ankle (which puts to the blush the robust ankle of the Westminster Boy) of that elegant Vandyke-like figure, represent not Master Buttall but Master Gainsborough, or, as Mr. Ruskin would say, "the deep, solemn, thoughtful Gainsborough, profound in his seriousness and graceful in his gaiety," when he was "sweet fifteen." We have often thought so.

A distinguished artist thought the figure very fine, but the landscape scarcely equal to what he expected; but to ordinary observers a contrast of the landscape in the picture with that in the engraved one of the Westminster picture presents far more graceful trees and accessories to the eye than those of the latter. Its landscape has also the merit, if merit it be, of a more striking family likeness to portions of the landscapes of the "portraits of Dr. Schomberg," of the "Rustic Children," and of the "Watering Place," in the National Gallery, than that of the Westminster "Blue Boy."

By others, of equal authority and experience as judges, the least-known "blue-clad" was deemed to be a genuine Gainsborough, of which there can now be no doubt. It must, therefore, be regarded as a feather in his cap" (and there is a much more elegantly-shaped feather in his "cap in hand" as at ease he stands, than is shown to be in the Westminster boy's cap) that he has passed so very satisfactorily through such a severe and trying ordeal.

If we turn to commercial judges, the result of examinations is equally satisfactory.

Mr. Stanley of "the Lombard Exchange," City, son of the author of the Biographical Dictionary of Painters, and a good judge of pictures, after a careful examination of the least-known "Blue Boy," arrived at the conviction that it was a fine Gainsborough, quite equal if not superior to his usual "handwriting.".

Mr. Davis, of Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square, another experienced man, also pronounced it to be an undoubted Gainsborough; and in reply to a note informing him of Mr. Lane's opinion, he writes:

"I am happy to hear that the opinion of so high an authority as Mr. Lane, R.A.E., has confirmed my opinion. I must really say I was surprised to see such a picture, as you might say, unknown to the picture world. I consider it the finest work of Gainsborough I have ever seen, and cannot think that any person pretending to be a judge of his works would throw the least doubt about its

being genuine, but must consider it of the finest quality

and in the most perfect condition."

mined in all its features as the least-known "blueclad" has been, and the result be made public. South Kensington Museum. It is probable that the least-known "blue-clad boy" will be lent to the authorities of the Museum for exhibition at the same time, provided that it is admitted as แ a Gainsborough." It is a picture which should be hung in a comparatively low position; for, like the royal portraits in 1774, it is, as already remarked, far more of a near or conversational distance picture than of an elevated distance one. The late Mr. Hall, who possessed the picture for many years, used to say that it was one of the pictures returned to Gainsborough along with the royal portraits in 1774, because they could not be hung at the height which the painter required.

Sketches of the "Blue Boy."-In Fulcher's Life of Gainsborough it is stated that the (late) Bishop of Ely had a finished sketch in oil of the "Blue Boy," and desirous of seeing it for comparison with the least-known "Blue Boy," it was traced to the Messrs. Colnaghi, Pall Mall East, who bought it for 91. 9s. at Christie's, April 15, 1864, but who have so far declined to give any information where it is or to whom they sold it.

Hearing that Colonel Cunningham had an oil sketch of the "Blue Boy," an application to him was promptly answered by an invitation to call and see it. The gallant veteran, who is also a devoted connoisseur of art and one of your readers, very courteously showed the writer his choice, varied, rare, and crowded-out-to-the-door collection of art treasures, including first-class paintings, unique engravings, rare sketches, and the miniature "Blue Boy." It was not the one which had been the bishop's, but a well-coloured sketch, about the same size as the photos of the Westminster "Blue Boy," but differing in the landscape from that picture, and in the colouring from the oil-coloured photos sold by Messrs. Caldesi of Pall Mall East.

Age of the "Blue Boy."-According to Fulcher and other authorities, the "birth" of this boy was in 1779, or after the delivery, in December 1778, of Sir Joshua Reynolds's oft-referred-to coldcolour discourse. During this research the conviction has, as it were, been forced on us that this is an error which has crept into circulation without any valid foundation to rest upon, a conclusion in which we are supported by the Rev. Mr. Trimmer. It became evident that there were several "blue-clads" and blue "lighted" landW. R. CARRE, Esq., described in "N. & Q.," July scapes of an earlier date than 1779. For example 10, a "Blue Boy," by Gainsborough, of about 1770, which MR. CARRE explains in a letter to be the portrait, when a boy, of his father-in-law, who became Lieut.-Col. MacLachlan of the 10th Regiment, after having served with the 73rd in the celebrated defence of Gibraltar, and who lived at Enfield, Middlesex, when a boy, and died

there also. The photograph of this "blue-clad," kindly lent by MR. CARRE for inspection, shows a boy in the dress of the period, apparently standing on a garden wall and wistfully eyeing a fruit tree, as if longing to pluck and eat some of its fruit. It brings to mind Gainsborough's early garden-breaker getting over the wall, which created a sensation at Sudbury, and indicated the talents which culminated in the " Blue Boy" and other first-class works of art.

In the picture of "the Baillie Family," by Gainsborough, there is a blue-clad boy and a partly blue-clad girl with a shoe and blue-tie, almost a facsimile of those of the least-known "Blue Boy" in neatness and colouring, whilst the feet of the Westminster boy appear to be quite different and disproportionately long. Again, in the "Rustic Children," also by Gainsborough, the blue "lights" of the landscape are similar to the blue "lights" in the landscape of the leastknown "Blue Boy."

Now, these and other instances of blue-clads— a lady, as well as boys and girls-in the absence of any data to support the usually received opinion, have led us to think it probable (1) That the almost inimitable skill with which Gainsborough utilised the coldest of cold coloursblue-in portrait and landscape painting, had made an impression which the president wished to moderate by cautioning less skilful artists, that in their hands cold colours were more likely to fail in effect than warm tints; and (2) that the "Blue Boy" was painted before and not after the delivery of the cold-colour discourse, but may possibly have been the last straw which led the president of the R. A. to publicly notice as he did a speciality of his great rival's, which would certainly add to the fame of the "blue-clad," but as certainly throw more fuel into the fire of the differences between those distinguished artists.

Conclusions.-Once more," subject to correction by further information," it is submitted-(1) that the inferences formerly drawn in favour of the least-known " blue-clad have been virtually confirmed by subsequently received facts; (2) that the original "Blue Boy," as well as several other blue-clads, were in all probability painted before and not after the delivery of Sir Joshua Reynolds's cold-colour discourse; (3) that it is probable the original "Blue Boy" passed direct from Gainsborough's studio to the gallery of George Prince of Wales, afterwards George IV.; (4) that at any rate it belonged at one time to the Prince, and was by him sold to John Nesbitt, Esq., M.P.; (5) that the very remarkable coincidence between the early description of the picture in Mr. Nesbitt's possession, and the recent description of the least-known "blue-clad," is due to their actually referring to the same picture;

(6) that about 1806, if not some years previously, two " Blue Boys" appear, of which the original one was in Mr. Hoppner's possession, and the unknown one in the Grosvenor collection; and (7) that historically and artistically it has been shown that there are excellent grounds for now recognising the least-known "Blue Boy" as the same picture which was successively the property of H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, John Nesbitt, Esq., M.P., and John Hoppner, Esq., R.A. J. S.

SHAKESPEARE GLOSSARIES.
(4th S. iv. 510, 538.)

[In times of old, when good knights and true did battle with sword and lance as they now do with pen and ink, he who presided over the Just or Tournament was wont to throw down his baton or leading staff when he found the combatants waxing angry, and the encounter had lasted long enough. The example is a good one; and we are about to put an end to the contest, which has now lasted long enough, on the subject of SHAKESPEARE GLOSSARIES. The last blow or words of both

combatants are dealt simultaneously. Our baton has fallen; and the Just is over-at all events in these Lists.— ED. "N. & Q."]

It is satisfactory to find that with the keenest desire to pick holes in my explanations of Shakesperian obscurities, MR. CORNEY has not been able to convict me of a single error. I have indeed made some slips, as might be naturally expected in a paper involving such a multitude of minute points and references; but MR. CORNEY, with all his mole-eyed industry, has not been fortunate enough to discover one of these slips. He has not disproved or even weakened any one of the points I have endeavoured to establish. His attempts to do this constitute a curious collection of perversions, ignorances, and falsifications. I have already pointed out some of these. But every fresh communication from MR. CORNEY on the subject contains a fresh crop of tortuous misrepresentations, a fresh series of impotent writhings around the object of his dislike. Hitherto, however, instead of making any impression, he has simply rasped or broken his own teeth; and the further he goes the worse he appears to fare. I will select from his later contributions to your columns a few additional illustrations which will probably suffice to settle his character as a controversialist and his pretensions as a Shakesperian critic.

tion, adding that the illustrations are the more important, as the noun in this sense is unknown to our lexicographers. MR. CORNEY controverts this statement, giving as the only evidence in support of his contradiction a common-place extract from the English and Latin school dictionaries of the seventeenth century. His quotation is as follows: "A lurch, duplex palma, facilis victoria." MR. CORNEY makes a great mystery of his authority, and seems to think the extract will be a surprise to me, though it is fully given in the very note I was criticising, and though everyone with the least smattering of archaic English must be familiar with the sources whence it is derived. Leaving this point, however, and looking simply to the purpose for which the extract is produced, two remarks are to be made on this solitary scrap of evidence. First, that MR. CORNEY understands the phrases duplex palma and facilis victoria to mean seizure, robbery; and second, that he regards the obscure compilers of obsolete English and Latin vocabularies as English lexicographers. It is surely needless for me to say, that when I speak generally of our English lexicographers I refer to Johnson and his successors, especially Richardson, Todd, and Latham, and for archaic words, Nares. If a particular word is not found in any of these, I say, speaking generally, that it is unknown to our lexicographers. Even were MR. CORNEr's quotation to the point, I should still therefore be entitled to say this of the word in question. In reality, however, it is altogether irrelevant. MR. CORNEY gives no example of the word in the sense I have mentioned. I have simply therefore to repeat that the noun lurch, in the sense of seizure, robbery, is unknown to our lexicographers.

MR. CORNEY'S last communication refers to my interpretation of the word zany. In dealing with this word I have made at the outset two statements that no Shakesperian critic or commentator has yet explained what zany really means, or pointed out the special relevancy of Shakespeare's allusions to the character; and that Mr. Dyce has altogether missed the distinctive meaning of the word. MR. CORNEY denies both statements, and waxes very indignant at what he professes to consider my presumption and injustice in making them. We shall see directly what is the real worth of his so-called evidence and simulated indignation. The first statement is, that no Shakesperian critic or commentator has yet explained what zany really means, or pointed out the special relevancy of Shakespeare's allusions to the character. MR. CORNEY'S attempted disproof of his statement consists of three short extracts from the most hackneyed and elementary sources of information with regard to archaic Englishtwo of the many glossaries of hard words published during the seventeenth century, and Florio's

Italian Dictionary. Only one of the extracts, the first, is at all to the point, and this is far too brief and general to enable the reader to understand the distinctive characteristics of the zany, or to appreciate accurately the many allusions to the character that occur in the Elizabethan dramatists. But had the explanations contained in these extracts been ever so full and accurate, they would not in the least have affected my statement. I have never said that the meaning of the word zany was unknown two centuries ago, for this would have been in the highest degree absurd. It was of course well known, and may be illustrated in part from the glossaries of the time, and abundantly from the literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. What I have said is, that no Shakesperian critic or commentator has collected the facts from these sources, and brought them to illustrate in detail Shakespeare's references to the character. I claim to have done that for the first time, and so far as MR. CORNEY is concerned my claim remains untouched. MR. CORNEY is indeed offended with me for stating the claim, but the facts remain the same notwithstanding his offence, and I have simply to repeat, therefore, that so far as I am aware no Shakesperian critic or commentator has yet explained what any really means, or pointed out the special meaning of Shakespeare's allusions to the character." And, however unpleasant it may be to MR. CORNEY, I have also to repeat with emphasis, that "Mr. Dyce has altogether missed the distinctive meaning of the word."

MR. CORNEY'S attempted refutation of this statement I shall quote in full, as in this instance no one can so completely expose MR. CORNEY as MR. CORNEY himself. The distinctive feature of the zany's character is, as I have fully explained, not simply that he is a buffoon or a mimic, not simply that he is a buffoon's buffoon, a clown's clown, or a fool's mimic, but that in that capacity he is a comparative failure. "It is, as I have said, this characteristic not merely of mimicry, but of weak and abortive mimicry, that gives its distinctive meaning to the word, and colours it with a special tinge of contempt." The importance of bringing clearly out this distinctive meaning has been fully appreciated by the critics, as the following extract from a critical notice of the article on "Shakesperian Glossaries" in the Pall Mall Gazette will show:

"A zany, says the reviewer, was not a mere buffoon,

he was the obsequious follower of a buffoon; he was not a mere mimic, he was the attenuated mime of a mimic. He was a servant who dressed like his master, and aped him on the stage, his imitation of his master's tricks being usually abortive, and tending to the ludicrous effect of imbecility and failure. We are obliged to the reviewer for thus defining the functions of the zany, and endowing us with a new word by reviving an old one.

We were

rather in want of such a word in a world where there is

so much of weak imitation. Apes are bad enough; but there is something worse even than an ape-namely, an unsuccessful one; and we are glad to know that his proper name is zany."

MR. CORNEY virtually asserts that Mr. Dyce has anticipated me in all this, and charges me with intentionally suppressing the passage in which he explains it. In justice to MR. CORNEY and myself I shall quote his charge and evidence in full. It is as follows:

"He asserts that Mr. Dyce' misses altogether the distinctive meaning' of zany. The evidence required on this point is a transcript of all that relates to zuny in the glossary. This I shall give, precisely in the same form, but with the addition of brackets to point out the small portion of it which it pleased the reviewer to quote:·

Fools' zanies-The: see zany.

[Zany, a buffoon, a merry-andrew, a mimic,] ii, 224; the fools' zanies (wrongly explained by Douce the "fools' baubles, which had upon the top of them the head of a fool"), iii. 337.

"Can any comments be required on such evidence of

the fallacies which adhere more or less to the art and mystery of anonymous criticism? The facts are as undeniable as a geometric axiom. The reviewer aspired to the honour of a discovery. So he quotes no more than a fragment of the glossary, and suppresses the portion of it which serves to refute his pretensions!-He sets at defiance the principles of literature, the principles of equity, and the claims of the Rev. Alexander Dyce."

This is MR. CORNEY'S evidence and comment, and I ask particular attention to both. It will be seen that I have quoted in full all the positive information Mr. Dyce gives us on the subject of the zany. It is true he goes on to correct an almost incredible blunder of Mr. Douce's about the fool's zany. Mr. Dyce says the zany was not the fool's bauble; in other words, that the zany was not a short stick with a carved head on the top. But he does not add a single word as to what the zany really is beyond what I have quoted. He does not explain the phrase "fools' zanies," which has given the commentators so much trouble. He makes no distinction whatever between the fool and the zany. The fool is "a buffoon, a merry-andrew, a mimic." So is the zany. He does not explain the relation between the fool and the zany, or hint in any way at the distinctive feature of that relation, which gives meaning and force to Shakespeare's allusions to the character. For all practical purposes, so far as any precise information about the nature and functions of the zany is concerned, Mr. Dyce might just as well have told us that the zany is not a broom-stick. Yet, because I have not formally quoted this purely negative and utterly irrelevant piece of information, I am charged by MR. CORNEY with setting at defiance "the principles of literature, the principles of equity, and the claims of the Rev. Alexander Dyce.'

I have now done with MR. CORNEY and his criticism. At least, unless he produces something

more to the point, something better than the perversions and imbecilities I have exposed, I shall not return to him again. Before leaving the subject, however, I may add one caution to those of your readers who are interested in Shakesperian criticism. MR. CORNEY evidently presumes on his readers' ignorance of the article criticised. He reckons, it may be hoped with too much confidence, on their accepting his misrepresentations as a fair account of what it contains. I would, therefore, respectfully refer all critical and fair-minded students of Shakespeare to the article itself; which will generally, I think, be found to contain a sufficient answer to MR. CORNEY and his fragments.

Before leaving the general subject, I may add that the late Mr. Hunter comes much nearer to He has a vague general idea of the relation bethe true meaning of the zany than Mr. Dyce. tween the fool and the zany, but, like his fellowcritics, no knowledge of the special feature of that relation on which the allusions to the character of the zany mainly turn. And, as his paraphrase shows, he fails to understand the allusion to the "fool's zanies" in Twelfth-Night.

THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE ON SHAKESPERIAN GLOSSARIES IN THE "6 EDINBURGH REVIEW."

HILDING: A FRAGMENT ON SHAKSPEREAN GLOSSARIES.

left by his predecessors in a state of the most uncritical "Mr. Dyce throws no fresh light on the word hilding vagueness and obscurity. In dealing with it indeed he falls into much the same kind of mistake as in dealing

with besonian."-Ed. Rev. N° 265.

I am about to write on a theme with which my acquaintance is next to no acquaintance, but quite equal to my wishes. The unattractive theme is, On terms of reproach and contempt.

We may read volumes of plain prose without discovering one word or phrase of that description; and, if we except the satirists, may have but scant success in that line while occupied with the poets. We must have recourse, for examples, to the dramatists of the period in question--to scenes in which enemies and rivals meet-in which opposition inflames the passions-and the tongue becomes ungovernable. It may have been so, on the stage, as early as the appearance of Gorboduc. It is certain that we have a sufficient crop of such terms in the plays of the gentle Shakspere. Hilding occurs seven times!

The learned Bosworth remarks that "The Anglo-Saxon and English words are often identical in signification." He gives "Hyldan, To incline, bend--Hylding, A bending, inclining." On this evidence it seems to me that the word hilding, as to its etymology, denotes one in a state of inferiority-and nothing more.

Etymology has many votaries. If the orthography of languages had been invariable, I should admit its importance: the reverse, however, is the true state of the case. But under any circumstances, the meaning of a word is of more importance than its etymology, and that meauing is fixed by examples from the best writers. As to terms of reproach and contempt, I believe they were chiefly used as such, without any reference to etymology or meaning.

When I first resolved to write a note on hilding, in order to repel the dogmatic censure which the reviewer passes on Mr. Dyce with regard to his explanation of the word in question-RUDELY described as a blot or blur, at most a silhouette-I had to consider what course of argument would answer my purpose. This hesitation was soon over. On a second reading of the critique I felt that no defence of Mr. Dyce could surpass that unwittingly prepared by the reviewer himself. Here follows the substance of it:

HILDING-One in a state of servitude-a thrall or slave-a rustic or a menial-a hind-a churl-the term is used of both sexes-applied to women, expresses idleness and profligacy-is applied to a proud village maidencontrasts the churl and churlish ways with the opposite state of gentle-birth-expresses low moral qualities as well as hard material conditions-is embodied in the phrase, a rogue and peasant slave-is applied to domestic auimals, especially to horses!-is also applied to animals left to run at large for a time-to colts unbroken and steers not yet fit for the yoke.

After this specimen of glossarial emendation, if we assume it to be based on warranted facts, and not a confused recollection of some etymologic dream, it must be admitted that terms of reproach and contempt are scarcely within the reach of definition, or even of clear and unexceptionable explanation. BOLTON CORNEY.

Barnes, S.W. 18 Dec.

DOCUMENT (0.)-He announces, as a discovery, that document (Lear, act 4. scene 5.) is used in the "sense of instruction, lesson, teaching." Now, in the Dictionary of Johnson, edit. 1765, it stands thus: 66 Document. n. s. [documentum, Latin.] Precept; instruction; direction." The authors quoted are Bacon and Watts. Can such a word be required in a glossary?

DIFFERENCE. He remarks that difference is a term in heraldry. True; and so said the commentators in the last century. But it was also a term out of heraldry; and when Shakspere wrote poems and plays it was familiar to all classes. It occurs more than twelve times in the SCRIPTURES. There is no reason to assume that Ophelia used it in a technical sense-quite the reverse. To wear rue and to bear rue are not synonims. I suppress my feelings on the coarse and offensive suggestion of the reviewer; and offer him a suitable hint as a new-year gift: "La politesse de l'esprit consiste à penser des choses honnêtes et délicates."

CRANTS. He contrives to fill almost three pages of his task-work by an erratic disquisition on this one word. I shall take an opposite course. Kranz is a German word; and I rely, for what follows, on a learned German: "Kranz, m.—a crown, or wreath, worn by virgins on their marriage-day, emblem of virgin purity."-G. H. NOEHDEN, LL.D. etc.

Genius and angel.-He objects that Mr. Dyce no otherwise attempts to explain these words than by a quotation from professor Craik. Was more required? The phrases, My evil genius led me into that, or My guardian angel preserved me from that, are in common use. The former occurs, in the same number of the Review, in a quotation from Mr. W. S. Landor. It may also have been used by the reviewer. The three lines quoted by Mr. Dyce contain as much substantial matter as the three pages on the subject contained in the

We must

Want (0.).—To want is an equivocal word. Johnson assigns to it six meanings. accept the legacies of our forefathers. The context, and a moderate share of sagacity in point of inference are the best guides.

Sight (O.).—On sight and seen we have almost two pages of discussion. On the omission of sight, in a peculiar sense, the lexicographers are sharply twitted. I must observe, in their defence, that Johnson gave seen, in the sense of skilled, versed, in 1765, and that Nares gives four examples of its use. Foresight comes in for its share. Foresight, is not named, but is curiously exemplified!—Not quite satisfied with this critical item, I have written a competitive essay, and here it is: sight= insight.

Cheapen (0.)-As the art is much studied, the term cannot be obscure. Both, in some form, must have existed ever since the golden age. In