NOTES AND QUERIES:

A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION FOR LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES, GENEALOGISTS, ETC.

"When found, make a note of."—Captain Cuttle.

CONTENTS.

Notes.

THE EYE: ITS PRIMARY IDEA.

I do not remember to have remarked that any writer notices how uniformly, in almost all languages, the same primary idea has been attached to the eye. This universal consent is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the connexion in question, though of course most appropriate and significant in itself, hardly seems to indicate the most prominent characteristic, or what we should deem to be par excellence the obvious qualities of the eye; in a word, we should scarcely expect a term derived from a physical attribute or property.

The eye is suggestive of life, of divinity, of intellect, piercing acuteness (acies); and again, of truth, of joy, of love: but these seem to have been disregarded, as being mere indistinctive accidents, and the primary idea which, by the common consent of almost all nations, has been thought most properly to symbolise this organ is a spring—fons, πηγή.

Thus, from

עִין

, manare, scatere, a word not in use, according to Fuerst, we have the Hebrew

עַיִן

, fons aquarum et lacrimarum, h. e. oculus. This word however, in its simple form, seems to have almost lost its primary signification, being used most generally in its secondary—oculus. (Old Testament Hebrew version, passim.) In the sense of fons, its derivative

מַעְיָן

is usually substituted.

Precisely the same connexion of ideas is to be found in the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the Arabic.

Again, in the Greek we find the rarely-used word ὀπή, a fountain, or more properly the eye, whence it wells out,—the same form as ὀπή, oculus; ὢψ, ὄψις, ὄπτομαι. Thus, in St. James his Epistle, cap. iii. 11.: μήτι ἡ πηγὴ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ὀπῆς βρύει τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν.

In the Welsh, likewise, a parallel case occurs: Llygad, an eye, signifies also the spring from which water flows, as in the same passage of St. James: a ydyw ffynnon o'r un llygad (from one spring or eye) yn rhoi dwfr melus a chwerw?

On arriving at the Teutonic or old German tongue, we find the same connexion still existing: Avg, auga,—oculus; whence ougen ostendere—Gothis augo; and awe, auge, ave, campus ad

amnem. (Vid. Schilteri, Thes., vol. iii. ad voc.) And here we cannot help noticing the similarity between these words and the Hebrew

יְאֹר

, which (as well as the Coptic iaro) means primarily a river or stream from a spring; but, according to Professor Lee, is allied to

אוֹר

, light, the enlightenment of the mind, the opening of the eyes; and he adds, "the application of the term to water, as running, translucid, &c., is easy." Here, then, is a similar connexion of ideas with a change in the metaphor.

In the dialects which descended from the Teutonic in the Saxon branch, the connexion between these two distinct objects is also singularly preserved. It is to be found in the Low German, the Friesic, and the Anglo-Saxon. In the latter we have eá, eah, eagor, a welling, flowing stream; eah, ægh, eage, an eye, which might be abundantly illustrated.

We could hardly fail to find in Shakspeare some allusion to these connected images in the old tongue; no speck of beauty could exist and escape his ken. Thus:

"In that respect, too, like a loving child,

Shed yet some small drops from thy tender spring,

Because kind Nature doth require it so."

Tit. And., Act V. Sc. 3.

"Back, foolish tears, back to your native spring;

Your tributary drops belong to woe,

Which you, mistaking, offer up for joy."

Rom. and Jul., Act III. Sc. 2.

Many of the phrases of the ancient tongues, in which the eye bears a part, have been handed down to us, and are still preserved in our own. My space, however, forbids me to do more than allude to them; but there is one very forcible expression in the Hebrew

עַיִן בְּעַיִן

, literally, eye in eye, which we render much less forcibly—face to face. The Welsh have preserved it exactly in their llygad yn llygad. Indeed, this is not the only instance in which they are proud of having handed down the Hebrew idiom in all its purity. Shakspeare twice uses the old phrase:

"Since then my office hath so far prevailed,

That face to face, and royal eye to eye,

You have congreeted."—Hen. V., Act V. Sc. 2.

And in Tro. and Cres., Act III. Sc. 3; but it appears now to be obsolete.

Before concluding, I cannot help noticing, in connexion with this subject, the Old English term "the apple of the eye." I am unable to trace it beyond the Anglo-Saxon. The Teutonic sehandes ougen, pupilla oculi, is totally distinct; seha being merely medius punctus oculi, whence sehan, videre. In the Semitic languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin, the origin of the term is the same, and gives no clue to the meaning of the Saxon term. Thus, in the Hebrew

אִישׁוֹן

, dim. of

אִישׁ

, homunculus, the small image of a person seen in the eye. In Arabic it is the man or daughter of the eye. In Greek we have κόρη, κοράσιον, κορασίδον; and in Latin, pupa, pupula, pupilla.

Has any light been thrown on the Anglo-Saxon term? Can it be that iris, not the pupil, is taken to represent an apple? The pupil itself would then be the eye of the apple of the eye.

H. C. K.

—— Rectory, Hereford.

GOSSIPING HISTORY—DE QUINCEY'S ACCOUNT OF HATFIELD.

In proof of the severity with which the laws against forgery were enforced, I have been referred to the case of Hatfield, hanged in 1803 for forging franks. It is given very fully in Mr. De Quincey's "Literary Recollections of Coleridge" in the first volume of the Boston edition of his Works.

The story has some romance in it, and excited great interest fifty years ago. Hatfield had lived by swindling; and, though he underwent an imprisonment for debt, had, upon the whole, a long career of success. The last scene of his depredations was the Lakes, where he married a barmaid, who was called "The Beauty of Buttermere." Shortly after the marriage he was arrested, tried, and executed. Mr. De Quincey afterwards lived in the neighbourhood, dined at the public-house kept by Mary's father, and was waited upon by her. He had the fullest opportunities of getting correct information: and his version of the story is so truthlike, that I should have accepted it without hesitation but for the hanging for forging a frank. As that offence never was capital, and was made a felony punishable with transportation for seven years by 42 Geo. III. c. 63., I was impelled to compare the statement founded on gossip with more formal accounts; and I send the result in illustration of the small reliance which is to be placed on tradition in such matters. The arrival of Hatfield in a carriage is graphically described. He called himself the Hon. Augustus Hope, brother of the Earl of Hopetoun. Some doubts were felt at first, but—

"To remove suspicion, he not only received letters addressed to him under this assumed name, but he continually franked letters by that name. Now, that being a capital offence, being not only a forgery, but (as a forgery on the Post-office) sure to be prosecuted, nobody presumed to question his pretensions any longer; and henceforward he went to all places with the consideration due to an earl's brother."—P. 196.

The marriage with Mary Robinson, and the way in which they passed the honeymoon, are described:

"They continued to move backwards and forwards, until at length, with the startling of a thunderclap to the affrighted mountaineers, the bubble burst; officers of justice appeared, the stranger was easily intercepted from flight, and, upon a capital charge, he was borne away to Carlisle. At the ensuing assizes he was tried for forgery on the prosecution of the Post-office, found guilty, left for execution, and executed accordingly."—P. 199.

"One common scaffold confounds the most flinty hearts and the tenderest. However, it was in some measure the heartless part of Hatfield's conduct which drew upon him his ruin; for the Cumberland jury, as I have been told, declared their unwillingness to hang him for having forged a frank; and both they, and those who refused to aid his escape when first apprehended, were reconciled to this harshness entirely by what they heard of his conduct to their injured young fellow-countrywoman."—P. 201.

Hatfield was not "easily intercepted from flight." Sir Frederick Vane granted a warrant to apprehend him on the charge of forcing franks. Hatfield ordered dinner at the Queen's Head, Keswick, to be ready at three; took a boat, and did not return. This was on October 6: he was married to Mary on the 2nd. In November he was apprehended near Brecknock, in Wales: so those who refused to aid his escape, if such there were, were not "reconciled to the hardship by what they heard of his conduct to their young fellow-countrywoman." The "startling of the thunderclap" was preceded by an ordinary proclamation, describing the offender, and offering a reward of 50l. for his apprehension. He was not "hurried away to Carlisle," but deliberately taken to London on December 12; examined at Bow Street, remanded three times, and finally committed; and sent to Carlisle, where he was tried on August 15, 1803.

Three indictments were preferred against him: the first for forging a bill of exchange for 20l., drawn by Alexander Augustus Hope on John Crump, payable to George Wood; the second for a similar bill for 30l.; and the third for counterfeiting Colonel Hope's handwriting to defraud the Post-office.

The Cumberland jury did not "declare their unwillingness to hang him for forging a frank," that not being a capital offence. I infer, also, that it was one for which he was not tried. He was convicted on the first indictment; the court rose immediately after the jury had given their verdict; and the prisoner was called up for judgment at eight the next morning. Trying a man under sentence of death for a transportable felony, is contrary to all practice. Hatfield was executed at Carlisle on September 3, 1803.

Mary's misfortunes induced the sympathising public to convert her into a minor heroine. She seems to have been a common-place person, with small claims to the title of "The Beauty of Buttermere." A cotemporary account says, "she is rather gap-toothed and somewhat pock-marked." And Mr. De Quincey, after noticing her good figure, says, "the expression of her countenance was often disagreeable."

"A lady, not very scrupulous in her embellishment of facts, used to tell an anecdote of her which I hope was exaggerated. Some friend of hers, as she affirmed, in company with a large party, visited Buttermere a day or two after that on which Hatfield suffered; and she protested that Mary threw on the table, with an emphatic gesture, the Carlisle paper containing an elaborate account of the execution."—P. 204.

Considering the treatment she had received, it is not unlikely that her love, if she ever had any for a fat man of forty-five, was turned into hatred; and it was not to be expected that her taste would keep down the manifestation of such feeling. When Hatfield was examined at Bow Street, Sir Richard Ford, the chief magistrate, ordered the clerk to read aloud a letter which he received from her. It was:

"Sir,—The man whom I had the misfortune to marry, and who has ruined me and my aged and unhappy parents, always told me that he was the Hon. Colonel Hope, the next brother to the Earl of Hopetoun.

"Your grateful and unfortunate servant,
"Mary Robinson."

I do not blame Mr. De Quincey, having no doubt that he believed what he was told; but I have put together these facts and discrepancies, to show how careful we should be in accepting traditions, when a man of very high ability, with the best opportunities of getting at the truth, was so egregiously misled.

My authorities are, The Annual Register, 1803, pp. 421. and 428.; The Gentleman's Magazine, 1803, pp. 779. 876. and 983.; Kirby's Wonderful Magazine, vol. i. pp. 309. and 336. The Newgate Calendar gives a similar account but not having it at hand, I cannot vouch it.

H. B. C.

U. U. Club.

NOTES UPON THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE EARLY INHABITANTS OF HELLAS.

I. I have never seen it yet noticed, that the names Pyrrha, Æolus, Xuthus, Ion, are all names of colours. Is there anything in this, or is it fortuitous?

II. In accordance with the above, I think we may refer most of the names of the early inhabitants of Greece to words denoting light or colour, or the like.

(1.) Pelas-gi. The first part of this word is, by Mr. Donaldson, connected with μέλ-ας, which is also, probably, the root of Mol-ossi.

(2.) Hellenes, connected with Helli, Selli, σέλας, εὕλη, ἥλιος. This derivation is made more probable

by the fact, that the neighbouring Pelasgic tribes have a similar meaning; e.g.,

Perrhæbi, alike to Pyrrha and πῦρ; Æthices, αἴθω, Tymphæi, τύφω; Hestiæi, ἑστία. Add to this, that the name Phthiotis seems indubitably to derive its name from Phthah, the Egyptian Hephæstus, and to be a translation of the word Hellas.

N.B.—The existence of an Egyptian colony in that part is attested by the existence of a Phthiotic Thebæ.

(3.) On the other hand, the word Achæus seems to be connected with ἄχος, ἀχνύμαι, and ἄχλυς in the sense of gloom (of οὐράνιον ἄχος). So the Homeric Cimmerians are derived from

כִּמְרִירִי

(Job), denoting darkness.

(4.) Lastly, I submit with great diffidence the following examination of the words Dorus and the Æolian Minyæ, which I shall attempt to derive from words denoting sun and moon respectively.

The word Dorus I assume to be connected with the first part of the names Dry-opes and Dol-opes. The metathesis in the first case seems sanctioned by the analogy of the Sanscrit drî and Greek δείρω, and the mutation of l and r in the second is too common in Greek and Latin to admit of any doubt, e.g. ἀρ-γαλέος and ἀλγαλέτος; Sol and Soracte. With this premised, I think we may be justified in connecting the following words with one another.

Dores, Dryopes with Σείριος (of Σιός and Δῖος) Θέρος, the Scythian sun-god Οἰτό-συρυς, the Egyptian O-siris, and perhaps the Hebrew

דוֹר

and Greek δηρὸς (the course of the sun being the emblem of eternity).—Dol-opes with Sol, εἵλη, Selli, &c.

On the other hand, the neighbouring Minyæ seem connected with μινύθω, μίνυνθα, minus,—all with the sense of decreasing or waning; hence referable, both in sense and (I fancy) in derivation, to Greek μὴν, and Latin men-sis.

J. H. J.

SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. IX.

"It lies as sightly on the back of him

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

"The ass was to wear the shoes, and not to bear them on his back, as Theobald supposed, and therefore would read shows. The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to by our old poets, as the ex pede Herculem was a familiar allusion of the learned." (Mr. Knight in 1839.)

Fourteen years' additional consideration has not altered Mr. Knight's view of this passage. In 1853 we find him putting forth a prospectus for a new edition of Shakspeare, to be called "The Stratford Edition," various portions from which he sets before the public by way of sample. Here we have over again the same note as above, a little diversified, and placed parallel to Theobald's edition in this way:

"It lies as sightly on the back of him

As great Alcides' shows upon an ass."

Now who, in reading these parallel notes, but would suppose that it is Mr. Knight who restores shoes to the text, and that it is Mr. Knight who points out the common allusion by our old poets to the shoes of Hercules? Who would imagine that the substance of this correction of Theobald was written by Steevens a couple of generations back, and that, consequently, Theobald's proposed alteration had never been adopted?

I should not think of pointing out this, but that Mr. Knight himself, in this same prospectus, has taken Mr. Collier to task for the very same thing; that is, for taking credit, in his Notes and Emendations, for all the folio MS. corrections, whether known or unknown, necessary or unnecessary.

Indeed, the very words of Mr. Knight's complaint against Mr. Collier are curiously applicable to himself:

"It requires the most fixed attention to the nice distinctions of such constantly-recurring 'notes and emendations,' to disembarrass the cursory reader from the notion that these are bonâ fide corrections of the common text....

"Who cares to know what errors are corrected in" (the forthcoming Stratford edition), "that exist in no other, and which have never been introduced into the modern text?"—Specimen, &c., p. xxiv.

The impression one would receive from Mr. Knight's note upon Theobald is, that Shakspeare had his notion of the shoes from "our old poets," while the learned had theirs from ex pede Herculem; but where the analogy lies, wherein the point, or what the application, is not explained. Steevens' original note was superior to this, in so much that he quoted the words of these old poets, thereby giving his readers an opportunity of considering the justness of the deduction. The only set-off to this omission by Mr. Knight is the introduction of "ex pede Herculem," the merit of which is doubtless his own.

But it so happens that the size of the foot of Hercules has no more to do with the real point of the allusion than the length of Prester John's; therefore ex pede Herculem is a most unfortunate illustration,—particularly awkward in a specimen sample, the excellence of which may be questioned.

It is singular enough, and it says a great deal for Theobald's common sense, that he saw what the true intention of the allusion must be, although he did not know how to reconcile it with the existing letter of the text. He wished to preserve the spirit by the sacrifice of the letter, while Mr. Knight preserves the letter but misinterprets the spirit.

Theobald's word "shows," in the sense of externals, is very nearly what Shakspeare meant by shoes, except that shoes implies a great deal more than shows,—it implies the assumption of the character as well as the externals of Hercules.

Out of five quotations from our old poets, given by Steevens in the first edition of his note, there is not one in which the shoes are not provided with feet. But Malone, to his immortal honour, was the first to furnish them with hoofs:

"Upon an ass; i.e. upon the hoofs of an ass."—Malone.

But Shakspeare nowhere alludes to feet! His ass most probably had feet, and so had Juvenal's verse (when he talks of his "satyrâ sumente cothurnum"); but neither Shakspeare nor Juvenal dreamed of any necessary connexion between the feet and the shoes.

Therein lies the difference between Shakspeare and "our old poets;" a difference that ought to be sufficient, of itself, to put down the common cry,—that Shakspeare borrowed his allusions from them. If so, how is it that his expositors, with these old poets before their eyes all this time, together with their own scholarship to boot, have so widely mistaken the true point of his allusion? It is precisely because they have confined their researches to these old poets, and have not followed Shakspeare to the fountain head.

There is a passage in Quintilian which, very probably, has been the common source of both Shakspeare's version, and that of the old poets; with this difference, that he understood the original and they did not.

Quintilian is cautioning against the introduction of solemn bombast in trifling affairs:

"To get up," says he, "this sort of pompous tragedy about mean matters, is as though you would dress up children with the mask and buskins of Hercules."

["Nam in parvis quidem litibus has tragœdias movere tale est quale si personam Herculis et cothurnos aptare infantibus velis.">[

Here the addition of the mask proves that the allusion is purely theatrical. The mask and buskins are put for the stage trappings, or properties, of the part of Hercules: of these, one of the items was the lion's skin; and hence the extreme aptitude of the allusion, as applied by the Bastard, in King John, to Austria, who was assuming the importance of Cœur de Lion!

It is interesting to observe how nearly Theobald's plain, homely sense, led him to the necessity of the context. The real points of the allusion can scarcely be expressed in better words than his own:

"Faulconbridge, in his resentment, would say this to Austria, 'That lion's skin which my great father, King Richard, once wore, looks as uncouthly on thy back, as that other noble hide, which was borne by Hercules, would look on the back of an ass!' A double allusion was intended: first, to the fable of the ass in the lion's skin; then Richard I. is finely set in competition with Alcides, as Austria is satirically coupled with the ass."

One step farther, and Theobald would have discovered the true solution: he only required to know that the shoes, by a figure of rhetoric called synecdoche, may stand for the whole character and attributes of Hercules, to have saved himself the trouble of conjecturing an ingenious, though infinitely worse word, as a substitute.

As for subsequent annotators, it must be from the mental preoccupation of this unlucky "ex pede Herculem," that they have so often put their foot in it. They have worked up Alcides' shoe into a sort of antithesis to Cinderella's; and, like Procrustes, they are resolved to stretch everything to fit.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

GÖTHE'S AUTHOR-REMUNERATION.

The Note in your valuable Journal (Vol. vii., p. 591.) requires, I think, so far as it relates to Göthe, several corrections which I am in the position of making. The amount which that great man is said to have received for his "works (aggregate)" is "30,000 crowns." The person who originally printed this statement must have been completely ignorant of Göthe's affairs, and even biography. Göthe had (unlike Byron) several publishers in his younger years. Subsequently he became closer connected with M. J. G. Cotta of Stuttgardt, who, in succession, published almost all Göthe's works. Amongst them were several editions of his complete works: for instance, that published conjointly at Vienna and Stuttgardt. Then came, in 1829, what was called the edition of the last hand (Ausgabe letzter Hand), as Göthe was then more than eighty years of age. During all the time these two editions were published, other detached new works of Göthe were also printed; as well as new editions of former books, &c. Who can now say that it was 20,000 crowns (thalers?) which the great poet received for each various performance?—No one. And this for many reasons. Göthe always remained with M. Cotta on terms of polite acquaintanceship, no more: there was no "My dear Murray" in their strictly business-like connexion. Göthe also never wrote on such things, even in his biography or diary. But some talk was going around in Germany, that for one of the editions of his complete works (there

appeared still many volumes of posthumous), he received the above sum. I can assert on good authority, that Göthe, foreseeing his increasing popularity even long after his death, stipulated with M. Cotta to pay his heirs a certain sum for every new edition of either his complete or single works. One of the recipients of these yet current accounts is Baron Wolfgang von Göthe, Attaché of the Prussian Legation at Rome.

A Foreign Surgeon.

Charlotte Street, Bloomsbury Square.

Minor Notes.

Parallel Passages.—

"The Father of the gods his glory shrouds,

Involved in tempests and a night of clouds."—Dryden's Virgil.

"Mars, hovering o'er his Troy, his terror shrouds

In gloomy tempests and a night of clouds."—Pope's Homer's Iliad, book xx. lines 69, 70.

Uneda.

Unpublished Epitaphs.—I copied the following two epitaphs from monuments in the churchyard of Llangerrig, Montgomeryshire, last autumn. They perhaps deserve printing from the slight resemblance they bear to that in Melrose Churchyard, quoted in Vol. vii., pp. 676, 677.:

"O earth, O earth! observe this well—

That earth to earth shall come to dwell:

Then earth in earth shall close remain

Till earth from earth shall rise again."

"From earth my body first arose;

But here to earth again it goes.

I never desire to have it more,

To plague me as it did before."

P. H. Fisher.

The Colour of Ink in Writings.—My attention was called to this subject some years ago by an attempt made in a judicial proceeding to prove that part of a paper produced was written at a different time than the rest, because part differed from the rest in the shade of the ink. The following conclusions have been the result of my observations upon the subject:

1. That if the ink of part of a writing is of a different shade, though of the same colour, from that of the other parts, we cannot infer from that circumstance alone that the writing was done at different times. Ink taken from the top of an inkstand will be lighter than that from the bottom, where the dregs are; the deeper the pen is dipped into the ink, the darker the writing will be.

2. Writing performed with a pen that has been used before, will be darker than that with a new pen; for the dry residuum of the old ink that is encrusted on the used pen will mix with the new ink, and make it darker. And for the same reason—

3. Writing with a pen previously used will be darker at first than it is after the old deposit, having been mixed up with the new ink, is used up.

M. E.

Philadelphia.

Literary Parallels.—Has it ever been noticed that the well-known epitaph, sometimes assigned to Robin of Doncaster, sometimes to Edward Courtenay, third Earl of Devon, and I believe to others besides: "What I gave, that I have," &c., has been anticipated by, if not imitated from, Martial, book v. epigr. 42., of which the last two lines are:

"Extra fortunam est, quicquid donatur amicis;

Quas dederis, solas semper habebis opes."

The English is so much more terse and sententious, besides involving a much higher moral signification, that it may well be an original itself; but in that case, the verbal coincidence is striking enough.

J. S. Warden.

Latin Verses prefixed to Parish Registers.—On a fly-leaf in one of the registers of the parish of Hawsted, Suffolk, is the following note in the handwriting of the Rev. Sir John Cullum, the rector and historian of the parish:

"Many old register books begin with some Latin lines, expressive of their design. The two following, in that of St. Saviour's at Norwich, are as good as any I have met with:

'Janua, Baptismus; medio stat Tæda jugalis

Utroque es felix, mors pia si sequitur.'"

Can any of your correspondents contribute other examples?

Buriensis.

Napoleon's Bees (Vol. vii., p. 535.).—No one, I believe, having addressed you farther on the subject of the Napoleon Bees, the models of which are stated to have been found in the tomb of Childeric when opened in 1653, "of the purest gold, their wings being inlaid with a red stone, like a cornelian," I beg to mention that the small ornaments resembling bees found in the tomb of Childeric, were only what in French are called fleurons (supposed to have been attached to the harness of his war-horse). Handfuls of them were found when the tomb was opened at Tournay, and sent to Louis XIV. They were deposited on a green ground at Versailles.

Napoleon wishing to have some regal emblem more ancient than the fleur-de-lys, adopted the fleurons as bees, and the green ground as the original Merovingian colour.

This fact was related to me as unquestionable by Augustin Thierry, the celebrated historian, when I was last in Paris.

Wm. Ewart.

University Club.

Queries.

WAS THOMAS LORD LYTTELTON THE AUTHOR OF JUNIUS'S LETTERS?

In the Quarterly Review for 1852 (vol. xc. No. 179.) appeared a clever and speciously written article on the long debated question of the identity of Junius, in which the writer labours at great length to prove that Thomas, second Lord Lyttelton, who died in 1779, was the real substance of the shadow of Junius, hitherto sought in vain. That this Lord Lyttelton was fully competent to the task, I do not doubt; and that there are many points in his character which may well be reconciled with the knowledge we possess of the imaginary Junius, I also admit—but this is all. The author of the review has wholly failed, in my opinion, to prove his case and the remark he makes on Mr. Britton's theory (as to Col. Barré) may equally well apply to his own, namely, that it affords "a [another] curious instance of the delusion to which ingenious men may resign themselves, when they have a favourite opinion to uphold!" The reviewer, indeed, admits that he has "traced the parallel from the scantiest materials;" and in another passage repeats, that but "few materials exist for a sketch of Thomas Lyttelton's life." Of these materials used by the reviewer, the principal portion has been derived from the two volumes of letters published in 1780 and 1782, attributed to Lord Lyttelton, but the authorship of which has since been claimed for William Coombe. The reviewer argues, that they are "substantially genuine;" but evidence, it is believed, exists to the contrary.[^[1]] According to Chalmers, these letters were "publicly disowned" by the executors of Lord Lyttelton; and this is confirmed by the notice in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1780, p. 138., shortly after the publication of the first volume. Putting aside, however, this moot-point (which, I trust, will be taken up by abler hands, as it bears greatly on the theory advanced by the author of the Review), I proceed to another and more conclusive line of argument. In the Preliminary Essay, prefixed to Woodfall's edition of Junius, 1812 (vol. i. p. *46.), the following statement is made in regard to that writer, the accuracy of which will scarcely be doubted:

"There is another point in the history of his life, during his appearance as a public writer, which must not be suffered to pass by without observation: and that is, that during a great part of this time, from January 1769 to January 1772, he uniformly resided in London, or its immediate vicinity, and that he never quitted his stated habitation for a longer period than a few weeks."

Now, do the known facts of Thomas Lyttelton's life correspond with this statement or not? The reviewer says, p. 115.:

"For a period of three years after Mr. Lyttelton lost his seat[^[2]]—that period during which Junius wrote his acknowledged compositions—we hardly find a trace of him in any of the contemporaneous letters or memoirs that have fallen under our observation."

But how is it, let me ask, that the author of the review has so studiously avoided all mention of one work, which would at once have furnished traces of Thomas Lyttelton at this very period? I allude to the volume of Poems by a Young Nobleman of distinguished Abilities, lately deceased, published by G. Kearsley: London, 1780, 4to. Does not this look much like the suppressio veri which follows close on the footsteps of the assertio falsi? It is hardly credible that the reviewer should not be acquainted with this book, for he refers to the lines spoken in 1765, at Stowe, in the character of Queen Mab, which form part of its contents; and the existence of the work is expressly pointed out by Chalmers, and noticed by Lowndes, Watt, and other bibliographers. Among the poems here published, are some which ought to have received a prominent notice from the author of the review, if he had fairly stated the case. These are:

1. Lines "to G——e Ed——d Ays——gh, Esq., [George Edward Ayscough, cousin to Thomas Lyttelton] from Venice, the 20th July, 1770."—P. 22.

2. "An Irregular Ode, wrote at Vicenza, in Italy, the 20th of August, 1770."—P. 29.

3. "On Mr. ——, at Venice, in J——, 1770."

4. "An Invitation to Mrs. A——a D——, wrote at Ghent in Flanders, the 23rd of March, 1769."—P. 41.

5. "An Extempore, by Lord Lyttelton, in Italy, anno 1770."—P. 48.

Admitting that these poems are genuine, it is evident that their author, Thomas Lyttelton, was abroad in Flanders and Italy during the years 1769 and 1770; and consequently could not have been the mysterious Junius, who in those years (particularly in 1769) was writing constantly in or near London to Woodfall and the Public Advertiser. Of what value then is the assertion so confidently made by the reviewer (p. 133.):

"The position of Thomas Lyttelton in the five years from 1767 to 1772, is exactly such a one as it is reasonable to suppose that Junius held during the period of his writings;"

or how can it be made to agree with the fact of his residence on the Continent during the greater part of the time?

The reviewer, indeed, tells us that "just as Junius concluded his great work, Thomas Lyttelton returned to his father's house, and Chatham was one of the first to congratulate Lord Lyttelton on the event." This was in February 1772; and in the Chatham Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 195., is Lord Lyttelton's letter of thanks in reply. The reviewer would evidently have it inferred, that Thomas Lyttelton had returned home like a prodigal son, after a temporary estrangement, and from a comparatively short distance; but surely, had the volume of Poems been referred to, it might or rather must have occurred to a candid inquirer, that in February 1772 Thomas Lyttelton returned from his travels on the Continent, after an absence of nearly three years! But, perhaps, the authenticity of the Poems may at once be boldly denied? Is this the case? Chalmers certainly includes them with the Letters, as having been "disowned" by Lord L.'s executors; but says, "as to the Poems, they added, 'great part whereof are undoubtedly spurious.'" It is certain, therefore, that some of the Poems are genuine; and it is a pity that the exceptions were not specified, as the discussion might then have been confined within narrower limits. The editor of the Poems, in his address "To the Reader," writes thus in vindication of them:

"There is scarcely a line in the collection which does not bear testimony of its origin; the places and dates are also strong corroborations to such of his friends as he corresponded with on his last journey across the Alps. His style was elegant, and his ideas so animated, that spurious productions would be immediately detected."

This is the testimony of one who "had the honour of his friendship, which terminated only with his death," and is not to be lightly rejected.[^[3]] My own conviction is in favour of the authenticity of the whole; but, at all events, I shall be able to offer undoubted evidence as to the genuineness of part of the volume, and additional proof that the author was abroad at the precise time when, if he were Junius, he must have resided in this country. By Thomas Lord Lyttelton's will (dated Oct. 30, 1777), he appointed as his executors his brother-in-law Arthur Viscount Valentia, his uncle William Henry Lord Westcote, and Wilson Aylesbury Roberts of Bewdley. To the latter he left all his "letters, verses, speeches, and writings," with directions that, if published, it should be for his sole emolument. The important Query therefore at once arises, what became of these manuscripts, and were they destroyed or preserved?

The above Mr. Roberts was an intimate personal friend; and from his local influence as bailiff and deputy-recorder of Bewdley, had no doubt contributed towards Thomas Lyttelton's return for that borough in 1768. His son continued to keep up a close connexion with the Valentia family at Arley Hall[^[4]]; and this fact, coupled with the close proximity of Bewdley, Arley, and Hagley, and the circumstance of the co-executorship of Lord Valentia and Mr. Roberts, would make us naturally look to the library at Arley as a not unlikely place of deposit for Thomas Lyttelton's papers. This is not mere conjecture, and brings me immediately to the point at issue: for, at the sale of the Valentia Library at Arley Castle, in December last, a manuscript volume made its appearance in a lot with others thus designated:

"Original Diary of Travels [of Lord Valentia] 4 vols.; Five Memorandum Books of Journeys and Travels; also Two Old Folio Volumes of Original Poetic Pieces."

One of the folio volumes thus catalogued subsequently came into my hands, and is evidently one of the manuscripts left by Thomas Lord Lyttelton's will to the care of Mr. Roberts, since it consists wholly of pieces in verse and prose of his composition, written either in his own hand, as rough draughts, or copied (apparently by a female scribe) and afterwards corrected by himself. Among the poetry in this MS. I find the greater part of the long poem printed in the edition of 1780, p. 1., entitled "The State of England in the year 2199," which is without date in the MS., but in the edition bears date March 21, 1771; as likewise the "Invitation to Miss Warbrt[o]n," edit. p. 35., which appears in the MS. without any name; and the "Extempore Rhapsody, March 21, 1771," edit. p. 37., also undated in the MS., but which supplies the name of "Yates," expressed in the edition by asterisks; and also six lines at the end, which were omitted in the edition on account of their indecency. There are several variations in the manuscript, which prove that some other copy was followed by the printer; and many typographical errors in the edition may hence be corrected. Besides these poems, the following pieces constitute the chief contents of this manuscript volume:

Draughts of four letters written by Thomas Lyttelton from Lyons, the first of which is dated September 10, 1769.

Heads of a series of Dialogues, in imitation of "Dialogues of the Dead," by his father George, first Lord Lyttelton.

Poetical Fragments, imitated from Lucretius.

Two letters addressed by Thomas Lyttelton to his father; and a third to "Dear George," probably his cousin George Edward Ayscough.

Some Latin lines, not remarkable for their delicacy.

Political letter, written from Milan, by Thomas Lyttelton; in which indignant notice is taken of the commital of Brass Crossby, Lord Mayor, which took place in March, 1771.

Fragment of a poem on Superstition, and various other unfinished poetical scraps.

Private memoranda of expenses.

A page of writing in a fictitious or short-hand character, of which I can make nothing.

Remarks, in prose, on the polypus, priestcraft, &c.

Poem in French, of an amatory character.

Portion of a remarkable political letter, containing some bitter remarks by Thomas Lyttelton on the "first minister." He ends thus: "The play now draws to a conclusion. I am guilty of a breach of trust in telling him so, but I shall [not] suffer by my indiscretion, for it is an absolute impossibility any man should divine who is the author of the letter signed Aruspex."

It would appear from the water-mark in the paper of which this MS. is composed, that it was procured in Italy; and there can be little or no doubt it was used by Thomas Lyttelton as a draught-book, during his travels there in 1769-1771; during which period, nearly the whole of the contents seem to have been written. The evidence afforded therefore by this volume, comes peculiarly in support of the dates and other circumstances put forth in the printed volume of Poems; and leads us inevitably to the conclusion, that it was utterly impossible for Thomas Lyttelton to have had any share in the Letters of Junius. He has enough to answer for on the score of his early profligacy and scepticism, without being dragged from the grave to be arraigned for the crime of deceit. His heart need not, according to the reviewer, be "stripped bare" by the scalpel of any literary anatomist; but he may be left to that quiet and oblivion which a sepulchre in general bestows. Before I conclude these remarks (which I fear are too diffuse), I will venture to add a few words in regard to the signature of Thomas Lord Lyttelton. In the Chatham Correspondence, a letter from him to Earl Temple is printed, vol. iv. p. 348., the signature to which is printed Lyttleton, and the editors point out in a note the "alteration adopted" in the spelling of the name; but it is altogether an error, for the fac-simile of this signature in vol. iv. p. 29., as well as his will in the Prerogative Court, prove that he wrote his name Lyttelton, in the same manner as his father and uncle. As to the resemblance pointed out by the author of the Review between the handwriting of Thomas Lyttelton and that of Junius, it exists only in imagination, since there is really no similitude whatever between them.

Some Queries are now annexed, in reference to what has been above discussed:

1. In what publication or in what form did the executors of Thomas Lord Lyttelton disown the Letters and Poems?

2. Is it known who was the editor of the Poems published in 1780?

3. Can the present representative of the family of Roberts give any farther information respecting Thomas Lord Lyttelton's manuscripts?

4. Lastly, Is any letter known to exist in the public journals of the years 1770, 1771, under the signature of Aruspex?

F. Madden.

British Museum.

Footnote 1:[(return)]

I have been unable to refer to these letters, as no copy exists in the British Museum library.

As M.P. for Bewdley. He was returned in 1768, and unseated in January, 1769.

In the Public Advertiser for January 1, 1779 [1780], appeared a notice of the Poems, said to have been "published yesterday;" and although two pieces are extracted at length, not a syllable of doubt is expressed as to their genuineness.

The estate at Arley was left to the Hon. George Annesley (afterwards Earl of Mountnorris), son of Lord Valentia, by the will of Thomas Lord Lyttelton, and Mr. Roberts was one of the trustees appointed.

Minor Queries.

Lord Chatham.—I would suggest as a Query, whether Lord Chatham's famous comparison of the Fox and Newcastle ministry to the confluence of the Rhone and Saone at Lyons (Speech, Nov. 13, 1755), was not adapted from a passage in Lord Roscommon's Essay on translated Verse. Possibly Lord Chatham may have merely quoted the lines of Roscommon, and reporters may have converted his quotation into prose. Lord Chatham (then of course Mr. Pitt) is represented to have said:

"I remember at Lyons to have been carried to the conflux of the Rhone and the Soane: the one a gentle, feeble, languid stream, and, though languid, of no depth; the other, a boisterous and impetuous torrent."

Lord Roscommon says:

"Thus have I seen a rapid headlong tide,

With foaming waves the passive Saone divide,

Whose lazy waters without motion lay,

While he, with eager force, urg'd his impetuous way."

W. Ewart.

University Club.

Slow-worm Superstition.—Could any of your correspondents kindly inform me whether there is any foundation for the superstition, that if a slow-worm be divided into two or more parts, those parts will continue to live till sunset (life I suppose to mean that tremulous motion which the divided parts, for some time after the cruel operation, continue to have), and whether it exists in any other country or county besides Sussex, in which county I first heard of it?

Tower.

Tangiers (Vol. vii., p. 12.).—I have not seen any opinion as to these Queries.

A. C.

Snail Gardens.—What are the continental enclosures called snail gardens?

C. M. T.

Oare.

Naples and the Campagna Felice.—Who was the author of letters bearing this title, which

originally appeared in Ackermann's Repository, and were published in a collected form in 1815?

In a catalogue of Jno. Miller's (April, 1853), I see them attributed to Combe.

Q.

Philadelphia.

"The Land of Green Ginger"—the name of a street in Hull. Can any of your correspondents inform me why so called?

R. H. B.

Mugger.—Why are the gipsies in the North of England called Muggers? Is it because they sell mugs, and other articles of crockery, that in fact being their general vocation? or may not the word be a corruption of Maghrabee, which is, I think, a foreign name given to this wandering race?

H. T. Riley.

Snail-eating.—Can any of your correspondents inform me in what part of Surrey a breed of large white snails is still to be found, the first of which were brought to this country from Italy, by a member, I think, of the Arundel family, to gratify the palate of his wife, an Italian lady? I have searched Britton and Brayley's History in vain.

H. T. Riley.

Mysterious Personage.—Who is the mysterious personage, what is his real or assumed lineage, who has, not unfrequently, been alluded to in recent newspaper articles as a legitimate Roman Catholic claimant of the English throne? Of course I do not allude to those pseudo-Stuarts, the brothers Hay Allan.

W. Pinkerton.

George Wood of Chester.—Of what family was George Wood, Esq., Justice of Chester in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1558?

Cestriensis.

A Scale of Vowel Sounds.—Can any correspondent tell me if such scale has anywhere been agreed on for scientific purposes? Researches into the philosophy of philology are rendered excessively complex by the want of such a scale, every different inquirer adopting a peculiar notation, which is a study in itself, and which, after all, is unsatisfactory. I should feel obliged by any reference to what has been done in this matter.

E. C.

Seven Oaks and Nine Elms.—Can any reader of "N. & Q." inform me whether there is any old custom or superstition connected with Seven Oaks and Nine Elms, even to be traced as far back as the time of the Druids?

In some old grounds in Warwickshire there is a circle of nine old elm-trees; and, besides the well-known Nine Elms at Vauxhall, and Seven Oaks in Kent, there are several other places of the same names in England.

J. S. A.

Old Broad Street.

Murder of Monaldeschi.—I will thank any of your correspondents who can give me an account of the murder of Monaldeschi, equerry to Christina, Queen of Sweden.

In the 2nd volume of Miss Pardoe's Louis XIV. (p. 177.), Christina is stated to have visited the Court of France, and housed at Fontainebleau, where she had not long been an inmate ere the tragedy of Monaldeschi took place and in a letter to Mazarin she says, "Those who acquainted you with the details regarding Monaldeschi were very ill-informed."

T. C. T.

Governor Dameram.—I should be glad of any particulars respecting the above, who was Governor of Canada (I think) about the commencement of the present century. He had previously been the head of the commissariat department in the continental expeditions.

Tee Bee.

Ancient Arms of the See of York.—Can any correspondent enlighten me as to the period, and why, the present arms were substituted for the ancient bearings of York? The modern coat is, Gu. two keys in saltire arg., in chief an imperial crown proper. The ancient coat was blazoned, Az. an episcopal staff in pale or, and ensigned with a cross patée arg., surmounted by a pall of the last, edged and fringed of the second, charged with six crosses formée fitchée sa., and differed only from that of Canterbury in the number of crosses formée fitchée with which the pall was charged.

Tee Bee.

Hupfeld.—Can any correspondent of "N. & Q." tell me where I can see Hupfeld, Von der Natur und den Arten der Sprachlaute, which is quoted by several German authors? It appeared in Jahn's Jahrb. der Philol. und Päd., 1829. If no correspondent can refer me to any place where the paper can be seen in London, perhaps they can direct me to some account of its substance in some English publication.

E. C.

Inscription on a Tomb in Finland.—Can any reader of "N. & Q." explain the meaning of the following inscription?

"IETATIS IN SUBDITOS
MARTYRI
.’IET:S CONIUGALIS
:: :::IV."

It appears on an old monument of considerable size in a Finnish burial-ground at Martishkin near Peterhoff on the Gulf of Finland. The letters are in brass on a stone slab. The dots before the IV., and in the other word, are holes in the stone wherein the missing characters had been fixed.

J. S. A.

Old Broad Street.

Sir Isaac Newton and Voltaire on Railway Travelling.—Having been forcibly impressed by a

paragraph in a popular periodical (The Leisure Hour, No. 72.), I am desirous of learning upon what authority the statements therein depend. As, perhaps, it may also prove interesting to some of the readers of "N. & Q." who may not already have seen it, and in the hope that some of your contributors may be able to throw a light upon so curious a subject, I herewith transcribe it:

"Sir Isaac Newton and Voltaire on Railway Travelling.—Sir Isaac Newton wrote a work upon the prophet Daniel, and another upon the book of Revelation, in one of which he said that in order to fulfil certain prophecies before a certain date was terminated, namely, 1260 years, there would be a mode of travelling of which the men of his time had no conception; nay, that the knowledge of mankind would be so increased, that they would be able to travel at the rate of fifty miles an hour. Voltaire, who did not believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, got hold of this, and said 'Now look at that mighty mind of Newton, who discovered gravity, and told us such marvels for us all to admire. When he became an old man, and got into his dotage, he began to study that book called the Bible; and it seems, that in order to credit its fabulous nonsense, we must believe that the knowledge of mankind will be so increased that we shall be able to travel at the rate of fifty miles an hour. The poor dotard!' exclaimed the philosophic infidel Voltaire, in the self-complacency of his pity. But who is the dotard now?—Rev. J. Craig."

The Query I would more particularly ask is (presuming the accuracy of the assertions), What is the prophecy so wonderfully fulfilled?

R. W.

Tom Thumb's House at Gonerby, Lincolnshire.—On the south-west side of the tower of the church of Great Gonerby, Lincolnshire, is a curious cornice representing a house with a door in the centre, an oriel window, &c., which is popularly called "Tom Thumb's Castle." I have a small engraving of it ("W. T. del. 1820, R. R. sculpt."): and a pencil states that on the same tower are other "curious carvings."

I would ask, therefore, Why carved? From what event or occasion? For whom? Why called "Tom Thumb's House?" And what are the other curious carvings?

G. Creed.

Mr. Payne Collier's Monovolume Shakspeare.—I should be extremely obliged to Mr. Collier, if he would kindly give me a public reply to the following question.

The express terms of the publication of his monovolune edition of Shakspeare, as advertised, were—

"The text regulated by the old copies, and by the recently discovered folio of 1632."

These terms manifestly exclude corrections from any other source than those of collation of the old copies, and the MS. corrections of the folio of 1632.

Now the text of Mr. Collier's monovolume reprint contains many of the emendations of the commentators not referred to in Notes and Emendations. For example: in The Taming of the Shrew, where Biondello runs in to announce the coming down the hill of the "ancient angel" (changed by the corrector into ambler), two other alterations in the same sentence appear without explanation in the regulated text, namely, mercatante substituted by Steevens for "marcantant" of the folios; and surely in lieu of "surly," which latter is the word of the folio of 1632.

I now ask Mr. Collier, on what authority were these emendations adopted?

C. Mansfield Ingleby.

Birmingham.

Replies.

WILD PLANTS AND THEIR NAMES.

(Vol. vii., pp. 175. 233.)

Perhaps the following may prove of some use to Enivri, in reply to his Query respecting the names of certain wild flowers.

1. Shepherd's Purse (Bursa pastoris). "Sic dict. a folliculis seminum, qui crumenulam referre videntur." Also called Poor Man's Parmacitty, "Quia ad contusos et casu afflictos instar spermatis ceti utile est." Also St. James's Wort, "Quia circa ejus festum florescit," July 28th. Also called Pick-purse.

2. Eye-bright, according to Skinner (Euphrasia), Teut. Augentrost; "Oculorum solamen, quia visum eximiè acuit." Fluellin (Veronica femina), "Forte a Leolino aliquo Cambro-Brit. ejus inventore."

3. Pass Wort, or Palsy Wort (Primula veris). "Herba paralyseos."

4. Guelder Rose (Sambucus rosea). "Quia ex Gueldriâ huc translata est." Gueldria is, or rather was, a colony, founded by the Hollanders, on the coast of Coromandel.

5. Ladies' Tresses, a corruption of traces. A kind of orchis, and used, with its various appellations, "sensu obsc."

6. The Kentish term Gazel is not improbably the same as Gale, which, Skinner says, is from the A.-S. Gagel (Myrtus brabantica).

7. Stitch Wort (Gramen leucanthemum, alias Holostium pumilum). "Sic dict. quia ad dolores laterum punctorios multum prodesse creditur."

8. The term Knappert, for Bitter Vetch, is probably a corruption of Knap Wort, the first syllable of which, as in Knap Weed and Knap Bottle, is derived from the sound or snap emitted by it when struck in the hollow of the hand.

9. Charlock (Rapum sylvestre); Anglo-Saxon Cerlice.

10. London Pride or Tufts (Armeria prolifera). "Sic dict. quia flores propter pulchritudinem Londini valdè expetuntur." (?)

11. Avens; also Herb Bennet (Caryophyllata). Skinner says, "Herba Benedicta ab insigni radicis vulnerariâ vi." (?)

12. Mill Mountain, or Purge Flax (Linum sylvestre catharticum, or Chamælinum). "Montibus gaudet."

13. Jack of the Buttery. "Sedi species sic dict. quia in tecto galacterii crescit." Pricket: "a sapore acri."

14. Cudweed or Cotton Weed; Live-long. "Quia planta perennis est."

15. Sun Spurge. "Quia flores ad ortum solis se aperiunt." Churn Staff, from its similarity.

16. Welcome to our House (Tithymalus Cyparissias). "Ob pulchritudinem suam omnibus expetitus."

17. Ruddes (Fl. Calendulæ). "A colore aureo." Wild or Corn Marigold. "Q. d. aurum Mariæ, a colore sc. floris luteo." Gouls or Goulans, with a half-suppressed d, may very well be supposed to indicate its natural name—Gold. Another name of this plant is Lockron, or Locker Goulans.

18. Spurry (Spergula). "Sic dict. quia folia ejus octo, angusta, stelliformia, radios calcaris satis exactè referunt."

19. Mercury Goose-foot. Probably a goose-foot resembling Mercury (Mercurialis), a herb concerning which Skinner doubts, but suggests, "Quia Mercurio, ut ceteræ omnes plantæ planetis, appropriata sit." Another name is Good Henry,—I find not Good King Henry—(Lapathum unctuosum), "A commodo ejus usu in enematis." It is also called All-good, forasmuch as it is useful, not only for its medicinal qualities, but also in supplying the table with a substitute for other vegetables, such as asparagus.

A plant termed in this country Gang Flower is the same as Rogation Flower, recalling the perambulation of parishes on one of those days. There is a vast fund of interesting matter in these old names of wild flowers (mixed up, of course, with much that is trifling); and I cordially agree with your correspondent, that it is well worth a steady effort to rescue the fast-fading traditions relating to them. It must be confessed, however, that the obstacles in the way of tracing the original meaning and supposed virtues, will in many instances be found very great, arising principally from the fanciful translations and corruptions which our ancestors made of the old names. Take, for instance, the following:

Loose Strife or Herb Willow, from Lysimachia, the original being undoubtedly a man's name, Lysimachus.

Ale-hoof (Hedera terrestris). Anglo-Saxon Al behófian. "Herba πάγχρηστος, ad multos usus efficacissima."