Perhaps you will allow a few words more in illustration of B. B.'s Query (Vol. v., p. 498.). A recent correspondent, writing of some modern experiments on the venom of toads, suggests the propriety of contributing to a list of "vulgar errors" which have proved to be "vulgar truths." It would not much surprise me to learn that, after all, the popular belief in the efficacy of the rough music of the key and warming-pan might be added to his list. At all events the reason stated by B. B. to prove its uselessness, viz. that bees have no sense of hearing, must, I think, be abandoned, as a Query of Mr. Sydney Smirke (Vol. vii., p. 499.), and an answer (Vol. vii., p. 633.), will show. That all insects are possessed of hearing, naturalists seem now as well convinced of as that they have eyes; though some naturalists formerly considered they were not, as Linnæus and Bonnet; while Huber (his interesting observations on bees notwithstanding) seems to have been quite undecided on the point. Bees, as well as all other insects, hear through the medium of their antennæ, which in a subordinate degree are used as feelers; observing which, perhaps, Huber and others were indisposed to ascribe to them the sense in question.
In reference to Mr. Sydney Smirke's Query, so far from other naturalists confirming Huber's observations as to the effect produced by the sound emitted by the Sphynx atropos on the bees, besides Dr. Bevan (quoted Vol. vii., p. 633.), the intelligent entomologist, Mr. Duncan, author of the entomological portion of The Naturalist's Library (vol. xxxiv. pp. 53-55.), completely disproves them. He tells us that he has closely watched bees, and has seen the queen attack the larva cells; but the sentinels, notwithstanding the reiteration of the queenly sound, so far from remaining motionless, held their sovereign in check, and stubbornly persisted in the defence of their charge against the attacks of their queen and mother. Besides this disproval of the incapacitation of bees by the emission of a sound, another from the experiments of Huber himself may be mentioned. He introduced a Sphynx atropos into a hive in the daytime, and it was immediately attacked and killed by the workers. Query, Might not the explanation of the robbery of hives by this moth be, that the darkness of night incapacitates the bees, while it is the time nature has provided for the wanderings of the Sphynx?
Tee Bee.
MILTON'S WIDOW.
(Vol. vii., p. 596.; Vol. viii., pp. 12. 134.)
A contribution of mine to the miscellaneous vol. of the Chetham Society's publications having been introduced to your readers by the handsome notice of Mr. Hughes, I feel bound to notice the objection raised by your correspondent Garlichithe (Vol. viii., p. 134.), who has confounded Randle the grandfather and Randle the son of the writer of these letters quoted by Mr. Hunter. Richard Minshull, who was the writer of these letters in 1656, and died in the following year, had several sons, of whom the eldest, Randle, correctly described by Mr. Hughes as the great-great-grandson of the Minshull who first settled at Wistaston, had seven children, of whom Elizabeth, the widow of Milton, was one. She was baptized at Wistaston on the 30th Dec. 1638. In 1680 (about six years after her husband's death), by means of a family arrangement with Richard Minshull of Wistaston, frame-work knitter, who, there can be little doubt, was her brother, evidenced by a bond in my possession, she acquired a leasehold interest in a farm at Brindley, near Nantwich. On the 20th July, 1720, by her name and description of Elizabeth Milton, of Nantwich, widow, she administered to the effects of her brother, John Minshull, in the Consistory Court of Chester; and her will, the probate of which is also in my possession, is dated 22nd August, and proved 10th October, 1727. Mr. Hughes having given a reference to the volume where this information will be found in detail, a reference to it might have saved Garlichithe the trouble of starting an objection, and shown him that, so far from the facts stated being irreconcilable with Mr. Hunter's tract, that gentleman's reference to Randle Holme's Correspondence was suggested by a communication of my own to The Athenæum, and in its turn furnished me with the clue from which I eventually ascertained the particulars of Mrs. Milton's birth and parentage. I am sorry to say that I have wholly failed in finding the register of her marriage: it is not in the register-book of her native place. It might be worth while to search the register of the parishes in which Milton's residence in Jewin Street, and Dr. Paget's in Coleman Street, are situate. There is no uncertainty as to the date, which Aubrey tells us was in "the yeare before the sicknesse."
Though Cranmore (Vol. v., p. 327.) is said to be a deserter from the ranks of "N. & Q.," I hope he is known to some of your readers, and that they will convey to him a hint that he is under something like a promise to furnish information, which, as regards Dr. Paget's connexion with the poet's widow, will still be welcome.
J. F. Marsh.
Despite his acknowledged infidelity, I must tender my thanks to Garlichithe for his obliging reference to Mr. Hunter's tract; albeit there is, I may be permitted to suggest, no position assumed in any note upon Milton's widow which that tract in any way contravenes or sets aside. The fact is, Garlichithe, in the outset, entirely misapprehends the nature of my argument; and so leads himself, by a sort of literary "Will-o-the-wisp," unconsciously astray.