Replies.

HISTOIRE DES SÉVARAMBES.

(Vol. iii., pp. 4. 72. 147.)

The History of the Sevarites, in the original English edition, consists of two parts: the first published in 1675, in 114 pages, small 12mo., without a preface; the second published in 1679, in 140 pages, with a preface of six pages. The French version of this work is much altered and enlarged. The title is changed into Histoire des Sévarambes, the "Sevarites" being dropped. There is a preface of fifteen pages, containing a supposed letter from Thomas Skinner, dated Bruges, Oct. 28, 1672. The work is divided into five parts, three of which are in the first, and two in the second volume of the Amsterdam edition of 1716. These five parts are together more than twice as bulky as the two parts of the English work. There is no copy of the original French edition of 1677-9 described by Marchand, in any English public library; but if there is a copy in the French national library, any of your bibliographical correspondents at Paris could easily ascertain whether (as is probably the case) the Amsterdam edition is a mere reprint from the original Paris edition.

The French version of this work is not only much enlarged, but it differs in the names and incidents, and is fuller in the account of the institutions and customs of the imaginary state. The English edition of 1738 (1 vol. 8vo.) is a literal translation from the French version, though it does not purport to be a translation. It may be doubted whether the translator was aware of the existence of the English publication of 1675-9. The German translation was published in 1680; the Dutch translation in 1682: both these appear to have been taken from the French.

Morhof (Polyhistor., vol. i. p. 74.), who inserts this work among the libri damnati, and dwells upon its deistical character, refers to the French version; and though he knew that the book had originally appeared in English, he probably was not aware of the difference between the two versions. A note added by his first editor, Moller, states that Morhof often told his friends that he believed Isaac Vossius to have been the author of the work. Isaac Vossius was in England from 1670 until his death, which took place at Windsor, February 21, 1689. His residence in England, combined with the known laxity of his religious opinions, doubtless suggested to Morhof the conjecture that he wrote this freethinking Utopia. There is, however, no external evidence to support this conjecture, or to show that it had any better foundation than the conjecture that Bishop Berkeley wrote Gaudentio di Lucca. The University of Leyden purchased the library of Isaac Vossius for 36,000 florins. If it is still preserved at Leyden, a search among his books might ascertain whether there is among them any copy of the English or French editions of this work, and whether they contain any written remark by their former possessor. Moreover, it is to be observed that the system of natural religion is for the first time developed in the French edition; and this was the part which chiefly gave the book its celebrity: whereas, the supposition of Morhof implies that the English and French versions are identical.

Heumann, in his Schediasma de Libris Anonymis et Pseudonymis (Jena, 1711), p. 161. (reprinted in Mylius, Bibliotheca Anon. et Pseudon., Hamburg, 1740, vol. i. pp. 170-6.) has an article on the Histoire des Sévarambes. It is there stated that "Messieurs de Portroyal" superintended the French translation of the work; but no authority is given for the statement. Christian Thomasius, in his Monthly Review of November 1689, attributed the work to D'Allais (or Vairasse). He alleged three reasons for this belief: 1. The rumour current in France; 2. The fact that Allais sold the book, as well as his French grammar; 3. That a comparison of the two works, in respect of style and character of mind, renders it most probable that both are by the same author. The testimony of Thomasius is important, as the date of its publication is only ten years posterior to the publication of the last part of the French version.

Leclerc, in a review of the Schediasma of Heumann, in the Bibliothèque Choisie, published in 1712 (tom. xxv. p. 402., with an addendum, tom. xxvi. p. 460.), attests positively that Vairasse was the author of the work in question. He says that Vairasse (or, as he spells the name, Veiras) took the name of D'Allais in order to sell his book. He had this fact from persons well acquainted with Vairasse. He likewise mentions that Vairasse was well known to Locke, who gave Leclerc an account of his birthplace. Leclerc adds that he was acquainted with a person to whom Vairasse wished to dedicate his book (viz. the Histoire des Sévarambes), and who possessed a copy of it, with a species of dedication, written in his hand.

This testimony is so distinct and circumstantial, as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the connexion of Vairasse with the French version. The difficulty as to the authorship of the English version still, however, remains considerable. The extensive alterations introduced in the French edition certainly render it probable that two different writers were concerned in the work. The words of Leclerc respecting the information received from Locke are somewhat ambiguous; but they do not necessarily imply that Locke knew anything as to the connexion of Vairasse with the book, though they are not inconsistent with this meaning. Locke had doubtless become acquainted with Vairasse during his residence in England. Considering the length of time which Vairasse passed in England, and the eminence of the persons with whom he is said to have had relations (viz. the Duke of York, Lord Clarendon, and Locke), it is singular that no mention of him should be discoverable in any English book.

The error, that the work in question was written by Algernon Sidney, appears to have arisen from a confusion with the name of Captain Siden, the imaginary traveller. Fabricius (Bibliograph. Antiq., c. xiv. §16. p. 491.) mentions Sidney and Vairasse as the two most probable claimants to the authorship.

Hume, in his Essay on Polygamy and Divorces, refers to the History of the Sevarambians, and calls it an "agreeable romance."

L.

WAS THERE AN "OUTER TEMPLE" IN THE POSSESSION OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLARS OR KNIGHTS OF ST. JOHN?—(Vol. iii., p. 325.)

I have great pleasure in complying with the very proper request of Mr. Foss, and give my authority at once for stating in the Hand-book for London that the so-called "Outer Temple" was a part of the Fleet Street possession of the Knights Templars or Knights of St. John, or was in any manner comprehended within the New Temple property of Fleet Street and Temple Bar. My authority is Sir George Buc, whose minute and valuable account of the universities of England is dedicated to Sir Edward Coke. Buc's words are these:—

"After this suppression and condemnation of the Templers, their house here in Fleete Street came to the handes and occupation of diuers Lordes. For our Antiquaries and Chronologers say, that after this suppression Sir Thomas Plantagenet Earl of Lancaster (and Cousin to the King then raigning) had it, but beeing after attainted of treason, hee enjoyed it but a short time.

"Then next Hugh Spencer Earle of Glocester got into it, but he also was soone after attainted, and executed for Treason. After him Andomare de Valence, a nobleman of the great house of Lusignan, and Earle of Pembrooke, was lodged in it for a while. But this house was 'Equus Seianus' to them all: and (as here it appeareth) was ordayned by God for other better uses, and whereunto now it serueth. After all these noble tenants and occupants were thus exturbed, dead, and gone, then certaine of the reuerend, ancient professours of the Lawes, in the raign of King Edward the Third, obtained a very large or (as I might say) a perpetuall Lease of this Temple, or (as it must bee understood) of two parts thereof distinguished by the names of the Middle Temple and the Inner Temple, from the foresayd Ioannites.... But the other third part, called the Outward Temple, Doctor Stapleton, Bishop of Exceter, had gotten in the raign of the former King, Edward the Second, and conuerted it to a house for him and his successors, Bishops of Exceter ... of whom the late Earle of Essex purchased it, and it is now called Essex house: hauing first beene (as I haue sayd) a part of the Templers' house, and in regard of the scituation thereof, without the Barre, was called the Outward or Utter Temple, as the others, for the like causes, were called the Middle Temple and the Inner Temple."—Sir George Buc, in Stow by Howes, ed. 1631, p. 1068.

This seems decisive, if Buc is to be relied on, as I think he is. But new facts, such as Mr. Foss's researches and Mr. Burtt's diligence are likely to bring to light, may upset Buc's statement altogether.

I must join Mr. Foss in his wish to ascertain when the names Inner Temple and Middle Temple were first made use of, with a further Query, which I should be glad to have settled, when the See of Exeter first obtained the site of the so-called "Outer Temple?" Stapleton, by whom it was perhaps obtained, was Bishop of Exeter from 1307 to 1326.

Peter Cunningham.

OBEISM.

(Vol. iii., p. 59.)

In reply to F. H., I beg leave to state that Obeism is not in itself a religion, except in the sense in which Burke says that "superstition is the religion of feeble minds." It is a belief, real or pretended, in the efficacy of certain spells and incantations, and is to the uneducated negro what sorcery was to our unenlightened forefathers. This superstition is known in St. Lucia by the name of Kembois. It is still extensively practised in the West Indies, but there is no reason to suppose that it is rapidly gaining ground. F. H. will find ample information on the subject in Père Labat's Nouveau Voyage aux Isles françaises de l'Amérique, tome ii. p. 59., and tome iv. pp. 447. 499. and 506., edition of 1742; in Bryan Edwards' History of the West Indies, vol. ii. ch. iii., 5th edition (London, 1819); and in Dr. R. R. Madden's Residence in the West Indies, vol. ii. letter 27. Perhaps the following particulars from Bryan Edwards (who says he is indebted for them to a Mr. Long) on the etymology of obeah, may be acceptable to some of your readers:—

"The term obeah, obiah, or obia, (for it is variously written,) we conceive to be the adjective, and obe or obi, the noun substantive; and that by the word obia—men or women—is meant those who practise obi. The origin of the term we should consider as of no importance, in our answer to the question proposed, if, in search of it, we were not led to disquisitions that are highly gratifying to curiosity. From the learned Mr. Bryant's commentary upon the word oph, we obtain a very probable etymology of the term. 'A serpent, in the Egyptian language, was called ob or aub.' 'Obion is still the Egyptian name for a serpent.' 'Moses, in the name of God, forbids the Israelites ever to inquire of the demon Ob, which is translated in our Bible, charmer or wizard, divinator aut sorcilegus.' 'The woman at Endor is called oub or ob, translated Pythonissa; and oubaois (he cites from Horus Apollo) was the name of the Basilisk or Royal Serpent, emblem of the sun, and an ancient oracular deity of Africa.'"

One of your correspondents has formed a substantive from obe by the addition of ism, and another from obeah by the same process; but it will be seen by the above quotation that there is no necessity for that obtrusive termination, the superstitious practice in question being already sufficiently described by the word obe or obi.

Henry H. Breen.

St. Lucia, March, 1851.

SAN MARINO.

(Vol. iii., p. 321.)

On the death of Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta, without legitimate male issue, in October, 1468, Pope Paul II. declared Rimini and his other fiefs to have reverted to the Holy See. In the spring of the following year the Pontiff proceeded, with the assistance of the Venetians, to enforce his claim, and threatened the Republicans of San Marino with his vengeance if they did not aid him and his allies in gaining possession of Rimini, which Roberto Malatesta, one of the illegitimate sons of Sigismondo Pandolfo, had seized by stratagem.

By advice of their faithful friend Federigo, Count of Urbino, who was at the head of the opposite league, comprising the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and the Florentines, the San-Marinese forwarded the Papal mandate to Florence, and requested through their ambassador, one Ser Bartolomeo, the support of that Republic. Several letters appear to have been sent in answer to their applications, and the one communicated by Mr. Sydney Smirke is characterised by Melchiarre Delfico (Memorie storiche della Repubblica di San Marino. Capolago, 1842, 8vo. p. 229.) as

"Del tutto didattica e parenetica intorno alla libertà, di cui i Fiorentini facevano gran vanto, mentre erano quasi alla vigilia di perderla intieramente."

San Marino was not attacked during the campaign, which terminated on the 30th of August of the same year (1469) with the battle of Vergiano, in which Alessandro Sforza, the commander of the Papal forces, was signally defeated by Federigo.

San Marino has never, so far as I have been able to ascertain, undergone the calamity of a siege, and its inhabitants have uninterruptedly enjoyed the blessing of self-government from the foundation of the Republic in the third or fourth century to the present time, with the exception of the few months of 1503, during which the infamous Cesare Borgia forced them to accept a Podestà of his own nomination. Various causes have contributed to this lengthened independence; but it may be stated that, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the San Marinese owed it no less to their own patriotism, courage, prudence, and good faith, than to the disinterested protection of the Counts and Dukes of Urbino, whose history has been so ably written by Mr. Dennistoun, in his recently published memoirs of that chivalrous race.

The privileges of the Republic were confirmed on the 12th of February, 1797, by Napoleon Buonaparte, who offered to enlarge its territory,—a boon which its citizens were wise enough to decline; thinking, perhaps, with Montesquieu, that—

"Il est de la nature d'une république qu'elle n'ait qu'un petit territoire: sans cela, elle ne peut guère subsister."—Esprit des Lois, liv. viii. chap. 16.

Your readers will find some notices of San Marino in Addison's Remarks on several Parts of Italy; Aristotle's Politics, translated by Gillies, lib. ii. Appendix.

Its lofty and isolated situation has supplied Jean Paul with a simile in his Unsichtbare Loge:

"Alle andre Wissenschaften theilen sich jetzt in eine Universal Monarchie über alle Leser: aber die Alten sitzen mit ihren wenigen philologischen Lehnsleuten einsam auf einem S. Marino-Felsen."—Jean Paul's Werke (Berlin, 1840, 8vo.), vol. i. p. 125.

In the first line of the letter, "vedato" should be veduto; and in the seventh line, "difenderai" difendervi.

F. C. B.

THE BELLMAN AND HIS HISTORY.

(Vol. iii., p. 324.)

The Bellman's songs may be found in the Bellman's Treasury, containing above a Hundred several Verses, fitted for all Humours and Fancies, and suited to all Times and Seasons. London: 8vo. 1707. Extracts from this book are given in Hone's Every Day Book, vol. ii. p. 1594.

I have now before me a broadside thus entitled: "A copy of verses, humbly presented to the Right Worshipful the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Councilmen, and the rest of my worthy Masters and Mistresses, dwelling in Cambridge. By Thomas Adams, Bellman, 1810." There is a large engraving, from a wood-block, apparently a century old, representing a bellman, in a flowing wig and a three-cornered hat, holding, in his right hand a bell, and in his left a javelin and lantern; his dog is behind him.

The verses are:

This is marked as the 24th sheet; that is, as I suppose, the 24th set of verses presented by Mr. Adams.

I have also a similar broadside, "by Isaac Moule, jun., bellman, 1824," being "No. III." of Mr. Moule's performances. The woodcut is of a more modern character than Mr. Adams's, and delineates a bellman in a three-cornered hat, modern coat, breeches, and stockings, a bell in his right hand, and a small dog by his side. The bellman is represented as standing in front of the old Shire Hall in Cambridge, having Hobson's Conduit on his right.

The subjects of Mr. Moule's verses are similar to those of Mr. Adams, with the following variations. He omits verses to the Town Clerk, the Members for the Town, the Queen, on Charity, and on Religion, and inserts verses "On St. Crispin," and "To my Masters and Mistresses."

The office of bellman in this town was abolished in 1836, and to the bellman's verses have succeeded similar effusions from the lamplighters, who distribute copies when soliciting Christmas boxes from the inhabitants.

C. H. Cooper.

Cambridge, April 28. 1851.