Chapter C: Gospel Oaks

(Vol. ii., p. 407.)

The inquiry of STEPHEN into the origin of "this delightful name," applied to some fine old oak trees in different parts of the country, has not elicited one answer, nor an additional note of other trees so designated. Oaks are not the only trees so honoured; for I remember reading of a "gospel _elm_," but where situated I do not recollect. Had your valuable publication been then in existence, I should most probably have made a note of it. It would be desirable to elucidate this interesting subject; and if your correspondents would send you a note of such as may be in their neighbourhoods, with the traditions attached to them, much curious and interesting information would be accumulated; and it is possible that some approximation to their date and origin might be arrived at. The Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth, in his _History of Stowmarket_, gives an account of a very fine one still remaining in the park of Polstead Hall, Essex, the seat of Charles Tyrell, Esq.:

"It stands (he writes) almost in front of the house, at a distance
of about 150 yards, and close to the adjoining early Norman
church. It rises like a small feudal tower out of the green field,
to the height of twenty feet, and still possesses vigorous remains
of the three enormous stems into which it was divided above. This
earth-born giant is forty-three feet in circumference four feet
from the ground, and the base slopes gradually outwards as the
sides bury themselves in the earth, giving one the idea of a
skilful architect's hand having systematically planted an enormous
foundation for that stupendous mass of wood, with which 1000 or
1500 years must have loaded its shoulders. It is hollow within,
and could seat eight or ten persons. The bark is generally gone,
except in one or two places, where it winds like a stream of rough
verdure to supply the branches, which still drop their acorns into
your face as you gaze upwards, and are thus reminded of the
passing seasons. Its wood is seared, knotted, and in some places
looks like a piece of sculpture smoothed and wrought by hand into
waving channels. By its side, and at a distance of some eight
feet, is a tall oak of eighty years' growth,--a scion, no doubt,
of such a mighty tree. But it looks puerile, and a child, when
compared with its parent. And some idea may be formed of this,
perhaps one of the last fast departing memorials of Roman and
Saxon times, when on comparison it would take twenty or more such
trunks of a hundred years' growth, to make up the bulk of the
glorious size of this mighty pillar, thus erected by the hand of
nature to the memory of past generations."

Mr. Hollingsworth appears to consider them relics of Druidism:

"When Christianity was first introduced into England, it was
customary for the missionaries to select some one known gigantic
tree as their place of assemblage. These leafy tabernacles were
generally oaks of vast size and stature. Nor is it at all unlikely
that some of them were thus chosen because from their gigantic
bosoms the sacred mistletoe of the Druids had been cut, and they
were consecrated by superstitious veneration in the minds of the
people as sacred places. Nor were they inappropriate pulpits for
the apostolic bishops and priests, who thus, in making their
shades vocal with the gospel words, proclaimed by their voice and
presence the victory of Christ over darkness and idolatry."

P. 18.

Can the following item in the will of John Cole, of Thelnetham, dated May 8, 1527, be considered as throwing any light upon their origin and use?

"Item, I will have a newe crosse made according to Trappett's
crosse at the Hawelanesende, and sett vp at _Short Groves end,
where the gospell is sayd vpon Ascension Even_, for y'e w'ch I
assigne X_s._"

_Bury Wills_, p. 118.

BURIENSIS.

THE PENDULUM DEMONSTRATION.

(Vol. v., p. 84.)

A few lines will suffice for my rejoinder to H. C. K.'s further observations on this subject.

Since he and I are substantially of the same opinion as to the reality of the phenomenon, it would be bootless to discuss the comparative merits of the considerations that have led us to it. But inasmuch as I am very careful in making assertions, so am I proportionately impatient when their correctness is wrongfully impugned.

H. C. K., in remarking upon a statement of mine, enters into a calculation to show that it is absurd. At least such I suppose to be the meaning of the paragraph concluding with the words "which is absurd."

My assertion was, that the difference alluded to was "greatly in excess of the alleged apparent motion."

Now "_the difference_" was fifty feet in twenty-four hours, or upwards of two feet in the hour; and "_the alleged apparent motion_" had been stated over and over again to be a complete revolution in about thirty hours (for the latitude of London). Hence, the circumference of a ten-feet circle being about thirty feet, it requires no great profundity to discover that "the alleged apparent motion" is one foot in the hour; but the "difference" in velocity is two feet in the hour, which surely justifies the assertion that the latter is "greatly in excess" of the former.

It would occupy too much space to show H. C. K. where it is that his calculation has gone astray; but if he will reconsider it, he will perceive, firstly, that he has no authority, except his own, for assuming a revolution (of the line of oscillation) in _twenty-four_ hours; and secondly, that five feet _on either side_ of the centre is equal to ten feet altogether.

But, above all, he must recollect that his own original assertion (Vol. iv., p. 236.), to which mine was but an answer, was, that "the difference" would be "_practically nothing_:" of this even his own calculation is a sufficient refutation.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

EXPURGATED QUAKER BIBLE.

(Vol. iv., pp. 87. 412.; Vol. v., p. 44.)

By favour of an intelligent and respected friend, I am enabled to send some kind of answer to the inquiries made on this subject in your Numbers.

The Society of Friends have never published nor authorised a mutilated edition of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible in common use with them is the authorised version of King James. The translation published in 1764, by Antony Purver, a member of the Society, contains several alterations from the received version, but it does not _omit_ any part. Besides, this edition never came into general use. It was too expensive, and too bulky, being in two large folio volumes. It never was reprinted, and in fact is seldom found except in public libraries. It is quite true, that many of the Friends, as well as other Christians, have felt that there are parts of the sacred volume, which at this time are ill suited for being read aloud and discussed in a family circle: and some of them have devised expedients for a ready selection of the most edifying portions of Holy Writ for such occasions. One of their ministers, Mr. George Withy, published a small tract in 1846, which he named _An Index to the Holy Scriptures, intended to facilitate the Audible Reading thereof in Families and in Schools_. His tract enumerates those chapters of the Old and New Testaments, which he judged _most_ suitable for that purpose.

In 1830, John Kendall (to whom one of your correspondents alludes) published in 2 vols. 12mo. _The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, by way of Abstract; containing what is more especially Instructive in the Historical Parts, &c. &c._ He designed this for the special use of young persons, and expressly states that "it was not intended to supersede the reading of the Scriptures at large by those who are come to an age of discernment." He adheres mostly, but not entirely, to the words of the authorised version.

Twenty or thirty years later, the same feeling of the want of an edition of the Bible _entirely_ fit for audible reading in the presence of a mixed family, induced Mr. William Alexander, a printer of York, to endeavour to supply the deficiency: and after fourteen years of earnest attention to the subject, he issued proposals for publishing a Bible so arranged. It was designed to be in three (perhaps four) volumes, imperial octavo size: but, for want of sufficient encouragement, only the first volume appeared, containing the Pentateuch. This consists of 792 pages; has foot-notes, side-notes, and marginal references; together with introductions to the several books, and dissertations upon sundry interesting subjects. It is evident, that the whole work, if completed in the same manner, would have been far too cumbrous for general use, and could not have been sold for less than fifty shillings or three pounds; so that we need not be surprised at its remaining unfinished, as it would have been little likely to find its way into many of those families for whose benefit it was kindly intended.

The author explains his views and manner of proceeding in his preface. I cannot enter into them at length here. Where a single word or expression in the authorised version appeared to him objectionable, he has removed or changed it. Where entire verses, or a whole chapter, seemed little fitted for family reading, he has placed such portions in the lower part of the page, and has printed them in _Italics_ by way of distinction. He has also added a lineal arrangement of numerous passages which seemed peculiarly fitted to exhibit the characteristic features of Hebrew poetry.

Altogether, it appears that Mr. Alexander's object was most praiseworthy, his learning considerable, and his diligence very great; and it is to be hoped that the remaining portions of his work are not lost, but that they may yet be made available in some manner for the pious purpose which the author had in view.

H. COTTON.

Thurles, Ireland.

JUNIUS RUMOURS.

(Vol. v., p. 125.)

The experience of a pretty long life has taught me never to believe a Junius "rumour"; never to believe in any story of a coming Junius, no matter how confidently or circumstantially told, which is not _proved_; and I think the short experience of the Editor of "N. & Q." must have convinced him that what is asserted on men's personal knowledge--the evidence of their own eyes and ears (see case of ÆGROTUS, Vol. iii., p. 378.), may possibly be untrue, on the proof that it was impossible. Out of respect, however, to "N. & Q.," I will say a few words on the rumours to which JUNIUS QUERIST refers.

One of your correspondent's rumours is to this effect, that an eminent bookseller was lately called in to value certain MSS., and thus accidentally discovered who "Atticus _or_ Brutus was, and _consequently_ who Junius himself was." This _consequently_ is certainly a most astounding _non-sequitur_ to those who are reasonably well-informed as to the present state of the Junius question. But let that pass. Still I must observe that your correspondent is dealing with a rumour; that the rumour does not tell us whether the discovery is inferential or positive--relates to Atticus or Brutus: nothing can well be more vague. Now my "rumour" said the discovery was of the writer of the letters of Lucius. Under these circumstances it would be idle to waste another line in speculation: enough for the information of your correspondent, if I add, that in one case the discovery _might_ help us to a _conjecture_ who Junius _was_; in another, might prove who he was _not_.

As to the "rumours" about the scents contained in the _Grenville Papers_, they would fill a volume. They have been buzzing about for more than a quarter of a century. The nonsense of one-half was demonstrable by any intelligent person who would have taken the trouble to examine and test them: but nobody did take such trouble. "N. & Q." was not then in existence. The most plausible, and seemingly, from its circumstantiality, best authenticated version, was given by Mr. Barker, in 1828, to the effect that three letters had been discovered, one of which had a fictitious signature; another asked legal advice of Mr. Grenville as to publishing the letter to the King; and the third enclosed a copy of Junius's letter to Lord Mansfield, signed with the author's initials, and with a reference therein to a letter received from Mr. Grenville.

The publication of the letters will soon put an end to "rumour." Meanwhile the few following facts will dispose of Mr. Barker's circumstantial fictions, and perhaps satisfy your correspondent.

There are amongst the _Grenville Papers_ three letters, dated Feb., Sept., and Nov., 1768; the _last_ therefore before the _first_ Junius was published.

_Two_ of these letters are signed with the initial C.; and, on the similarity of the handwriting, it is assumed that the _three_ letters came from the same person. The writer of the _unsigned_ letter claims to have written many of the letters which had latterly appeared in the newspapers, and, amongst others, a letter signed Atticus, a copy of which he encloses. This is according to my recollection; but I will not say positively that he does not claim to be the writer of the _letters_ signed Atticus. The question, therefore, at present stands thus:--The connexion of these letters with the writer of Junius's letters is an inference or assumption, not a fact. It remains to be proved: and, for anything I know to the contrary, it may hereafter be proved by the editor of the _Grenville Papers_,--a diligent and careful man,--that the unknown writer of the unsigned letter is worthy of belief; that he was the same person who wrote the two letters signed C.; that Mr. Grenville's correspondent C. in 1768, was Woodfall's correspondent C. in 1769; and then, whether Mr. Grenville's Atticus was the same Atticus whose four letters were published as written by Junius, by Mr. _George_ Woodfall in the edition of 1812. Simple as this last question may appear, and naturally as most persons would come to a conclusion on the subject, I think it well to mention as a warning, that there were, as admitted in the _Public Advertiser_, two persons who about the same time wrote under that signature, and I think clear evidence of a third writer.

J. R.

WADY MOKATTEB NOT MENTIONED IN NUM. XI. 26.

(Vol. iv., p. 481.; Vol. v., pp. 31., 87.)

Your pages are not suited to the discussion of topics like this: I mean, that to enter fully into all the points raised by MR. MARGOLIOUTH, would occupy more space than you could afford. I therefore write only a few general remarks, lest my silence should be interpreted as an acquiescence in MR. M.'S arguments. The difficulty MR. M. has to contend with is evidently this: how came the eminent Hebrew scholars, who were the authors of the ancient versions--how came the whole body of Jewish Rabbis who have written upon the law, to be ignorant of what seems so clear to MR. M., that םיבותכה, in the passage in question was in fact a proper name, denoting _the place_ in which Eldad and Medad were? How came it that they all took it in the sense expressed in our English version? [I do not admit the Chaldee paraphrase as an exception (notwithstanding what MR. M. remarks), because the words איביתכב ואנון are an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, and partake of the same ambiguity, if there be any ambiguity.] The legend which I quoted from Rashi clearly proves that the Jews of his time understood the passage as our English translators have done. This is MR. M.'s difficulty: and how does he meet it? He says, "What of that, if they happen to be wrong? Such a consideration will never interfere with my own judgment, founded on a thorough knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew word."

What is this but to say that the Septuagint translators, the authors of the other ancient versions, the Jewish Rabbis, had not the same "thorough knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew word" which MR. M. "in his own judgment" believes himself to possess? I do not, however, suppose that MR. M. really intends to set up his own judgment against these authorities, as if he was better acquainted with Hebrew than those who lived when the language was vernacular; but when he tells us "that he has long since learned that opinions are not necessarily true because they are old, nor doctrines undeniably infallible because we have believed them from our cradles," it becomes necessary to remind him that I never asserted any such thing, and that my argument, from authority, amounted simply to this,--that the judgment of the LXX, and other ancient translators, with that of all the Jewish Rabbis of later date, was a better authority, in my judgment, as to the meaning of a Hebrew word, than the unsupported opinion of MR. MARGOLIOUTH, which (as it seems to me) is also inconsistent with the context of the passage. If MR. M. will produce the judgment of any other authority, especially of those who lived near the time when Hebrew was a vernacular language (for this is what makes the age of the authority valuable), his opinion will be more worthy of attention.

MR. M. says, as one of his arguments, "It would appear that DR.
TODD himself found the ב insurmountable, and therefore
omitted it in his last Hebrew quotation."

This omission was the error of your printer, not mine; and I think any one who did not greatly need such an argument, must have seen that it was a mistake of the press. In my own defence I must say that I had not the advantage of being allowed to correct the press.

I do not deny that MR. M.'S interpretation is ingenious and clever, but it is for this reason especially that I object to it; Holy Scripture is too sacred a thing to be trifled with by ingenious conjectures: it is easy for a man of talent like Mr. M. to gain a reputation with the unlearned by affecting to correct our English version on a "thorough knowledge of Hebrew words." This is a rock upon which many have foundered; the temptation is very great to a man like MR. M., who has been brought up with a verbal knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures: and it is in no unkindly spirit towards him, but very much the reverse, that I venture to give him this warning.

J. H. TODD.

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Rotten Row._--I cannot agree with any of the etymologies of this phrase, as given at p. 441. of Vol. i., p. 235. of Vol. ii., or at p. 40. of Vol. v. of "N. & Q.," because I have found the same applied to many places with which such etymologies could not, by any possibility, have the remotest connexion. In my examination of the _Hundred Rolls_ or _Acre Books_ of the various parishes in the hundred of Skirbeck in Lincolnshire, I found that a portion of several of those parishes was named _Rotten Row_: I will instance two, Freiston and Bennington. Upon consulting the best authorities I could meet with, I found that Camden derives the name from _Rotteran_, to muster; and we know that the Barons de Croun and their descendants, the Lords Rous, who formerly held the manor of Freiston, were in the habit of mustering their vassals under arms. "William Lord Ros, then residing at Ros Hall, Freiston, received a command to attend Edward II. at Coventry; and hastened to him with all his men at arms, divers _Hoblers_, and some foot soldiers accordingly." (See Dugdale's _Baronage_.) That the term _Rotten Row_ has this military origin receives additional corroboration from the fact, that in Blount's _Glossographia_, 1670, the word ROT is defined to be "a term of war; six men (be they pikes or musketeers) make a _Rot_ or file." Under the word BRIGADE in the same dictionary, I find it stated that "six men make a _Rot_, and three _Rots_ of Pikes make a corporalship, but the musqueteers have four _Rots_ to a corporalship. Nine _Rots_ of pikes and twelve _Rots_ of musqueteers, or 126 men, make a complete company." In Cole's _Dictionary_, 1685, I find "ROT, a file of six soldiers."

From these authorities I am led to infer that the term _Rotten Row_ is a corruption of the name originally applied to the place where the feudal lord of a town or village held his _Rother_ or muster, and where the _Rots_, into which his vassals were divided, assembled for the purpose of military exercise.

P. T.

Stoke Newington.

"_Preached from a Pulpit rather than a Tub_" (Vol. v., p. 29.) is from the conclusions of _Religio Clerici; a Churchman's First Epistle_, 3rd edition, Murray, 1819. The author thus dictates his own epitaph:--

"This be my record: Sober, not austere,
A Churchman, honest to his Church, lies here;
Content to tread where wiser feet had trod,
He loved established modes of serving God;
Preached from a pulpit rather than a tub,
And gave no guinea to a Bible Club."

B. R. I.

_Olivarius_ (Vol. v., p. 60.).--CLERICUS D. may be informed that the work of _Petrus Joannes Olivarius de prophetiâ_; _Basilea_, 1543, is in the library of Trinity College, Dublin.

TYRO.

Dublin.

_Slavery in Scotland_ (Vol. v., p. 29.).--To the question of E. F. L., as to what time the custom of mitigating the punishment of condemned Scottish criminals to perpetual servitude was done away with, I cannot at present give a definite answer; but perhaps the following curious extract from the _Decisions_ of Fountainhall may be interesting to enquirers on this subject:--

"Reid, the _Mountebank_, pursues Scot of Harden and his Lady, for
stealing away from him a little Girl, called the _Tumbling
Lassie_, that danced upon his stage; and he claimed damages, and
produced a contract, whereby he _bought her from her mother_, for
£30 Scots. But _we have no Slaves in Scotland_, and mothers cannot
sell their bairns; and physicians attested the employment of
tumbling would kill her; and her joints were now grown stiff, and
she declined to return; though she was at least a 'prentice, and
so could not run away from her master; yet some cited Moses's Law,
that if a servant shelter himself with thee, against his master's
cruelty, thou shalt surely not deliver him up. The lords,
_renitente cancellario_, assoilzied Harden, on the 27th January
(1687)."--Vol. i. p. 439.

R. S. F.

Perth.

_Cibber's Lives of the Poets_ (Vol. v., pp. 25., 116.).--P. T. says that "he has not Croker's _last_ edition of Boswell's _Life of Johnson_," to which MR. CROSSLEY had referred him as to Shiells' share in Cibber's _Lives_. He has printed "last" in Italics; but I see reason to suspect that he has not seen _any_ of Mr. Croker's editions, nor even Boswell's own; for the MS. note which he quotes from a fly-leaf of his (P. T.'s) copy of the _Lives of the Poets_, is nothing but a verbal repetition of what Boswell had stated on Dr. Johnson's authority in his text, but of which he had added a refutation in a note; which note, with some corroborative circumstances, was repeated in _both_ Mr. Croker's editions.

There can be no doubt that Shiells misled Johnson, and that Johnson misled Stevens, into the statement which P. T. has copied at some _third or fourth hand_, after it had been twice or thrice refuted.

It is a little hard that your valuable space should be taken up by gentlemen who will not even take the trouble of referring to the authorities where you tell them that they will find an answer, and then begin questioning again, as if you had not already settled the matter.