We shall feel quite satisfied if our assistance in clearing away a few of the impurities and negligences of the careless old dramatic press, should be deemed useful. We are fully aware that our task lies in what may be considered the humblest walk of criticism, but we also know that it is not without its own honours. He who labours, must first stoop to mount hereafter. Before we can discourse on the merits and excellence of an author we must ascertain what he wrote, nor waste our criticism on the inaccuracies of a poet, which would be rightly directed against the negligence of a printer; after these our labours are over, and we have swept away some of the dust from the surface of the treasure beneath, we then may delight in a more genial and pleasurable occupation, to use the expression of an accomplished critic of later days, "Nam nobis hoc potissimum negotii datum existimamus, tum ut interiores poetæ sensus aperiamus, tum ut poeticæ linguæ veneres explicamus." But he who wrote these words, pointing to the highest province of the critic's art, was himself the most diligent workman in its more obscure recesses, and his fine and exquisite taste rose from the solid basis of an extensive and accurate erudition, and a sagacity unsurpassed in the discovery of truth. RING CHASED WITH THE ARMS OF POPE PIUS II. (With a THE massive Ring, which is represented in the accompanying Plate in its actual size, is of brass, and has been thickly gilt. It is set with a topaz, the surface of which has lost its polish, but which shines brightly within, and shows that it is cut below into four sides terminating in a point. On the hoop of the Ring are chased the arms of Pope Pius the Second, of the family of Piccolomini; the papal tiara; and this inscription in Italian: PAPA PIO. The stone is set in a massive square facet, carried up to a considerable height above the finger, and on each of the four sides thus formed is placed in relief one of the four beasts of the Revelations, which were used to typify the Evangelists. Pope Pius II. is better known by his literary name of Eneas Sylvius: and his biography will be found in the Dictionary of Bayle and other similar collections. His works, which include a History of Europe, a History of Bohemia, and a long series of letters, have passed through several editions. He was elected Pope in 1458, and died in 1464. His nephew, the son of his sister Laodamia, also attained the papal dignity in the year 1503, and used the Plate.) same arms of Piccolomini; but as he only survived his election for twenty days, it is scarcely probable that this Ring can be assigned to the time of his pontificate. With respect to the intention with which rings of this kind were made, we have not been able to obtain satisfaction. It is considerably larger in size than the rings usually interred with bishops, and which were probably the same which they received on their consecration. It must have been intended to be worn over a glove. Was it a Ring sent by the Pope as a present to a Bishop? Or is it not rather one of the Pope's own state rings, worn on Christendom came to receive his beneone of those great occasions when all diction? It is not unknown that the gift of a golden Rose has been customary from Popes to sovereign princes;* and it is recorded of Pope Pius II. that he presented two swords that had received Burgundy, and the second to Louis his blessing, one to Philip Duke of the XIth, both, as might be supposed, highly adorned with gold and jewels. * See a memoir by Mr. Thoms in a late volume of the Archæologia. British Museum, MR. URBAN, May 11. ALTHOUGH the subject of Layamon is, for many reasons, a very ungrateful one to me, yet the attack made by Mr. GUEST upon my edition of that work in the last number of your Magazine, is of such a nature, as to require an immediate reply. That this attack is altogether unexpected, I cannot say, inasmuch as, many years since, I was informed by a friend of Mr. Guest, that he meditated some such onslaught, on account of my having pointed out (in my notes to Syr Gawayne, published in 1839,) some errors committed by him in his History of English Rythms; but the tone and spirit of his Letter to your Magazine, as well as the unfounded charges brought against me, excite, I confess, my utmost astonishment. Occupied as my time is, I can but ill spare the leisure necessary to refute charges like these; but I appeal most confidently to all those who have ever had any literary intercourse with me, or know my habits of research, whether such charges can possibly be true? Mr. Guest commences by quoting a passage from my Preface, in which I say, "Although many writers of later date, as Tyrwhitt, Ellis, Ritson, Mitford, Campbell, Turner, and Conybeare, have severally commented on, or quoted from, Layamon's poem, yet its peculiar value in a philological point of view, appears to have remained but little known up to the period when the Society of Antiquaries determined on its publication.” And I then proceed to state the heads of inquiry to be made, as to the author, and structure of his work. There is nothing here but a simple statement of fact; yet Mr. Guest, in reference to these words, says he shall "examine how far the result of Sir F. Madden's labours are entitled to the praise of originality, which he thus claims for them." Now I claim here no originality, but I do claim the merit of having been the first to point out to the Anglo-Saxon Committee of the Society of Antiquaries the peculiar philological merits of Layamon's poem, which occasioned its publication to be determined on, in May, 1831; a date, it will be admitted, somewhat anterior to Mr. Guest's book, which appeared only in 1838. The next, and indeed the gravest, charge brought by Mr. Guest against me, is this, that I borrowed from his work on English Rhythms, without owning it, my knowledge of the localities of Ernleye and Redstone, as pointed out by Nash in his History of Worcestershire, and that, had it not been for Mr. Guest, I should have remained in complete ignorance of the fact, that these places were in Worces tershire, and not in Gloucestershire or Staffordshire. This charge is not only formally expressed, but put forward in language so injurious to my literary reputation, that I feel quite at a loss how to express in terms strong enough my indignation at it. Mr. Guest writes, "Now of the five writers whom he [Sir F. Madden] quotes, only one mentions the name of Redstone, and the reference to him Sir F. Madden found in the History of English Rhythms. The motive which prompted the statement is tolerably obvious," &c. "Sir F. Madden must have known, for his knowledge on the subject can only have been gathered from my statement, instead of leading to, the discovery." that the reference to Nash resulted from, "Here we have a writer who finds two different statements in a contemporary work. In the first, the author acknow. ledges that his search after a particular fact has resulted in failure, and, as the only course open to him, follows, though with hesitation, the current opinion of the day. In the second, he lays before his reader the results of a later and more successful inquiry. These results Sir Frederic Madden adopts as his own, and then calls the reader's attention specially to the ment,-an error which at this moment 'error' contained in the preceding statewould have been Sir Frederic Madden's own, but for the information which was subsequently furnished him. I leave the reader to form his own opinion of Sir Frederic Madden's candour: were I to express mine, I must use a severity of language which I should be sorry to employ, however much the occasion might call for it." Really, Mr. Urban, these paragraphs, I feel been awaked from a merism, and had d serious injury accusing after reading as if I had just state of mes Mr. Guest some wing it. In ly and titiously e little doubt did not arise in his mind, that I might possibly have consulted Nash, long before I ever heard either of Mr. Guest or his book? Surely the common rules of inference, when the mind has not been blinded by prejudice, might have prompted such a doubt, without drawing very largely on the writer's liberality. Be this, however, as it may, I totally and emphatically deny having been indebted to Mr. Guest's book in any way whatever for a knowledge of the locality of Layamon, or the reference to Nash. It is very difficult in cases like these to prove a negative, and if I rested here, perhaps there might be some, besides Mr. Guest himself, who would remain unsatisfied with such a denial. I must therefore descend to particulars, and claim your readers' patience for the refutation of a groundless charge which you have thought fit to admit into your Magazine, and to which I have a just right to reply. It is well known that in the year 1832 I was the projector (together with Sir Thomas Phillipps, Bart. and, subsequently, of Dr. Bandinel) of a topographical and genealogical publication, which in 1833 appeared quarterly under the title of Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, and of which I was the editor for several years. It might not be unreasonable to suppose that, in the course of such a work, I had ample occasion to consult all the county histories, and certainly could be no stranger to Nash. But waiving this presumptive evidence, let me proceed at once to facts, As early as the month of March or April, 1832, I was employed in searching for the locality of Layamon, and at that time believing it to be in Staffordshire, I wrote to the Rev. John * *It is worthy of remark, that all the writers (except Nash) who have mentioned Layamon, merely state that he was born at Ernleye-upon-Severn, or a priest of Ernley e-upon-Severn, without a word of the county, and Mr. Stevenson is the only writer, as far as I know, who has stated it to be in Gloucestershire, exclusive of Mr. Guest. Hence my supposi tion, that Mr. Guest was misled by Mr. Stevenson; since my impression was that the edition of the Hule and Niztengale had preceded Mr. Guest's work. But let sume for a moment that GloucesterMAG. VOL. XXIX. Allen, incumbent of Over-Arley, requesting information on the subject. His reply to me is dated Arley Hall, 23d April, 1832, and is as follows: "There is no parish, hamlet, or manor near Arley called Radestone. There is an ancient farm-house called Hextons, formerly written Heckstan or Hexstanes, which Mr. Hearne says signifies "very stony;" vide a note in Shaw's History of Staffordshire, or in the Appendix to Nash's History of Worcestershire. "In both these Histories a good account of Arley is given, written principally by Bishop Lyttleton, to whose family the manor of Arley belonged. In consulting with my friend the Earl of Mountnorris, who is a descendant from the Lyttletons, and much interested in anything which relates to the antiquities of Arley, and lord of the manor of Arley, he is inclined to think that Hextons must be the place meant. Tradition says there was a chapel formerly at Hextons. There is a field in this farm called Chapel Leasow, and tradition further says, that an ancient monument now in the parish church was brought from Hextons." The reader will here remark the distinct reference to Nash, and if Mr. Guest supposes that, after my receiving this letter, twenty-four hours elapsed without my consulting that work, and finding the passage in which Redstone is connected with Layamon,† he is but little acquainted with my literary habits or mode of pursuing an inquiry in which I feel interested. This letter did lead me to Nash, and in Nash, vol. i. p. 41, I found the passage claimed by Mr. Guest as his own property; but had I not received this letter, a very short time afterwards I met with an indication in Potts's Gazetteer, which would equally have taken me to the historian of Worcestershire, since he enters both Areley and Redstone in the same hundred of Doddingtree, in Worcestershire. I followed up the information thus obtained by writing on the 6th Novem ber 1832 to Dr. Prattinton of Bewdley (the best authority on all matters connected with the history of Worcester shire), on the subject of Redstone and Layamon, requesting him to give me any additional particulars in his power. Unfortunately I possess no copy of this letter, and I doubt whether it reached his hands, for it was never answered, and I have searched without success through his Worcestershire Collec tions, bequeathed by him to the Society of Antiquaries, in the faint hope of finding my letter preserved among them. The evidence therefore from this source I am unable to quote; but in a literary diary, which for many years it has been my practice to keep, I find the following memorandum, which to any candid person, I think, will prove conclusive. “15 April, 1833. Lord Mountnorris called on me for the purpose of discussing the spot where Layamon lived. I convinced him it was Lower Arely in Worcestershire, and he promised to procure for me a drawing of the hermitage at Redstone ferry." In addition to this (if not enough), I can refer to a living witness that in 1886 I mentioned to him the same locality; and, last of all, I beg to adduce the testimony of Mr. John Gough Nichols, who, whilst the sheets of Mr. Guest's second volume were in the press, called on me at the Museum, and made direct inquiry respecting the locality of Ernley, for the express purpose of communicating my informahow to Mr. Guest himself (!),* and I then civilly declined to give such information on the grounds of my intending to use it myself in my edition of Layamon. And now what becomes of this unfounded charge of Mr. Guest against me for borrowing from him without acknowledgment? Would he have me express obligations where they were not due, and to a writer whose hostile feeling towards myself I had previously been warned of? Who has the best right to use "a severity of language," Mr. Guest or myself? Were it not for the real respect, after all, which I feel for Mr. Guest's talents, and the value of his work, I might But at my own suggestion, and without Mr. Guest's knowledge.-J. G. N. treat his aspersions with contempt: but I do maintain that they are most unprovoked and unmerited. Mr. Guest says of me, “Unfairness of que tation seems to be characteristic of this writer." I deny it, and appeal to those who are better acquainted with my writings than Mr. Guest is, whether I ought to be thus stigmatised. He says also, in reference to another pas sage in my preface, "I can only conjecture that in an unguarded moment Sir F. Madden yielded to his infirmity,-an opportunity of wounding at the same time Mr. Stevenson and myself holding out a temptation which was too strong both for his virtue and prudence." Such language is unintelligible to me. Neither my virtue or prudence, that I am aware of, were called in question, much less any intention of wounding these gentlemen. It was my duty, as the editor of Layamon, to notice the statements previously put before the public, and to refute them, if I thought such statements erroneous. I may have misunderstood Mr. Guest's reasoning (indeed, in many pages of his work, I think it would be very par donable to do so): but that I intertionally or wilfully misrepresented his words, is false. Again, in regard to the remarks on the grammar of Layamon, which in Mr. Guest's "sketch" occupy only two pages and a half, and in my own "analysis" more than "ten closelyprinted pages," Mr. Guest accuses me of "swelling them out" from his own; but I am content to leave the decision of how much or how little I am entitled to claim, to those who will compare the two works together. Was it, indeed, possible, after having made the minute and laborious glossary ap pended to Layamon, that I should be so ignorant of the grammatical structure of his language as to be compelled to recur to Mr. Guest for instruction, or to own obligations to him for a knowledge of the mode in which the definite article or adjective was employed? I can scarcely believe that any man but Mr. Guest himself would knowing noEven the st person (the indout accuse me thus boldly. thing about the striking anoma' prese |