10 s. XL JAN. so, 1909.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
' HENRY VI.,' PART III., II. v. :
Thou that so stoutly hast resisted me. In the Third Part of ' Henry VI.' there is a passage in which Shakespeare, wishing per- haps to portray the horrors of civil war, introduces a father killing his son, and a son his father, on the field of battle, neither of them being aware of it till the dreadful deed is done. It is a remarkable coincidence that Tacitus in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Third Book of his ' Histories ' tells us of the latter incident having actually occurred in the civil war between Vespasian and Vitellius, and he cites his authority for it, and particularly describes the cir- cumstances which attended it.
Whence did Shakespeare derive his story ? Did he invent it ? Or had it been handed down to him as a shocking fact which had occurred in the civil wars ? He can hardly have read the ' Histories ' of Tacitus.
PHILIP PEREING.
7, Lyndlmrst Road, Exeter.
'ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA,' III. xiii. 162 (Globe) :
The next Csesarion smite !
The editors are unanimous in referring "next" to "Csesarion." The context would seem to indicate that such reference is incor- rect. The first stone of this poisonous hail was to work Cleopatra's destruction. The next stone was to smite Caesarion, Cleopatra's firstborn. The process of extermination was then to continue " Till by degrees," &c. I believe the line should be punctuated thus : "The next, Caesarion smite ! "
E. MERTON DEY.
St. Louis.
" KERSEY." It is generally supposed that the stuff called kersey was so named from Kersey in Suffolk. In fact, this seems to be the only explanation which will account for all the spellings of it in England ; and it will also fairly account for most of the French spellings also. But the 'N.E.D.' raises some doubt by the statement that " evidence actually connecting the original manufacture of the cloth with that place has not been found."
I think it has not been found because it has not been looked for. In five minutes, in the first book I opened, ' The Imperial Cyclopaedia,' I found, under ' Suffolk,' the following statements :
" The principal manufactures [in 1841] were the silk, employing 879 persons ; the woollen and
worsted, employing 169 persons ; in addition,
S3"2 persons were returned as weavers, 75 as
spinners."
And under ' Hadleigh ' is the statement
that " weaving and silk- winding employ
some of the inhabitants." Hadleigh and
Kersey are close together, and Hadleigh
is now, at any rate, the more important
place.
The question arises whether the stuff called linsey, mentioned in 1435 (the obvious- original of the later linsey-woolsey), was not named from Lindsey, formerly Lynsey (Lyllesey, Lellesey), which is just as far to the N.W. of Kersey as Hadleigh is to the S.E. of it, i.e., within two miles of it. And this question is absolutely settled by the fact that Skelton, in his 'Why come ye not to Courte,' 1. 128. speaks of " A webbe of Lylse- wulse," where Lylse means Lylsey, the older spelling of Lynsey, And in 1. 930 he speaks of " Spryng of Lanham," i.e., Lavenham, and of his " clothe-makynge."
Carrying back the search, I came across ' A Breviary of Suffolk,' by Robert Reyce,. 1618, ed. Lord Francis Hervey. At p. 21 is a eulogium of Suffolk for its
" excellent commoditie of clothing, which of lony
time hath here flourished hee which maketh
ordinaryly twenty broad cloathes every weeke r cannot sett so few a-worke as five hundred persons."
And the author speaks as if it were a large and thriving industry.
Next I find, in Raven's ' History of Suffolk,' a reference to the insurrection of Suffolk weavers, as told in Hall's ' Chronicle '; and accordingly, in that ' Chronicle,' ed. Ellis, p. 699, I find that in the seventeenth year of Henry VIII. the Duke of Suffolk tried to persuade " the riche Clothiers " to grant a sixth part (!) of their goods to- the King. But " they called to them their , Spinners, Carders, Fullers, Weuers, and ! other artificers " who lived " by cloth- makyng," who all refused. And so "of Lanam [Lavenham, about six miles from Lindsey and eight from Kersey], Sudbery [about twelve miles west of Hadleigh] r Hadley, and other tonnes aboute, there re- belled foure thousande men."
Surely this evidence is strong, and not to be rejected. The difficulty of finding direct evidence in such a case is, of course, extreme ; but I am sure it can be had. Already we have found cloth-making close to Kersey in 1526, when 4,000 men were interested in it. It is not difficult to suppose that it was already established in 1390.
Bardsley quotes " Selvestre de Kereseye," co. Suffolk, as occurring in 1273 ; and " Eliz. Lynsejre " in 1546.
WALTER W. SKEAT.
