Notes and Queries, Number 203, September 17, 1853
Author: Various
1  2     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they are listed at the end of the text.

* * * * *




"When found, make a note of."—CAPTAIN CUTTLE.

* * * * *

No. 203.] SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17. 1853. [Price Fourpence. Stamped Edition 5d.

* * * * *



Our Shakspearian Correspondence 261


Mr. Pepys and East London Topography, &c. 263 Picts' Houses in Aberdeenshire 264

FOLK LORE:—Legends of the County Clare—Devonshire Cures for the Thrush 264

HERALDIC NOTES:—Arms of Granville—Arms of Richard, King of the Romans 265 Shakspeare Correspondence, by J. O. Halliwell and Thos. Keightley 265

MINOR NOTES:—Longfellow's Poetical Works—Sir Walter Raleigh—Curious Advertisement—Gravestone Inscription—Monumental Inscription 267


Sir Philip Warwick 268 Seals of the Borough of Great Yarmouth, by E. S. Taylor 269

MINOR QUERIES:—Hand in Bishop Canning's Church —"I put a spoke in his wheel"—Sir W. Hewit— Passage in Virgil—Fauntleroy—Animal Prefixes descriptive of Size and Quality—Punning Devices —"Pinece with a stink"—Soiled Parchment Deeds —Roger Wilbraham, Esq.'s, Cheshire Collection —Cambridge and Ireland—Derivation of Celt— Ancient Superstition against the King of England entering or even beholding the Town of Leicester —Burton—The Camera Lucida—Francis Moore— Waugh, Bishop of Carlisle—Palace at Enfield— "Solamen miseris," &c.—Soke Mills—Second Wife of Mallet 269

MINOR QUERIES WITH ANSWERS:—Books burned by the Common Hangman—Captain George Cusack— Sir Ralph Winwood 272


Books chained to Desks in Churches, by J. Booker, &c. 273 Epitaphs by Cuthbert Bede, B.A., &c. 273 Parochial Libraries 274 "Up, Guards, and at them!" by Frank Howard 275

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE:—Mr. Muller's Process —Stereoscopic Angles—Ammonio-nitrate of Silver 275

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES:—Sir Thomas Elyot— Judges styled "Reverend"—"Hurrah" and other War-cries—Major Andre—Early Edition of the New Testament—Ladies' Arms borne in a Lozenge —Sir William Hankford—Maullies, Manillas—The Use of the Hour-glass in Pulpits—Derivation of the Word "Island"—A Cob-wall—Oliver Cromwell's Portrait—Manners of the Irish—Chronograms and Anagrams—"Haul over the Coals,"—Sheer Hulk— The Magnet—Fierce—Connexion between the Celtic and Latin Languages—Acharis, &c. 276


Notes on Books, &c. 282 Books and Odd Volumes wanted 282 Notices to Correspondents 282 Advertisements 283

* * * * *


We have received from a valued and kind correspondent (not one of those emphatically good-natured friends so wittily described by Sheridan) the following temperate remonstrance against the tone which has distinguished several of our recent articles on Shakspeare:—

Shakspeare Suggestions (Vol. viii., pp. 124. 169.).—

"Most busy, when least I do."

I am grateful to A. E. B. for referring me to the article on "Shakspeare Criticism" in the last number of Blackwood's Magazine. It is a very able paper, and worthy of general attention.

I ought to add some few explanatory observations upon the subject of my former communication, but the tone of A. E. B.'s comments forbids me to proceed with the discussion; the more especially as my suggestion has been made a reason for introducing into your pages comments which seem to me to be altogether unwarrantable upon other portions of the article in Blackwood. Whoever may be the writer of that article—I do not know—he needs no other defence than a reference to his paper. It is not on his account that I venture to allude to this subject; it is rather on yours, Mr. Editor, and with a view to the welfare of your paper. I cannot think that you or it will be benefited by converting conversational gossip about Shakspeare difficulties into "a duel in the form of a debate," seasoned with sarcasm, insinuation, and satiric point. This is not the kind of matter one expects to find in "N. & Q." neither do I think your pages should be made a vehicle for "showing up" such of "the herd of menstrual Aristarchi" as chance to differ in opinion from some of your smart and peremptory, but not unfrequently inaccurate and illiberal correspondents.

I know that you yourself are in this respect much in the power of your contributors. Probably you were as ignorant of the existence of the article in Blackwood as I was.[1] It is now brought {262} before your notice, and I invite you to look at it, and judge for yourself whether A. E. B. has treated you, your paper, or the writer of that very excellent article, with common fairness in the remarks to which I allude.

I make these observations on two grounds: first, as one who has many reasons for being anxious for the prosperity of "N. & Q.;" and secondly, because I know it to be the opinion of several of your earliest and warmest friends, that there is a tendency in some of your Shakspeare contributors to indulge in insinuation, imputation of motives, and many other things which ought never to appear in your pages. We lately observed, with deep regret, that you were misled (not by A. E. B.) into the insertion of unjustifiable insinuations, levelled against a gentleman whom we all know to be a man of the highest personal honour.

The questions which are mooted in your pages ought to be discussed with the mutual forbearance and enlarged liberality which are predominant in the general society of our metropolis; not with the keen and angry partizanship which distinguishes the petty squabbles of a country town.


Our readers know that we ourselves recently noticed the tendency of too many of our correspondents to depart from the courteous spirit by which the earlier communications to this Journal were distinguished. The intention we then announced of playing the tyrant in future, and exercising with greater freedom our "editorial privilege of omission," we now repeat yet more emphatically. ICON well remarks that we are much in the power of our contributors. Indeed we are more so than even he supposes.

An article on the Notes and Emendations which lately appeared in our columns concluded, in its original form, with an argument against their genuineness, based on the use of a word unknown to Shakspeare and his cotemporaries. This appeared to us somewhat extraordinary, and a reference to Richardson's excellent Dictionary proved that our correspondent was altogether wrong as to his facts. We of course omitted the passage; but we ought not to have received a statement founded on a mistake which might have been avoided by a single reference to so common a book.

Again, at p. 194. of the present volume, another correspondent, after pointing out some coincidences between the old Emendator and some suggested corrections by Z. Jackson, and stating that MR. COLLIER never once refers to Jackson, proceeds: "MR. SINGER, however, talks familiarly about Jackson, in his Shakspeare Vindicated, as if he had him at his fingers' ends; and yet, at p. 239., he favours the world with an original emendation (viz. 'He did behood his anger,' Timon, Act III. Sc. 1.), which, however, will be found at page 389. of Jackson's book." Now, after this, who would have supposed that, as we learn from MR. SINGER, "MR. INGLEBY has founded his charge on such slender grounds as one cursory notice of Jackson at p. 288. of my book, where I mentioned him merely on the authority of MR. COLLIER." And who that knows MR. SINGER will doubt the truth of his assertion, that he has not even seen Jackson's book for near a quarter of a century, and that he had not the slightest reason to doubt that the conjecture of behood for behave was his own property?[2]

But there is another gentleman who, although he has never whispered a remonstrance to us upon the subject, has even more grounds of complaint than MR. SINGER, for the treatment which he has received in our columns; we mean our valued friend and contributor MR. COLLIER, who we feel has received some injustice in our pages. But the fact is that, holding, as we do unchanged, the opinion which we originally expressed of the great value of the Notes and Emendations—knowing MR. COLLIER'S character to be above suspicion—and believing that the result of all the discussions to which the Notes and Emendations have given rise, will eventually be to satisfy the world of their great value,—we have not looked so strictly as we ought to have done, and as we shall do in future, to the tone in which they have been discussed in "N. & Q."

And here let us take the opportunity of offering a few suggestions which we think worthy of being borne in mind in all discussions on the text of Shakspeare, whether the object under consideration be what Shakspeare actually wrote, or what Shakspeare really meant by what he did write.

First, as to this latter point. Some years ago a distinguished scholar, when engaged in translating Goethe's Faust, came to a passage involved in considerable obscurity, and which he found was interpreted very differently by different admirers of the poem. Unable, under these circumstances, to procure any satisfactory solution of the poet's meaning, the translator applied to Goethe himself, and received from him the candid reply which we think it far from improbable that Shakspeare himself might give with reference to many passages in his own writings,—"That {263} he was very sorry he could not assist him, but he really did not know exactly what he meant when he wrote it." We doubt not some of our contributors could supply us with many similar avowals.

This opinion will no doubt offend many of those blind worshippers of Shakspeare, who will not believe that he could have written a passage which is not perfect, and who, consequently, will not be satisfied with any note, emendation, or restoration which does not make the passage into which it is introduced "one entire and perfect chrysolite." But this is unreasonable. We have direct evidence of the imperfect character of much that Shakspeare wrote. When told that Shakspeare had never blotted a line, Ben Jonson—no mean critic, and no unfriendly one—wished he had "blotted a thousand." Would rare Ben have uttered such a wish ignorantly and without cause? We believe the existence of such defects in the writings of Shakspeare, as they were left by him. It follows, therefore, that in our opinion Shakspeare is under great obligations to the undeservedly-abused commentators.[3] It would be strange indeed, when we consider how many men of genius and learning have busied themselves to illustrate his writings, if none of them should have caught any inspiration from his genius. We believe they have done so. We believe Theobald's "babbled o' green fields" to be one of many instances in which, with reference to some one particular passage, the scholiast has proved himself worthy of and excelling his author. Yes, Shakspeare, the greatest of all uninspired writers, was but mortal; and his worshippers would sometimes do well bear in mind that their golden image had but feet of clay.

[Footnote 1: We had not seen this very able article until our attention was called to it by this letter. We regret that the author of it was not aware of what had been written in "N. & Q." on many of the points discussed by him. Such knowledge might have modified some of his views.]

[Footnote 2: On this point we would call especial attention to MR. HALLIWELL'S communication on the Difficulty of avoiding Coincident Suggestions on the Text of Shakspeare, which will be found in our present Number.]

[Footnote 3: One of the most specious arguments which have been advanced against the genuineness of the Notes and Emendations is, that they agree in many instances with readings which had been suggested many years before the discovery of the MS. Notes. Of course it is obvious that, wherever the readings are right, they must do so; and these coincidences serve to satisfy us of the correctness of both.]

* * * * *



In "N. & Q." (Vol. i., p. 141.) there appeared an article upon the Isle of Dogs, &c., which spoke of the neglected topography of the east of London, and requested information on one or two points. Having felt much interested in this matter, I have endeavoured to obtain information by personal investigation, and send you the following from among a mass of Notes:—

1. Isle of Dogs. In a map drawn up in 1588 by Robert Adams, engraved in 1738, this name is applied to an islet in the river Thames, still in part existing, at the south-west corner of the peninsula. From this spot the name appears to have extended to the entire marsh.

2. Dick Shore, Limehouse. This is now called Duke Shore, Fore Street. In Gascoyne's Map of Stepney, 1703, it is called Dick Shoar. Since that time Dick has become a Duke. Mr. Pepys would find boats there now if he visited the spot.

3. Mr. Pepys, in his Diary of Mar. 23, 1660, speaks of "the great breach," near Limehouse. The spot now forming the entrance to the City Canal or South Dock of the West India Dock Company was called "the breach," when the canal was formed.

4. July 31, 1665. Mr. Pepys speaks of the Ferry in the Isle of Dogs. This ferry is named as a horse-ferry by Norden in the Britanniae Speculum, 1592 (MS.). The ferry is still used, but only seldom as a horse-ferry.

5. Oct. 9, 1661. Mr. P. mentions Captain Marshe's, at Limehouse, close by the lime-house. There is still standing there a large old brick house, which may be the same; and the lime-kiln yet exists, for, as Norden says, "ther is a kiln contynually used."

6. Sept. 22, 1665. Mr. P. speaks of a discovery made "in digging the late docke." This discovery consisted of nut trees, nuts, yew, ivy, &c., twelve feet below the surface. Johnson no doubt told him the truth. The same discovery was made in 1789, in digging the Brunswick Dock, also at Blackwall, and elsewhere in the neighbourhood.

This very week (Aug. 25, 1853) I procured specimens of several kinds of wood, with land and freshwater shells, from as great a depth in an excavation at the West India Docks; the wood from a bed of peat, the shells from a bed of clay resting upon it. There exists an ancient house at the dock which Mr. P. visited, and which is probably the same.

Other illustrations of the Diary from this quarter might be adduced; let these, however, suffice as a specimen.

It may probably be new to most of your readers, as it is to me, that an ancient house in Blackwall (opposite the Artichoke Tavern) is said to have been the residence of Sebastian Cabot at one time, and at another that of Sir Walter Raleigh. Whether the tradition be true or not, the house is very curious, and worth a visit, if not worthy of being sketched and engraved to preserve its memory. Perhaps the photograph in this case could be applied.

It is not impossible that Sir John de Pulteney or Poultney, to whom the manor of Poplar was granted in the 24th of Edward III., resided on this spot. My reasons for thinking it are—this fact, which connects him with the neighbourhood; and the inference from two other facts, viz. that the house in which Sir John resided in town was {264} called Cold Harbour, and that Cold Harbour is here also to be found. Sir John Pulteney is thus connected with both the places known by this name.

I would give my name in verification, but you have it, as you should have the names and addresses of all your correspondents.

B. H. C.


* * * * *


A short time ago, one of those remarkable remains of a very remote antiquity, and called by the country-people Picts' Houses, Yird, Eirde, or Erde houses, was discovered by Mr. Douglass, farmer, Culsh, in the parish of Tarland, Aberdeenshire, near his farm-steading, on the property of our noble Premier. It is a subterranean vault, of a form approaching the semicircular, but elongated at the farther end. Its extreme length is thirty-eight feet; its breadth at the entrance a little more than two feet, gradually widening towards the middle, where the width is about six feet, and it continues at about that average. The height is from five and a half to six feet. The sides are built with stones, some of them in the bottom very large; the roof is formed of large stones, six or seven feet long, and some of them weighing above a ton and a half. They must have been brought from the neighbouring hill of Saddle-lick, about two miles distant, being of a kind of granite not found nearer the spot. The floor is formed of the native rock (hornblende), and is very uneven. When discovered it was full of earth, and in the process of excavation there was found some wood ashes, fragments of a glass bottle, and an earthenware jar (modern), some small fragments of bones, and one or two teeth of a ruminant animal, and the upper stone of a querne (hand-corn-mill, mica schist), together with a small fragment, probably of the lower stone. But, alas! there were no hieroglyphics or cuneiform inscriptions to assist the antiquary in his researches. These underground excavations have been found in various parishes in Aberdeenshire, as well as in several of the neighbouring counties. In the parish of Old Deer, about fifty years ago, a whole village of them was come upon; and about the same time, in a den at the back of Stirlinghill, in the parish of Peterhead, one was discovered which contained some fragments of bones and several flint arrow-heads, and battle-axes in the various stages of manufacture. In no case, however, have any of those previously discovered been of the same magnitude as the one described above. They were generally of from twelve to fifteen feet in length, and from three to four feet in height, and some only six feet in length, so that this must have been in its day (when?) a rather aristocratic affair. Have any similar excavations been found in England? The earliest mention of the parish of Tarland, of which there is any account, is in a charter granted by Moregun, Earl of Mar, to the Canons of St. Andrews, of the Church of S. Machulnoche (S. Mochtens, Bishop and Confessor) of Tharuclund, with its tithes and oblations, its land and mill, and timber from the Earl's woods for the buildings of the canons, A.D. 1165-71; and a charter of King William the Lion, and one of Eadward, Bishop of Aberdeen, both of same date, confirming the said grant.


* * * * *


Legends of the County Clare.—How Fuen-Vic-Couil (Fingall) obtained the knowledge of future events.—Once upon a time, when Fuen-Vic-Couil was young, he fell into the hands of a giant, and was compelled to serve him for seven years, during which time the giant was fishing for the salmon which had this property—that whoever ate the first bit of it he would obtain the gift of prophecy; and during the seven years the only nourishment which the giant could take was after this manner: a sheaf of oats was placed to windward of him, and he held a needle before his mouth, and lived on the nourishment that was blown from the sheaf of corn through the eye of the needle. At length, when the seven years were passed, the giant's perseverance was rewarded, and he caught the famous salmon and gave it to Fuen-Vic-Couil to roast, with threats of instant destruction if he allowed any accident to happen to it. Fuen-Vic-Couil hung the fish before the fire by a string, but, like Alfred in a similar situation, being too much occupied with his own reflections, forgot to turn the fish, so that a blister rose on the side of it. Terrified at the probable consequences of his carelessness, he attempted to press down the blister with his thumb, and feeling the smart caused by the burning fish, by a natural action put the injured member into his mouth. A morsel of the fish adhered to his thumb, and immediately he received the knowledge for which the giant had toiled so long in vain. Knowing that his master would kill him if he remained, he fled, and was soon pursued by the giant breathing vengeance: the chace was long, but whenever he was in danger of being caught, his thumb used to pain him, and on putting it to his mouth he always obtained knowledge how to escape, until at last he succeeded in putting out the giant's eyes and killing him; and always afterwards, when in difficulty or danger, his thumb used to pain him, and on putting it to his mouth he obtained knowledge how to escape.

Compare this legend with the legend of Ceridwen, Hanes Taliessin, Mabinogion, vol. iii. pp. 322, 323., the coincidence of which is very curious. Where also did Shakspeare get the {265} speech he makes one of the witches utter in Macbeth:

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes."


Devonshire Cures for the Thrush.—"Take three rushes from any running stream, and pass them separately through the mouth of the infant: then plunge the rushes again into the stream, and as the current bears them away, so will the thrush depart from the child."

Should this, as is not unlikely, prove ineffectual, "Capture the nearest duck that can be met with, and place its mouth, wide open, within the mouth of the sufferer. The cold breath of the duck will be inhaled by the child, and the disease will gradually, and as I have been informed, not the less surely, take its departure."



* * * * *


Arms of Granville.—The meaning of the peculiar bearing which, since the thirteenth century, has appertained to this noble family, has always been a matter of uncertainty to heraldic writers: it has been variously blazoned as a clarion, clavicord, organ-rest, lance-rest, and sufflue. The majority of heralds, ancient and modern, term it a clarion without quite defining what a clarion is: that it is meant for a musical instrument (probably a kind of hand-organ), I have very little doubt; for, in the woodcut Mrs. Jameson gives in her Legends of the Madonna (p. 19.) of Piero Laurati's painting of the "Maria Coronata," the uppermost angel on the left is represented as carrying an instrument exactly similar to this charge as it is usually drawn. The date of this painting is 1340. This is probably about the date of the painted glass window in the choir of Tewkesbury Abbey Church, where Robert Earl of Gloucester bears three of these clarions on his surcoat; and upon a careful examination of these, I was convinced that they were intended to represent instruments similar to that carried by the angel in Laurati's painting.

Arms of Richard, King of the Romans.—This celebrated man, the second son of King John, Earl of Cornwall and Poictou, was elected King of the Romans at Frankfort on St. Hilary's Day (Jan. 13th) 1256. His earldom of Cornwall was represented by—Argent, a lion rampant gules crowned or; his earldom of Poictou by a bordure sable, bezantee, or rather of peas (poix) in reference to the name Poictou; and as king of the Romans he is said to have borne these arms upon the breast of the German double-headed eagle displayed sable, which represented that dignity. I do not recollect having seen them under this last form, but I have "made a Note of" several other variations I have met with:—

1. In Dorchester Church, Oxfordshire, in painted glass: Argent, a lion rampant, gules crowned or, within a bordure sable bezantee.

2. On the seal of a charter granted by the earl to the monks of Okeburry: a lion rampant crowned. No bordure.

3. On an encaustic tile in the old Singing-school at Worcester: A lion rampant not crowned, with a bordure bezantee. Another tile has the eagle, single-headed, displayed.

4. Encaustic tiles at Woodperry, Oxfordshire: A row of tiles with the lion rampant, apparently within a bordure, but without the bezants; followed by another row which has the eagle displayed, but not double-headed.

5. On an encaustic tile at Hailes Abbey, Gloucestershire, founded by him: The double-headed eagle only, countercharged.

6. On a tile in the Priory Church of Great Malvern: The double-headed eagle displayed, within a circular bordure bezantee.

7. On a tile which I have seen, but cannot just now recollect where: The double-headed eagle, bezantee, without any bordure.

* * * * *

A curious instance of ex-officio arms added to the paternal coat, occurs on the monument of Dr. Samuel Blythe, at the east end of St. Edward's Church, Cambridge. He was Master of Clare Hall, and in this example his paternal arms—Argent, a chevron gules, between three lions rampant sable—occupy the lower part of the shield, being divided at the fess point by something like an inverted chevron, from the arms of Clare Hall, which thus occupy the upper half of the shield. The date is 1713. Is this way of dividing the arms a blunder of the painter's, or can any of your readers point out a similar instance?


* * * * *


Difficulty of avoiding Coincident Suggestions on the Text of Shakspeare.—A correspondent in Vol. viii., p. 193., is somewhat unnecessarily severe on MR. COLLIER and MR. SINGER, for having overlooked some suggestions in Jackson's work: the enormous number of useless conjectures in that publication rendering it so tedious and unprofitable to consider them attentively, the student is apt to think his time better engaged in investigating other sources of information. I think, therefore, little of MR. COLLIER overlooking the few coincident suggestions in Jackson, which are smaller in number than I had anticipated; the real cause for wonder consisting in the ignoring so many conjectures that have been treated of years ago, often at great length, by some of the {266} most distinguished critics this country has produced. Generally speaking, however, there is in these matters such a tendency for reproduction, I should for one hesitate to accuse any critic of intentional unfairness, merely because he puts forth conjectures as new, when they have been previously published; and I have found so many of my own attempts at emendation, thought to be original, in other sources, that I now hesitate at introducing any as novel. These attempts, like most others, have only resulted occasionally in one that will bear the test of examination after it has been placed aside, and carefully considered when the impression of novelty has worn off. I think we may safely appeal to all critics who occupy themselves much with conjectural criticism, and ask them if TIME does not frequently impair the complacency with which they regard their efforts on their first production.

Vol. viii., p. 216., contains more instances of coincident suggestions, R. H. C. indulging in two conjectures, both supported very ably, but in the perfect unconsciousness that the first, rude day's, was long since mentioned by Mr. Dyce, in his Remarks, 1844, p. 172., and that the second, the change of punctuation in All's Well that Ends Well, is the reading adopted by Theobald, and it is also introduced by Mr. Knight in the text of his "National Edition," p 262., and has, I believe, been mentioned elsewhere. It may be said that this kind of repetition might be obviated by the publication of the various readings that have been suggested in the text of Shakspeare, but who is there to be found Quixotic enough to undertake so large and thankless a task, one which at best can only be most imperfectly executed: the materials being so scattered, and often so worthless, the compiler would, I imagine, abandon the design before he had made great progress in it. No fair comparison can be entertained in this respect between the text of Shakspeare and the texts of the classic authors. What has happened to R. H. C., happens, as I am about to show, to all who indulge in conjectural criticism.

Any reader who will take a quantity of disputed passages in Shakspeare, and happens to be ignorant of what has been suggested by others, will discover that, in most of the cases, if he merely tries his skill on a few simple permutations of the letters, he will in one way or another stumble on the suggested words. Let us take, for example, what may be considered in its way as one of the most incomprehensible lines in Shakspeare—"Will you go, An-heires?" the last word being printed with a capital. Running down with the vowels from a, we get at once an apparently plausible suggestion, "Will you go on here?" but a little consideration will show how extremely unlikely this is to be the genuine reading, and that Mr. Dyce is correct in preferring Mynheers—a suggestion which belongs to Theobald, and not, as he mentions, to Hanmer. But what I maintain is, that on here would be the correction that would occur to most readers, in all probability to be at once dismissed. MR. COLLIER, however, says "it is singular that nobody seems ever to have conjectured that on here might be concealed under An-heires;" and it would have been singular had this been the case, but the suggestion of on here is to be found in Theobald's common edition. Oddly enough, about a year before MR. COLLIER'S volume appeared, it was again suggested as if it were new.

Let us select a still more palpable instance (Measure for Measure, Act II. Sc. 1.): "If this law hold in Vienna ten years, I'll rent the fairest house in it after threepence a bay." If this reading be wrong, which I do not admit, the second change in the first letter creates an obvious alteration, day, making at least some sort of sense, if not the correct one. Some years ago, I was rash enough to suggest day, not then observing the alteration was to be found in Pope's edition, and MR. COLLIER has fallen into the same oversight, when he gives it as one of the corrector's new emendations. I regard these oversights as very pardonable, and inseparable from any extensive attempt to correct the state of the text. All Shakspearian conjectures either anticipate or are anticipated.

Mr. Dyce being par excellence the most judicious verbal critic of the day, it will scarcely be thought egotistical to claim for myself the priority for one of his emendations—"Avoid thee, friend," in the Few Notes, p. 31., a reading I had mentioned in print before the appearance of that work. This is merely one of the many evidences that all verbal conjecturers must often stumble on the same suggestions. Even the MS. corrector's alteration of the passage is not new, it being found in Pope's and in several other editions of the last century; another circumstance that exhibits the great difficulty and danger of asserting a conjecture to be absolutely unknown.


P.S. The subject is, of course, capable of almost indefinite extension, but the above hasty notes will probably occupy as much space as you would be willing to spare for its consideration.

Alcides' Shoes.—There is merit, in my opinion, in elucidating, if it were only a single word in our great dramatist. Even the attempt, though mayhap a failure, is laudable. I therefore have made, and shall make, hit or miss, some efforts that way. For example, I now grapple with that very odd line—

"As great Alcides' shoes upon an ass."—King John, Act II. Sc. 1.

out of which no one has as yet extracted, or I think ever will extract, any good meaning: Argal, {267} it is corrupt. Now it appears to me that the critic who proposed to read shows, came very near the truth, and would have hit it completely if he had retained Alcides', for it is the genitive with robe understood. To explain:

Austria has on him the "skin-coat" of Coeur-de-Lion, and Blanch cries,—

"O! well did he become that lion's robe, That did disrobe the lion of that robe."

"It lies," observes the Bastard,

"It lies as sightly on the back of him (Austria) As great Alcides' (robe) shows upon an ass:— But, ass, I'll take that burden from your back," &c.

Were it not that doth is the usual word in this play, I might be tempted to read does. In reading or acting, then, the caesura should be made at Alcides', with a slight pause to give the hearer time to supply robe. I need not say that the robe is the lion's skin, and that there is an allusion to the fable of the ass.

Now to justify this reading. Our ancestors knew nothing of our mode of making genitives by turned commas. They formed the gen. sing., and nom. and gen. pl., by simply adding s to the nom. sing.; thus king made kings, kings, kings (not king's, kings, kings'), and the context gave the case. If the noun ended in se, ce, she, or che, the addition of s added a syllable, as horses, princes, &c., but it was not always added. Shakspeare, for example, uses Lucrece and cockatrice as genitives. I find the first instances of such words as James's, &c., about the middle of the seventeenth century, but I am not deeply read in old books, so it may have been used earlier.

In foreign words like Alcides, no change ever took place; it was the same for all numbers and cases, and the explanation was left to the context. Here are a couple of examples from Shakspeare himself:

"My fortunes every way as fairly ranked— If not with vantage—as Demetrius."—Midsummer Night's Dream, Act I. Sc. 1.

"To Brutus, to Cassius. Burn all. Some to Decius house, and some to Cascas; some to Ligarius. Away! go!"—Julius Caesar, Act III. Sc. 3.

All here are genitives, as well as Cascas. If any doubt, Brutus and Cassius, we have just been told, "Are rid like madmen through the gates of Rome," so they could not be burned. I say now, judicet lector!

I must not neglect to add that there was another mode of forming the genitive, namely, by the possessive pronoun, as the king his palace. "A fly that flew into my mistress her eye," is the title of one of Carew's poems.


* * * * *

Minor Notes.

Longfellow's Poetical Works.—One of the best printed editions of Longfellow's Poetical Works which has appeared in England is ushered in by "An Introductory Essay" by the Rev. G. Gilfillan, A.M. I had lived in hopes, through each successive edition, that either the good taste of the publishers would strike out the preface entirely, or the amended taste of its author curtail some of its redundancies. As neither has been the case, but the 4th edition of the book now lies before me, I beg to offer the following examples:

1. Of Ancient History:

"His [Longfellow's] ornaments, unlike those of the Sabine maid, have not crushed him."

2. Of Modern History—Dickens a Poet:

"A prophet may wrap himself up in austere and mysterious solitude: a poet must come 'eating and drinking.' Thus came Shakspeare, Dryden, Burns, Scott, Goethe; and thus have come in our day, Dickens, Hood, and Longfellow."

Is the song of "The Ivy Green" in Pickwick sufficient to justify this appellation? I do not remember any other "Poem" by Charles Dickens.

3. Of Metaphors. Out of sixteen pages it is difficult to make a selection, but the following are striking:

"If not a prophet, torn by a secret burden, and uttering it in wild tumultuous strains,... he has found inspiration ... in the legends of other lands, whose native vein, in itself exquisite, has been highly cultivated and delicately cherished."

"Excelsion," we are told, "is one of those happy thoughts which seem to drop down, like fine days, from some serener region, or like moultings of the celestial dove, which meet instantly the ideal of all minds, and run on afterwards, and for ever, in the current of the human heart."

Does not this almost come up to Lord Castlereagh's famous metaphor? It certainly goes beyond Mr. Gilfillan's own praise of Longfellow, whose sentiment is described as "never false, nor strained, nor mawkish. It is always mild,... and sometimes it approaches the sublime." Mr. G. goes one step farther.

W. W.


Sir Walter Raleigh.—I find the following remonstrance in defence of this distinguished man, against the imputation of Hume, in a letter addressed by Dr. Parr to Charles Butler:

"Why do you follow Hume in representing Raleigh as an infidel? For Heaven's sake, dear Sir, look to his preface to his History of the World; look at his Letters, in a little 18mo., and here, but here only, you will find a tract [entitled The Sceptic], which led Hume to talk of Raleigh as an unbeliever. It is an epitome of the principles of the old sceptics; and to me, who, like Dr. Clarke and Mr. Hume, am a reader {268} of Sextus Empiricus, it is very intelligible. Indeed, Mr. Butler, it is a most ingenious performance. But mark me well: it is a mere lusus ingenii."

Mr. Butler appends this note:

"Mr. Fox assured the Reminiscent, that either he, or Mrs. Fox to him, had read aloud the whole, with a small exception, of Sir Walter Raleigh's History."—Butler's Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 232.


Curious Advertisement.—The following genuine advertisement is copied from a recent number of the Connecticut Courant, published at Hartford in America:

"Julia, my wife, has grown quite rude, She has left me in a lonesome mood; She has left my board, She has took my bed, She has gave away my meat and bread, She has left me in spite of friends and church, She has carried with her all my shirts. Now ye who read this paper, Since she cut this reckless caper, I will not pay one single fraction For any debts of her contraction. LEVI ROCKWELL. East Windsor, Conn. Aug. 4, 1853."

G. M. B.

Gravestone Inscription.—I send an inscription on a gravestone in Northill churchyard, Bedfordshire, which is now nearly obliterated, given me by the Rev. John Taddy:

"Life is a city full of crooked streets, Death is the market-place where all men meets. If life were merchandise which men could buy, The rich would only live, the poor would die."


Southcote Lodge.

Monumental Inscription.

"Here lyeth the body of the most noble Elizabeth, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, own sister to King Henry the Fourth, wife of John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon and Duke of Exeter, after married to Sir John Cornwall, Knight of the Garter, and Lord Fanhope. She died the 4th year of Henry the Sixth, Anno Domini 1426."

The above is on a monument in Burford Church, in the county of Salop, and will perhaps be interesting to your correspondent MR. HARDY.

Burford Church, in which there are several other interesting monuments, is situated in the luxuriant valley of the Teme, about eight miles south-east of Ludlow.


* * * * *



"A Discourse of Government, as examined by Reason, Scripture, and the Law of the Land. Written in 1678, small 8vo.: London, 1694."

"Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I., &c., 8vo.: London, 1702."

To one or the other of these publications there was prefixed a preface which, as giving offence to the government, was suppressed. I agree with Mr. Bindley, who says (writing to Mr. Granger),

"The account you have given in your books of the suppressed preface to Sir Philip Warwick's Memoirs, is an anecdote too curious not to make one wish it authenticated."—Letters to Mr. Granger, p. 389.

The statement of Granger is adopted also by the Edinburgh editor of the Memoirs in 1813 (query, Sir W. Scott?), who says in his preface,

"These Memoirs were first published by the learned Dr. Thomas Smith, a nonjuring divine, distinguished by oriental learning, and his writings concerning the Greek Church. The learned editor added a preface so much marked by his political principles, that he was compelled to alter and retrench it, for fear of a prosecution at the instance of the crown."—Preface, p. ix.

So far as concerns the Memoirs. But in a note prefixed to a copy of the Discourse of Government, now in the Bodleian among Malone's books, and in his handwriting, it is stated,—

"This book was published by Dr. Thomas Smith, the learned writer concerning the Greek Church. The preface, not being agreeable to the Court at the time it was published (the 5th year of William III.), was suppressed by authority, but is found in this and a few other copies. Granger says (vol. iv. p. 60., vol. v. p. 267., new edit.) that this preface by Dr. Smith was prefixed to Sir P. W.'s Memoirs of Charles I.; but this is a mistake. Whether Smith was the editor of the Memoirs I know not.—EDMOND MALONE."

The obnoxious preface is assigned to the Discourse of Government also, by a writer in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1790, p. 509., where is a portrait of Warwick, and a notice of his life.

The Edinburgh editor of the Memoirs gives the original preface of that work, which presents nothing at which exception could be taken. But as my copy of the Discourse is one of the few which (according to Malone) retains the address of "the publisher to the reader," I transcribe the following passages, which perhaps will sufficiently explain the suppression in 1694:

"As to the disciples and followers of Buchanan, Hobbs and Milton, who have exceeded their masters in downright impudence, scurrility, and lying, and the new modellers of commonwealths, who, under a zealous pretence of securing the rights of a fancied original contract against the encroachments of monarchs, are sowing the seeds of eternal disagreements, confusions, {269} and bloody wars throughout the world (for the influence of evil principles hath no bounds, but, like infectious air, spreads everywhere), the peaceable, sober, truly Christian, and Church-of-England doctrine contained in this book, so directly contrary to their furious, mad, unchristian, and fanatical maxims, it cannot otherwise be expected but that they will soon be alarmed, and betake themselves to their usual arts of slander and reviling, and grow very fierce and clamorous upon it. Whatever shall happen," &c.

Subsequently the author is spoken of as

"A gentlemen of sincere piety, of strict morals, of a great and vast understanding, and of a very solid judgement; a true son of the Church of England, and consequently a zealous asserter and defender of the truly Christian and apostolical doctrine of non-resistance; always loyal and faithful to the king his master in the worst of times," &c.

After these specimens, there will be little difficulty, I think, in determining that Granger was mistaken in describing the preface to the Memoirs as that which was suppressed, and that it was the publisher's "address to the reader" of the Discourse which incurred that sentence. Dr. Thomas Smith appears to have edited both works; and in the same address informs us of other works of Warwick in

"Divinity, philosophy, history, especially that of England, practical devotion, and the like. This I now publish [the Discourse] was written in the year 1678 (and designed as an appendix to his Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles the First, of most blessed memory, which hereafter may see the light, when more auspicious times shall encourage and favour the publication), which he, being very exact and curious in his compositions, did often refine upon," &c.

It may be well to inquire whether any of these theological or philosophical lucubrations are yet extant. Was Sir Philip connected at all with Dr. Smith, or was he descended from Arthur Warwick, author of Spare Minutes?


* * * * *


I shall be exceedingly obliged by any explanatory remarks on the following list of seals:—

1. Oval (size 2.1 in. by 1.3). The angel Gabriel kneeling before a standing figure of the Virgin, and holding a scroll, on which is inscribed AVE MARIA. Legend:

* [cross] S. HOS * PITALIS * IER * NE * NACH.

Yarmouth was anciently called Gernemutha, or Iernemutha; and Ives attributes this seal to Yarmouth, though both the legend and the workmanship have a decidedly foreign appearance.

Can any more satisfactory locality be assigned it?

2. Circular (1 in. in diameter). Three fishes naiant (the arms of Yarmouth), within a bordure of six cusps. Legend:


Workmanship of about the fourteenth century; use unknown; but it has been employed for sealing burgess letters for many years past, until 1847.

Can it have reference to the staple? (Vid. Statutes at Large, Anne; 27 Ed. III. stat. 2.; 43 Ed. III. cap. 1.; 14 Ric. II. cap. 1.)

3. Circular (size 1.1 in. diameter). On an escutcheon a herring hauriant; the only instance of this bearing in connection with Yarmouth. Legend:


Of this seal nothing whatever is known. Its workmanship is of the fifteenth century. The suggested extension of the legend is "Sigillum officii contrarotulatoris"—in nova Jernemutha, or in nave Jernemuthe. But was Yarmouth ever called nova Gernemutha? or what was the office alluded to?

The above are required for a literary purpose; and as speedy an answer as possible would much oblige me.


* * * * *

Minor Queries.

Hand in Bishop Canning's Church.—In Bishop Canning's Church, Wilts, is a curious painting of a hand outstretched, and having on the fingers and thumb several inscriptions in abbreviated Latin. Can any correspondent tell me when and why this was placed in the church; and also the inscriptions which appear thereon?


"I put a spoke in his wheel."—What is the meaning of the phrase, "I put a spoke in his wheel?"

In April last, a petition was heard in the Rolls Court on the part of the trustees of Manchester New College, praying that they might be allowed to remove that institution to London; and a single trustee was heard against such removal. One of the friends of the college was on this occasion heard to remark, "the removal to London was going on very smoothly, and it would have been done by this time, if this one trustee had not put his spoke in the wheel:" meaning, that the conscientious scruple of this trustee was the sole impediment to the movement. Is this the customary and proper mode of using the phrase; and, if so, how can putting a spoke to a wheel impede its motion?

On the other hand, having heard some persons say that they had always understood the phrase to denote affording help to an undertaking, and confidently allege that this must be the older and {270} more correct usage, for "what," say they, "is a wheel without spokes?" I inquired of an intelligent lady, of long American descent, in what way she had been accustomed to hear the phrase employed, and the answer was "Certainly as a help: we used to say to one who had anything in hand of difficult accomplishment, 'Do not be faint-hearted, I'll give you a spoke.'"

Dr. Johnson, in the folio edition of his Dictionary, 1755, after defining a spoke to be the "bar of a wheel that passes from the nave to the felly," cites:

" . . . . All you gods, In general synod, take away her power, Break all the spokes and fellies to her wheel, And bowl the round nave down the hill of Heaven."—Shakspeare.

G. K.

Sir W. Hewit.—At p. 159. of Mr. Thoms's recent edition of Pulleyn's Etymological Compendium, Sir W. Hewit, the father-in-law of Edward Osborne, who was destined to found the ducal family of Leeds, is said to have been "a pin-maker." Some other accounts state that he was a clothworker; others again, that he was a goldsmith. Which is correct; and what is the authority? And where may any pedigree of the Osborne family, previous to Edward, be seen?


Passage in Virgil.—Dr. Johnson, in his celebrated Letter to Lord Chesterfield, says, in reference to the hollowness of patronage: "The shepherd, in Virgil, grew at last acquainted with Love; and found him a native of the rocks." To what passage in Virgil does Johnson here refer, and what is the point intended to be conveyed?



Fauntleroy.—In Binns' Anatomy of Sleep it is stated that a few years ago an affidavit was taken in an English court of justice, to the effect that Fauntleroy was still living in a town of the United States.

Can any of your correspondents refer me to the circumstance in question?


Animal Prefixes, descriptive of Size and Quality.—Will somebody oblige me by pointing out in the modern languages any analogous instances to the Greek [Greek: bon], English horse-radish, dog-rose, bull-finch, &c.?


Punning Devices.—Sir John Cullum, in his Hist. of Hawsted, 1st edit. p. 114., says that the seal of Sir William Clopton, knight, t. Hen. VII., was "a ton, out of which issues some plant, perhaps a caltrop, which might be contracted to the first syllable of his name." This appears to be too violent a contraction. Can any of your readers suggest any other or closer analogy between the name and device?


"Pinece with a stink."—In Archbishop Bramhall's Schism Guarded (written against Serjeant) there is a passage in which the above curious expression occurs, and of which I can find no satisfactory, nor indeed any explanation whatever. The passage is this (Works, vol. ii. p. 545., edit. Ox.):

"But when he is baffled in the cause, he hath a reserve,—that Venerable Bede, and Gildas, and Foxe in his Acts and Monuments, do brand the Britons for wicked men, making them 'as good as Atheists; of which gang if this Dinoth were one,' he 'will neither wish the Pope such friends, nor envy them to the Protestants.'

"What needeth this, when he hath got the worst of the cause, to defend himself like a pinece with a stink? We read no other character of Dinoth, but as of a pious, learned, and prudent man."

Can any of your readers furnish an explanation?


Soiled Parchment Deeds.—Having in my possession some old and very dirty parchment deeds, and other records, now almost illegible from the accumulation of grease, &c., on the surface of the skins, I am desirous to know if there be any "royal road" to the cleansing and restoration of these otherwise enduring MSS.?



Roger Wilbraham, Esq.'s Cheshire Collection.—Can any of your correspondents say where the original collection made by the above-named gentleman, or a copy of them, referred to in Dr. Foote Gower's Sketch of the Materials for a Cheshire History, may now be met with?


Cambridge and Ireland.—In the first volume of the Pictorial History of England, p. 270., it is stated that—

"Martin skins are mentioned in Domesday Book among the commodities brought by sea to Chester; and this appears from other authorities to have been one of the exports in ancient times from Ireland. Notices are also found of merchants from Ireland landing at Cambridge with cloths, and exposing their merchandise to sale."

The authority quoted for this statement is Turner, vol. iii. p. 113.

On referring to Turner's Anglo-Saxons, I find it stated:

"We read of merchants from Ireland landing at Cambridge with cloths, and exposing their merchandise to sale."

Mr. Turner refers to Gale, vol. ii. p. 482.

I do not know to what work Mr. Turner refers, unless to Gale's Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores {271} Veteres; on examining this I can find no passage at the page and volume indicated, on the subject.

Can any of your readers state where it is to be found? It appears remarkable that the merchants from Ireland should land at the inland town of Cambridge, and it seems a probable conjecture that Cambridge is a mistake for Cambria.

William of Malmesbury speaks of a commerce between Ireland and the neighbourhood of Chester, and it seems much more probable that the merchants of Ireland landed in Wales than in Cambridge.


Derivation of Celt.—What is the proper derivation of the word celt, as applied to certain weapons of antiquity? A good authority, in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, p. 351., obtains the term from—

"Celtes, an old Latin word for a chisel, probably derived from caelo, to engrave."

Mr. Wright (The Celt, Roman, and Saxon, p. 73.) says that Hearne first applied the word to such implements in bronze, believing them to be "Roman celtes or chisels;" and that—

"Subsequent writers, ascribing these instruments to the Britons, have retained the name, forgetting its origin, and have applied it indiscriminately, not only to other implements of bronze, but even to the analogous instruments of stone."

And he objects to the term "as too generally implying that things to which it is applied are Celtic." On the other hand, Dr. Wilson (Prehistoric Annals, p. 129.) prefers to retain the word, inasmuch as the Welsh etymologists, Owen and Spurrell, furnish an ancient Cambro-British word celt, a flint stone. M. Worsaae (Primeval Antiq., p. 26.) confines the term to those instruments of bronze which have a hollow socket to receive a wooden handle; the other forms being called paalstabs on the Continent. It seems clear that there is no connexion between this word and the name of the nation (Celtae); but its true origin may perhaps be elicited by a little discussion in the pages of "N. & Q."

C. R. M.

Ancient Superstition against the King of England entering or even beholding the Town of Leicester.—The existence of a superstition to this effect is recorded in Rishanger's Chronicle, and also, as I am informed, in that of Thomas Wikes; but this I have not at present an opportunity of consulting.

Rishanger's words are:

"Rex [Henricus III.] autem, capta Norhamptun., Leycestr. tendens, in ea hospitatus est, quam nullus regni praeter eum etiam videre, prohibentibus quibusdam superstitiose, praesumpsit."—P. 26.

It is also mentioned by Matthew of Westminster. (Vide Bohn's edition, vol. ii. p. 412.) The statement, that no king before Henry III. had entered the town, is however incorrect, as William the Conqueror and King John are instances to the contrary.

Can any of your correspondents explain the origin of this superstition, or favour me with any farther notices respecting it?

It is not unworthy of observation that very many of the royal personages who have visited Leicester, have been either unfortunate in their lives, or have met with tragical deaths.

We may, however, hope, for the credit of the town, that their misfortunes may be attributed to other causes, rather than to their presence within its time-hallowed walls.



Burton.—Is there any family of this name who can make out a descent from, or connexion with, a Mr. John Burton, alderman of Doncaster, who died 1718?

C. J.

The Camera Lucida.—I should feel much obliged to any reader of "N. & Q." who would be kind enough to answer the following questions, and refer me to any work treating of the handling and management of the Camera Lucida. I have one made by King of Bristol, and purchased about thirty years ago: it draws out, like a telescope, in three pieces, each six inches long; and at full length will give a picture of the dimensions of twenty inches by twelve. The upper piece is marked from above downwards, thus: at two inches below the lens, "2;" at an inch below that point, "3;" at half an inch lower, "4;" at half an inch lower still, "5;" half an inch below the point "5," a "7" is marked; and half an inch below the "7," there is a "10;" at seven-eighths below this last, "D" is marked. What reference have these nicely graduated points to the distance of an object from the instrument? Do the figures merely determine the size of the picture to be taken? How is one to be guided in their use and application to practice?


Francis Moore.—Francis Moore was born at Bakewell about the year 1592, and was Proctor of Lichfield Cathedral at the time of the Great Rebellion. I am anxious to know who were his parents, and what their place of abode.


Bottesford Moors, Kirton-in-Lindsey.

Waugh, Bishop of Carlisle.—What were the family arms of Dr. John Waugh, Bishop of Carlisle, who died October 29, 1734? Was he of a Scotch family, and are any of his descendants now living?


Palace at Enfield.—We read that there was formerly a royal palace at Enfield in Middlesex, ten miles north from London; and one room still {272} remains in its original state. Can you, or any of your subscribers, inform me whereabouts in the town it is situated? Also, the date of erection of the church?


"Solamen miseris," &c.—Please to state in what author is the following line? No one knows.

"Solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris."


Soke Mills.—Correspondents are requested to communicate the names of "Soke" or Manorial Mills, to which the suit is still enforced.

S. M.

Second Wife of Mallet.—The second wife of Mallet was Lucy Elstob, a Yorkshire lady, daughter of a steward of the Earl of Carlisle. Can any of your readers inform me at what place in Yorkshire her father resided, and where the marriage with Mallet in 1742 took place? She survived her husband, and lived to the age of eighty years. Where did she die, and what family did Mallet leave by his two wives?



* * * * *

Minor Queries with Answers.

Books burned by the Common Hangman.

"Historia Anglo-Scotica: or an Impartial History of all that happen'd between the kings and kingdoms of England and Scotland from the beginning of the Reign of William the Conqueror to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, &c., by James Drake, M.D., 8vo., London, 1703."

Of this work it is said, in a note in the Catalogue of Geo. Chalmers' library (fourth day's sale, Sept. 30, 1841), that—

"On June 30, 1703, the Scotch parliament ordered this book to be burned by the hands of the common hangman, and that the magistrates of Edinburgh should see it carried into effect at eleven o'clock on the following day."

Will any correspondent of yours furnish me with some notice of Dr. Drake, the author, and also explain the ground of offence upon which his book was condemned? I confess to be unable to discover anything to offend; neither, as it seems, could Mr. Surtees, for he says:

"I quote Drake's Historia Anglo-Scotica, 1703, a book which, for what reason I never could discover, was ordered to be burned by the common hangman."—History of Durham, vol. iv. p. 55. note l.

Any notices of books which have been signalised by being subjected to similar condemnation, would much interest me, and perhaps others of your readers.


[The ground of offence for burning the Historia Anglo-Scotica is stated in The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. xi. p. 66., viz.: "Ordered, that a book published by the title of Historia Anglo-Scotica, by James Drake, M.D., and dedicated to Sir Edward Symour containing many false and injurious reflections upon the sovereignty and independence of this crown and nation, be burnt by the hand of the common hangman at the mercat Cross of Edinburgh, at eleven o'clock to-morrow (July 1, 1703), and the magistrates of Edinburgh appointed to see the order punctually executed." It would appear from the dedication prefixed to this work, that Drake merely pretended to edit it, for he says, that "upon a diligent revisal, in order, if possible, to discover the name of the author, and the age of his writing, he found that it was written in, or at least not finished till, the time of Charles I." But he says nothing more of the MS., nor how it came into his hands. A notice of Dr. Drake is given in Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary, and in the preface to The Memorial of the Church of England, edit. 1711, which was also burnt by the common hangman in 1705. See "N. & Q.," Vol. iii., p. 519.]

Captain George Cusack.—It appears by an affidavit made by a Mr. Thomas Nugent in the year 1674, and now of record in the Exchequer Record Office, Dublin, that—

"He, being on or about the 20th of September preceding in London, was by one Mr. Patrick Dowdall desired to goe along with him to see one George Cusack, then in prison there for severall hainous offences alleadged to have beene by him committed, which he could not do by reason of other occasions; but having within two or three days afterwards mett with Mr. Dowdall, was told by him that he had since their last meeting seene the said Cusack in prison (being the Marshalsea in Southwark) with bolts on, and that none of Cusack's men who were alsoe in prison were bolted:"

that on the 11th of November Cusack was still in restraint, and not as yet come to his trial:

"That there were bookes written of the said Cusack's offences, which he heard cryed about in the streets of London to be sold, and that y^e generall opinion and talke was that the said Cusack should suffer death for his crimes."

By a fragment of an affidavit made by a Mr. Morgan O'Bryen, of the Middle Temple, London, it appears that this man was a Captain George Cusack, who, I presume, was a pirate. May I take leave to ask, are the above-mentioned books in existence, and where are they to be found?



[In the British Museum is the following pamphlet:—"The Grand Pyrate: or the Life and Death of Captain George Cusack, the Great Sea-Robber, with an Accompt of all his notorious Robberies both at Sea and Land; together with his Tryal, Condemnation, and Execution. Taken by an Impartial Hand." London, 1676, pp. 24. 4to.]

Sir Ralph Winwood.—I am particularly desirous of obtaining some information respecting {273} Sir Ralph Winwood, private secretary to James I., and should feel much obliged if any of your numerous correspondents would favour me with anything they may know concerning him, or with the titles of any works in which his name is mentioned.

H. P. W. R.

[Biographical notices of Sir Ralph Winwood will be found in Biographia Britannica, Supplement; Lloyd's State Worthies; Wood's Athenae; Granger and Chalmers' Biographical Dictionaries. Sir F. Drake's Voyage, by T. Maynarde, is dedicated to him. Letters to him from Sir Thomas Roe, in 1615, 1616, are in the British Museum, Add. MS. 6115. fol. 71. 75. 146. And a letter to him from Sir Dudley Carlton will be found in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lvii. p. 143. The Diaries of the time of James I. may also be consulted; a list of them is given in "N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 363.]

* * * * *



(Vol. viii., p. 93.)

The authority for this ancient custom appears to be derived from an act of the Convocation which assembled in 1562. Strype informs us (Annals, vol. i. c. 27.) that at this Convocation the following injunctions were given:

"First, That a Catechism be set forth in Latin, which is already done by Mr. Dean of Paul's [Dean Nowell], and wanteth only viewing. Secondly, That certain Articles [the Thirty-nine Articles], containing the principal grounds of Christian religion, be set forth much like to such Articles as were set forth a little before the death of King Edward, of which Articles the most part may be used with additions and corrections as shall be thought convenient. Thirdly, That to these Articles also be adjoined the Apology, writ by Bishop Jewell, lately set forth after it, hath been once again revised and so augmented and corrected as occasion serveth. That these be joined in one book; and by common consent authorised as containing true doctrine, and be enjoined to be taught the youth in the Universities and grammar schools throughout the realm, and also in cathedral churches, and collegiate, and in private houses: and that whosoever shall preach, declare, write, or speak anything in derogation, depraving or despising of the said book, or any doctrine therein contained, and be thereof lawfully convicted before any ordinary, &c., he shall be ordered as in case of heresy, or else shall be punished as is appointed for those that offend and speak against the Book of Common Prayer, set forth in the first year of the Queen's Majesty's reign that now is: that is to say, he shall for the first offence forfeit 100 marks; for the second offence, 400 marks; and for the third offence, all his goods and chattels, and shall suffer imprisonment during life."

It is probable that this book found a place in churches as affording a standard of orthodoxy easy of reference to congregations in times not sufficiently remote from the Reformation, to render the preaching of Romish doctrines unlikely. This, if the surmise be correct, would be emphatically to bring the officiating minister to book. In Prestwich Church, the desk yet remains, together with the "Book of Articles," bound up as prescribed with Jewel's Apology (black-letter, 1611), but the chain has disappeared. The neighbouring church of Bingley has also its desk, to which the chain is still attached; but the "Book of Articles" has given place to some more modern volume.



MR. SIMPSON will find some account of the Paraphrase of Erasmus so chained (of which he says he cannot recal an instance) at Vol i., p. 172., and Vol. v., p. 332.

The following list (remains of which more or less perfect, with chains appended, are still extant) will probably be interesting to many of your readers:

"Books chayned in the Church, 25th April, 1606.

Dionisius Carthusian vpon the New Testament, in two volumes. Origen vpon St. Paules Epistle to the Romanes. Origen against Celsus. Lira vpon Pentathucke of Moses. Lira vpon the Kings, &c. Theophilact vpon the New Testam^t. Beda vpon Luke and other P^{ts} of the Testam^t. Opuscula Augustini, thome x. Augustini Questiones in Nouū Testamentū. The Paraphrase of Erasmus. The Defence of the Apologye. Prierius Postill vpon the Dominicall Gospells." From Ecclesfield Church accounts.


In Malvern Abbey Church is a copy of Dean Comber's Companion to the Temple, chained to a desk, and bearing a written inscription to the effect that it should never be removed out of the church; but should remain chained to its desk for ever, for the use of any parishioner who might choose to come in and read it there.

N. B. I have mislaid my copy of this inscription: and should feel greatly obliged to any of your correspondents who may be residing in or near Great Malvern, for a transcript of it. As it may be thought somewhat long for your pages, perhaps some correspondent would kindly copy it out for me, and inclose it to Rev. H. T. GRIFFITH, Hull.

University Club.

* * * * *


(Vol. vii. passim.)

A goodly collection of singular epitaphs has appeared in "N. & Q."; but I believe it yet lacks {274} a specimen of the following tomfoolery—an initial epitaph. Green, in his History of Worcester, gives the following inscription from a monument under the north-west window of St. Andrew's Church in that city:

"Short of Weight. H L T B O R W I H O A J R A D 1780 A 63."

Green adds the following explanation of this riddle:

"In full measure it would have stood thus: 'Here Lieth The Body Of Richard Weston, In Hopes Of A Joyful Resurrection. Anno Domini 1780. Aged 63.'"

Richard Weston was a baker, and the "Short of weight" gives the clue to the nature of his dealings, and also to the right reading of the epitaph.

The following is from Ombersley Churchyard, Worcestershire:

"Sharp was her wit, Mild was her nature; A tender wife, A good humoured creature."

From the churchyard of St. John, Worcester:

"Honest John's Dead and gone."

From the churchyard of Cofton Hackett, Worcestershire, are the two following:

"Here lieth the body of John Galey, sen., in expectation of the Last Day. What sort of man he was that day will discover. He was clerk of this parish fifty-five years. He died in 1756, aged 75."

The next is also to a Galey. Your correspondent PICTOR (Vol. viii., p. 98.) gives the same epitaph, slightly altered, as being at Wingfield, Suffolk:

"Pope boldly asserts (some think the maxim odd), An honest man's the noblest work of GOD. If this assertion is from error clear, One of the noblest works of GOD lies here."

From Alvechurch, Worcestershire; to a man and wife:

"He, an honest, good-natured, worthy man; she, as eminent for conjugal and maternal virtues during her marriage and widowhood, as she had been before for amiable delicacy of person and manners."

The following, which is probably not to be surpassed, appeared in one of the earliest numbers of Household Words. It is from the churchyard of Pewsey, Wiltshire:

"Here lies the body of Lady O'Looney, great-niece of Burke, commonly called the Sublime. She was bland, passionate, and deeply religious: also, she painted in water-colours, and sent several pictures to the Exhibition. She was first cousin to Lady Jones: and of such is the kingdom of heaven."


If epitaphs of recent date are admitted in "N. & Q.," perhaps the following, upon an editor, which lately appeared in the Halifax Colonist, may not be out of place in your publication:

"Here lies an editor! Snooks if you will; In mercy, kind Providence, Let him lie still. He lied for his living: so He lived, while he lied, When he could not lie longer, He lied down, and died."

W. W.


"Here lies a Wife, a Friend, a Mother, I believe there never was such another; She had a head to earn and a heart to give, And many poor she did relieve. She lived in virtue and in virtue died, And now in Heaven she doth reside. Yes! it is true as tongue can tell, If she had a fault, it was loving me too well. And when I am lying by her side, Who was in life her daily pride, Tho' she's confined in coffins three, She'd leave them all and come to me!"

The above lines, written on a tablet in a church at Exeter, were composed by Mr. Tuckett, tallow-chandler, to the memory of his wife. An old subscriber of "N. & Q." thinks this epitaph more strange and curious than any which has yet appeared in the columns of that valuable publication.


* * * * *


(Vol. vii., p. 507.)

I copy the following from the fly-leaf of A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Revenues, by the learned Father Paul, translated by Tobias Jenkins, 8vo., Westminster, 1736:

"Bibliotheca de Bassingbourn in Com. Cant. Dono dedit Edvardus Nightingale de Kneeseworth Armiger Filius et Hares Fundatoris. Feb. 1^{mo}, 1735^{to}."

How the volume got out of the library I know not: it was purchased some years since at a sale in Oxford.

Y. B. N. J.

To the list of parochial libraries allow me to add that of Denchworth, near Wantage, Berks. In a small apartment over the porch, the parvise, I recollect, some years since, to have seen a very fair collection of old divinity, the books being, all of them, confined by chains, according to the ancient usage, an instance of which I never saw elsewhere. {275}

At St. Peter's Church, Tiverton, there is also a collection of books, mostly the gift of the Newtes, Richard (rejected in 1646 and restored in 1660), and John his son, rectors of the portions of Tidcombe and Clare in that church. The books are preserved in a room over the vestry.


Another venerable archdeacon now living permitted the churchwardens of Swaffham to give him a fine copy of Cranmer's Bible belonging to the church library.

S. Z. Z. S.

Add to the list Finedon, in Northamptonshire, where there is a collection of upwards of 1000 volumes in the parvise over the porch.

E. H. A.

* * * * *


(Vol. v., p. 426.; Vol. viii., pp. 111. 184.)

The authority for the Duke of Wellington having used these words at the battle of Waterloo is Capt. Batty, of the Grenadier Guards, in a letter written a few days after the battle, published in Booth's Battle of Waterloo, and illustrated by George Jones, Esq., R.A., who is believed to have superintended the whole publication. I append the extract:—

"Upon the cavalry being repulsed, the Duke himself ordered our second battalion to form line with the third battalion, and, after advancing to the brow of the hill, to lie down and shelter ourselves from the fire. Here we remained, I imagine, near an hour. It was now about seven o'clock. The French infantry had in vain been brought against our line and, as a last resource, Buonaparte resolved upon attacking our part of the position with his veteran Imperial Guard, promising them the plunder of Brussels. Their artillery and they advanced in solid column to where we lay. The Duke, who was riding behind us, watched their approach; and at length, when within a hundred yards of us, exclaimed 'Up, guards, and at them again!' Never was there a prouder moment than this for our country or ourselves," &c.—Second Letter of Capt. Batty, Grenadier Guards, dated June 22, 1815, from the village of Gommignies; his First Letter being dated Bavay, June 21, 1815.

This circumstantial account, written so few days after the battle, detailing affirmatively the command to the guards as heard by one of themselves, will probably countervail the negative testimony of C. as derived from the Duke's want of recollection: as well as the "Goodly Botherby's" of MR. CUTHBERT BEDE. As an instance of the Duke's impressions of the battle, I may add, that he stated that there was no smoke, though Mr. Jones told me, that when he was on the ground two days afterwards the smoke was still hanging over it.


* * * * *


Mr. Muller's Process.—MR. SISSON inquires for any one's experience in the use of the above formula, and I beg to say I remember when it was published I tried it, but gave it up. It is an excellent plan, but requires improvement. The following were my objections:

If the objects are not well illuminated by the sun, the image is not sharp. The skies taken are singularly the reverse of the iodide-of-potash method, as they are almost transparent.

The solutions of iron are a constant trouble by precipitating.

It has the same disadvantages as other modes on paper from inequality in the strength of the image. The photographic pons asinorum appears however to be got over by the process, viz. taking the picture at once in the camera, and it is very possible that it can be made perfect. A small quantity of chromate of potash, about one grain to three ounces of solution of iodide of iron, gives a little more force to the picture.

I find the nitrate of lead a very useful salt in iodizing paper. Six grains of the salt to the ounce of water, and tincture of iodine added till a pale yellow, will give additional sensitiveness to iodized paper, if the sheets are floated upon the solution. This will shorten the time in the camera nearly five minutes; but it requires care, as it is apt to solarize.

A weak solution of iodide of iron has also the same effect, and, if blotted off at once, it will not blacken by the use of gallic acid.



Stereoscopic Angles.—When I last addressed you, I fancied I should set the stereoscopic-angle question at rest. It appears, however, that MR. G. SHADBOLT is unconvinced, and as I alone (to the best of my knowledge) have defined and solved the problem in relation to this subject, you will perhaps allow me to offer a few words in rejoinder to MR. S.'S arguments which, had that gentleman thought more closely, would not have been advanced. This is also requisite, because, from their speciousness, they are likely to mislead such as take what they read for granted. MR. S. says that when the stereographs are placed at the same distance from the eyes as the focal length of the lens, that 2-1/4 inches is the best space for the cameras to be apart; and that were this space increased, the result would be as though the pictures were taken from models. To this I reply, that the only correct space for the cameras to be apart is 2-1/2 inches (i. e. the space usually found to be from pupil to pupil of our eyes), and this under every circumstance; and that any departure from this must produce error. As to the model-like appearance, I cannot see the reason of {276} it. Next MR. SHADBOLT says, and rightly, that when the pictures are seen from a less distance than the focal length of the lens, they appear to be increased in bulk. But the "obvious remedy" I pronounce to be wrong, as it must produce error. The remedy is nevertheless obvious, and consists in placing the stereographs at the same distance from the eyes as the focal length of the lens. But, if this cannot be done, it were surely better to submit to some trifling exaggeration than to absolute deformity and error. MR. S. says also, that as we mainly judge of distance, &c. by the convergence of the optic axis of our eyes (Query, How do persons with only one eye judge?), so, in short or medium distances, it were better to let the camera radiate from its centre to the principal object to be delineated. The result of this must be error, as the following illustration will show. Let the sitter (for it is especially recommended in portraits) hold before him, horizontally, and in parallelism with the picture, a ruler two feet long; and let planes parallel to the ruler pass through the sitter's ears, eyes, nose, &c. The consequence would be that the ruler, and all the other planes parallel to it, would have two vanishing points, and all the features be erroneously rendered. This, to any one conversant with perspective, should suffice. But, as all are not acquainted with perspective, perhaps the following illustration may prove more convincing. Suppose an ass to stand facing the observer; a boy astride him, with a big drum placed before him. Now, under the treatment recommended by MR. G. SHADBOLT, both sides of the ass would be visible; both the boy's legs; and the drum would have two heads. This would be untrue, absurd, ridiculous, and quite as wonderful as Mr. Fenton's twelve-feet span view from across the Thames.

Once more, and I shall have done with the present arguments of MR. G. SHADBOLT. He says that the two pictures should have exactly the same range of vision. This I deny: for, were it so, there would be no stereoscopic effect. Let the object be a column: it is evident that a tangent to the left side of the column from the right eye, could not extend so far to the left as a tangent to the left side of the column from the left eye, and vice versa. And it is only by this difference in the two pictures (or, in other words, the range of vision) that our conceptions of solidity are created. This is not exactly the test to suit the views of MR. SHADBOLT, as I am quite aware; but I chose it for its simplicity, and because it will bear demonstration; and my desire has been to elicit truth, and not to perpetuate error.

In conclusion, I beg to refer MR. G. SHADBOLT to my definition and solution of the stereoscopic problem—which I then said I believed—but which I now unhesitatingly assert to be correct.


Ammonio-nitrate of Silver.—The inability of your correspondent PHILO-PHO. to form the ammonio-nitrate of silver from a solution of nitrate of silver, which has been used to excite albumenized paper, is in all probability owing to the presence of a small quantity of nitrate of ammonia, which has been imparted to the solution by the paper.

Salts of ammonia form, with those of silver, double salts, from which the oxide of silver is not precipitated by the alkalies.

I cannot however explain how it was that the solution had lost none of its silver, for the paper could not in such case have been rendered sensitive.


20. Compton Terrace, Islington.

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries.

Sir Thomas Elyot (Vol. viii., p. 220.).—Particulars respecting this once celebrated diplomatist and scholar may be collected from Bernet's Hist. Reformation, ed. 1841, i. 95.; Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, i. 221. 263., Append. No. LXII.; Ellis's Letters, ii. 113.; Archaeologia, xxxiii.; Wright's Suppression of Monasteries, 140.; Lelandi Encomia, 83.; Leland's Collectanea, iv. 136-148.; Retrospective Review, ii. 381.; Privy Purse Expenses of Princess Mary, 82. 230.; Chamberlain's Holbein Heads; Smith's Autographs; Fuller's Worthies (Cambridgeshire); Wood's Athenae Oxonienses, i. 58.; Lysons' Cambridgeshire, 159.

The grant of Carlton cum Willingham in Cambridgeshire to Sir Thomas Elliot and his wife is enrolled in the Exchequer (Originalia, 32 Hen. VIII., pars 3. rot. 22. vel 221.); and amongst the Inquisitions filed in that Court is one taken after his death (Cant. and Hunt., 37 vel 38 Hen. VIII.).

I believe it will be found on investigation, that Sir Richard Elyot (the father of Sir Thomas) was of Wiltshire rather than of Suffolk. See Leland's Collectanea, iv. 141. n., and an Inquisition in the Exchequer of the date of 6 or 7 Hen. VIII. thus described in the Calendar: "de manerio de Wanborough com. Wiltes proficua cujus manerii Ricardus Eliot percepit."



Judges styled "Reverend" (Vol. viii., p. 158.).—As it is more than probable that your pages may in future be referred to as authority for any statement they contain, especially when the fact they announce is vouched by so valued a name as that of my friend YORK HERALD, I am sure that he will excuse me for correcting an error into which he has fallen, the more especially as Lord Campbell is equally mistaken (Lord Chancellors, i. 539.).

YORK HERALD states, that "Anthony Fitz-Herbert was appointed Chief Justice of the Common {277} Pleas in 1523, and died in 30 Henry VIII." Fitz-Herbert was never Chief Justice. He was made a judge of the Common Pleas in 1522; and so continued till his death at the time mentioned, 1538. During that period, the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was successively held by Sir Thomas Brudenell till 1531, by Sir Robert Norwich till 1535, and then by Sir John Baldwin, who was Chief Justice at the time of Fitz-Herbert's death.

William Rastall (afterwards Judge), in the early part of his career, joined his father in the printing business, and there are several books with his imprimatur. It was during that time probably that he formed the table to the Natura Brevium of Anthony Fitz-Herbert, mentioned in the title-page to YORK HERALD'S volume.


"Hurrah" and other War-cries (Vol. vii., pp. 595. 633.; Vol. viii., pp. 20. 88.).—Hurrah is the war-cry of many nations, both in the army and navy. The Dutch seem to have adopted it from the Russians, poeta invito, as we see in the following verses of Staring van den Willenborg:

"Is 't hoera? Is 't hoera? Wat drommel kan 't u schelen? Brul, smeek ik, geen Kozakken na! Als Fredrik's batterijen spelen— Als Willem's trommen slaan Blijv' Neerland's oorlogskreet: 'Val aan!' Waar jong en oud de vreugd der overwinning deelen, Bij Quatre-Bras' trofee, Blijve ons gejuich Hoezee!"

Accept or reject this doggerel translation:

"Is it hurrah? Is it hurrah? What does that concern you, pray? Howl not like Cossacks of the Don! But, when Frederic's batteries pour— When William's drums do roar— Holland's war-cry still be 'Fall on!' When old and young Raise the victor's song, At Quatre-Bras' trophy, Let Huzzah our joy-cry be!"

Hoera (hurrah) and hoezee (huzza), then, in the opinion of Staring, and indeed of many others, have not the same origin. Some have derived hoezee from hausse, a French word of applause at the hoisting (Fr. hausser) of the admiral's flag. Bilderdijk derives it from Hussein, a famous Turkish warrior, whose memory is still celebrated. Dr. Brill says, "hoezee seems to be only another mode of pronouncing the German juchhe." Van Iperen thinks it taken from the Jewish shout, "Hosanna!" Siegenbeek finds "the origin of hoezee in the shout of encouragement, 'Hou zee!' (hold sea)." Dr. Jager cites a Flemish author, who says "that this cry ('hou zee,' in French, tiens mer) seems especially to belong to us; since it was formerly the custom of our seamen always 'zee te houden' (to keep the sea), and never to seek shelter from storms." Dr. Jager, however, thinks it rather doubtful "that our hoezee should come from 'hou zee,' especially since we find a like cry in other languages." In old French huz signified a cry, a shout; and the verb huzzer, or hucher, to cry, to shout; and in Dutch husschen had the same meaning.—From the Navorscher.

Major Andre (Vol. viii., p. 174).—The sisters of Major Andre lived until a comparatively very recent date in the Circus at Bath, and this fact may point SERVIENS to inquiries in that city.

T. F.

In reply to SERVIENS'S Query about Major Andre, I beg to inform him that there is a good picture of the Major by Sir Joshua Reynolds in the house of Mrs. Fenning, at Tonbridge Wells, who, I have no doubt, would be enabled to give him some particulars respecting his life.

W. H. P.

Early Edition of the New Testament (Vol. viii., p. 219.).—The book, about which your correspondent A. BOARDMAN inquires, is an imperfect copy of Tyndale's Version of the New Testament: probably it is one of the first edition; if so, it was printed at Antwerp in 1526; but if it be one of the second edition, it was printed, I believe, at the same place in 1534. Those excellent and indefatigable publishers, Messrs. Bagster & Sons, have within the last few years reprinted both these editions; and if your correspondent would apply to them, I have no doubt but they will be able to resolve him on all the points of his inquiry.

F. B——W.

Ladies' Arms borne in a Lozenge (Vol. vii., p. 571. Vol. viii., pp. 37. 83.).—As this question is still open, I forward you the translation of an article inserted by me in the first volume of the Navorscher. Lozenge-formed shields have not been always, nor exclusively, used by ladies; for, in a collection of arms from 1094 to 1649 (see Descriptive Catalogue of Impressions from Scottish Seals, by Laing, Edinburgh) are many examples of ladies' arms, but not one in which the shield has any other form than that used at the time by men. In England, however, as early as the fourteenth century, the lozenge was sometimes used by ladies, though perhaps only by widows. Nisbet (System of Heraldry, ii. 35.) mentions a lozenge-formed seal of Johanna Beaufort, Queen Dowager of Scotland, attached to a parchment in 1439; while her arms, at an earlier period, were borne on a common shield (Gent. Mag., April, 1851). In France the use of the lozenge for ladies was very general; yet in the great work of Flacchio (Genealogie de la Maison de la Tour) are found several hundred examples of ladies' arms on oval {278} shields; and in Vredii Genealogia comitum Flandriae (p. 130.), on shields rounded off below. On the other hand, lozenges have sometimes been used by men: for instance, on a seal of Ferdinand, Infant of Spain, in Vredius, l. c. p. 148.; also on a dollar of Count Maurice of Hanau, in Kohler's Muentzbelustig. 14. See again the arms of the Count of Sickingen, in Siebmacher, Suppl. xi. 2. So much for the use of the lozenge. Most explanations of its origin appear equally far-fetched. That of Menestrier, in his Pratique des Armoires (p. 14.), seems to me the least forced. He derives the French name lozange from the Dutch lofzang:

1  2     Next Part
Home - Random Browse