence upon Sence: poems 11 and 17 in this collection) contain some of the most splendid nonsense poetry in the English language, which can be enjoyed by anyone who possesses even a slight acquaintance with the ‘serious’ literature of the period. Of course, reading page after page of this material will jade any reader’s appetite, like feasting on chocolate; and in any case not all the poems in this collection are of high quality. Nevertheless, the most important aim of this book is not to trade arguments with scholarly specialists, but to share the pleasure of these poems with all interested readers.
For that reason, notes have been added to explain words and allusions; some of these may seem unnecessary to those readers who have a thorough grounding in classical mythology or a specialist knowledge of seventeenth-century vocabulary. A few ‘Longer Notes’ are presented on pp. 289–94. Otherwise, I have placed all explanatory notes at the foot of each page, rather than collecting them in a single glossary at the end of the book. This has been done for two reasons: first, for the ease of the reader, and secondly, because some of the words which need explanation would not obviously strike the reader as requiring it. (In the phrase ‘Ale and Wigs’, for example, the ‘Wigs’ are bread-rolls, not hairpieces; but it would not occur to most readers to look up ‘Wigs’ in a glossary.) I hope that readers will be patient with the inevitable degree of repetition which this method entails (repeated explanations have been dispensed with only within the unit of a single page), and remember that the repetitions are there for their own convenience.
The annotations also contain occasional textual notes (distinguished by the key-words being printed in italics), recording material variants between texts and my own formal emendations of the copy-text; the sources referred to in these notes are listed at the end of each poem. But my emendations are few and far between. With a few exceptions (recorded in the notes) I have preserved original spellings and punctuations; the only changes which I have made systematically and silently are to convert initial ‘v’ to ‘u’, medial ‘u’ to ‘v’, ‘i’ to ‘j’ (where appropriate) and long ‘s’ to normal ‘s’. Otherwise the degree of emendation is as light as possible. Some of these poems use word-play, or ingenious Hudibrastic rhymes, which would disappear from view in a modernized spelling of the text. Others, which are in gibberish, cannot of course be modernized at all. And where textual emendations are concerned, it is necessary to bear in mind that nonsense poetry overturns all the usual rules of procedure. Normally, where different stages of manuscript transmission survive, corruptions to the text can be identified by an editor on the grounds that a corrupted text makes less sense than the original. In the case of nonsense poetry, the opposite is true: corruption involves the introduction of sense. ‘O that my lungs could bleat’ is, for example, a corruption of ‘O that my wings could bleat’. The most insidious error a modern editor can commit, therefore, is to introduce any further corruptions of this kind into the text. Some strange examples of this were perpetrated by Charles Hindley, the diligent Victorian editor of one collection of John Taylor’s works: ‘Sinderesis of Wapping’, for instance, was emended by Hindley to ‘Cinderesses of Wapping.’8 This brings to mind the logic of the (perhaps legendary) German editor of Shakespeare, who ‘corrected’ one famous passage to make it read: ‘stones in the running brooks, Sermons in books’. It is a logic which I have tried to avoid.
Finally, a few words about definitions, or the lack of them. Readers will note that I use the term ‘genre’ in a fairly loose, non-technical way. Readers will also observe that at no point in this book do I attempt to frame a precise definition of nonsense. Such definition-making is not necessary for practical reasons, any more than it is necessary for studies of lyric poetry or comedy to begin with watertight definitions of those terms. These are things which, usually, we recognize when we see them. But close definition is not desirable for theoretical reasons either, since these literary types are cluster-concepts: they have a core on which all can agree, and a more variable periphery on which disagreement is always possible. The ‘high’ literary nonsense of Hoskyns, Taylor and Corbet clearly belongs at the core of any notion of nonsense poetry; some of the other items in this collection are closer to the periphery.
I am grateful to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, for permission to print the texts of poems 14, 19, 20, and 32; to the British Library, London, for permission to print the text of poem 30; and to Nottingham University Library for permission to print the text of poem 21. I should like to record my thanks to the staff of not only those libraries, but also the Cambridge University Library, where much of the research for this edition was done.
The notes record specific sources of information, but I have not thought it necessary to give such sources for general information contained in standard reference works. Of such works, the most useful in preparing this edition have been the following: The Oxford English Dictionary, The Dictionary of National Biography, Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, Brewer’s Reader’s Companion, The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, Lemprière’s Classical Dictionary, Sugden’s Topographical Dictionary to the Works of Shakespeare, Stow’s Survey of London, Kent’s Encyclopaedia of London and Partridge’s Dictionary of Historical Slang. Full details of these works are given in the bibliography.
Finally, I am particularly grateful to Dr Colin Burrow, Dr Richard Luckett, Mr Richard Ollard and Dr Timothy Raylor for reading this work in typescript and giving me their comments. I should also like to express my gratitude to Dr Edward Chaney for suggesting the Inigo Jones drawings which ornament the cover of this book, and to thank his Grace the Duke of Devonshire and the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement for permission to reproduce them. Last but not least, I owe a special word of thanks to Stuart Proffitt for showing such an interest in this book, and to Arabella Quin for seeing it expertly through the press.
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
The origins and development of English seventeenth-century nonsense poetry
THERE ARE TWO COMMON BELIEFS about the literary genre of nonsense poetry in England, and both of them are false. The first holds that nonsense poetry was the exclusive product of the nineteenth century, more or less the creation of Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll. ‘Considered as a genre’, argues a recent study by a specialist in this field, ‘we cannot, indeed, trace the origins of nonsense literature beyond the nineteenth century, when it first appeared in Victorian England.’1 Another modern writer has argued in all seriousness that nonsense poetry began in 1846 and ended in 1898, after which date ‘it can no longer exist’.2 The second common belief about this genre is that nonsense is not so much a cultural-historical product as a timeless, universal category, which therefore has only instances rather than origins. This was the view of some of the earliest modern writers on nonsense literature, G. K. Chesterton and Émile Cammaerts, and it seems to be implied by those modern studies of nonsense which explore its dependence on formal procedures of inversion, repetition, serialization, circularity and simultaneity.3
That those procedures in themselves are universal, to be found in the literature and folklore of different cultures from various times and places, is clear. They can be found too in English popular writing and folk materials: drinking songs, humorous ballads, folktales, nursery rhymes, and so on. But full-scale nonsense poetry as an English literary phenomenon is not a timeless thing, springing up here, there and everywhere of its own accord; still less is it something that wells up from folk culture. It is, rather, a literary genre with a particular history or histories, developed by individual poets and possessing a peculiarly close relationship – largely a parodic one – to the ‘high’ literary conventions of its day. After a brief flowering in the late Middle Ages (discussed in Chapter 3 of this Introduction), literary nonsense poetry in England was re-invented in the early seventeenth century. It then enjoyed an extraordinary vogue for more than fifty years, and was still being printed in the popular ‘drolleries’ of the Restoration period. This efflorescence was due partly to the stylistic conditions of English declamatory poetry in the early seventeenth century (discussed in Chapter 2 of this Introduction), which were so ideally suited to nonsensification. But the success of high literary nonsense poetry in this period was due above all to the skills and energies of the individual poets who created and developed the genre. As it happens, it is possible to attribute the origins of this genre to one poet in particular, and to explain how, when and why he created it. The literary nonsense poetry of the seventeenth century was invented by a lawyer, rhetorician, minor poet and wit, Sir John Hoskyns, in 1611. Since this fact has never been properly recognized hitherto, it is worth setting out in some detail the story of how nonsense poetry sprang, almost fully armed, out of Hoskyns’s head into the English literary world.
John Hoskyns was born in 1566, to a humble family of Welsh origins living in the Herefordshire village of Mounckton or Monnington.4 He was sent to Winchester College, where he displayed a prodigious memory as well as a special talent for Latin verse composition; at Winchester he was, in John Aubrey’s words, ‘the flower of his time’. His friends and contemporaries there included several who later became well-known poets and littérateurs: John Davies (also from Herefordshire), Henry Wotton, the epigrammatist John Owen, and the poet Thomas Bastard. With Wotton and Owen he went on to New College, Oxford, where he matriculated in early 1585. He proceeded BA in 1588 and MA in 1592; but at the ‘Act’ (the degree-giving ceremony) on that latter occasion he caused serious offence to the University authorities. He had been chosen to perform at the ‘Act’ as Terrae filius, the mock-orator whose role it was to make a humorous speech which might contain topical and personal allusions in a satirical vein. These traditionally elaborate and boisterous rhetorical performances, like much of the material in the comic University dramas of the period (the Cambridge Parnassus plays being the best known), cultivated parodic routines and in-jokes. But Hoskyns carried the joke too far, to the point where its humour was no longer apparent. One modern biographer has ingeniously reconstructed his offence, suggesting that his declamation satirized the recently deceased Chancellor of Oxford University, Sir Christopher Hatton.5 The punishment was severe: as Aubrey later put it, ‘he was so bitterly satyricall that he was expelled and putt to his shifts’.6
After a brief period as a schoolmaster in Somerset, Hoskyns travelled to London in early 1593 and was admitted as a student of the law at one of the Inns of Court, the Middle Temple. He may have been persuaded to take this step by his friend John Davies, who had been at the Middle Temple since 1588. The Inns of Court (Gray’s Inn, Lincoln’s Inn, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple) formed a kind of legal counterpart to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge; many sons of merchants and country gentry studied there, not in order to become professional lawyers, but merely to acquire a grounding in legal procedures which would see them through the innumerable lawsuits of their adult lives. But with so many connections between the lawyers, the parliamentarians and the court wits, the Inns of Court also formed the basis of much of the literary culture of London during this period. Not only did they produce lawyers with wide-ranging intellectual and literary interests (such as Francis Bacon and John Selden); but also whole coteries of poets and writers were fostered within their walls. Hoskyns and Davies were later joined at the Middle Temple by their old friend Henry Wotton, the poet and dramatist John Marston, the minor poet Charles Best, and the ‘character’-writer Thomas Overbury. Thomas Campion was at Gray’s Inn during this period, and John Donne was at Lincoln’s Inn. One modern critic has described Donne’s works of the 1590s as products of ‘a typical Inns of Court poet’, characterizing them as follows: ‘In his verse epistles occur many instances of his recondite learning and startling wit, but the tone is always that of an easy intimacy, of someone speaking to an audience of equals; often he appears to be improvising entertainment for their amusement.’7
The Inns were famous for their elaborate Christmas revels, whole sequences of speeches, mock-trials, comic plays, processions, banquets and dances, which extended through December and January. A leader of the revels was chosen before Christmas; he was given the title of ‘Prince d’Amour’ at the Middle Temple and ‘Prince of Purpoole’ at Gray’s Inn (after the parish in which the Inn was situated). He would appoint members of his princely ‘court’, and organize and preside over the revels; on Candlemas night (2 February) the Prince would die, and a final banquet would be held. Fortunately, texts survive from the Gray’s Inn revels of 1594–5 (Gesta Grayorum, first published in 1688), and from the Middle Temple revels of 1597–8 (Le Prince d’Amour, published in 1660), giving us the full flavour of these performances.8 The Gray’s Inn materials consist mainly of mock-edicts issued by the Prince of Purpoole, and mock-correspondence between him and the Russian Tsar. The edicts indicate the kind of legal-parodic word-play which was the staple of Inns of Court humour; one announcement excuses all those within the Prince’s domains of
all manner of Treasons, Contempts, Offences, Trespasses, Forcible Entries, Intrusions, Disseisins, Torts, Wrongs, Injustices, Over-throws, Over-thwartings, Cross-bitings, Coney-catchings, Frauds, Conclusions, Fictions, Fractions, Fashions, Fancies, or Ostentations:… All Destructions, Obstructions and Constructions: All Evasions, Invasions, Charges, Surcharges, Discharges, Commands, Countermands, Checks, Counter-checks and Counter-buffs: … All, and all manner of Mis-feasance, Nonfeasance, or too much Feasance …9
And the flourish of seigneurial titles with which the Prince begins each document strikes a typically mock-heroic note, with its conjuncture of aristocratic style and bathetic London place-names:
Henry Prince of Purpoole, Arch-Duke of Stapulia and Bernardia, Duke of High and Nether Holborn, Marquis of St. Giles’s and Tottenham, Count Palatine of Bloomsbury and Clerkenwell, Great Lord of the Canton of Islington, Kentish-Town, Paddington and Knights-bridge, Knight of the most Heroical order of the Helmet, and Sovereign of the same …10
The surviving text of the Middle Temple revels of 1597–8 is a similar affair, centring on a mock-trial before a grand jury. One of the speeches is attributed in two manuscript versions to Hoskyns; in the printed version its speaker is described as ‘Clerk of the Council’ to the Prince d’Amour – in other words, one of the senior figures chosen to help organize the revels by the Prince, who on this occasion was Hoskyns’s friend Richard Martin.11 The same qualities of verbal dexterity which had qualified Hoskyns to be Terrae filius at Oxford must also have distinguished him at the Middle Temple; but this time he employed that talent not in biting satire but in something altogether more harmless and fantastical. After a speech by the Prince’s ‘Orator’, Charles Best, Hoskyns was (according to one of the manuscript sources) ‘importuned by ye Prince & Sr Walter Raleigh’.12 He obliged with a speech which was a classic example of the ‘fustian’ style of parodic prose.13 The reputation of this speech lived on long after its author’s death. When compiling his notes on Hoskyns in the 1680s or 1690s, John Aubrey jotted down: ‘Memorandum: – Hoskyns – to collect his nonsense discourse, which is very good’.14 The speech is not in any strict sense ‘nonsense’, but it is so important as a preliminary to Hoskyns’s invention of English nonsense poetry that it is reproduced here in full:
Then (Mr. Orator) I am sorry that for your Tufftaffata Speech, you shall receive but a Fustian Answer. For alas! what am I (whose ears have been pasted with the Tenacity of your Speeches, and whose nose hath been perfumed with the Aromaticity of your sentences) that I should answer your Oration, both Voluminous and Topical, with a Replication concise and curtal? For you are able in Troops of Tropes, and Centuries of Sentences to muster your meaning: Nay, you have such Wood-piles of words, that unto you Cooper is but a Carpenter, and Rider himself deserves not a Reader. I am therefore driven to say to you, as Heliogabalus said to his dear and honourable servant Reniger Fogassa, If thou dost ill (quoth he) then much good do thee; if well, then snuffe the candle. For even as the Snow advanced upon the points vertical of cacuminous Mountains, dissolveth and discoagulateth itself into humorous liquidity, even so by the frothy volubility of your words, the Prince is perswaded to depose himself from his Royal Seat and Dignity, and to follow your counsel with all contradiction and reluctation; wherefore I take you to be fitter to speak unto stones, like Amphion, or trees, like Orpheus, than to declaim to men like a Cryer, or to exclaim to boyes like a Sexton: For what said Silas Titus, the Sope-maker of Holborn-bridge? For (quoth he) since the States of Europe have so many momentary inclinations, and the Anarchical confusion of their Dominions is like to ruinate their Subversions, I see no reason why men should so addict themselves to take Tabacco in Ramus Method; For let us examine the Complots of Polititians from the beginning of the world to this day; What was the cause of the repentine mutiny in Scipio’s Camp? it is most evident it was not Tabacco. What was the cause of the Aventine revolt, and seditious deprecation for a Tribune? it is apparent it was not Tabacco. What moved me to address this Expostulation to your iniquity? it is plain it is not Tabacco. So that to conclude, Tabacco is not guilty of so many faults as it is charged withal; it disuniteth not the reconciled, nor reconcileth the disunited; it builds no new Cities, nor mends no old Breeches; yet the one, the other, and both are not immortal without reparations: Therefore wisely said the merry-conceited Poet Heraclitus, Honourable misfortunes shall have ever an Historical compensation. You listen unto my speeches, I must needs confess it; you hearken to my words, I cannot deny it; you look for some meaning, I partly believe it; but you find none, I do not greatly respect it: For even as a Mill-horse is not a Horse-mill; nor Drink ere you go, is not Go ere you drink; even so Orator Best, is not the best Orator. The sum of all is this, I am an humble Suitor to your Excellency, not only to free him from the danger of the Tower, which he by his demerits cannot avoid; but also to increase dignity upon his head, and multiply honour upon his shoulders, as well for his Eloquence, as for his Nobility. For I understand by your Herald that he is descended from an Ancient house of the Romans, even from Calpurnius Bestia, and so the generation continued from beast to beast, to this present beast. And your Astronomer hath told me that he hath Kindred in the Zodiack; therefore in all humility I do beseeche your Excellency to grant your Royal Warrant to the Lo. Marshal, and charge him to send to the Captain of the Pentioners, that he might send to the Captain of the Guard to dispatch a Messenger to the Lieutenant of the Tower, to command one of his Guards to go to one of the Grooms of the Stable, to fetch the Beadle of the Beggars, ut gignant stultum, to get him a stool; ut sis foris Eloquentiae, that he may sit for his Eloquence. I think I have most oratoriously insinuated unto your apprehension, and without evident obscurity intimated unto your good consideration, that the Prince hath heard your Oration, yea marry hath he, and thinketh very well of it, yea marry doth he.15
