484
NOTES AND QUERIES. [io s. n. DEC. 17, 190*.
Who was "R. W.," the anonymous author
of this interesting tract 1 After considerable
investigation, I am inclined to suggest, with
some confidence, that these initials stand
for Richard Willes, whose name appears in
connexion with three articles in Hakluyt's
Collection of Voyages.' Willes was admitted a member of the Society of Jesus in 1565 ; he was Professor of Rhetoric in Perugia; and in 1569 he taught Greek at Trier. He after- wards renounced Roman Catholicism, and petitioned to be entered at Oxford, which was granted, 24 April, 1574, on condition that he made a profession of conformity. On 16 December, 1578, he was made M.A. of the University of Cambridge. In the epistle dedicatory the author informs us that " this short treatise " was " the f ruites of a schollers study." There can be no doubt about it, and it is just such a production as we might expect to have been written by a man of Willes's accomplishments. The author had an intimate acquaintance with French history, and the aptness of his references in that direction are singularly interesting. I cannot find anything throughout the tract by which we might distinctly fix on the personality of the author ; but on signature C 3 we have this remark : " This figure in rethorick we call a Preoccupation." This would seem to indicate that the writer had made that branch of learning a special study, and, as already stated, we know that Willes taught rhetoric in the city of Perugia. I offer the suggestion, however, for what it is worth.
I may further add that Willes was known to be the author of several poems in Latin, and the author of the tract before me opens his dissertation with the following two verses in English :
This foule defence a Frenchman late defied, And wisely wrote his censure of the same :
His censure pleasd ; yet one of Rome replied, A home borne ludge could not the cause defame,
The French were parciall for their Henries sake ;
Why then (quoth he) twere good some stranger
With that they spied, andcalde, and causd me stay,
And for I seemd a stranger in their ey,
I must be iudge twixt France and Rome they say, And will (quoth I) nor can I iudge awry ;
Sixtus was Pope, and popish was your King,
I both dislike, list how I like the thing.
Some time ago a folio came into my hands, viz., "The Six Bookes of a Commonweale, Britten by I. Bodin, translated by Richard Kriolles," 1606. On examining it, I found attached bo the front cover, between the binding and the body of the book, a scrap of paper with some writing, evidently the frag- ment of a larger piece torn away. The
writing is in a clear, firm, and, I should say,
educated hand of that period, and reads,
" y r louing friend Richard Wills " or " Willy "
(there is a flourish at the end of the final
letter). It would be singular if it should be
found that this autograph turned out to be
that of "Richard Willes," the author of this
tract.
A. S.
LICENCE" AND "LICENSE."
UNDER the heading of * Spelling Reform ' we are told, ante, p. 451, that " it is quite conven- tional, and in defiance of all rule, that the words license, practise, prophesy, are spelt with ce when used as nouns ; why should they be?"
There is no rule but custom ; and the pre- sent custom is to spell words after the Anglo- French manner, i.e., as most in accordance with the general habits introduced by Anglo- French scribes in the thirteenth century, and more or less acceded to by the scribes of sub- sequent centuries, and by the printers from time to time. There is a reason why every word is spelt as it is, and the reason is historical. Instead of talking of "defiance of all rule," your readers would do better to look into the facts, as recorded in the * N.E.D.,' which exists for that purpose, and is there- fore naturally neglected by all who prefer to evolve " rules " out of their own desires, and would like to impose them on others.
Instead of listening to such irresponsible utterances, let us just take the trouble to look out the word Licence in the 'N.E.D.' We shall be rewarded, for the matter is there put neatly and succinctly, and what is more to the point is in accordance with recorded facts :
' The spelling license, though still often met with, has no justification in the case of the sb. In the case of the vb., on the other hand, although the spelling licence is etymologically unobjectionable, license is supported by the analogy of the rule universally adopted in the similar pairs of related words, prac- tice sb., practise vb., prophecy sb., prophesy vb. ^The rule seems to have arisen from imitation of the spellings of pairs like advice sb., advise vb., which expresses a phonetic distinction of historical origin.) A slight argument for preferring the s form in the vb. may be found in the existence of the derivatives icensable and licensure (U.S.) which could not con- veniently be spelt otherwise. Johnson and Todd ?ive only the form license both for the sb. and the vb., out the spelling of their quotations conforms, with one exception, to the rule above referred to, which is recognized by Smart (1836), and seems to repre- sent the now prevailing usage. Recent Diets., lowever, almost universally have license both for sb. and vb., either without alternative or in the irst place."
Then follow (for the sb. and vb.) four columns of quotations. Of course, all the early examples, from good MSS. of * Piers
