Chapter M

"_She ne'er with treacherous Kiss_."--Can any of your readers inform me where the following lines are to be found?

"She ne'er with treacherous kiss her Saviour stung,
Nor e'er denied Him with unholy tongue;
She, when Apostles shrank, could danger brave--
Last at His cross, and earliest at His grave!"

C.A.H.

"_Incidit in Scyllam_" (Vol. ii., p. 85.).--

"Incidit in Scyllam, cupiens vitare Charybdim;
Sie morbum fugiens, incidit in medicos."

Has any of your readers met with, or heard of the second short line, appendant and appurtenant to the first? I think it was Lord Grenville who quoted them as found somewhere together.

FORTUNATUS DWARRIS.

_Nicholas Brigham's Works._--Nicholas Brigham, who erected the costly tomb in Poets' Corner to the memory of Geoffrey Chaucer (which it is now proposed to repair by a subscription of five shillings from the admirers of the poet), is said to have written, besides certain miscellaneous poems, _Memoirs by way of Diary_, in twelve Books; and a treatise _De Venationibus Rerum Memorabilium_. Can any of the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES" state whether any of these, the titles of which are certainly calculated to excite our curiosity, are known to be in existence, and, if so, where? It is presumed that they have never been printed.

PHILO-CHAUCER.

_Ciric-Sceat, or Church-scot._--Can any of your readers explain the following passage from Canute's Letter to the Archbishops, &c. of England, A.D. 1031. (_Wilkins Conc._ t. i. p. 298):--

"Et in festivitate Sancti Martini primitæ seminum ad ecclesiam,
sub cujus parochia quisque degit, quæ Anglice _Cure scet_
nominatur."

J.B.

[If our correspondent refers to the glossary in the second vol.
of Mr. Thorpe's admirable edition of the _Anglo-Saxon Laws_,
which he edited for the Record Commission under the title of
_Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_, he will find s.v.
"_Ciric-Sceat--Primitiæ Seminum_ church-scot or shot, an
ecclesiastical due payable on the day of St. Martin, consisting
chiefly of corn;" a satisfactory answer to his Query, and a
reference to this very passage from Canute.]

_Welsh Language._--Perhaps some of your correspondents would favour me with a list of the best books treating on the Welsh literature and language; specifying the best grammar and dictionary.

JARLTZBERG.

_Armenian Language._--This copious and widely-circulated language is known to but few in this country. If this meets the eye of one who is acquainted with it, will he kindly direct me whither I may find notices of it and its literature? Father Aucher's _Grammar, Armenian and English_ (Venice, 1819), is rather meagre in its details. I have heard it stated, I know not on what authority, that Lord Byron composed the English part of this grammar. This grammar contains the two Apocryphal Epistles found in the Armenian Bible, of the Corinthians to St. Paul, and St. Paul to the Corinthians. Like the Greek and German, "the different modes of producing compound epithets and words are the treasure and ornament of the Armenian language; a thousand varieties of compounded words may be made in this tongue," p. 10. I believe we have no other grammar of this language in English.

JARLTZBERG

* * * * *

REPLIES

A TREATISE ON EQUIVOCATION.

My attention has recently been drawn to the inquiry of J.M. (Vol. i., p. 260.) respecting the work bearing this name. He inquires, "Was the book ever extant in MS. or print? What is its size, date, and extent?" These questions may in part be answered by the following extracts from Parsons's _Treatise tending to Mitigation_, 1607, to {137} which J.M. refers as containing, "perhaps, all the substance of the Roman equivocation," &c. It appears from these extracts that the treatise was circulated in MS.; that it consisted of ten chapters, and was on eight or nine sheets of paper. If Parsons' statements are true, he, who was then at Douay, or elsewhere out of England, had not seen it till three years after it was referred to publicly by Sir E. Coke, in 1604. Should the description aid in discovering the tract in any library, it may in answering J.M.'s second Query, "Is it now extant, and where?"

(Cap. i. § iii. p. 440.):--

"To hasten then to the matter, I am first to admonish the
reader, that whereas this minister doth take upon him to confute
a certain Catholicke manuscript Treatise, made in defence of
Equivocation, and intercepted (as it seemeth) by them, I could
never yet come to the sight therof, and therfore must admit,"
&c.

And (p 44):--

"This Catholicke Treatise, which I have hope to see ere it be
long, and if it come in time, I may chance by some appendix, to
give you more notice of the particulars."

In the conclusion (cap. xiii. §ix. p. 553.):--

"And now at this very instant having written hitherto, cometh to
my handes the Catholicke Treatise itselfe of _Equivocation_
before meneyoned," &c.... "Albeit the whole Treatise itselfe be
not large, nor conteyneth above 8 or 9 sheetes of written
paper."

And (§ xi. p. 554.):--

"Of ten chapters he omitteth three without mention."

I.B.

* * * * *

FURTHER NOTES ON THE DERIVATION OF THE WORD "NEWS."

I have too much respect for the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES" to consider it necessary to point out _seriatim_ the false conclusions arrived at by MR. HICKSON, at page 81.

The origin of "news" may now be safely left to itself, one thing at least being certain--that the original purpose of introducing the subject, that of disproving its alleged derivation from the points of the compass, is fully attained. No person has come forward to defend _that_ derivation, and therefore I hope that the credit of expunging such a fallacy from books of reference will hereafter be due to "NOTES AND QUERIES".

I cannot avoid, however, calling Mr. Hickson's attention to one or two of the most glaring of his _non-sequiturs_.

I quoted the Cardinal of York to show that in his day the word "newes" was considered plural. MR. HICKSON quotes _me_ to show that in the present day it is used in the singular; therefore, he thinks that the Cardinal of York was wrong: but he must pardon me if I still consider the Cardinal an unexceptional authority as to the usage of his own time.

MR. HICKSON asserts that "odds" is not an English word; he classifies it as belonging to a language known by the term "slang," of which he declares his utter disuse. And he thinks that when used at all, the word is but an ellipsis for "_odd chances_." This was not the opinion of the great English lexicographer, who describes the word as--

"Odds; a noun substantive, from the adjective odd."

and he defines its meaning as "inequality," or incommensurateness. He cites many examples of its use in its various significations, with any of which MR. HICKSON's substitution would play strange pranks; here is one from Milton:--

"I chiefly who enjoy
So far the happier lot, enjoying thee
Pre-eminent by so much odds."

Then with respect to "noise," MR. HICKSON scouts the idea of its being the same word with the French "noise." Here again he is at odds with Doctor Johnson, although I doubt very much that he has the odds of him. MR. HICKSON rejects altogether the _quasi_ mode of derivation, nor will he allow that the same word may (even in different languages) deviate from its original meaning. But, most unfortunately for MR. HICKSON, the obsolete French signification of "noise" was precisely the present English one! A French writer thus refers to it:--

"A une époque plus reculée ce mot avait un sens différent: il
signifiait _bruit, cries de joie_, &c. Joinville dit dans son
_Histoire de Louis IX_.,--'La noise que ils (les Sarrazins)
menoient de leurs cors sarrazinnoiz estoit espouvantable à
escouter.' Les Anglais nous ont emprunté cette expression et
l'emploient _dans sa première acception_."

MR. HICKSON also lays great stress upon the absence, in English, of "the new" as a singular of "the news." In the French, however, "_la nouvelle_" is common enough in the exact sense of news. Will he allow nothing for the caprice of idiom?

A.E.B.

Leeds, July 8. 1850.

_News, Noise_ (Vol. ii., p. 82.).--I think it will be found that MR. HICKSON is misinformed as to the fact of the employment of the Norman French word _noise_, in the French sense, in England.

_Noyse_, _noixe_, _noas_, or _noase_, (for I have met with each form), meant then quarrel, dispute, or, as a school-boy would say, a row. It was derived from _noxia_. Several authorities agree in these points. In the _Histoire de Foulques Fitz-warin_, Fouque asks "Quei fust _la noyse_ qe fust devaunt le roi en la sale?" which with regard to the context can only be fairly translated by "What is going on in {138} the King's hall?" For his respondent recounts to him the history of a quarrel, concerning which messengers had just arrived with a challenge.

Whether the Norman word _noas_ acquired in time a wider range of signification, and became the English _news_, I cannot say but stranger changes have occurred. Under our Norman kings _bacons_ signified dried wood, and _hosebaunde_ a husbandman, then a term of contempt.

B.W.

* * * * *

"NEWS," "NOISE," AND "PARLIAMENT."

1. _News._--I regret that MR. HICKSON perseveres in his extravagant notion about _news_, and that the learning and ingenuity which your correspondent P.C.S.S., I have no doubt justly, gives him credit for, should be so unworthily employed.

Does MR. HICKSON really "very much doubt whether our word _news_ contains the idea of _new_ at all?" What then has it got to do with _neues_?

Does MR. HICKSON'S mind, "in its ordinary mechanical action," really think that the entry of "old newes, or stale newes" in an old dictionary is any proof of _news_ having nothing to do with _new_? Does he then separate _health_ from _heal_ and _hale_, because we speak of "bad health" and "ill health"?

Will MR. HICKSON explain why _news_ may not be treated as an elliptical expression for _new things_, as well as _greens_ for _green vegetables_, and _odds_ for _odd chances_?

When MR. HICKSON says _dogmaticè_, "For the adoption of words we have no rule, and we act just as our convenience or necessity dictates; but in their formation we _must strictly_ conform to the laws we find established,"--does he deliberately mean to say that there are no exceptions and anomalies in the formation of language, except importations of foreign words? If he means this, I should like to hear some reasons for this wonderful simplification of grammar.

Why may not "convenience or necessity" sometimes lead us to swerve from the ordinary rules of the formulation of language, as well as to import words bodily, and, according to MR. HICKSON'S views of the origin of _news_, without reference to context, meaning, part of speech, or anything else?

Why may we not have the liberty of forming a plural noun _news_ from the adjective _new_, though we have never used the singular _new_ as a noun, when the French have indulged themselves with the plural noun of adjective formation, _les nouvelles_, without feeling themselves compelled to make _une nouvelle_ a part of their language?

Why may we not form a plural noun _news_ from _new_, to express the same idea which in Latin is expressed by _nova_, and in French by _les nouvelles_?

Why may not goods be a plural noun formed from the adjective _good_, exactly as the Romans formed _bona_ and the Germans have formed _Güter_?

Why does MR. HICKSON compel us to treat goods as singular, and make us go back to the Gothic? Does he say that _die Güter_, the German for _goods_ or _possessions_, is singular? Why too must riches be singular, and be the French word _richesse_ imported into our language? Why may we not have a plural noun _riches_, as the Romans had _divitæ_, and the Germans have _die Reichthumer_? and what if _riches_ be irregularly formed from the adjective _rich_? Are there, MR. HICKSON, no irregularities in the formation of a language? Is this really so?

If "from convenience or necessity" words are and may be imported from foreign languages bodily into our own, why might not our forefathers, feeling the convenience or necessity of having words corresponding to _bona_, _nova_, _divitiæ_, have formed _goods_, _news_, _riches_, from _good_, _new_, _rich_?

_News_ must be singular, says MR. HICKSON; but _means_ "is beyond all dispute plural," for Shakspeare talks of "a mean:" with _news_, however, there is the slight difficulty of the absence of the noun _new_ to start from. Why is the absence of the singular an insuperable difficulty in the way of the formation of a plural noun from an adjective, any more than of plural nouns otherwise formed, which have no singulars, as _clothes_, _measles_, _alms_, &c. What says MR. HICKSON of these words? Are they all singular nouns and imported from other languages? for he admits no other irregularity in the formation of a language.

2. _Noise._--I agree with MR. HICKSON that the old derivations of _noise_ are unsatisfactory, but I continue to think his monstrous. I fear we cannot decide in your columns which of us has the right German pronunciation of _neues_; and I am sorry to find that you, Mr. Editor, are with MR. HICKSON in giving to the German _eu_ the exact sound of _oi_ in _noise_. I remain unconvinced, and shall continue to pronounce the _eu_ with less fullness than _oi_ in _noise_. However, this is a small matter, and I am quite content with MR. HICKSON to waive it. The derivation appears to me nonsensical, and I cannot but think would appear so to any one who was not bitten by a fancy.

I do not profess, as I said before, to give the root of _noise_. But it is probably the same as of _noisome_, _annoy,_ the French _nuire_, Latin _nocere_, which brings us again to _noxa_; and the French word _noise_ has probably the same root, though its specific meaning is different from that of our word _noise_. Without venturing to assert it dogmatically, I should expect the now usual meaning of _noise_ to be its primary meaning, viz. "a loud sound" or "disturbance;" and this accords with my notion of its alliances. The French word _bruit_ has both the meanings of our word _noise_; and _to bruit_ and _to noise_ are with us interchangeable terms. The French _bruit_ also has the sense of _a disturbance_ more definitely than our word _noise_. "Il y a du bruit" means "There is a row." {139} I mention _bruit_ and its meanings merely as a parallel case to _noise_, if it be, as I think, that "a loud sound" is its primary, and "a rumour" its secondary meaning.

I have no doubt there are many instances, and old ones, among our poets, and prose writers too, of the use of the noun _annoy_. I only remember at present Mr. Wordsworth's--

"There, at Blencatharn's rugged feet,
Sir Lancelot gave a safe retreat
To noble Clifford; from annoy
Concealed the persecuted boy."

3. _Parliament._--FRANCISCUS's etymology of Parliament (Vol. ii., p. 85.) is, I think, fit companion for MR. HICKSON's derivations of _news_ and _noise_. I take FRANCISCUS for a wag: but lest others of your readers may think him serious, and be seduced into a foolish explanation of the word _Parliament_ by his joke, I hope you will allow me to mention that _palam mente_, literally translated, means _before the mind_, and that, if FRANCISCUS or any one else tries to get "freedom of thought or deliberation" out of this, or to get Parliament out of it, or even to get sense out of it, he will only follow the fortune which FRANCISCUS says has befallen all his predecessors, and stumble _in limine_. The presence of _r_, and the turning of _mens_ into _mentum_, are minor difficulties. If FRANCISCUS be not a wag, he is perhaps an anti-ballot man, bent on finding an argument against the ballot in the etymology of _Parliament_: but whatever he be, I trust your readers generally will remain content with the old though humble explanation of _parliament_, that it is a modern Latinisation of the French word _parlement_, and that it literally means a talk-shop, and has nothing to do with open or secret voting, though it be doubtless true that Roman judges voted _clam vel palam_, and that _palam_ and _mens_ are two Latin words.

C.H.

* * * * *

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."

"_Delighted_" (Vol. ii., p. 113.).--I incline to think that the word _delighted_ in Shakspeare represents the Latin participle _delectus_ (from _deligere_), "select, choice, exquisite, refined." This sense will suit all the passages cited by MR. HICKSON, and particularly the last. If this be so, the suggested derivations from the adjective _light_, and from the substantive _light_, fall to the ground: but MR. HICKSON will have been right in distinguishing Shakspeare's _delighted_ from the participle of the usual verb _to delight, delectare_=gratify. The roots of the two are distinct: that of the former being _leg-ere_ "to choose;" of the latter, _lac-ere_ "to tice."

B.H. KENNEDY.

_Meaning of the Word "Delighted."_--I am not the only one of your readers who have read with deep interest the important contributions of MR. HICKSON, and who hope for further remarks on Shakspearian difficulties from the same pen. His papers on the _Taming of the Shrew_ were of special value; and although I do not quite agree with all he has said on the subject, there can be no doubt of the great utility of permitting the discussion of questions of the kind in such able hands.

Perhaps you would kindly allow me to say thus much; for the remembrance of the papers just alluded to renders a necessary protest against that gentleman's observations on the meaning of the word _delighted_ somewhat gentler. I happen to be one of the unfortunates (a circumstance unknown to MR. HICKSON, for the work in which my remarks on the passage are contained is not yet published) who have indulged in what he terms the "cool impertinence" of explaining _delighted_, in the celebrated passage in _Measure for Measure_, by "delightful, sweet, pleasant;" and the explanation appears to me to be so obviously correct, that I am surprised beyond measure at the terms he applies to those who have adopted it.

But MR. HICKSON says,--

"I pass by the nonsense that the greatest master of the English
language did not heed the distinction between the past and the
present participles, as not worth second thought."

I trust I am not trespassing on courtesy when I express a fear that a sentence like this exhibits the writer's entire want of acquaintance with the grammatical system employed by the great poet and the writers of his age. We must not judge Shakspeare's grammar by Cobbett or Murray, but by the vernacular language of his own times. It is perfectly well known that Shakspeare constantly uses the passive for the active participle, in the same manner that he uses the present tense for the passive participle, and commits numerous other offences against correct grammar, judging by the modern standard. If MR. HICKSON will read the first folio, he will find that the "greatest master of the English language" uses plural nouns for singular, the plural substantive with the singular verb, and the singular substantive with the plural verb. In fact, so numerous are these instances, modern editors have been continually compelled to alter the original merely in deference to the ears of modern readers. They have not altered _delighted_ to _delightful_; but the meaning is beyond a doubt. "Example is better than precept," and perhaps, if MR. HICKSON will have the kindness to consult the following passages with attention, he may be inclined to arrive at the conclusion, it is not so very dark an offence to assert that Shakspeare did use the passive participle for the active; not in ignorance, but because it was an ordinary practice in the literary compositions of his age.

"To your _professed_ bosoms I commit him."

_King Lear_, Act i. Sc. 1. {140}

"I met the youthful lord at Laurence' cell,
And gave him what _becomed_ love I might.
Not stepping o'er the bounds of modesty."

_Romeo and Juliet_, Act iv. Sc. 3.

"Thus ornament is but the _guiled_ shore
To a most dangerous sea."

_Merchant of Venice_, Act iii. Sc. 2.

"Then, in despite of _brooded_ watchful day,
I would into thy bosom pour my thoughts."

_King John_, Act iii. Sc. 3.

"And careful hours, with time's _deformed_ hand,
Have written strange defeatures in my face."

_Comedy of Errors_, Act v. Sc. 1.

In all these passages, as well as in that in _Measure for Measure_, the simple remark, that the poet employed a common grammatical variation, is all that is required for a complete explanation.

J.O. HALLIWELL.

* * * * *

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES.

_Execution of Charles I.--Sir T. Herbert's "Memoir of Charles I_." (Vol. ii. pp., 72. 110.).--Is P.S.W.E. aware that Mr. Hunter gives a tradition, in his _History of Hallamshire_, that a certain William Walker, who died in 1700, and to whose memory there was an inscribed brass plate in the parish church of Sheffield, was the executioner of Charles I.? The man obtained this reputation from having retired from political life at the Restoration, to his native village, Darnall, near Sheffield, where he is said to have made death-bed disclosures, avowing that he beheaded the King. The tradition has been supported, perhaps suggested, by the name of Walker having occurred during the trials of some of the regicides, as that of the real executioner.

Can any one tell me whether a narrative of the last days of Charles I., and of his conduct on the scaffold, by Sir Thomas Herbert, has ever been published in full? It is often quoted and referred to (see "NOTES AND QUERIES," Vol. i., p. 436.), but the owner of the MS., with whom I am well acquainted, informs me that it has never been submitted to publication, but that some extracts have been secretly obtained. In what book are these printed? The same house which contains Herbert's MS. (a former owner of it married Herbert's widow), holds also the stool on which King Charles knelt at his execution, the shirt in which he slept the night before, and other precious relics of the same unfortunate personage.

ALFRED GATTY.

Ecclesfield, July 11. 1850.

_Execution of Charles I._ (Vol. ii., p 72.).--In Ellis's _Letters illustrative of English History_ Second Series, vol. iii. p. 340-41., P.S.W.E. will find the answer to his inquiry. Absolute certainty is perhaps unattainable on the subject; but no mention occurs of the Earl of Stair, nor is it probable that any one of patrician rank would be retained as the operator on such an occasion. We need hardly question that Richard Brandon was the executioner. Will P.S.W.E. give his authority for the "report" to which he refers?

MATFELONENSIS.

_Simon of Ghent_ (Vol. ii., p. 56.).--"Simon Gandavensis, patria Londinensis, sed patre Flandro Gandavensi natus, a. 1297. Episcopus Sarisburiensis."--Fabric. _Bibl. Med. et Infint. Latin._, lib. xviii. p. 532.

_Chevalier de Cailly_ (Vol. ii., p. 101.)--Mr. De St. Croix will find an account of the Chevalier Jacque de Cailly, who died in 1673, in the _Biographie Universelle_; or a more complete one in Goujet (_Bibliothèque Françoise_, t. xvii. p. 320.).

S.W.S.

_Collar of Esses_ (Vol. ii., pp. 89. 110.).--The question of B. has been already partly answered in an obliging manner by [Greek: ph]., who has referred to my papers on the Collar of Esses and other Collars of Livery, published a few years ago in the _Gentleman's Magazine_. Permit me to add that I have such large additional collections on the same subject that the whole will be sufficient to form a small volume, and I intend to arrange them in that shape. As a direct answer to B.'s question--"Is there any list extant of persons who were honoured with that badge?" I may reply, No. Persons were not, in fact, "honoured with the badge," in the sense that persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals; but the livery collar was _assumed_ by parties holding a certain position. So far as can be ascertained, these were either knights attached to the royal household or service, who wore gold or gilt collars, or esquires in the like position, who wore silver collars. I have made collections for a list of such pictures, effigies, and sepulchral brasses as exhibit livery collars, and shall be thankful for further communications. To [Greek: ph].'s question--"Who are the persons _now_ privileged to wear these collars?" I believe the reply must be confined to--the judges, the Lord Mayor of London, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the kings, and heralds of arms. If any other officers of the royal household still wear the collar of Esses, I shall be glad to be informed.

JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS.

[To the list of persons now privileged to wear such collars
given by Mr. Nichols, must be added the Serjeants of Arms, of
whose creation by investiture with the Collar of Esses, Pegge
has preserved so curious an account in the Fifth Part of his
_Curialia_.]

_Hell paved with good Intentions_ (Vol. ii., p. 86.).--The history of the phrase which Sir Walter Scott attributed "to a stern old divine," and which J.M.G. moralises upon, and asserts to be a misquotation for "the _road_ to hell," &c., is this:--Boswell, {141} in his _Life of Johnson_ (_sub_ 15th April, 1775), says that Johnson, in allusion to the unhappy failure of pious resolves, said to an acquaintance, "Sir, hell is paved with good intentions." Upon which Malone adds a note:

"This is a proverbial saying. 'Hell,' says Herbert, 'is full of
good meanings and wishings.'--_Jacula Prudentum_, p. 11. ed.
1631."

but he does not say where else the proverbial saying is to be found. The last editor, Croker, adds,--

"Johnson's phrase has become so proverbial, that it may seem
rather late to ask what it means--why '_paved_?' perhaps as
making the _road_ easy, _facilis descensus Averni_."