FEINBERG/WHITMAN Literary File Poetry File "To the Man-of-War Bird" (1876) Printed Copies. Box 30 Folder 5 Includes A.Ms. corrections and notations.1846 1876 To the Man-of-War Bird: Poem. Proof w/Notation and Corrections. A.MS. (lp. 15 x 12 cm.) Written in ink on a proof of 'Thou who has slept all night upon the storm.—(The Man-of-War Bird.)', 6 words: From the London Athenaeum April 1 [Also 3 corrections: Line 13, at end: ! for . Line 17, After 'Spaces' : , for ; Line 18, 'Senegal' for 'Sengal' ][*Phil: "Progress" Nov 16 '78*] [THOU WHO HAST SLEPT ALL NIGHT UPON THE STORM.] To the Man-of-War Bird [BY WALT WHITMAN] [*?Q*] [[Day reappears, and I see a small point in the heavens. At an elevation of three thousand feet royally floats a little bird with enormous pens. A gull? No; its wings are black. An eagle? No; the bird is too small. It is the lord of the tempest, the scorner of all peril,—the man-of-war or frigate bird; virtually nothing more than wings; scarcely any body—barely as large as that of the domestic fowl—while his prodigious pinions are fifteen feet in span. A bird sustained by such supports need but allow himself to be borne along. The storm bursts; he mounts the lofty heights where he finds tranquility. The metaphor, untrue when applied to any other bird, is no exaggeration when applied to him; literally, he sleeps upon the storm. When he chooses he may continue his progress through the night indefinitely, certain of reposing himself. Upon what? On his huge motionless wing, which takes upon itself all the weariness of the voyage.—Michelet.]] Far, far at sea, After the night's fierce drifts have strewn the shore with wrecks, With reappearing day, as now, so happy and serene, The rosy and elastic dawn, the flashing sun, The limpid spread of air cerulean, Thou also reappearest. Thou who hast slept all night upon the storm, Waking renew'd on thy prodigious pinions, (Burst the wild storm? above it thou ascendedst And rested on the sky, thy slave, that cradled thee;) Now, a blue point, far, far in heaven floating, As, to the light emerging, here on deck I watch thee, (Myself a speck, a point on the world's floating vast.) Thou, born to match the gale! (thou art all wings;) To cope with heaven and earth, and sea and hurricane; Thou ship of air, that never furl'st thy sails; Days, even weeks, untired and onward—through spaces, realms gyrating, At dusk that look'st on Senegal, at morn America, That sport'st amid the lightning-flash and thunder-cloud; In them—in thy experiences—had'st thou my soul, What joys! what joys were thine!THOU WHO HAS SLEPT ALL NIGHT UPON THE STORM.—(The Man-of-War Bird.) BY WALT WHITMAN. Thou who hast slept all night upon the storm, Waking renew'd on thy prodigious pinions; (Burst the wild storm? above it thou ascended'st, And rested on the sky, thy slave that cradled['st] thee;) Now, a blue point, far, far in heaven floating, As, to the light emerging, here on deck I watch thee, (Myself a speck, a point on the world's floating vast.) Far, far at sea, After the night's fierce drifts have strewn the shore with wrecks, With reappearing day, as now, so happy and serene, The rosy and elastic dawn, the flashing sun, The limpid spread of air cerulean, Thou also reappearest. Thou, born to match the gale! (thou art all wings;) To cope with heaven and earth, and sea and hurricane; Thou ship of air that never furl'st thy sails, Days, even weeks, untired and onward—through spaces, realms gyrating. At dusk that look'st on Senegal, at morn America, That sport'st amid the lightning-flash and thunder-cloud! In them—in thy experiences—had'st thou my soul, What joys! what joys were thine! [*From the London Athenaeum April 1*] THOU WHO HAS SLEPT ALL NIGHT UPON THE STORM.—(The Man-of-War Bird.) BY WALT WHITMAN. Thou who hast slept all night upon the storm, Waking renew'd on thy prodigious pinions, (Burst the wild storm? above it thou ascended'st, And rested on the sky, thy slave that cradled'st thee;) Now, a blue point, far, far in heaven floating, As, to the light emerging, here on deck I watch thee, (Myself a speck, a point on the world's floating vast.) Far, far at sea, After the night's fierce drifts have strewn the shore with wrecks, With reappearing day, as now, so happy and serene, The rosy and elastic dawn, the flashing sun, The limpid spread of air cerulean, Thou also reappearest[.]! Thou, born to match the gale ! (thou art all wings;) To cope with heaven and earth, and sea and hurricane; Thou ship of air that never furl'st thy sails, Days, even weeks, untired and onward—through spaces[;], realms gyrating, At dusk that look'st on Senegal, at morn America, That sport'st amid the lightning-flash and thunder-cloud ! In them—in thy experiences—had'st though my soul, What joys! what joys were thine![*London Ath in April 1, '76*] N° 2527, APR. 1, '76 THE ATHENÆUM 463 but Mr. Elihu Burritt has published his Sanskrit Handbook for the Fireside (Longmans & Co.) too soon. He should have waited another year, and have learned more thoroughly how to apply his own rules, as well as how to distinguish which are the really important parts of grammar, and which may be at first safely neglected. The present volume gives the learner some forty pages of grammar, and then some thirty-six pages of "reading exercises," in the shape of the first chapter of the Sanskrit translation of St. John's Gospel, and the seventh of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and a short vocabulary. The allowance of pages is meagre; but we should not have complained so much of this, if the author had only known how to use his space to the best advantage. This, however, he has utterly failed to do. We could easily point out serious omissions and errors in the sketch of grammar, but these are nothing compared to the grave errors in the grammatical analysis and notes added to the reading lessons. We will only particularize two, but there are many others to keep them in countenance. In St. John i. 1, we have "sa vádah swayam i'swara eva," "the word was itself truly God." We are gravely told that eva is iva, the i becoming e by combination with the last vowel of i'swara, as if the text had been is'wareva! Then, in verse 13, we have the sentence, "teshám janih 'sonitán-na," "their birth was not from blood." Mr Burritt tells us that 'sonitánna is the genitive plural of 'sonita('sonitám + na, thus mistaking it for 'sonitánám + na), instead of explaining it rightly as the ablative singular sonitât, with the final t changed into n before the initial nasal of the negative na, "not"! If Mr. Burritt had only consulted Prof. Stenzler's Elementarbuch der Sanskrit-Sprache (which reached a third edition last year), he would have seen how a scholar can economize space. The grammar there occupies only forty-six pages, the extracts forty-seven, and the vocabulary thirty-three—126 pages against Mr. Burritt's ninety-six; but these are enough to lead the student into the first act of the drama ''Sakuntalá'! LIST OF NEW BOOKS. Theology. Pinnock's (Rev. W. H.) Short Analysis of New Testament History, 18mo. 1/6 cl. Law. Bedford's (E. H.) Final Examination Guide to Law of Probate and Divorce, cr. 8vo. 4/ cl. Daniel's (M.) Trade Marks Registration, cr. 8vo. 8/ cl. Wharton's (C. H. M.) Whole Law Relating to Inn-Keepers, cr. 8vo. 10/6 cl. Art. Fergusson's (J.) History of Indian Architecture, 8vo. 42/ cl. Poetry. Baine's (M. A.) Poems of the Months, 4to. 7/6 cl. Clowes's (A.) Songs in the Night, cr. 8vo. 1/6 swd. Gilpin's (S.) Popular Poetry of Cumberland, 12mo. 3/6 cl. Houghton's (Lord) Poetical Works, 2 vols, 12 mo. 12/ cl. Thoughts and Memories in Verse, by G. C. B, cr 8vo. 5/ cl. History. Eight Months at Rome during Vatican Council, by Pomponio Leto, 8vo. 12/ cl. Willert's (P. F.) Reign of Lewis XI., 12 mo. 3/6 cl. Geography. Duff's (M. E. Grant) Notes of an Indian Journey, 8vo. 10/6 cl. Kennedy's (Capt. W. R.) Sporting Adventures in the Pacific, 18/ Young's (J. F.) Five Weeks in Greece, cr. 8vo. 10/6 cl. Philology. Cotton's (Sir A.) Study of Living Languages, 8vo. 1/6 cl. swd. Papillon's (T. L.) Manual of Comparative Philology, 6/ cl. Science. Green's (A. H.) Geology for Students, Part 1, 8vo. 12/6 cl. Procter's (W.) Notes on Practical Chemistry of Non-Metallic Elements. cr. 8vo. 1/6 swd. Smith's (J. H.) Key to Treatise on Arithmetic, cr. 8vo. 9/ cl. General Literature. Annual Register, 1875, 8vo. 18/ cl. Black's (W.) Lady Silverdale's Sweetheart, cr. 8vo. 10/6 cl. Carroll's (L.) Hunting of the Snark, cr. 8vo. 3/6 cl. Jones's (C. A.) Stories for the Christian Year, Vol. 2, 2/ cl. MacKenna's (S. J.) Handfast to Strangers, 3 vols. cr. 8vo. 31/6 cl. Ormsby's (J.) Stray Papers, cr. 8vo. 7/6 cl. Law List, 1876, cr. 8vo. 10/6 cl. Old Truths in a New Light, by the Countess of Caithness, 15/ Playne's (E.) Charold, Vol. 1, cr. 8vo. 5/ cl. Randolph's (Mrs.) No Love Lost, 3 vols cr. 8vo. 31/6 cl. Saunder's (J.) One Against the World, cr. 8vo. 6/ cl. Select Library of Fiction: Macquoid's Forgotten by the World and Oliphant's Days of My Life, cr. 8vo. 2/ each, bds. Shirreff's (E.) Kinder-Garten, cr. 8vo. 2/6 cl. limp. Turner's (F. S) British Opium Policy, 8vo. 6/ cl. THE MAN-OF-WAR BIRD THOU who has slept all night upon the storm, Waking renew'd on thy prodigious pinions, (Burst the wild storm! above it thou ascendedst, And restedst on the sky, thy slave that cradled thee;) Now, a blue point, far, far in heaven floating, As, to the light emerging, here on deck I watch thee, (Myself a speck, a point on the world's floating vast.) Far, far at sea, After the night's fierce drifts have strewn the shore with wrecks, With reappearing day, as now, so happy and serene, The rosy and elastic dawn, the flashing sun, The limpid spread of air cerulean, Thou also reappearest. Thou, born to match the gale! (thou art all wings;) To cope with heaven and earth, and sea and hurricane; Thou ship of air that never furl'st thy sails, Days, even weeks, untired and onward, through spaces,—realms gyrating. At dusk that look'st on Senegal, at morn America, That sport'st amid the lightning-flash and thunder-cloud! In them—in thy experiences—hadst thou my soul, What joys! what joys were thine! WALT WHITMAN. "DAY AND SON." Garrick Club, March 24, 1876. I ALSO have been taken in by Messrs. Day & Son (late of Wellington Street, Strand) in the manner described by your correspondent, Mr. J. W. Thompson. If Mr. Thompson wishes to know the whereabouts of Mr. Day and his son or sons, I can give him information. The business has been disposed of or assigned to some person or persons whose names do not appear over the door. It is now being carried on at Charing Cross, three or four doors south of Messrs. Drummond's Bank. When I called there in the summer of last year I had an interview with Mr. Day, which did not result in obtaining my pictures or money. I was put off with a vague promise of due execution of the agreement in November. Mr. Thompson had better take out a County Court summons against Messrs. Day & Son. I recommend him, however, before he does so, to make inquiries at the Westminster County Court office, as I have done. I am afraid he will not obtain any very satisfactory information as to Mr. Day's present means of carrying out his engagements or returning the subscriptions he has received. J. T. ABDY. P.S.—I wrote to Mr. Day three weeks ago, but got no reply to my letter. ANNE BOLEYN. When Mr. Dixon has a mind to be censorious, he had no scruple in lashing the same error over and over again. Thus it is not once or twice, but four times, in the course of his not very lengthy article, that he rebukes Mr. Brewer for ignorance in supposing Anne Boleyn's mother to have been alive at the time when the King first made advances to her. Mr. Brewer speaks of Anne as having been "sacrificed by thoughtless and greedy parents," and Mr. Dixon is down upon him with the remark that at the time of her marriage her mother "had been dead no less than twenty-one years." Mr. Brewer says again that her mother was fully cognizant of the King's demeanour towards her; and Mr. Dixon replies that her mother had been fourteen years buried in Lambeth church. Mr. Brewer then talks of Sir Thomas Boleyn's wife as "Lady Elizabeth Boleyn," in 1528; but Mr. Dixon, with superior knowledge, points out that "Lady Elizabeth had been dead about sixteen years." Finally, Mr. Brewer finds it easier to excuse the King's own conduct in some respects than that of Anne herself or her mother; and again it is confidently answered that "her mother had been dead for sixteen years." Thus it would appear that ignorance of one single fact, of which he ought to have been aware, has led Mr. Brewer astray over and over again, and made his 'Introduction' appear untrustworthy throughout. Now, of course, in matters of this kind there is no Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Authors, to which anyone can appeal. If Mr. Brewer has made this mistake, he must bear the full exposure of all the false consequences into which it has led him. It may be thought, perhaps, that, as a matter of taste, the error might have been more respectfully pointed out, or, even if it were a case for censure as a flagrant oversight, the punishment might have been administered once for all, and not dealt out by instalments here and there, and continually renewed. But, wherever errors exist, they ought certainly to be corrected; and if Mr. Dixon had solid grounds for contradicting Mr. Brewer's assertions, of course he was quite right to do so. Let us see, however, if that is really the case. The mother of Anne Boleyn was the Lady Elizabeth Howard, daughter of Thomas, second Duke of Norfolk. At the time when Henry the Eighth began to make advances to Anne, her father was not living as a widower, but as a married man. His wife, at that date, was certainly named Elizabeth, and she is spoken of in letters of[?] the period as Anne's "mother." These facts are undisputed, and are quite well known to Mr. Dixon, who, one would think, might in any case have allowed them some little weight in extenuation of Mr. Brewer's error, if error it really is. But how does Mr. Dixon know that it is an error at all? In strict conformity with his own principles, I find that he has followed the most modern authorities, including one whom he does not name as such, though he ought certainly to have fortified his statement by the positive assertion of Miss Strickland that Sir Thomas Boleyn married a second time. Miss Strickland had not only ascertained this fact, but had found for certain "that Anne's step-mother was a Norfolk woman of humble origin," and the word of so recent an authority surely requires no evidence from contemporary documents to make it stronger. I must own, however, that, for my part, I have some slight suspicion that the fact of Anne Boleyn's having had a step-mother at all was a mere inference on Miss Strickland's part, not derived from any positive statement to that effect in the authorities that she consulted, but from some indirect evidences of which Mr. Dixon also has made use. Those evidences consist of two parts—first, that Lady Elizabeth Howard, Anne Boleyn's mother, died in the year 1512; and, second, that Sir Thomas Boleyn had a wife living about fifteen years later. Of course, if both these points can be made out, the inference is quite legitimate; but a good deal manifestly depends upon the first being well established. Now, with regard to this, Mr. Dixon quotes two authorities—Howard's 'Memorials of the Howard Family' and Tanswell's 'History of Lambeth,' page 97. As to the latter, I cannot find the slightest reference to the Lady Elizabeth Howard, either at the page indicated or anywhere else in the book; but, in Howard's 'Memorials,' I admit that there is a very distinct statement that she died of puerperal fever on the 14th of December, 1512. Here, then, according to Mr. Dixon's principles, the point may be regarded as settled; for Howard's 'Memorials of the Howard Family' is a very modern book indeed. Nevertheless, Mr. Dixon has the weakness in this instance to think his case fortified by a reference to the State Papers of Henry the Eighth, where he says a clear distinction is always drawn between the first and second wife of Sir Thomas Boleyn. "Until Boleyn got his peerage," he tells us, "the second Lady Boleyn is always 'Elizabeth, his wife,' never 'the Lady Elizabeth, his wife.'—Brewer's 'Calendar,' III. 364." It is a great pity Mr. Dixon should have spoiled a fine case of modern evidence by appealing to the public records; for I must tell him that the distinction which he here insists on is not warranted by the records themselves. It is quite true that at the place referred to is an entry from the Patent Rolls of a grant to "Sir Thomas Boleyn464 THE ATHENÆUM No. 2527, APR. 1, '76 and Elizabeth his wife," in 1520. But it is equally true that, in September, 1512, when, even according to Howard's Memorials,'' the first Lady Boleyn was alive, occurs another entry from the Patent Rolls of a grant to "Sir Thomas Boleyn, knight of the Body, and Elizabeth, his wife" (Calendar, ' I. p.412). And I can certify, from inspection of the rolls themselves, that in neither case is the title "Domina," or anything corresponding to the word "lady," prefixed to the Christian name Elizabeth. If, therefore, there were two wives, the style of both was precisely the same. But what is the authority for the date of Lady Elizabeth Howard's death as given in Howard's 'Memorials'? For a long time, I was unable to find any; but, as I do not happen to share Mr. Dixon's entire satisfaction with modern authorities, I pursued my inquiries on this subject till they led me to consult some MSS. in the College of Arms. I there found certain pedigrees by which it appeared, not that the Lady Elizabeth Boleyn, but her sister Muriel (who was married first to John Grey, Viscount Lisle, and afterwards to Sir Thomas Knyvett) died in childbed at one o'clock A.M. on the 14th December, 1512, and that Lady Elizabeth Boleyn, instead of dying also in childbed on that very day, attended her sister's funeral. And, further, I found in an ancient MS., numbered I. 3, at folio 105, the following piece of information, which I think affords pretty sufficient evidence that Anne Boleyn's supposed step-mother is a myth, seeing that her own mother, Lady Elizabeth Howard, survived her unhappy daughter's execution by nearly two whole years:- "Anno Domini 1537,* 29 H.8. Wenysday the iijd of Aprell, at th' abbot of Redinges place in London, dyed Elezabeth late Countesse of Wyltshere, doughter of Thomas duke of Norff', with (sic) whose entrayles were taken owt and buryed accordingle; and the corps was spyced and cereyd with all other therto appertenynge after her estat and degree, where she remayned tyll Sonday next, the vijth of ------, in the aftre none. There was preparyd a barge covered with blacke and a white crosse, garnysshed with schoocheons of her armes, wherein she was caryed to Lambhethe and there was buryed right honerable accordinge to her esstate and degree." And now I leave it to Mr. Dixon's own discretion for the future to avoid being over-confident of things which are not quite certain, and rebuking others for ignorance in statements that are strictly true. I have by no means exhausted the list of his extravagances committed in this one short article. But perhaps I have shown enough to enable your reader to judge of the value of his criticisms. James Gairdner 6, St. James's Terrace, March 25, 1876. The Mr. Gairdner who writes to you on the misstatements of facts in Mr. Brewer's Introduction' is a clerk in the Record Office. He is Mr. Brewer's assistant. In this capacity, he has been employed by Mr. Brewer from first to last. Mr. Brewer says, in his Preface, "Mr. Gairdner is as much concerned as myself." Mr. Gairdner, therefore, must be taken as answering for both the partners, in a work which has brought down on them the correcting judgement, not only of public writers, but of an impartial Master of the Rolls. Messrs. Gairdner and Brewer affect to treat the charge of inaccuracy as a "joke," and to answer it with chaff. My charge is no more a "joke" than Sir George Jessel's new order, sternly prohibiting such vagaries in future, is a "joke." They write as though the errors pointed out in the Gentleman's Magazine were only two--- "two principal errors." This is the compiler's quip. The errors noted in my short article are thirty-eight in number, and those thirty-eight misstatements are given as -------- *We ought certainly to read 1538, in order that the year of our Lord may correspond with the 29th of Henry the Eighth, and also with Wednesday being the 3rd of April, and Sunday the 7th. By the old reckoning, the year of our Lord continued the same after December until the 25th of March, when 1538 ought to have been substituted for 1537. But the retention of the old figure so late as April was an oversight of the writer. specimens of many more. For the sake of readers who may not yet have seen the article in question, let me briefly indicate the nature of my charge. I will only deal with one division of the work-- that relating to Anne Boleyn; and, in that division, with only one section-- that in which the statements are at variance with the printed Calendar, to which the 'Introduction' professes to be a guide. Mr. Brewer has adopted Sander's theory--- that clericalism requires the Boleyns to be painted as persons low in origin, coarse in nature, commonplace in attainments, mercenary in character. If facts stand in the way of such pictures, smudge out the facts. If facts cannot be smudged out, pervert them or overlook them. Sanders's theory requires that Anne's father should be a low fellow; her mother, a procuress; her sister, a concubine. This theory of Sanders (whom Mr. Brewer misspells Saunders) has been thrown aside by all respectable writers; by Catholic writers as well as by Anglican writers. Lingard and Butler are free from such abominations. Mr. Brewer revives them, in defiance of the facts exhibited in his own previously printed text. Mr. Brewer begins his calumnies by false statements about Anne Boleyn's father. Introduction, p. 226, we read, "Boleyn was a commoner of no distinction and little wealth." In his printed Calendar, vol. i., p. 977, there is a letter from Lady Margaret Butler (miscalled Mary, but corrected at a later date), daughter and co-heiress of Thomas, Seventh Earl of Ormonde, to her son, Sir Thomas Boleyn - Anne's father. Boleyn was born heir-general to the Ormondes and Ossorys. He had claims by birth on the ealrdoms of Carrick and Wiltshire, and on the peerages of Rochford, and Hoo and Hastings. His father was owner of Blickling Park, Rochford Hall, Hever Castle, and many other manors. The Calendar shows that Boleyn served the Crown in many great offices of state, as Commissioner of the Peace of Kent (vol. i. p. 101), Commissioner of the Peace for Suffolk and Norfolk (vol. i. p. 198), Ambassador to the Imperial Court (vol. i. p. 355), and Commissioner for the Holy League (vol. i. 460). All these appointments date before 1512. Boleyn was chosen as son-in-law by no less proud a person than Thomas the Great Duke of Norfolk. Thus the "commoner," who appears in Mr. Brewer's Introduction as a person of "no distinction and little wealth," was in his own time, as the Calendar proves, distinguished enough and wealthy enough to go ambassador to an emperor, and to make the highest match in England, nəxt after the reigning house. (See Calendar, ii. 1456.) Introduction, p. 246, we read, "He (Boleyn) alone, of all the commoners in England, was made a baron at the creation of the Duke of Richmond." In this short paragraph there are four statements of fact: first, that Boleyn was a commoner in 1525, when the King's natural son was created Duke; second, that he alone was selected for a mark of royal favour; third, that in consequence of a change in the royal humour, closely connected with the matter of his divorce, Boleyn was made a peer; fourth, that he was called to the House of Lords as Baron Rochford. Every statement in this paragraph is contradicted by the printed Calendar. 1. Boleyn was not a commoner in 1525. In the third volume of the printed Calendar we read, under date of April 28, 1523, "Sir Thomas Boleyn, Sir William Sandys, Sir Maurice Berkeley, and Sir Nicolas Vaux have been made barons, and summoned by writ of Parliament." - Calendar, iii., 1260. 2. Boleyn was not "alone" selected for promotion when the King's son was created Duke of Richmond. In the printed Calendar we find a long list of promotions. Courteney was created Marquis of Exeter; Roos, Earl of Rutland; and Boleyn, Viscount of Rochford. - Calendar, iv. 676 - 9. 3. Boleyn was not made a peer from any connexion with the King's son, but for eminent services abroad. In the third volume of the printed Calendar, we have the story of his great mission to the Emperor Charles the Fifth, told at full length. Boleyn left Valladolid on the 18th of March; went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Santiago; and on his return to England received his call to the Upper House. -Calendar, iii., 1228, 1260. 4. Boleyn was not made a peer as Baron Rochford. The title by which he was called to the Lords was that of Lord Boleyn. -Calendar, iii. 1260. Introduction, p. 226, we read: "Mary was already married, before her" (Anne) "in 1520, to Sir William Carey." Mary's husband was not Sir William Carey, but Sir William's kinsman. The printed Calendar mentions him continually as Mr. Carey - Young Mr. Carey - Mr. Carey of the Court, and the like; but the husband of Mary Boleyn received no titular honours from the King. Scandal against Mary Boleyn must find support elsewhere than in such inventions. To the last moments of his life, William Carey is called Mr. Carey in he printed Calendar. "Mr. Carey is dead." -Calendar, iv. 1932. Introduction, p. 237, we read: "Henry thought the dispute might be ended by marrying Anne to Sir Piers Butler." The printed Calendar proves that neither Henry nor anybody else could have asked Anne Boleyn to marry Sir Piers Butler. Sir Piers was married; his wife was alive; he had a family grown up. Wolsey's proposal, which Henry adopted from motives of policy, was to marry Anne Boleyn to James Butler, son of Sir Piers. -Calendar, iii. 369. Introduction, p. 237, we read that King Henry "wrote to Surrey, her uncle, then in Ireland, to inquire whether the Earl of Ormonde, the father of Sir Piers, would consent to the match." The printed Calendar shows that this statement is altogether erroneous. It was not Sir Piers who was in question. Sir Piers's father was not Earl of Ormonde, never had been Earl of Ormonde, and never became Earl of Ormonde. He lived and died plain Mr. James Butler, of Callan, in which place he sleeps the great sleep. -Calendar, iii. 369, 372, 1282. Consult, also, Carte's 'Ormonde,' 1, Pref. lxxxv., and State Papers, i. 92, 50. Introduction, p. 244, we read of Anne: "In the estimation of those about her, she never rose above the mistress." It is not true that in the estimation of those about her, Anne Boleyn "never rose above the mistress." I will not here refer to the opinions of Wyat and Cranmer, though these pre-eminent judges of her conduct were always "about her." I will cite the words of Mr. Brewer's idol - Cardinal Wolsey. Wolsey was required to advise the Pope as to the personal character of the young lady whom the King wished to marry. He spoke as Cardinal and Archbishop. He wrote directly to the Pope. If Wolsey ever spoke a true word in his life, he must be credited with a desire to speak the truth in his letter to Clement. In the printed Calendar we find these words by Cardinal Wolsey about the young lady who in Mr. Brewer's 'Introduction' "never rose above the mistress": - "Her purity of life, her maidenly and womanly pudicity, her soberness, chasteness, meekness, and wisdom . . . . . be the grounds on which the King's desire is founded." -Calendar, iv. 1741. Introduction, p. 254, we read: -"Whether, but for this letter, the King would never have thought of a divorce, it is needless to speculate." Quite needless. The letter is dated by Mr. Brewer, July, 1527. In the printed Calendar, it is shown by many entries that the divorce was in active progress all the previous year. Calendar, iv., Part ii. Perhaps Mr. Gairdner helped in the "Introduction," as well as in the Calendar. Two hands are visible. How, otherwise, can we account for this statement on p. 254, following the one on p. 247? - "Unquestionably, in 1526, matters had so far advanced that Clerk was only watching his opportunity to urge the divorce at the Court of Rome."