I JAN. 29, '98.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
93
phrase " und zwar hauptsachlich," ignore th
comparison indicated by " allgemeiner," and
make a particular application of what was
Dnly meant to be a general statement. These
things constitute misrepresentation.
Kemble certainly was in error in preferring to believe that St. Gregory's letters were dated in the era of the Incarnation ; but a critic who dwells upon that fact to the exclu- sion of other points of Kemble's argumenl (which I do not reproduce) is unfair if he omit to recall that Kemble (' C. D.' pp. Ixxvi- Ixxvii) admitted that the (supposititious) an- nuary datum might have been interpolated.
3. In the first paragraph of MR. STEVEN- SON'S letter the only points that affect the question of Paschal computation by the use of the Dionysian era in England in the seventh century are : (a) the dating by the indiction, and (b) the vague reference to "Victor's" Paschal cycle. The existence of the first custom, as I have shown, is not a proof that Dionysian Paschal computation was unknown. The second statement must be amended : thus some of the bishops of Gaul retained the ancient Latin lunar limits of observance from moon 16 to moon 22, and celebrated the schismatic Easters of Victorius of Aquitaine. All Gaul, however, was not schismatic.
MR. STEVENSON explains that what he meant by saying that the Dionysian era of the Incarnation was "brought into use by Bseda " was that Bede's works on chronology (whereinDionysius is named with reverence and his Paschal principles carefully expounded) were so famous that they obscured the work of Dionysius (i. e., the Paschal principles that they expounded), although they spread far and wide the knowledge of the latter's Paschal system. The proofs of this discovery will, no doubt, be furnished by MR. STEVEN- SON in due course. I would also suggest that MR. STEVENSON re-examine his position, and provide, at the same time, reasons (a) for dis- claiming (p. 11, col. 2) that he shares the belief that the orthodox English bishops of the seventh century received their Paschal method from Rome ; (b) for supposing that Agilbert, Bishop of Paris, who officiated, and the other Catholic bishops of Gaul who were present at the consecration of Wilfrid at Compiegne, celebrated the schismatic Easters of Victorius of Aquitaine, whose method was condemned by Pope Vitalian, by Ceolfrid, Aldhelm, Bede, and many more ; (c) for disregarding what Eddius and Bede say of Wilfrid, what Bede says of Tuda and Aldhelm, and what Aldhelm himself and Cummian say respecting the Roman origin of the tonsure and Paschal
method employed by the orthodox in their
times; (d) for questioning the use of the
golden number " at so early a date " as the
seventh century, when (1) Dionysius used it
along with the indiction to date the year in
which he wrote his Paschal letter (sc. A.D. 526),
and (2) Cassiodorus, in A.D. 562, gives us the
rule or canon for finding it ; (e) for supposing
that the missionaries of Gregory and Honorius
were furnished by those who sent them with
methods for computing the lunation and
calendar date of the Catholic Easter different
from those I have enumerated. When MR.
STEVENSON has studied these matters he will,
I hope, instruct me whether the conclusion of
my former letter is really " inconsequent."
" Primo decemnovennalis circuli versu," says
Bede, "Dionysius elegit ab incarnatione
domini nostri Jesu Christi annorum tempora
prsenotare " And Dionysius explains the
reasons for doing so in his Paschal letter, to which I refer MR. STEVENSON.
A. ANSCOMBE.
Tottenham.
"ONE TOUCH OP NATURE," &c. (8 th S. xii. 506). The suggestion of E. L. R. that we should read "marks" instead of "makes "does not appear to elucidate this often-quoted passage. The question seems to be, What ire we to understand by a touch of nature ? E. L. R. writes : " This touch (i. e., a small piece )." It is not easy to say why a small viece of nature should make the whole world iin. Such an interpretation seems to leave
- he question much where it was at first.
Many years back I read a discussion on this Dassage I think in the Athenaeum in which .t was suggested that we should read tache in 3lace of touch. The word tache =a spot or Blemish, occurs in the plural form in the Cuckow and the Nightingale,' formerly -ttributed to Chaucer
And fro al evele tachches him defendeth.
- f we were to read, " One tache of nature,"
&c., the explanation would be that a natural )lemish, to which all are subject, makes us lympathize with each other. 1 note that the Glossarial Index' toStaunton's 'Shakespeare' gives "Touch, a pang, a wound, sympathy." This would afford much the same interpre- /ation of the passage as would the use of ache in place of touch. B. H. L.
The phrase " gilt o'er-dusted " is discussed Dver half a page in ' The Plays of William Shakespeare,' with notes by Samuel Johnson nd George Steevens (fifth edition, 21 vols.. .London, 1803), vol. xy. p. 370. The other word makes" is passed without comment. For a ifferent reason the line forms the subject
