9*8. VII. FEB. 23, 1901.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
153
wrote the text, turning it into utter bathos
and to give the crowning touch to this pn
cedure, he cited approvingly Mr. Swinburne'
complaint about the careless editing of Jon
son's text. Certainly the general conditioi
of the text is far from satisfactory, but it i
devoutly to be hoped that we shall be sparet
any further samples of this method of cor
recting it. PEKCY SIMPSON.
GRIERSON OF DUBLIN (9 th S. vii. 27). Ac cording to 'The Imperial Dictionary of Uni yersal Biography ' the office of King's Printer in Ireland was conferred by patent on Mr George Grierson by Lord Carteret in recog nition of the eminent services rendered to literature by Grierson's wife Constantia. Her maiden name would seem to be unknown but she was of humble parentage and born in County Kilkenny. Though forced to earn her living, she had at the early age of eighteen almost unaided become versed in French, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. She wrote some poems, and edited among other works those of Terence and Tacitus. The latter she dedi- cated to Lord Carteret, himself a scholar of great attainments. She died in the year 1833, at the early age of twenty-seven. It is much to be regretted that no modern writer has given us a life of Lord Carteret, afterwards Lord Granville. I should be most grateful for information concerning his second wife, Lady Sophia Fermor, eldest daughter of Lady Pomfret (of the Hertford and Pomfret corre- spondence). Lady Sophiadied after childbirth, at the early age of twenty-four. Her rare charms and gifts are alluded to in the letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, as also in those of Horace Wai pole. She is credited with being the Tantalus of Horace Wai pole, and certainly his letters contain no passage more fine or touching than that which briefly re- counts her death. There is reason to think that the appreciation of intellect in women which led Lord Carteret to confer patronage on Constantia Grierson was not without a determining influence in the selection of his second wife. HARRIETT MC!LQUHAM.
Possibly a reference to Blackburne's ' Illus- trious Irishwomen,' 1877; Timperley's 'His
authority on questions connected with the
history of currency in the Middle Ages, and
he has sent me in reply the subjoined in-
formation, which I have his permission to
forward to you :
" Les diffe'rentes dates donn^es par Le Blanc, Saulcy, et d'autres com me se rapportant a des pieces d'or appelees francs ou florins sont complete- ment erron^es. Je me suis adresse & un savant de Pontoise au sujet de la donation citee par Le Blanc et rapportee a 1'an 1068. C'est 1368 qu'il faut lire, et c'est la date des archives de la ville. Du reste, ces quatre pieces sont des francs, auxquels on donne Pappellation g6n6rale de florins. Le franc a et6 frapp en 1361 par Jean II. Les documents mon6- taires de Saulcy sont remplis de fautes. L'auteur n'y a mis aucune critique, et 1' Academic des In- scriptions 1'a durement condamne. II cut mieux valu corriger les fautes de dates. Tout ce qui est anterieur a Philippe le Bel est absolument sujet a caution, car on ne tenait pas alors de registres de proces verbaux. Les florins ou royaux donnas a t'annee 1180 sont de 1280 sous Philippe III. ou de 1290 sous Philippe IV."
That of course settles the matter. The error in the date quoted by Le Blanc is no fault of his. The authority he quotes, the ' Histoire du Vicariat de Pontoise,' is in the British Museum, and the date is there as he gives it. In regard to De Saulcy's mint docu- ments, Shaw's ' History of Currency ' (ed. 1897, p. 3) refers to those in question without, apparently, any suspicion of their inaccuracy. WILLIAM WARRAND CARLILE.
[We are much obliged to the distinguished French authority on numismatics for his contribution to he subject.]
DATE WANTED (9 th S. vii. 27, 96). Surely he two replies given cannot be regarded as .n adequate answer to MR. SOUTHWELL. ?he date of any and every Church fast or estival day in any and every preceding year very "common knowledge." A cursory eference to such a readily accessible au- hority as Sir H. Nicolas's ' Chronology,' &c., nentioned by your correspondents, gives Fri- ay, 25 May, as " the morrow after Corpus /hristi Day " in the year 1543. But that is y no means all, as it appears to me, that IR. SOUTHWELL desired to know. He formu- ates his desire explicitly : " What day in the resent style of reckoning is the equivalent
, , ^ j_ AIJJ j_/vyl L\JJ O JLJ.1O .. - . ' -l /
tory of Printers and Printing,' 1839 and j L lta lics mine] of the morrow after Corpu
- N. & Q.,' 2 nd S. i. ; 5 th S. ii., in., may furnish phristi Day ' in the year 1543 1 " An analogy
the information required. ! illustrates the query : take the difference
EVERARD HOME COLEMAN. between the so-called "old" and "new" 71, Brecknock Road. (present) Lady Day, Midsummer Day, St.
James's (oyster-grotto) Day. Michaelmas Day,
I HE GOLD FLORIN (9 th S. vii. 7). I sent &c., the style enacted in 1752 giving in each IN. & Q. of 5 January, containing my query instance the date so many now, 1901, lfc h reference to the origin of the gold florin, thirteen days earlier than the same saint's ' M. de Vienne, probably the best living j day in the obsolete style (I take it that
