Notes and Queries, Number 211, November 12, 1853. Various

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ George Kirke, Esq., died Jan. 10, 1703-4, and was buried in the abbey cloisters (Mon. Inscr.); and Mrs. Mary Kirke died December 17, 1751, and was also buried there (M. I.). We may presume that all these Kirkes were of the same family.

      Having now clearly released the annotator from all farther interference with Mary Kirke's private history, and having excluded her handsome face from any future illustrated edition of Grammont, I must leave him to deal with Miss Warmistre. It seems most probable that Dr. Thomas Warmistre, dean of Worcester, who died October 30, 1665, was her father, as he is known to have been a Royalist. His will, as it is not to be found at Doctors' Commons, must be sought for at Worcester. His brother Gervais was a married man, but his effects, unfortunately for our inquiries, were administered to at Doctors' Commons, August 31, 1641. That Warmistre was her right name is proved by Lord Cornbury's letter to the Duchess of Bedford, June 10, 1662 (Warburton's Rupert, vol. iii. pp. 461-464.). Her portrait is at Hengrave Hall, Suffolk, and has been engraved by Scriven for Carpenter's Grammont, 1811.

      Lord Cornbury's letter contradicts Grammont's statement, that Miss Boynton and Miss Wells came in on a removal, for they were of the original six maids of honour. Among these is named a Miss Price (Henrietta Maria), who we may suppose a sister to the Duchess of York's Miss Price, one of Grammont's most conspicuous heroines; and if so, when I come to speak of the Duchess's maids of honour, her parentage will be proved. Of Miss Carey, rejoicing in the prefix of Simona, the sixth of the queen's original maids of honour, we have no farther occasion to speak.

      In 1669 the queen appears to have had four maids of honour only, the places vacated by Miss Stewart's and Miss Warmistre's marriages being unoccupied. This state of affairs leads me to doubt whether Miss Bellenden ever held the appointment. Mademoiselle Bardon, Grammont admits, was not actually a maid of honour, and Mademoiselle de la Garde certainly never was. Lord Braybrooke has suggested to me, with some show of reason, that the first may be the "Mrs. Baladine" who held a place of less emolument (that of dresser, probably) in the Duchess of York's household, and who left in the middle of the quarter, between Michaelmas and Christmas, 1662 (vide Household Book of James Duke of York at Audley End), as if she had the prudence "de quitter la cour avant que d'en être chassée."

      "La désagréable Bardon" may have been a daughter, or some other near relation, to Claudius Bardon, mentioned in the secret service expenses of Charles II.

      Mademoiselle de la Garde was appointed a dresser to the queen on her marriage (vide Lord Cornbury's letter), and continued in this office till 1673, when she died. Her father, Charles Peliott Baron de la Garde, or her brother, if she had one, was a groom of the privy chamber to Queen Catherine in 1687, and her mother dresser to the Duchess of York in 1662 (Duke of York's Household Book). Mary her sister, who became the wife of Sir Thomas Bond of Peckham, co. Surrey, Baronet, comptroller of the household to Queen Henrietta Maria, was a Lady of the privy chamber to the same queen.

      Of mademoiselle I may add, that she married Mr. Gabriel Silvius, carver to the queen, in 1669 (compare first and second editions of Angliæ Notitia, 1669); and of her husband, in addition to the particulars already stated by the annotators, that he received the honour of knighthood January 28, 1669-70, married a second wife (a fact overlooked by the annotators, including Mr. Cunningham), viz. Anne, daughter of the Hon. William Howard, a younger son of Thomas first Earl of Berkshire, at Westminster Abbey, November 12, 1677, went the same year to the Hague as master of the household to the Prince of Orange (Evelyn), became privy purse to James II. (The British Compendium, or Rudiments of Honour), died at his house in Leicester Fields, January, 1696-7, and was buried in the church of St. Martin. It was his second wife, and widow, who died October 13, 1730.

      If, as it is possible, Miss Bellenden did hold the appointment of maid of honour to the queen, she must have replaced Miss Stewart or Miss Warmistre; and if Miss Livingston and Miss Fielding held like appointments, one of the two must have replaced her, and they, again, must have removed from the court before 1669. I am not at present able to say who those three ladies were.

      Before bringing this paper to a conclusion, I must be permitted to refer Mr. Cunningham to five letters, written by Count de Comminges, the French ambassador in London, and printed Lord Braybrooke in his Appendix to Pepys, which Mr. C. has very unaccountably overlooked when settling the chronology of Grammont.

      The first, to M. de Lionne, dated "Londres, Janvier 5-15, 1662-3," announces the arrival of the Chevalier the day before "fort content de son voyage. Il a été ici reçu le plus agréablement au monde. Il est de toutes les parties du Roi." The second, to Louis XIV., dated "Décembre 10-20, 1663," informs the king of the chevalier's joy at being allowed to return to France, and of his intention to leave England in four days. He also informs Louis that he believes the chevalier will see the court of France in company of "une belle Angloise." A postscript, dated "Décembre 20-24," says that the king of England, for certain stated reasons, has persuaded the chevalier to remain a day longer; and, farther, "Il laisse ici quelques autres dettes, qu'il prétend venir recueillir quand il se déclarera sur le sujet de Mille Hamilton, qui est si embrouillé que les plus clairvoyans n'y voyent goutte." The third, dated "Mai 19-24, 1664," is also to the King of France, and speaks of the Chevalier's wife, "madame sa femme." The next letter is addressed to M. de Lionne, and dated "Aout 29, Septembre 8, 1664." It contains this important intelligence: "Madam la Comtesse de Grammont accoucha hier au soir d'un fils beau comme la mère, et galant comme le père." The last letter, dated "Octobre 24, Novembre 3, 1664," and addressed to the same M. de Lionne, commences as follows: "Le Comte de Grammont est parti aujourd'hui avec sa femme."

      These several letters, all important to the annotators of Grammont, give the precise dates of the chevalier's first visit to the Court of Charles II., and of his departure, and settle the date of his marriage within a few days. This event must have taken place in December, 1663. Mrs. Jameson and Mr. Cunningham place it in 1668.

      On another occasion I will return to this subject.

G. Steinman Steinman.

      CHANGE OF MEANING IN PROVERBIAL EXPRESSIONS

      I entirely agree with G. K. (Vol. viii., p. 269.) respecting the original sense of "Putting a spoke in one's wheel." It surely meant to aid him in constructing the wheel, say of his fortune. As the true sense of this expression seems to have been retained in America when lost in its birthplace, so Ireland has retained that of another which has changed its sense here. By "finding a mare's nest" is, I believe, meant, fancying you have made a great discovery when in fact you have found nothing. I certainly remember the late Earl Grey using it in that sense in his place in parliament. But how does this accord with the following place in Beaumont and Fletcher?

      "Why dost thou laugh?

      What mare's nest hast thou found?"

—Bonduca, Act V. Sc. 2.

      on which, rather to my surprise, Mr. Dyce has no note. Now in Ireland, when a person is seen laughing immoderately without any apparent cause, it is usual to say, "O, he has found a mare's nest, and he's laughing at the eggs." This perfectly agrees with the above passage from Bonduca, and is doubtless the original sense and original form of the adage.

      There is another of these proverbial expressions which, I think, has also lost its pristine sense. By "Tread on a worm and it will turn" is usually meant that the very meekest and most helpless persons will, when harshly used, turn on their persecutors. But the poor worm does, and can do, no such thing. I therefore think that the adage arose at the time when worm was inclusive of snake and viper, and that what was meant was, that as those that had the power to avenge themselves when injured would use it, so people should be cautious how they provoked them. I am confirmed in this view by the following passage in the Wallenstein's Tod of Schiller, Act II. Sc. 6.:

      "Doch einen Stachel gab Natur dem Wurm,

      Dem Willkür übermüthig spielend tritt."

Thos. Keightley.

СКАЧАТЬ