Swords worn in public (Vol. i., p. 415.; vol. ii. p. 110.).—­I am surprised that the curious topic suggested by the Query of J.D.A. has not been more satisfactorily answered.  Wedsecuarf’s reply (Vol. ii., p. 110.) is short, and not quite exact.  He says that “Swords ceased to be worn as an article of dress through the influence of Beau Nash, and were consequently first out of fashion at Bath;” and he quotes the authority of Sir Lucius O’Trigger as to “wearing no swords there.”  Now, it is, I believe, true that Nash endeavoured to discountenance the wearing swords at Bath; but it is certain that they were commonly worn twenty or thirty years later.

Sir Lucius O’Trigger talks of Bath in 1774, near twenty years after Nash’s reign, and, even at that time, only says that swords were “not worn there”—­implying that they were worn elsewhere; and we know that Sheridan’s own duel at Bath was a rencontre, he and his adversary, Mathews, both wearing swords.  I remember my father’s swords hung up in his dressing-room, and his telling me that he had worn a sword, even in the streets, so late as about 1779 or 1780.  In a set of characteristic sketches of eminent persons about the year 1782, several wear swords; and one or two members of the House of Commons, evidently represented in the attitude of speaking, have swords.  I have seen a picture of the Mall in {219} St. James’s Park, of about that date, in which all the men have swords.

I suspect they began to go out of common use about 1770 and were nearly left off in ordinary life in 1780; but were still occasionally worn, both in public and private, till the French Revolution, when they totally went out, except in court dress.

If any of your correspondents who has access to the Museum would look through the prints representing out-of-doors life, from Hogarth to Gilray, he would probably be able to furnish you with some precise and amusing details on this not unimportant point in the history of manners.

C.

Quarles’ Pension (Vol. ii., p. 171.).—­There should have been added to the reference there given, viz.  “Vol. i., p. 201.” (at which place there is no question as to Quarles’ pension), another to Vol. i., p. 245., where that question is raised.  I think this worth noting, as “Quarles” does not appear in the Index, and the imperfect reference might lead inquirers astray.  It seems very curious that the inquiry as to the precise meaning of Pope’s couplet has as yet received no explanation.

C.

Franz von Sickingen (Vol. i., p. 131.).—­I regret that I cannot resolve the doubt of H.J.H. respecting Albert Durer’s allegorical print of The Knight, Death, and the Devil, of which I have only what I presume is a copy or retouched plate, bearing the date 1564 on the tablet in the lower left-hand corner, where I suppose the mark of Albert Durer is placed in the original.