Chapter IV: Introduction: To the Galatea (4)

Unfortunately, this entry is not an autograph: all the other entries on the page which contains it are, as the Keeper of the Archives informs me, in the same handwriting. The _Oxford University Calendar_ for 1823 gives (p. 275) our author's names in this form and sequence: James Willoughby Gordon Gill. This form and order are repeated in the _Oxford University Calendar_ for the years 1824 and 1825. In the alphabetical index to the _Calendar_ for 1823-1824-1825 this Pembroke undergraduate is entered as: _Gill, James G. W._ As the editors of the semi-official _Calendar_ derive their information from the College authorities, we may take it that, from 1822 to 1825 inclusive, the future author passed as James Gill at Pembroke, and amongst those who knew him best. It cannot be supposed that the Master and Fellows of Pembroke made a wrong return for three consecutive years, nor that they wilfully reversed the order of Gill's Christian names with the express object of annoying him. Had they done either of these things, Gill was the very man to protest energetically: his conduct in later years snows that he was punctilious in these matters. However, it is right to bear in mind that the Matricula Book gives Gill's Christian names in the same order as they appear on his title-pages. I have failed to obtain any details of his career at Pembroke. Mr. Wood, the present Librarian at Pembroke, states that there is "no proper record" of the Commoners at that College in Gill's time. On this point I have only to say that the poet Thomas Lovell Beddoes was in residence at Pembroke with Gill, and that information concerning Beddoes's undergraduate days is apparently not lacking. Possibly more careful research might discover some trace of Gill at Oxford. He seems to have taken no degree, and to have left no memory or tradition at Pembroke. He himself tells us (_A Tractate on Language_, First Edition, p. iii) that when at Oxford "he formed an acquaintance with a gentleman of considerable erudition, but not of either University, who had made the English tongue his peculiar care." To this association we owe _A Tractate on Language_, and, perhaps, the peculiarities of style which Gill afterwards developed. But, in the latter respect, a serious responsibility may attach to Milton; for, in his _Tractate_, Gill refers to the poet and laments (p. 224) that, at the period of which he speaks, "the Allegro and Penseroso were confined to the closets of the judicious." The inference is that Gill modelled his diction on both these poems.

His name disappears from the _Oxford University Calendar_ in 1826. He visited Mexico in 1832 (_History of Wraysbury_, p. 49), and perhaps during this journey he picked up a queer smattering of Spanish. On August 29, 1839, he married "Anne Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward Bowyer-Smijth, Bt.," and this seems to have given a new direction to what he calls his "studious tendencies."

The founder of his wife's family was plain William Smith, who died in 1626; this William Smith's son developed into Thomas Smyth, and died a baronet in 1668; Sir Thomas Smyth's great-great-grandson, the seventh baronet, was known as Sir William Smijth, and died in 1823. Gill's father-in-law,--Vicar of Camberwell and Chaplain to George IV.--was the ninth baronet. On June 10, 1839, he assumed the name of Bowyer by royal license, and was styled Sir Edward Bowyer-Smijth. In this the Vicar was practically following the lead of his younger brother, a captain in the 10th Hussars, who assumed the name of Windham by royal license at Toulouse on May 22, 1823, and thenceforth signed himself Joseph Smijth-Windham. The contagion infected Gill.

After his marriage to Miss Bowyer-Smijth, third daughter of the ninth baronet, Gill became a diligent student of genealogy, heraldry and county-history. It might be excessive to say that he was attacked by the _folie des grandeurs_; but he does appear to have felt that, since the Smiths had blossomed into Bowyer-Smijths and Smijth-Windhams, a man of his ability was bound to do something of the same kind for the ancient house of Gill. And something was done: a great deal, in fact. The first-fruits of Gill's enterprise are garnered in _The genealogy of the family of Gylle, or Gill, of Hertfordshire, Essex and Kent, illustrated by wills and other documents_ which he printed in 1842. At this first stage he acted with praiseworthy caution, signing his pamphlet with the initials G. G. If he was ever known by so vulgar a name as James--the name of the patron-saint of Spain--he had evidently got rid of it by 1842. At Pembroke in 1823 his initials were J. G. W. G., according to the _Oxford University Calendar_: nineteen years later they were G. G. This advancement passed unnoticed, and the delighted investigator continued his researches. These were so successful that, according to Gill's shy confession wrung from him long afterwards, "as the old annals, parish registers, tombs, wills. &c., wrote our name Gyll, we, by sign manual, returned to that orthography in 1844": (see _Notes and Queries_, March 24, 1866, vol. ix., p. 250). The English of this avowal is bad, but the meaning is clear. Henceforward Gill is transfigured into Gyll. These easy victories led him to enlarge his plan of campaign, and thus we find in the 1846 edition of _Burke's Landed Gentry_ the pedigree of the family of Gyll of Wyrardisbury, which contains the statement that on October 13, 1794, the head of the house (of the Gylls of Wyrardisbury), "William Gyll, Esquire, Captain 2nd Regiment Life Guards, and Equerry to H. R. H. the Duke of Sussex" married "Lady Harriet Flemyng, only child of the Right Hon. Hamilton Flemyng, last Earl of Wigtoun, and had issue" our author, and other children with whom we are not concerned here.

According to George Lipscomb's _History and Antiquities of the County of Buckingham_ (London, 1847, vol. iv., p. 605, _n._ 1.), it was on December 17, 1844, that "Her Majesty was pleased ... to permit the family of Gyll of Wyrardisbury, to resume the ancient orthography of their name." The enthusiastic Gyll (as we must now call him) interpreted the privilege in a generous fashion. It galled the patrician to think that his grandfather had been a lowly alderman, and to know that this lamentable fact was on record at Wraysbury. There were epitaphs in Wraysbury Church describing his grandfather as "Alderman of the City of London"; describing his father as "only son of Alderman Gill"; describing his aunt, Mrs. Paxton, as "daughter of William Gill, Esq., Alderman of the City of London." Our Gyll had all these odious references to the aldermanship removed; in their stead he introduced more high-sounding phrases; he interpolated the statement that his grandfather was "of the family of Gyll of Wyddial, Herts"; and on all three monuments he took it upon himself to change Gill into Gyll. The changes were made clumsily and unintelligently, but one cannot have everything. Gordon Gyll was indefatigable in his pious work, and, within three years, he somehow induced Lipscomb (_op. cit._, vol. iv., p. 604) to insert a pedigree connecting the family of "Gyll of Buckland and Wyddial Hall, co. Herts, Yeoveny Hall, co. Middlesex, and Wyrardisbury Hall, co. Bucks," with certain Gylls established in Cambridgeshire during the reign of Edward I. It is impossible not to admire the calm courage with which the still, strong man swept facts, tombstones, epitaphs, and obstacle's of all kinds from the path of his nobility.

His proceedings passed unnoticed during fourteen happy years. At last attention was drawn to them in _Notes and Queries_ (May 11, 1861, p. 365) by a correspondent who signed himself "A Stationer." "A Stationer" remarked sarcastically on the erasure of all references to the aldermanship from the monuments in Wraysbury Church, noted that the dead Gills had been glorified into Gylls, deplored Gordon Gyll's ingratitude towards the ancestors to whom he owed everything, censured Gyll's conduct as "silly," and protested against such tampering as improper. The editor of _Notes and Queries_ supported "A Stationer's" view on the ground that monuments had hitherto been accepted as testimony in suits at law, and that their evidential value would be completely destroyed if Gyll's example were generally followed. Gyll put on his finest county manner, and replied in an incoherent letter (_Notes and Queries_, May 26, 1861, p. 414) which breathes the haughty spirit of a great territorial chieftain. He denounced the insolence of "A Stationer" in daring to criticize "a county family," branded the intruder as a "tradesman," a "miserable citizen critic," and pitied the poor soul's "confined education." But he failed to explain his conduct satisfactorily, and laid himself open to the taunts of Dr. J. Alexander (_Notes and Queries_, June 8, 1861, p. 452), who declared that Gyll had "proved himself unable to write English, and ignorant of some of the simplest rules of composition." Dr. Alexander added that,--if a licence obtained in 1844 could justify changing the spelling of the name of a man who died in 1798,--by parity of reasoning, "had the worthy alderman accepted the proferred baronetcy, all his ancestors would, _ipso facto_, become baronets. I believe China is the only country where this practice obtains." In the same number of _Notes and Queries_, "A Stationer" returned to the subject, and posed a number of very awkward questions. "Are the Gylls really a county family? And when did they become so? Has any member of the house ever filled the office of Knight of the shire, or even that of sheriff for the county of Buckingham?" And, after reproaching Gyll for his repudiation of his hard-working grandfather, "A Stationer" ended by assuring the proud squire that "the Stationers of London have a more grateful recollection of their quondam brothers and benefactors--for benefactors they were to a very unequal extent. From Alderman Wright, the Stationers received 2000_l._ 4 per cents.: from Alderman Gill (who left a fortune of £300,000) 30_s._ a year to be added to Cator's dinner. However, their portraits are still to be seen in the counting-house of the Company, placed in one frame, side by side. "_Par nobile fratrum!_" Gyll dashed off a reply which the editor of _Notes and Queries_ (June 29, 1861, p. 520) declined to insert: "as we desire to avoid as much as possible any intermixture of personal matters into this important question." At this the blood of all the Gylls boiled in the veins of Gordon Willoughby James. He was not to be put off by a timorous journalist, and he secured the insertion in _Notes and Queries_ (July 27, 1861, p. 74) of an illiterate letter which, says the editor, "we have printed ... exactly as it stands in the original." The letter seems to have been written under the influence of deep emotion, for the aristocratic Gyll twice speaks of his grandfather as a "party." He demanded an ample apology, and ended with the announcement that "if I do not hear from you I shall send the family lawyer to meet the charge." Gyll did not obtain the apology, did not attempt to answer "A Stationer's" string of questions, did not accept the editor's offer to print the suppressed letter, did not "send the family lawyer to meet the charge." In fact he did nothing that he threatened to do, and nothing that he was asked to do. If he consulted his solicitor, the latter probably joined with the editor and told him not to make a fool of himself.

But Gyll had no idea of abandoning his pretensions, and he renewed them with abundant details in his _History of Wraysbury_, a quarto which contains more than its title implies. He is not content to note (p. 153) that "occasionally those dreary landmarks in the vast desert of human misery, called Coroner's inquests, arise in Wraysbury." He also proves, to his own satisfaction, that "the family of Ghyll, Gyll, Gylle, Gille, Gill, for it is recorded in all these ways, is derived from that one which resided in the North, temp. Edward the Confessor, 1041, at Gille's Land in Cumberland" (p. 99), and that "in 1278 Walter le Gille served as a juryman at Tonbridge" (p. 98). The arms of the Gylls are duly given: "Sable, two chevrons argent, each charged with three mullets of the field, on a dexter Canton, or; a lion passant at guard, gules. Also Lozenges or and vert; a lion rampant at guard, gules." Heralds whom I have consulted have jeered at the Gyll escutcheon, but I cannot bring myself to give their ribald remarks in print. Apparently, the main purpose of the _History of Wraysbury_ is to shew that the Gylls (with a _y_) are very Superior Persons, and that the Gills (with an _i_) are People of No Importance. Gyll admits that the latter produced a worthy man in the person of John Gill, "a Baptist divine"; and the historian, when writing of his poor relations (p. 125), emphasizes the fact that John Gill was not an Anabaptist. Anabaptists were evidently an inferior set.

It will be seen that Gyll traced back his pedigree to a period earlier than the Norman Conquest: six centuries before his wife's ancestors (then known as Smith) were first heard of. It was a great achievement and henceforth no Gyll need fear to look a Bowring-Smijth in the face. And Gyll's ambition grew. He could not prove that he was the child of a baronet, and, in so much, he was in a position of social inferiority to his wife. But he did the next best thing by declaring that, if he was not the son of a baronet, he easily might have been. In his _History of Wraysbury_, he states (p. 97) that his grandfather was Lord Mayor of London when George III. went to St Paul's to give thanks for his recovery from his first attack of insanity, that the usual patent "was prepared and announced in all the public papers, 18th and 19th April, 1789, to create him a Baronet, which is usual when the King honours the city on any great occasion, but the profered advancement was not accepted for family reasons. Nor was the claim revived until his son "William Gyll, Captain 2nd Life Guards, who had in 1803 at his own expense raised two troops of cavalry at the threat of invasion, solicited the favour which his father had injudiciously declined, when he too unfortunately died prematurely, and the expected honour has not since been conferred." This is a repetition of a favourite phrase: for Lipscomb (_op. cit._, vol. iv., p. 605, _n._ 3) states that the younger William Gyll "unfortunately died suddenly, and the expected honour has not since been conferred." One can guess the source of Lipscomb's information.

I regret to say that Gyll throws all the blame for this catastrophe on his grandmother, as may be seen by an intemperate foot-note which follows the passage just quoted from the _History of Wraysbury_: "His (the Lord Mayor's) wife Mary induced him to forego the honour, because there was a son by his first wife, who only survived a few years and died unmarried. Women may be very affectionate but not discreet. They have a fibre more in their hearts, and a cell less in their brains than men." This is most improper, no doubt. Still, great allowance should be made for the exasperation of a man who longed to be a baronet's son, who might have been one, and who was not.

Gyll had certainly played his part gallantly. Considering the material that he had to use, he worked wonders. He had (perhaps) transformed himself from James to Gordon; he had (unquestionably) evolved from Gill to Gyll. He had wiped out the horrid memory of the aldermanship, and had buried the old stationer's shop miles beneath the ground-floor of limbo. And there is testimony to his social triumphs in the list of subscribers that precedes his _History of Wraysbury_, which is dedicated "by permission" to the late Prince Consort. Among the subscribers were two dukes, two earls, five barons, ten baronets: and these great personages were followed by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Milner Gibson, the Dean of Windsor, the Provost of Eton, and other commoners of distinction.

It was a glorious victory which Gyll enjoyed in peace for four years. Then his hour of reckoning came. A correspondent of _Notes and Queries_, signing himself "Anglo-Scotus," pointed out (February 24, 1866, p. 158) that the statement concerning the Gylls in _Burke's Landed Gentry_ was erroneous; that no officer named Gyll ever held a commission in either regiment of the Life Guards; that Hamilton Flemyng was not the last (or any other) Earl of Wigtoun; and that consequently no such person as Lady Harriet Flemyng ever existed. Gyll pondered for a month and then, at last, nerved himself to write to _Notes and Queries_ (March 24, 1866, p. 250) asserting that Hamilton Flemyng was "_per legem terrae_, 9th and last Earl of Wigton." His letter was thought to be too rambling for insertion: the editor confined himself to printing this crucial passage, and referred Gyll to the report of the Committee for Privileges which set forth that "the claimant (Hamilton Flemyng) hath no right to the titles, honours, and dignities claimed by his petition." This report was quoted in the same number of _Notes and Queries_ (pp. 246-247) by an Edinburgh correspondent signing himself G., and G. went on to say that, though no Gyll ever held a commission in the Life Guards, a certain William Gill figures in the Edinburgh Almanacs for 1794-5-6 as a Lieutenant in the 2nd Life Guards. I have since verified this statement, and I find that William Gill was gazetted to the 2nd Life Guards on September 26, 1793. In spite of the interest that he took in his family history, Gyll had no accurate knowledge of his father's doings. William Gill was transferred to the Late 2nd Troop of Horse Grenadier Guards (a reduced corps receiving full pay) on March 23, 1796, and he retired on March 19, 1799 (see _The London Gazette_, Nos. 13,878 and 15,116). But Gyll was ever a muddler and a bungler. He informed Lipscomb that his father had "died suddenly" (_op. cit._, vol. iv., p. 605); while, in the _History of Wraysbury_ (p. 121), he copies an epitaph recording William Gill's death "after a long and painful illness."

It was thus established that the family name was Gill; that the younger William Gill did not marry the daughter of the last Earl of Wigton (or Wigtoun); that he was never a Captain in the 2nd Life Guards; and that in 1803, when he was alleged to have raised two troops of cavalry, he had already resigned his commission four years. Human nature being what it is, this exposure may have brought a smile to the lips of the Bowyer-Smijths who had listened to Gyll's stories of a cock and of a bull for a quarter of a century. Gyll collapsed at once when detected, and he published no more results of his genealogical researches. It is a pity, for who knows to what length of absurdity he might not have gone? Who knows, indeed, whether his little tale of the Lord Mayor and the baronetcy is not of a piece with the rest? I have searched the contemporary newspapers, and the nearest approach that I can find to a confirmation of Gyll's assertion is in _The Diary; or Woodfall's Register_ (Friday, April 24, 1789): "That the Lord Mayor will be a Baronet is now certain; and that Deputies Seekey and Birch will be knighted is extremely probable." I do not know what happened to Seekey and Birch. The Gylls are enough for a lifetime. Years afterwards a correspondent to _Notes and Queries_ (December 26, 1876, p. 512) derisively observed that "the Gyll family, however, quarter the Flemyng arms, and also the Flemyng crest." But the badger was not to be drawn a third time: Gyll endured the affront in the meekest silence.

The versatile man had relieved his severe antiquarian studies by excursions into light literature. _A Tractate on Language_ was published because, as the author avows (p. iii), "he thought (perhaps immaturely) that some occult treasures and recondite truths in philology were eliminated, and were worthy public consideration." When Gyll wrote these words (1859) he was in his fifty-seventh year, and was as mature as he was ever likely to be. The work, which contains the alarming statement (p. 171) that "Noah taught his descendants his matricular tongue," seems to have been rudely handled by critics. In the second edition of his _Tractate_ Gyll replies with the ladylike remark that "as regards his opinions, it was not consistent with equity or delicacy that they should have been encountered with _savage phrenzy_;" and, with a proper contempt for reviewers, he adds that "while such reviews indulge thus indiscriminately, pourtraying sheer obliquity of mind and judgment in lieu of that _manly acumen_ to which they pretend, the critics must perceive how much below the dignity of the criticised it is to evince uneasiness or resentment--both as easily 'shaken off as dewdrops from the lion's mane.'" It is unlikely that Gyll is widely read nowadays, and this is my excuse for doing what I can to save two distinguished aphorisms from the wreck of his _Tractate_. There is nothing like them (it is safe to say) in Pascal or La Rochefoucauld.

(_a_) "As in religion what is bones to philosophy is milk to faith" (pp. iii-iv).

(_b_) "A literary man, however, is like a silkworm employed and wrapped up in his own work" (p. 163).

After his exposure in _Notes and Queries_ Gyll dropped genealogy, heraldry, and topography as though they were so many living coals. But, though he dreaded the fire, he was still bent on making the world ring with the name of Gyll. Spanish literature, which was at that time cultivated in these islands by such men as Chorley, FitzGerald, Archbishop Trench, Denis Florence Mac-Carthy and Ormsby, seemed to him a promising field in which he should find no dangerous rivals. In the _History of Wraysbury_ (p. 146) he included his own name among the "names of literary and distinguished characters of Wraysbury," and under the date 1860, he mentions his "Translation from the Spanish of Don Guzmán de Alfarache." I presume this was a version of Mateo Alemán's picaresque novel, but I can find no trace of it. At the age of sixty-four the extraordinary Gyll furbished up the few words of Spanish which he had learned in Mexico thirty-five years earlier, and courageously started as a translator of Cervantes. His versions are the worst ever published in any tongue. But criticism was impotent against his self-complacency. A true literary man, he lived--to use his own happy phrase--"like a silkworm employed and wrapped up in his own work." On the whole his was a prosperous career. Carpers might do their worst, but the solid facts remain. Gyll had practically blotted out the stain of the stationer's shop and the aldermanship; he had obtained permission to write his name with a _y_: he had elbowed his way into county-histories, into Burke's _Landed Gentry_ and into Burke's _General Armory_; he had published such works as, in all probability, the world will never see again. He appreciated these performances to the full, and he revelled in gazing on the south window in Wraysbury Church, of which he writes (_History of Wraysbury_, p. 123): "At the summit are two small openings of painted glass, and in the centre is a quatrefoil in which the letters G. W. J. G. are convoluted.... The play of colours on the monuments when the sun is brilliant, affords a pleasing variegation." What more could the mind of man desire? Gordon Willoughby James Gyll died on April 6, 1878.

[111] See p. viii. of Gyll's version: "Dedicated by Cervantes, to his Excellency Don Joseph Moniño, Count of Florida Blanca, Knight of the Grand Cross of the Royal Order of K. Charles III." The fact is, of course, that Gyll translated from _Los seis libros de Galatea_, reprinted in 1784 by Antonio de Sancha with a dedication to Floridablanca. The words--"Dedicated by Cervantes"--are interpolated by Gyll. Floridablanca died in 1808, nearly two hundred years after Cervantes.

[112] Evidently a misprint for Silena.

[113] In justice to Gyll, the polemist, I reprint his two letters contributed to _Notes and Queries_ (May 25, 1861, and July 27, 1861):--

(_a_) "A STATIONER writes his remarks on the subject of some alterations on lapidary inscriptions in Wraysbury Church: and pray, Sir, by what right does this tradesman ask any family why they choose to change a monumental reading, provided nothing is inserted which militates against truth?

What has the world to do with family arrangements? And whether is the article to be taken for a _charge_ or a _lament_? I only wish this busy citizen to employ his time more profitably--while I wonder that any periodical should condescend to introduce the subject, without notice being given to members of the family, and an inquiry made. If they had reasons good for it, what on earth does the public care about it? Certain words on certain monuments were not approved by a county family, and they were omitted: and lo! a citizen rises to impeach the _proprietary_ of it. The case stands thus, Monument No. 1:

This was an unusually large slab, on which the simple record of the deaths of Wm. Gyll, Esq., and his wife, were only inscribed. The family thought the space might be occupied by the addition of other family names, &c.--and it was done. And now the slab is full.

No. 2. Wm. Gyll, Esq., was styled here Equerry to H.R.H. Duke of Sussex; but that he was also Captain in the 2nd Life Guards was omitted. It was deemed expedient to make room for its insertion, and it was done.

No. 3. On Mrs. Paxton's monument, a daughter of Wm. Gyll, Esq., the latter gentleman is styled _of this parish_; and as he had considerable property here, it was his proper designation. Room was made to effect this, and it was done.

There are thirteen monuments to the family of Gyll, or relations, in the chancel of Wraysbury Church; and where the patronymic was spelt with an _i_ as formerly, instead of _y_ as latterly, a change was made that these names might correspond with the same orthography on other monuments (see Chauncey & Clutterbuck, _Herts_), and with antique deeds (see _Collectanea Topographica_, vol. viii.).

The family for many years had returned to the _original_ mode of spelling their patronymic, to distinguish them from other families similarly called; and for this privilege a permission was obtained by _sign manual_ in 1844. And if a correspondent change was made on the monuments, what has anyone in the world to do with it but the family?

In one case a mistaken date was inscribed, 17th for 26th March. This is made a _charge and a crime_ by this miserable citizen critic, as if these mistakes were made purposely.

In two cases Dr. Lipscomb's monumental inscriptions give _widow_ for wife, and _Sept._ for April. Had the STATIONER, who is so wonderfully correct, and turns all things to wrongs, gone or sent to Wraysbury, he would have found _his_ improvements already on the monuments.

But his candid soul converts all this to _vanity_: and, no doubt, vanity finds endless occupation for ingenuity and invention. Suggests that a family ought to be proud of civic honours. Many thanks to the _suggestive_ STATIONER; but if this family is not, what cares the world about it? It may have gained nothing by the position; but if he will be _obtrusive_, let him tell the next editor who is in want of matter another _secret_--for he uses _this term_ in his disquisition--that Mr. Gyll, in 1789, refused to be created a Baronet, and that the patent was made out and was ready for execution. See the newspapers _passim_, 18th and 23rd April, 1789.

It may be the family desires no remembrance of the honours conferred, or the honours proffered; and if so, what daring presumption gives a STATIONER a plea to impugn any act done by A. or B., and parade it before the public in an accommodating journal? His confined education may preclude his knowing that a Lord Stanhope doffed his title and removed his arms from all his carriages; and that Horace Walpole remarked, that calling him "My Lord," was calling him _names_ in his old age. Many have not assumed honours to which they were entitled.

As the STATIONER, or the poor malice of the writer under this name, has made a _charge_, I trust, Sir, in your _equity_, that you will insert this explanation in your next number; and I also trust to read in your most interesting and useful publication, for the future, more that _concerns_ the curious world than that a family substituted on a monument a _y_ for an _i_, and withheld altogether the naming of an honour which might have appeared there.

GORDON GYLL.

7, Lower Seymour Street, Portman Square."

(_b_) "As you have not published the letter I sent to your office in answer to that of A STATIONER, and also to an LL.D., who, instead of quietly confining himself to an opinion on a point of law, rushed into _personalities_ quite unjustified by circumstances, for no letter was addressed to him unless he be the STATIONER in disguise, who, in his arrogance dared to say that I was ignorant of the first principles of composition--I wish to know whether the LL.D. or STATIONER mean to assert that by our improving certain monuments in Wraysbury Church (which we, as a family acting in unison, were entitled to do without the interference of anyone) we have falsified them.

If that be intended, we consider the allegation _false and injurious_, and unless we have an unequivocal denial, we shall refer the case to our legal adviser. The entire object of the STATIONER was to insult our family, and to impute motives, which was enough to incite to resentment.

If he had politely said that we had caused one letter to be substituted for another, which did not change the sound of the name, and had put in a Christian name where the title of a civic honour was inscribed, whereby the party was more _clearly_ identified--for Mr. Alderman A. may be anybody--it had been well and harmless, and no such letter, which he terms acrimonious, had been written.

You gave, in a note to my letter, an opinion that the question was _not touched_. Now, Sir, I wish to ask you or the LL.D. if any LAW is violated, and if a family has a right to inscribe on a monument that A. or B. were Deputy-Lieut., Magistrates, M.P., or High Sheriffs? and if so, if a party is termed Alderman where his proper description would be Lord Mayor, the family may not legally and judiciously alter it?

We stand impeached with _breaking a law_, and by implication with, _falsifying_ a lapidary inscription. We wish to know if _these imputations_ are meant either by LL.D. or the STATIONER, for if they are, let the case be tried before proper tribunal, or else let us have a denial. If I do not hear from you I shall send the family lawyer to meet the charge.

GORDON GYLL.

7, Lower Seymour Street, Portman Square."

The above are reproduced exactly as printed in _Notes and Queries_. As already observed (p. lii. _n._), Gyll did not carry out his threats.

FIRST PART
OF THE
GALATEA

DIVIDED INTO SIX BOOKS

WRITTEN BY
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES

DEDICATION
TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS LORD,
ASCANIO COLONNA,[114]
ABBOT OF SANTA SOFIA.

Your Lordship's worth has prevailed with me so much as to take away from me the fear I might rightly feel in venturing to offer you these first-fruits of my poor genius. Moreover, considering that your August Lordship came to Spain not only to illumine her best Universities, but also to be the pole-star by which those who profess any real science (especially those who practise that of poetry) may direct their course, I have not wished to lose the opportunity of following this guidance, since I know that in it and by it all find a safe haven and a favourable reception. May your Lordship be gracious to my desire, which I send in advance to give some kind of being to this my small service; and if I do not deserve it for this, I may at least deserve it for having followed for several years the conquering banners of that Sun of warfare whom but yesterday Heaven took from before our eyes, but not from the remembrance of those who strive to keep the remembrance of things worthy of it, I mean your Lordship's most excellent father. Adding to this the feeling of reverence produced in my mind by the things that I, as in prophecy, have often heard Cardinal de Acquaviva tell of your Lordship when I was his chamberlain at Rome; which now are seen fulfilled, not only by me, but by all the world that delights in your Lordship's virtue, Christian piety, munificence, and goodness, whereby you give proof every day of the noble and illustrious race from which you descend; which vies in antiquity with the early times and leaders of Rome's greatness, and in virtues and heroic works with equal virtue and more exalted deeds, as is proved to us by a thousand true histories, full of the renowned exploits of the trunk and branches of the royal house of Colonna, beneath whose power and position I now place myself to shield myself against the murmurers who forgive nothing; though, if your Lordship forgive this my boldness, I shall have naught to fear, nor more to desire, save that our Lord may keep your Lordship's most illustrious person with the increase of dignity and position that we your servants all desire.

Most Illustrious Lord,
Your humblest servant kisses your Lordship's hands,
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES SAAVEDRA.

FOOTNOTES:

[114] (Son of Marc Antonio Colonna, Duke of Paliano, whose share in the famous battle is set forth in P. Alberto Guglielmotti's _Marcantonio Colonna alla bataglia di Lepanto_ (Firenze, 1862). Marc Antonio Colonna, then Viceroy of Sicily, was summoned to Spain by Philip II. in 1584. He died suddenly at Medinaceli on August 1, 1584. The dedication is a compliment paid to the son of the author's old commander. J. F.-K.)