Minor Notes.
Note on the Duration of Reigns.
—As Mr. Clinton and others have endeavoured to invalidate Newton's conclusions with respect to the length of reigns, by examples from modern history, I have made a Note on that subject which may be of use. Taking in the times which may be supposed most to resemble those to which the question refers, we find in England, from Alfred to the Conquest, 13 kings in 166 years:
From 1066 to 1272 8 kings 206 yrs.
From 1272 to 1837 27 [kings] 565 [yrs.] An average on the whole of 19-1/2 years.
If we add the time from Egbert, 5 kings, 73 yrs., the average becomes 19 yrs.
The average from 1272 is only 21.
In France 559 to 814 18 kings 255 yrs.
[In France] 814 [to] 1830 47 [kings] 1016 [yrs.] Average 19-1/2.
Average from 814 only 21-1/2.
In Germany 840 to 1835 50 emper. 995 yrs. Average not 20.
Turks 1299 to 1808, 30 sover. 509 yrs. Average 17.
Scotland 1057 to 1567, 20 kings 510 yrs. Average 25-1/2
Spain 1479 to 1833, 14 kings 354 yrs. Average 25.
Portugal 1102 to 1826, 27 kings 724 yrs. Average not 21.
Denmark 1157 to 1839, 28 kings 672 yrs. Average 25.
Russia 1722 to 1825, 9 sover. 103 yrs. Average 11-1/2 yrs.
Total: 294 sovereigns, 6085 years; being an average of about 20-2/3, although including the latest times. It is evidently unfair to take recent times only, as Hales, Clinton, &c. do.
ALTRON.
Cock and Bull Story.
—One of your correspondents, in a late reply (Vol. iv., p. 243.), alludes to "a marvellous or cock and bull story." Query, as to the origin of this saying. From an early number of the Phonetic Journal made the following Note.
Dr. Burgess, a Methodist preacher, who often indulged in pointed remarks, perceiving some young men attending his preaching, whose behaviour plainly showed that amusement was their only object, turned his discourse, and addressed himself particularly to them as follows:—
"Young men, I know you are come to hear a story, and I will tell you one. There was once a man, a cock, and a bull, who, being intimate, agreed to travel together. They had not gone far on their journey when they found themselves on the brink of a river, which they had determined to cross, but could discover neither bridge nor ferry. After a consultation it was agreed the cock should first make the attempt of crossing the water, which he did without much difficulty; the bull afterwards plunged into the stream, and by mere strength waded through. The man, not being able to swim, was afraid to follow his companions; and while they were encouraging him from the other side to get over, he was observed to cut some osiers which grew by the water-side. Perhaps you imagine these were intended to form a vehicle for conveying him across the river? No such thing, I assure you. What other purpose could he design them for? I will tell you, young men; it was to lash the backs of those fools who chose to hear a story of a cock and a bull, rather than the word of God."
PHILIP S. KING.
"Multa renascentur," &c.
—To show how stories are made standing dishes with what we may call current sauce (no pun intended), take the following:—If we believe anything to have happened in our own day, that is, in Liverpool or Castlereagh time, it is the anecdote of the borough-monger who would answer nothing to the excuses of the minister, except "There are five of us." This story was told as an old one in the Telegraph in 1798; and a long dialogue was given between Lord Falmouth, who wanted the Captaincy of the Yeomen of the Guard, and Henry Pelham, who had promised it elsewhere. To all the poor minister could say, the peer could only answer, "There are seven of us." I hope that, in an age when coincidences are sought for, Wordsworth will not be suspected of plagiarism.
Again, what reader of gossip does not know that when George III. went to Weymouth, the Mayor, in making his address, mistook the private directions of his prompter for parts of his address, and gave it the King as follows:—"Hold up your head, and look like a man—what the —— do you mean?... By ——, Sir, you'll ruin us all." This story was told in a newspaper in 1797, as having happened between James II. and the Mayor of Winchester.
In the Monthly Magazine in 1798, is a paper on peculiarities of expression, among which are several which we flatter ourselves belong to our own time. For instance, "to cut a person," which was then current: some tried to change it into spear, but failed. Also, to vote, as in "he voted it a bad lounge;" and the words bore, done up, dished, &c.; not forgetting spilt for "upset" in a carriage.
The parliamentary phrases of "catching the speaker's eye," "being upon his legs," "meeting the ideas of the house," "committing himself," "taking shame to himself," "being free to confess," "putting a question roundly," "answering it fairly," "pushing an investigation," are all noted as then worthy of remark. And, if we are to trust the article cited, the word truism was born and bred in the House of Commons, in the sense of a forcible and undeniable truth. And the same origin is given to the idiom "in my own mind" as in "I feel no doubt, in my own mind,..."
M.
Corruptions recognised as acknowledged Words.
—I recollect two curious historical instances of mere vulgar mis-pronunciation, which have established themselves in use; perhaps others of your readers may mention more, which it would be interesting to trace to their origin.
Massaniello is universally recognised as the name of the celebrated Neapolitan insurrectionist, who at one time nearly overturned the government of that kingdom. How few who use the word are aware that "Mas-Aniello" is but a corruption of Thomas Aniello, so pronounced by his vulgar companions, and now raised to the dignity of an historical name.
Hougoumont is a conspicuous feature of the great field of Waterloo, and a name familiarly used in speaking of the famous battle; in course of time it will be forgotten that this is a mere mistake, said to have originated with the great general who achieved the victory, catching up from the peasantry around, the sound of Chateau Goumont, the real name of the little rural demesne in question. Nobody doubts, however, the right of the "Great Duke" to call a place he has made so famous by any name he might please to apply, and so Hougoumont it will remain while history lasts.
A. B. R.