[212] I have since been informed that this famous invention was
originally a flim-flam of a Mr. Thomas White, a noted collector and
dealer in antiquities. But it was Steevens who placed it in the
broker's shop, where he was certain of _catching_ the antiquary.
When the late Mr. Pegge, a profound brother, was preparing to write
a dissertation on it, the first inventor of the flam stepped forward
to save any further tragical termination; the wicked wit had already
succeeded too well.
[213] The stone may be found in the British Museum. HARDCNVT is the
reading on the _Harthacnut_ stone; but the true orthography of the
name is HAREthACNVT. It was reported to have been discovered in
Kennington-lane, where the palace of the monarch was said to have
been located, and the inscription carefully made in Anglo-Saxon
characters, was to the effect that "Here Hardcnut drank a wine horn
dry, stared about him, and died."
Sylvanus Urban, my once excellent and old friend, seems a trifle
uncourteous on this grave occasion.--He tells us, however, that "The
history of this wanton trick, with a _fac-simile_ of Schnebbelie's
drawing, may be seen in his volume lx. p. 217." He says that this
wicked contrivance of George Steevens was to entrap this famous
draughtsman! Does Sylvanus then deny that "the Director" was not
also "entrapped?" and that he always struck out his own _name_ in
the proof-sheets of the Magazine, substituting his official
designation, by which the whole society itself seemed to screen "the
Director!"
[214] He was a Dominican monk, his real name being Giovanni Nanni,
which he Latinized in conformity with the custom of his era. He was
born 1432, and died 1502. His great work, _Antiquitatem Rariorum_,
professes to contain the works of Manetho, Berosus, and other
authors of equal antiquity.
[215] A forgery of a similar character has been recently effected in
the _debris_ of the Chapelle St. Eloi (Departement de L'Eure,
France), where many inscriptions connected with the early history of
France were exhumed, which a deputation of antiquaries, convened to
examine their authenticity, have since pronounced to be forgeries!
[216] The volume of these pretended Antiquities is entitled
_Etruscarum Antiquitatum Fragmenta, fo. Franc._ 1637. That which
Inghirami published to defend their authenticity is in Italian,
_Discorso sopra l'Opposizioni fatte all' Antichita Toscane_, 4to,
_Firenze_, 1645.
[217] I draw this information from a little "new year's gift," which
my learned friend, the Rev. S. Weston, presented to his friends in
1822, entitled "A Visit to Vaucluse," accompanied by a Supplement.
He derives his account apparently from a curious publication of
L'Abbe Costaing de Pusigner d'Avignon, which I with other inquirers
have not been able to procure, but which it is absolutely necessary
to examine, before we can decide on the very curious but
unsatisfactory accounts we have hitherto possessed of the Laura of
Petrarch.
[218] For some further notices of Psalmanazar and his literary
labours, we may refer the reader to vol. i. p. 137, note.
[219] The question has been discussed with great critical acumen by
Dr. Wordsworth.
[220] Since this was published I have discovered that Harry Martin's
Letters are not forgeries, but I cannot immediately recover my
authority.
[221] One of the most amusing of these tricks was perpetrated on
William Prynne, the well-known puritanic hater of the stage, by some
witty cavalier. Prynne's great work, "Histriomastix, the Player's
Scourge; or, Actor's Tragedy," an immense quarto, of 1100 pages, was
a complete condemnation of all theatrical amusements; but in 1649
appeared a tract of four leaves, entitled "Mr. William Prynne, his
Defence of Stage Playes; or, a Retractation of a former Book of his
called Histriomastix." It must have astonished many readers in his
own day, and would have passed for his work in more modern times,
but for the accidental preservation of a single copy of a handbill
Prynne published disclaiming the whole thing. His style is most
amusingly imitated throughout, and his great love for quoting
authorities in his margin. He is made to complain that "this wicked
and tyrannical army did lately in a most inhumane, cruell, rough,
and barbarous manner, take away the poor players from their houses,
being met there to discharge the duty of their callings: as if this
army were fully bent, and most trayterously and maliciously set, to
put down and depresse all the King's friends, not only in the
parliament but in the very theatres; they have no care of covenant
or any thing else." And he is further made to declare, in spite of
"what the malicious, clamorous, and obstreperous people" may object,
that he once wrote against stage-plays,--that it was "when I had not
so clear a light as now I have." We can fancy the amusement this
pamphlet must have been to many readers during the great Civil War.