Note 129 — Chapter III

In the preface to a new translation of Rabelais by W. F. Smith, Esq., Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, some doubt is cast upon the above narrative of Sir Thomas's death. Mr Smith remarks, "This looks something like an imitation of Rabelais in his account of the death of Philemon." The reference is to the following passages in Rabelais, who alludes to the story no fewer than three times. In Book i. 10, we read: "Just so the heart with excessive joy is inwardly dilated, and suffereth a manifest resolution of the vital spirits, which may go so farre on, that it may thereby be deprived of its nourishment, and by consequence of life itself, by this Pericharie or extremity of gladnesse, as Galen saith ... and as it hath come to passe in former times ... to Philemon and others, who died with joy." In chap. xx. some more particulars are given of the case: "As Philemon, who, for seeing an asse eate those figs, which were provided for his own dinner, died with force of laughing." But in Book iv. 17, we are told the whole story: "[Neither ought you to wonder at] the death of Philomenes, whose servant, having got him some new figs for the first course of his dinner, whilst he went to fetch wine, a straggling ... ass got into the house, and, seeing the figs on the table, without further invitation, soberly fell to. Philomenes coming into the room, and nicely observing with what gravity the ass eat its dinner, said to his man, who was come back, 'Since thou hast set figs here for this reverend guest of ours to eat, methinks it is but reason thou also give him some of this wine to drink.' He had no sooner said this, but he was so excessively pleased, and fell into so exorbitant a fit of laughter, that the use of his spleen took that of his breath utterly away, and he immediately died." The story is taken from Lucian (μακροβιυι, c. 25) or from Valerius Maximus (ix. 12), in which in the Paris folio edition (1517) the name is given as Philomenes. There is undoubtedly a resemblance between the account of Philemon's death and that of our author, but we think it can only be accidental. The editor of the Edinburgh edition of the Tracts is, as I have said, our only authority for the story of Urquhart's death; but there is no adequate reason for doubting it. He seems to have been well versed in the history of the Urquhart family, which he brings up to date, and must have derived his information from some members of it. It would be strange if in little more than a century after our author's death, an utterly mythical account of it should have sprung up and found a place among the details of family history. According to Lowndes's Bibliographer's Manual, the editor of the volume was David Herd, the well-known antiquary. If this statement be correct, we have all the more reason to rely upon the supplementary information the volume contains, as Herd's acquaintance with Scottish history and biography was very extensive and accurate. In one of the Notes Ambrosianæ (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1832), a highly extravagant version is given of Urquhart's death. It is intended to be humorous, but is merely flat and silly. Only those can smile at it who have been trained up to believe that the Notes contain exquisite humour, and who have, therefore, been accustomed to welcome passages from it as mirth-inspiring. The statement made in this mention of Urquhart, that his death was caused by excessive alcoholic celebration of the happy event of the Restoration, is utterly baseless and offensive; and it is a pity that in Allibone's Dictionary and in the Dictionary of National Biography this article in Blackwood's Magazine should be referred to as one of the sources of information concerning Urquhart. The author of it had not access to any other account of Sir Thomas's death than that given in the above-mentioned edition of the Tracts.