Notes and Queries, Number 57, November 30, 1850 | Page 2

portrait is in the Roman Catholic College at Blairs, near Aberdeen. It was in the Scotch College at Rome down to the period of the French occupation of that city in 1798, and formed part of the plunder {434} from that college. It was subsequently discovered in a sale-room by the late Abb�� Macpherson, rector of the same college, who purchased it and sent it to Blairs, where it has been for, now, a good many years. That it is a portrait of Beaton's time is certain; but the artist is unknown, and the picture has sustained damage. It is attributed, by a competent judge, who has himself painted two careful copies of it, to Titian, not only from its general style and handling, but from certain peculiarities of canvas, &c., on which latter circumstances, however, he does not lay much stress, taking them only as adminicles in proof. The portrait is a half-length, about 2 ft. 6 in. by 2 ft.: it is that of a fresh-coloured, intellectual man, of forty-five or upwards; hazel eyes; hair slightly reddish, or auburn, just becoming tinged with grey; a thin small beard; costume similar to that of Holbein's Cardinal Wolsey, in the hall of Christchurch, Oxford. It bears this inscription, painted at the bottom of the portrait, and over the original finished painting, and therefore of a subsequent date:
"David Betonius, S.R.E., Card. Archiep. S. Andre? in Scotia, ab Hostibus Fidei Barbare Trucidatus."
Beaton was elected to the Cardinalate in Dec. 1538; did he visit Rome after that? He was at all events in Paris. The Scotch College at Rome was a natural habitat for a portrait of a Scottish churchman so famous as Cardinal Beaton, and it would be strange indeed if they had not one of him where they affected a collecion of portraits of British prelates. I propose to have this portrait engraved, if its probable authenticity cannot be shaken. Did Pinkerton engrave any portrait of Beaton? There is none in my copies of his _Iconographia Scotica_, 1797, and his _Scottish Gallery_, 1799. These contain several duplicates; but it is rare to meet with copies that can be warranted perfect. If the portrait be published, it will probably be accompanied by a short memoir, correcting from authentic documents some of the statements of his biographers: any information either as to the portrait or his life will be thankfully acknowledged. One or two letters from Lord Buchan, on the subject of Scottish Portraits, appeared in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, vol. lxv., but not relating to this particular one.
SCOTUS.
* * * * *
ON THE POINTING OF A PASSAGE IN "ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL."
_Lafeu._ "They say miracles are past: and we have our philosophical persons, to make modern and familiar, things, supernatural and causeless."--Act ii. Scene 3.
So the passage is pointed in Johnson and Steevens, that is, with a comma after the word "things;" and the same pointing is used in the recent editions of Mr. Knight, Barry Cornwall, and Mr. Collier.
It occurred to me that this pointing gave a meaning quite out of harmony with what directly follows, and also with the spirit in which Lafeu speaks. Let the comma be placed after "familiar", and the whole passage be read thus:
_Lafeu._ "They say miracles are past; and we have our philosophical persons to make modern and familiar, things supernatural and causeless. Hence is it, that we make trifles of terrors; ensconcing ourselves into seeming knowledge, when we should submit ourselves to an unknown fear."
Lafeu apparently is speaking somewhat sarcastically of those who say miracles are past, and who endeavour to explain away the wonderful into something common and well-known. Subsequently I found that Mr. Coleridge, in his Literary Remains (vol. ii. p. 121.), had adduced the above-mentioned passage, placing the comma after "familiar." He does not, however, make any observation on the other pointing; but remarking, that Shakspeare often uses "modern" for "common," proceeds thus:
"Shakspeare, inspired, as it might seem, with all knowledge, here uses the word causeless in its strict philosophical sense; cause being truly predicable only of _phenomena_,--that is, things natural, and not of _noumena_, or things supernatural."
It is, perhaps, rather curious, that although Mr. Collier, in his note on Lafeu's speech, has quoted the above from Mr. Coleridge, the improved pointing should have escaped that gentleman's notice.
Looking into Theobald's _Shakspeare_, I find that he also had placed the comma as Mr. Coleridge has. Mr. Theobald adds this note:
"This, as it has hitherto been printed, is directly opposite to our poet's and his speaker's meaning. As I have stopped it, the sense quadrates with the context: and surely it is one unalterable property of philosophy to make seeming strange and preternatural phenomena familiar and reducible to cause and reason."
Does not Mr. Theobald, in his closing remark, turn what in Lafeu is