THE TRANSLATOR OF BRANDT'S SHIP OF FOOLS.

* * * * *

ALEXANDER BARCLAY.

Whether this distinguished poet was an Englishman or a Scotchman has long
been a _quaestio vexata_ affording the literary antiquary a suitable field
for the display of his characteristic amenity. Bale, the oldest authority,
simply says that some contend he was a Scot, others an Englishman, (Script.
Illust. Majoris Britt. Catalogus, 1559). Pits (De Illust. Angliae Script.,)
asserts that though to some he appears to have been a Scot, he was really
an Englishman, and probably a native of Devonshire, ("_nam_ ibi ad S.
Mariam de Otery, Presbyter primum fuit"). Wood again, (Athen. Oxon.), by
the reasoning which finds a likeness between Macedon and Monmouth, because
there is a river in each, arrives at "Alexander de Barklay, seems to have
been born at or near a town so called in Somersetshire;" upon which Ritson
pertinently observes, "there is no such place in Somersetshire, the onely
Berkeley known is in Gloucestershire." Warton, coming to the question
double-shotted, observes that "he was most probably of Devonshire or
Gloucestershire," in the one case following Pits, and in the other
anticipating Ritson's observation.

On the other hand Bale, in an earlier work than the _Catalogus_, the
_Summarium Ill. Maj. Britt. Script._, published in 1548, during Barclay's
life time, adorns him with the epithets "Scotus, rhetor ac poeta insignis."
Dempster (Hist. ecclesiastica), styles him "Scotus, ut retulit ipse Joannes
Pitsaeus." Holinshed also styles him "Scot"! Sibbald gives him a place in
his (MS.) Catalogues of Scottish poets, as does also Wodrow in his
Catalogues of Scots writers. Mackenzie (Lives of the Scots writers) begins,
"The Barklies, from whom this gentleman is descended, are of a very ancient
standing in Scotland." Ritson (Bib. Poetica), after a caustic review of the
controversy, observes "both his name of baptism and the orthography of his
surname seem to prove that he was of Scottish extraction." Bliss (Additions
to Wood) is of opinion that he "undoubtedly was not a native of England,"
and Dr Irving (Hist. of Scot. Poetry) adheres to the opinion of Ritson.

Such contention, whatever may be the weight of the evidence on either side,
is at any rate a sufficient proof of the eminence of the individual who is
the subject of it; to be his birthplace being considered an honour of so
much value to the country able t