[_Livery_, i.e. _delivery_, from the French _livrer_, to deliver.
To the origin of this word (says Junius) these words of Chaucer
allude, "that is the conisance of my _livery_, to all my Servants
_delivered_." Richardson also gives the following quotation from
Spenser explanatory of it:--"What _livery_ is, wee by common use
in England know well enough, namely, that it is allowance of
horse-meate, as they commonly use the word in stabling, as to
keepe horses at _livery_:--the which word, I guesse, is derived of
_livering_ or delivering forth their nightly foode. So in great
houses the livery is said to be served up for all night, that is,
their evening's allowance for drinke. And livery is also called
the upper weede which a serving man weareth, so called (as I
suppose) for that it was delivered and taken from him at
pleasure."--_Spenser on Ireland._]
Replies.
MABILLON'S CHARGE AGAINST THE SPANISH CLERGY.--CAMPANELLA AND
ADAMI.--WILKES MSS.
It may seem a little too late to notice a criticism nearly two years
old; but, though I had casually looked at "NOTES AND QUERIES," it is but
lately that I have, with very great pleasure, read through the volumes
which have appeared. I was therefore ignorant of some remarks relating
to myself, which from time to time have been made. Greatly as I am open
to the charge of too frequent inaccuracy in what I have published, I can
defend myself from some strictures of your correspondents.
The first of these is contained in a letter signed CANTAB (Vol. i., p.
51.), and relates to a passage in my _History of the Middle Ages_, where
I have said, on the authority of Mabillon, "Not one priest in a thousand
in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a common letter of
salutation to another." CANTAB produces the passage in Mabillon, which
contains exactly what I have said; but assigns as a reason for it, that
the Christians, that is, the clergy, had wholly devoted themselves to
the study of Arabic and Hebrew books. And this excuse CANTAB accepts.
"They were devoting all their energies to Arabic and Chaldean science,
and in their pursuit of it neglected other literature. A similar remark
might be made respecting many distinguished members of the university to
which I belong." In order to make this a parallel case, it should be
asserted, not that many senior wranglers would be at a loss in a Greek
chorus, but that they cannot write a good English letter. CANTAB seems
to forget, that in the age of Charlemagne, all that was necessary
towards writing a Latin letter in Spain was to substitute regular
grammar for the corrupt _patois_, the _lingua Romana rustica_, which was
soon to become Castilian. The truth is, that the reasons assigned by
Mabillon's authority, whoever it might be, is wholly incredible. I am
not convinced that it was more than a sarcasm on the ignorance which it
affects to excuse. Does CANTAB believe that the whole body of the
Spanish clergy relinquished at once, not other literature, but the most
elementary knowledge, for the sake of studying Arabic and Chaldee books?
And this is not alleged to have been for the purpose of converting Moors
and Jews, but as a literary pastime. They are expressly said to have
neglected the Scriptures. The object that I had in view was to show the
general ignorance of various nations in those ages and this charge of
ignorance, as to what lay most open to the Spanish clergy, would hardly
be alleviated, even if it were true, that some of them had taken to the
study of Arabic.
Another criticism in Vol. i., p. 435., relating to what I have said in
_Hist. of Literature_, vol. iii. p. 149. (1st edition), concerning
Campanella and Adami, is better founded, though your correspondent C. is
himself not wholly accurate. I have said of Tobias Adami, that he
"dedicated to the philosophers of Germany his own _Prodromus Philosophiæ
Instaurandæ_ (Instaur_atio_ is, of course, an error of the press),
prefixed to his edition of Campanella's _Compendium de Rerum Naturâ_,
published at Frankfort in 1617." C. says, "This _Prodromus_ is a
treatise of Campanella's, not, as Mr. Hallam says, of Adami. Adami
published the _Prodromus_ for Campanella, who was in prison; and he
wrote a preface, in which he gives a list of other writings of
Campanella, which he proposes to publish afterwards. What Mr. Hallam
calls an edition, was the first publication."
The words _Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ_, which appear only on the
title-page, are of Adami himself, not of Campanella. The work of the
latter is called _Compendium de Rerum Naturâ_, and is printed, after the
preface, with this running title. The error into which I fell was to
refer the words _Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ_ to the preface of
Adami, and not to the entire work. It may be satisfactory to give the
title-page, and one or two extracts from the preface:--
"Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ, id est, Dissertationis de
Natura rerum Compendium, secundum sera principia, ex scriptis
Thomæ Campanellæ præmissum, cum præfatione ad philosophos
Germaniæ. Francofurt. 1617."
_Prodromus_, of course, means the _avant-courier_ of a new philosophy;
and this, I might think, was intended for Adami himself. But, on looking
again at the preface, I perceive that it refers to the _Compendium_,
which was to lead the way to ulterior publications.
"Præmittere autem hoc saltem opusculum visum nobis est, quo brevis
[Greek: anakephalaiôsis] physicorum philosophematum conjecta est,
ut judicia doctorum ex eo in Germania experiremur,
exercitaremusque. Cui si operæ pretium videbitur, subjungemus
posthac autoris pleniorem et concinniorem Epilogismum Philosophiæ
Naturalis, Moralis et Politicæ, addito opusculo Civitatis Solis,
quo idea ingeniosissima reipublicæ philosophiæ secundum naturam
instituendæ proponitur."
I had at one time a doubt, suggested by the language of the title-page,
whether the _Compendium de Rerum Naturâ_ were not an abridgment of
Campanella, by Adami himself. But the style has too much vigour and
terseness to warrant this supposition. And the following passage in the
preface leads us to a different conclusion:
"De stylo, si tam delicatæ, ut nostratium nonnullæ sunt, aures
reperiantur, quibus non ubique ita accuratus, _et ex scriptis
mendosis interdum depravatus videatur_, supervacuum puto excusare,
cum philosophus non loquatur, ut loquatur, sed ut intelligi
velit."
Your correspondent observes also: "What Mr. Hallam calls an 'edition,'
was the first publication." Is not this rather hyper-critical? "First
edition" is a familiar phrase, and Adam was surely an editor.
In Vol. iii., p. 241., it is said that "in 1811 these MSS. (viz. of
Wilkes) were, I presume, in the possession of Peter Elmsley, Principal
of St. Alban's Hall, as he submitted the Junius Correspondence, through
Mr. Hallam, to Serjeant Rough, who returned the letters to Mr. Hallam."
And it is asked, "Where now are the original Junius letters, and where
the other MSS.?"
I have to answer to this, that I returned the Junius letters (I never
had any others of Wilkes) to Mr. Elmsley some years before his death in
1825. They are, in all probability, in the possession of his
representatives.