Chapter I: Front Matter

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

* * * * *

{261}

NOTES AND QUERIES:

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

CONTENTS.

Page

Our Shakspearian Correspondence 261

NOTES:--

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

QUERIES:--

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

REPLIES:--

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

MISCELLANEOUS:--

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

* * * * *

OUR SHAKSPEARIAN CORRESPONDENCE.

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.

ICON.

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.]

* * * * *

Notes.

MR. PEPYS AND EAST LONDON TOPOGRAPHY, ETC.

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.

Poplar.

* * * * *

PICTS' HOUSES IN ABERDEENSHIRE.

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.

ABREDONENSIS.

* * * * *

FOLK LORE.

_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."

FRANCIS ROBERT DAVIES.

_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."

T. HUGHES.

Chester.

* * * * *

HERALDIC NOTES.

_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?

NORRIS DECK.

* * * * *

SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE.

_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.

J. O. HALLIWELL

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.

THOS. KEIGHTLEY.

* * * * *

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.

Northamptonshire.

_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.

BALLIOLENSIS.

_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."

JULIA R. BOCKETT.

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 SALOPIAN.

* * * * *

Queries.

SIR PHILIP WARWICK.

"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_?

BALLIOLENSIS.

* * * * *

SEALS OF THE BOROUGH OF GREAT YARMOUTH.

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:

SAAL D' ASAI D' GRANT GARNAMVT.

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:

S. OFFIC : CORROTULAT : I : NOVE : IERNMUTH.

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.

E. S. TAYLOR.

* * * * *

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?

RUSSELL GOLE.

_"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?

H. T. GRIFFITH.

_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?

R. FITZSIMONS.

Dublin.

_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?

C. CLIFTON BARRY.

_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.?