Produced by Charlene Taylor, Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Library of Early Journals.) Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they are listed at the end of the text. * * * * * {25} NOTES AND QUERIES: A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION FOR LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES, GENEALOGISTS, ETC. "When found, make a note of."--CAPTAIN CUTTLE. * * * * * No. 193.] SATURDAY, JULY 9. 1853.. [Price Fourpence. Stamped Edition 5d. * * * * * CONTENTS. NOTES:-- Page The Eye: its primary Idea 25 Gossiping History--De Quincey's Account of Hatfield 26 Notes upon the Names of some of the Early Inhabitants of Hellas 27 Shakspeare Readings, No. IX. 28 Göthe's Author-Remuneration 29 MINOR NOTES:--Parallel Passages--Unpublished Epitaphs-- The Colour of Ink in Writings--Literary Parallels-- Latin Verses prefixed to Parish Registers-- Napoleon's Bees 30 QUERIES:-- Was Thomas Lord Lyttelton the Author of Junius's Letters? by Sir F. Madden 31 MINOR QUERIES:--Lord Chatham--Slow-worm Superstition-- Tangiers--Snail Gardens--Naples and the Campagna Felice--"The Land of Green Ginger"--Mugger-- Snail-eating--Mysterious Personage--George Wood of Chester--A Scale of Vowel Sounds--Seven Oaks and Nine Elms--Murder of Monaldeschi--Governor Dameram--Ancient Arms of the See of York--Hupfeld--Inscription on a Tomb in Finland--Sir Isaac Newton and Voltaire on Railway Travelling--Tom Thumb's House at Gonerby, Lincolnshire--Mr. Payne Collier's Monovolume Shakspeare 33 REPLIES:-- Wild Plants and their Names 35 Jacob Bobart, by H. T. Bobart 37 Heraldic Queries 37 Door-head Inscriptions 38 Consecrated Roses 38 Notes on Serpents 39 Photographic Correspondence:--Early Notice of the Camera Obscura--Queries on Dr. Diamond's Collodion Process--Baths for the Collodion Process 41 REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES:--Mitigation of Capital Punishment to a Forger--Chronograms and Anagrams-- Abigail--Burial in unconsecrated Ground--"Cob" and "Conners"--Coleridge's Unpublished MSS.--Selling a Wife--Life--Passage of Thucydides on the Greek Factions--Archbishop King--Devonianisms--Perseverant, Perseverance--"The Good Old Cause"--Saying of Pascal-- Paint taken off of old Oak--Passage in the "Tempest" 42 MISCELLANEOUS:-- Notes on Books, &c. 45 Books and Odd Volumes wanted 45 Notices to Correspondents 46 Advertisements 46 * * * * * Notes. THE EYE: ITS PRIMARY IDEA. I do not remember to have remarked that any writer notices how uniformly, in almost all languages, the same primary idea has been attached to the eye. This universal consent is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the connexion in question, though of course most appropriate and significant in itself, hardly seems to indicate the most prominent characteristic, or what we should deem to be _par excellence_ the obvious qualities of the eye; in a word, we should scarcely expect a term derived from a physical attribute or property. The eye is suggestive of life, of divinity, of intellect, piercing acuteness (_acies_); and again, of truth, of joy, of love: but these seem to have been disregarded, as being mere indistinctive accidents, and the primary idea which, by the common consent of almost all nations, has been thought most properly to symbolise this organ is a spring--_fons_, [Greek: pêgê]. Thus, from [Hebrew: `IYN], _manare, scatere_, a word not in use, according to Fuerst, we have the Hebrew [Hebrew: `AYIN], _fons aquarum et lacrimarum_, h. e. _oculus_. This word however, in its simple form, seems to have almost lost its primary signification, being used most generally in its secondary--_oculus_. (Old Testament Hebrew version, _passim_.) In the sense of _fons_, its derivative [Hebrew: MA`YAN] is usually substituted. Precisely the same connexion of ideas is to be found in the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the Arabic. Again, in the Greek we find the rarely-used word [Greek: opê], a fountain, or more properly the _eye_, whence it wells out,--the same form as [Greek: opê], _oculus_; [Greek: ôps, opsis, optomai]. Thus, in St. James his Epistle, cap. iii. 11.: [Greek: mêti hê pêgê ek tês autês opês bruei to gluku kai to pikron]. In the Welsh, likewise, a parallel case occurs: _Llygad_, an eye, signifies also the spring from which water flows, as in the same passage of St. James: _a ydyw ffynnon o'r un llygad_ (from one spring or eye) _yn rhoi dwfr melus a chwerw?_ On arriving at the Teutonic or old German tongue, we find the same connexion still existing: _Avg_, _auga_,--_oculus_; whence _ougen ostendere_--Gothis _augo_; and _awe, auge, ave, campus ad {26} amnem_. (Vid. Schilteri, _Thes._, vol. iii. _ad voc._) And here we cannot help noticing the similarity between these words and the Hebrew [Hebrew: Y'OR], which (as well as the Coptic _iaro_) means primarily a river or stream from a spring; but, according to Professor Lee, is allied to [Hebrew: 'WOR], light, the enlightenment of the mind, the opening of the eyes; and he adds, "the application of the term to water, as _running, translucid_, &c., is easy." Here, then, is a similar connexion of ideas with a change in the metaphor. In the dialects which descended from the Teutonic in the Saxon branch, the connexion between these two distinct objects is also singularly preserved. It is to be found in the Low German, the Friesic, and the Anglo-Saxon. In the latter we have _eá_, _eah_, _eagor_, a welling, flowing stream; _eah_, _ægh_, _eage_, an eye, which might be abundantly illustrated. We could hardly fail to find in Shakspeare some allusion to these connected images in the old tongue; no speck of beauty could exist and escape his ken. Thus: "In that respect, too, like a loving child, Shed yet some small drops from thy tender spring, Because kind Nature doth require it so." _Tit. And._, Act V. Sc. 3. "Back, foolish tears, back to your native spring; Your tributary drops belong to woe, Which you, mistaking, offer up for joy." _Rom. and Jul._, Act III. Sc. 2. Many of the phrases of the ancient tongues, in which the eye bears a part, have been handed down to us, and are still preserved in our own. My space, however, forbids me to do more than allude to them; but there is one very forcible expression in the Hebrew [Hebrew: `AYIN B`AYIN], literally, eye in eye, which we render much less forcibly--face to face. The Welsh have preserved it exactly in their _llygad yn llygad_. Indeed, this is not the only instance in which they are proud of having handed down the Hebrew idiom in all its purity. Shakspeare twice uses the old phrase: "Since then my office hath so far prevailed, That face to face, and royal eye to eye, You have congreeted."--_Hen. V._, Act V. Sc. 2. And in _Tro. and Cres._, Act III. Sc. 3; but it appears now to be obsolete. Before concluding, I cannot help noticing, in connexion with this subject, the Old English term "the apple of the eye." I am unable to trace it beyond the Anglo-Saxon. The Teutonic _sehandes ougen_, _pupilla oculi_, is totally distinct; _seha_ being merely _medius punctus oculi_, whence _sehan_, _videre_. In the Semitic languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin, the origin of the term is the same, and gives no clue to the meaning of the Saxon term. Thus, in the Hebrew [Hebrew: 'IYSHWON], dim. of [Hebrew: 'IYSH], _homunculus_, the small image of a person seen in the eye. In Arabic it is the _man_ or _daughter of the eye_. In Greek we have [Greek: korê, korasion, korasidon]; and in Latin, _pupa, pupula, pupilla_. Has any light been thrown on the Anglo-Saxon term? Can it be that _iris_, not the pupil, is taken to represent an apple? The pupil itself would then be the eye of the apple of the eye. H. C. K. ---- Rectory, Hereford. * * * * * GOSSIPING HISTORY--DE QUINCEY'S ACCOUNT OF HATFIELD. In proof of the severity with which the laws against forgery were enforced, I have been referred to the case of Hatfield, hanged in 1803 for forging franks. It is given very fully in Mr. De Quincey's "Literary Recollections of Coleridge" in the first volume of the Boston edition of his _Works_. The story has some romance in it, and excited great interest fifty years ago. Hatfield had lived by swindling; and, though he underwent an imprisonment for debt, had, upon the whole, a long career of success. The last scene of his depredations was the Lakes, where he married a barmaid, who was called "The Beauty of Buttermere." Shortly after the marriage he was arrested, tried, and executed. Mr. De Quincey afterwards lived in the neighbourhood, dined at the public-house kept by Mary's father, and was waited upon by her. He had the fullest opportunities of getting correct information: and his version of the story is so truthlike, that I should have accepted it without hesitation but for the hanging for forging a frank. As that offence never was capital, and was made a felony punishable with transportation for seven years by 42 Geo. III. c. 63., I was impelled to compare the statement founded on gossip with more formal accounts; and I send the result in illustration of the small reliance which is to be placed on tradition in such matters. The arrival of Hatfield in a carriage is graphically described. He called himself the Hon. Augustus Hope, brother of the Earl of Hopetoun. Some doubts were felt at first, but-- "To remove suspicion, he not only received letters addressed to him under this assumed name, but he continually franked letters by that name. Now, _that being a capital offence_, being not only a forgery, but (as a forgery on the Post-office) sure to be prosecuted, nobody presumed to question his pretensions any longer; and henceforward he went to all places with the consideration due to an earl's brother."--P. 196. The marriage with Mary Robinson, and the way in which they passed the honeymoon, are described: "They continued to move backwards and forwards, until at length, _with the startling of a thunderclap to the_ {27} _affrighted mountaineers_, the bubble burst; officers of justice appeared, _the stranger was easily intercepted from flight_, and, _upon a capital charge_, he was _borne away to Carlisle_. At the ensuing assizes he was _tried for forgery on the prosecution of the Post-office_, found guilty, left for execution, and executed accordingly."--P. 199. "One common scaffold confounds the most flinty hearts and the tenderest. However, it was in some measure the heartless part of Hatfield's conduct which drew upon him his ruin; for _the Cumberland jury_, as I have been told, _declared their unwillingness to hang him for having forged a frank_; and both they, and _those who refused to aid his escape when first apprehended_, were reconciled to this harshness entirely by what they heard of his conduct _to their injured young fellow-countrywoman_."--P. 201. Hatfield was not "easily intercepted from flight." Sir Frederick Vane granted a warrant to apprehend him on the charge of forcing franks. Hatfield ordered dinner at the Queen's Head, Keswick, to be ready at three; took a boat, and did not return. This was on October 6: he was married to Mary on the 2nd. In November he was apprehended near Brecknock, in Wales: so those who refused to aid his escape, if such there were, were not "reconciled to the hardship by what they heard of his conduct to their young fellow-countrywoman." The "startling of the thunderclap" was preceded by an ordinary proclamation, describing the offender, and offering a reward of 50l. for his apprehension. He was not "hurried away to Carlisle," but deliberately taken to London on December 12; examined at Bow Street, remanded three times, and finally committed; and sent to Carlisle, where he was tried on August 15, 1803. Three indictments were preferred against him: the first for forging a bill of exchange for 20l., drawn by Alexander Augustus Hope on John Crump, payable to George Wood; the second for a similar bill for 30l.; and the third for counterfeiting Colonel Hope's handwriting to defraud the Post-office. The Cumberland jury did not "declare their unwillingness to hang him for forging a frank," that not being a capital offence. I infer, also, that it was one for which he was not tried. He was convicted on the first indictment; the court rose immediately after the jury had given their verdict; and the prisoner was called up for judgment at eight the next morning. Trying a man under sentence of death for a transportable felony, is contrary to all practice. Hatfield was executed at Carlisle on September 3, 1803. Mary's misfortunes induced the sympathising public to convert her into a minor heroine. She seems to have been a common-place person, with small claims to the title of "The Beauty of Buttermere." A cotemporary account says, "she is rather gap-toothed and somewhat pock-marked." And Mr. De Quincey, after noticing her good figure, says, "the expression of her countenance was often disagreeable." "A lady, not very scrupulous in her embellishment of facts, used to tell an anecdote of her which I hope was exaggerated. Some friend of hers, as she affirmed, in company with a large party, visited Buttermere a day or two after that on which Hatfield suffered; and she protested that Mary threw on the table, with an emphatic gesture, the Carlisle paper containing an elaborate account of the execution."--P. 204. Considering the treatment she had received, it is not unlikely that her love, if she ever had any for a fat man of forty-five, was turned into hatred; and it was not to be expected that her taste would keep down the manifestation of such feeling. When Hatfield was examined at Bow Street, Sir Richard Ford, the chief magistrate, ordered the clerk to read aloud a letter which he received from her. It was: "Sir,--The man whom I had the misfortune to marry, and who has ruined me and my aged and unhappy parents, always told me that he was the Hon. Colonel Hope, the next brother to the Earl of Hopetoun. "Your grateful and unfortunate servant, "MARY ROBINSON." I do not blame Mr. De Quincey, having no doubt that he believed what he was told; but I have put together these facts and discrepancies, to show how careful we should be in accepting traditions, when a man of very high ability, with the best opportunities of getting at the truth, was so egregiously misled. My authorities are, _The Annual Register_, 1803, pp. 421. and 428.; _The Gentleman's Magazine_, 1803, pp. 779. 876. and 983.; Kirby's _Wonderful Magazine_, vol. i. pp. 309. and 336. _The Newgate Calendar_ gives a similar account but not having it at hand, I cannot vouch it. H. B. C. U. U. Club. * * * * * NOTES UPON THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE EARLY INHABITANTS OF HELLAS. I. I have never seen it yet noticed, that the names _Pyrrha_, _Æolus_, _Xuthus_, _Ion_, are all names of _colours_. Is there anything in this, or is it fortuitous? II. In accordance with the above, I think we may refer most of the names of the early inhabitants of Greece to words denoting _light_ or _colour_, or the like. (1.) _Pelas-gi._ The first part of this word is, by Mr. Donaldson, connected with [Greek: mel-as], which is also, probably, the root of _Mol-ossi_. (2.) _Hellenes_, connected with _Helli_, _Selli_, [Greek: selas, heulê, hêlios]. This derivation is made more probable {28} by the fact, that the neighbouring Pelasgic tribes have a similar meaning; _e.g._, _Perrhæbi_, alike to _Pyrrha_ and [Greek: pur]; _Æthices_, [Greek: aithô], _Tymphæi_, [Greek: tuphô]; _Hestiæi_, [Greek: hestia]. Add to this, that the name _Phthiotis_ seems indubitably to derive its name from _Phthah_, the Egyptian _Hephæstus_, and to be a translation of the word _Hellas_. N.B.--The existence of an Egyptian colony in that part is attested by the existence of a Phthiotic _Thebæ_. (3.) On the other hand, the word _Achæus_ seems to be connected with [Greek: achos, achnumai], and [Greek: achlus] in the sense of gloom (of [Greek: ouranion achos]). So the Homeric _Cimmerians_ are derived from [Hebrew: KIMRIYRIY] (Job), denoting _darkness_. (4.) Lastly, I submit with great diffidence the following examination of the words _Dorus_ and the Æolian _Minyæ_, which I shall attempt to derive from words denoting _sun_ and _moon_ respectively. The word _Dorus_ I assume to be connected with the first part of the names _Dry-opes_ and _Dol-opes_. The metathesis in the first case seems sanctioned by the analogy of the Sanscrit _drî_ and Greek [Greek: deirô], and the mutation of _l_ and _r_ in the second is too common in Greek and Latin to admit of any doubt, _e.g._ [Greek: ar-galeos] and [Greek: algaletos]; _Sol_ and _Soracte_. With this premised, I think we may be justified in connecting the following words with one another. _Dores_, _Dryopes_ with [Greek: Seirios] (of [Greek: Sios] and [Greek: Dios]) [Greek: Theros], the Scythian sun-god [Greek: Oito-surus], the Egyptian _O-siris_, and perhaps the Hebrew [Hebrew: DWOR] and Greek [Greek: dêros] (the course of the sun being the emblem of eternity).--_Dol-opes_ with _Sol_, [Greek: heilê], _Selli_, &c. On the other hand, the neighbouring _Minyæ_ seem connected with [Greek: minuthô, minuntha], _minus_,--all with the sense of _decreasing_ or _waning_; hence referable, both in sense and (I fancy) in derivation, to Greek [Greek: mên], and Latin _men-sis_. J. H. J. * * * * * SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. IX. "It lies as sightly on the back of him As great Alcides' shoes upon an ass."--_King John_, Act II. Sc. 1. "The ass was to _wear_ the shoes, and not to bear them on his back, as Theobald supposed, and therefore would read _shows_. The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to by our old poets, as the _ex pede Herculem_ was a familiar allusion of the learned." (Mr. Knight in 1839.) Fourteen years' additional consideration has not altered Mr. Knight's view of this passage. In 1853 we find him putting forth a prospectus for a new edition of Shakspeare, to be called "The Stratford Edition," various portions from which he sets before the public by way of sample. Here we have over again the same note as above, a little diversified, and placed parallel to Theobald's edition in this way: "It lies as sightly on the back of him As great Alcides' _shows_ upon an ass." "The folio reads 'Great Alcides' shoes.' Theobald says, 'But why _shoes_, in the name of propriety? For let Hercules and his _shoes_ have been really as big as they were ever supposed to be, yet they (I mean the _shoes_) would not have been an overload for an ass.'" "The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to in our old poets, as the _ex pede Herculem_ was a familiar allusion of the learned. It was not necessary that the ass should be overloaded with the shoes--he might be _shod_ (shoed) with them." Now who, in reading these parallel notes, but would suppose that it is Mr. Knight who restores _shoes_ to the text, and that it is Mr. Knight who points out the common allusion by our old poets to the shoes of Hercules? Who would imagine that the substance of this correction of Theobald was written by Steevens a couple of generations back, and that, consequently, Theobald's proposed alteration had never been adopted? I should not think of pointing out this, but that Mr. Knight himself, in this same prospectus, has taken Mr. Collier to task for the very same thing; that is, for taking credit, in his _Notes and Emendations_, for all the folio MS. corrections, whether known or unknown, necessary or unnecessary. Indeed, the very words of Mr. Knight's complaint against Mr. Collier are curiously applicable to himself: "It requires the most fixed attention to the nice distinctions of such constantly-recurring 'notes and emendations,' to disembarrass the cursory reader from the notion that these are _bonâ fide_ corrections of the common text.... "Who cares to know what errors are corrected in" (the forthcoming Stratford edition), "that exist in no other, and which have never been introduced into the modern text?"--_Specimen_, &c., p. xxiv. The impression one would receive from Mr. Knight's note upon Theobald is, that Shakspeare had his notion of _the shoes_ from "our old poets," while _the learned_ had _theirs_ from _ex pede Herculem_; but where the analogy lies, wherein the point, or what the application, is not explained. Steevens' original note was superior to this, in so much that he quoted the words of these old poets, thereby giving his readers an opportunity of considering the justness of the deduction. The only set-off to this omission by Mr. Knight is the introduction of "ex pede Herculem," the merit of which is doubtless his own. But it so happens that the size of the foot of Hercules has no more to do with the real point of the allusion than the length of Prester John's; therefore _ex pede Herculem_ is a most unfortunate illustration,--particularly awkward in a specimen sample, the excellence of which may be questioned. {29} It is singular enough, and it says a great deal for Theobald's common sense, that _he_ saw what the true intention of the allusion must be, although he did not know how to reconcile it with the existing letter of the text. He wished to preserve _the spirit_ by the sacrifice of _the letter_, while Mr. Knight preserves the letter but misinterprets the spirit. Theobald's word "shows," in the sense of externals, is very nearly what Shakspeare meant by _shoes_, except that _shoes_ implies a great deal more than _shows_,--it implies the assumption of the character as well as the externals of Hercules. Out of five quotations from our old poets, given by Steevens in the first edition of his note, there is not one in which _the shoes_ are not provided with _feet_. But Malone, to his immortal honour, was the first to furnish them with _hoofs_: "Upon an ass; _i.e._ upon the hoofs of an ass."--_Malone._ But Shakspeare nowhere alludes to feet! His ass most probably _had feet_, and so had Juvenal's verse (when he talks of his "satyrâ sumente cothurnum"); but neither Shakspeare nor Juvenal dreamed of any necessary connexion between the feet and the shoes. Therein lies the difference between Shakspeare and "our old poets;" a difference that ought to be sufficient, of itself, to put down the common cry,--that Shakspeare borrowed his allusions from them. If so, how is it that his expositors, with these old poets before their eyes all this time, together with their own scholarship to boot, have so widely mistaken the true point of his allusion? It is precisely because they _have_ confined their researches to these old poets, and have _not_ followed Shakspeare to the fountain head. There is a passage in Quintilian which, very probably, has been the common source of both Shakspeare's version, and that of the old poets; with this difference, that he understood the original and they did not. Quintilian is cautioning against the introduction of solemn bombast in trifling affairs: "To get up," says he, "this sort of pompous tragedy about mean matters, is as though you would dress up children with the _mask_ and _buskins_ of Hercules." ["Nam in parvis quidem litibus has tragoedias movere tale est quale si _personam_ Herculis et _cothurnos_ aptare infantibus velis."] Here the addition of the _mask_ proves that the allusion is purely theatrical. The mask and buskins are put for the stage trappings, or _properties_, of the part of Hercules: of these, one of the items was the _lion's skin_; and hence the extreme aptitude of the allusion, as applied by the Bastard, in _King John_, to Austria, who was assuming the importance of Coeur de Lion! It is interesting to observe how nearly Theobald's plain, homely sense, led him to the necessity of the context. The real points of the allusion can scarcely be expressed in better words than his own: "Faulconbridge, in his resentment, would say this to Austria, 'That lion's skin which my great father, King Richard, once wore, looks as uncouthly on thy back, as that other noble hide, which was borne by Hercules, would look on the back of an ass!' A double allusion was intended: first, to the fable of the ass in the lion's skin; then Richard I. is finely set in competition with Alcides, as Austria is satirically coupled with the ass." One step farther, and Theobald would have discovered the true solution: he only required to know that _the shoes_, by a figure of rhetoric called synecdoche, may stand for the whole character and attributes of Hercules, to have saved himself the trouble of conjecturing an ingenious, though infinitely worse word, as a substitute. As for subsequent annotators, it must be from the mental preoccupation of this unlucky "ex pede Herculem," that _they_ have so often put their foot in it. They have worked up Alcides' shoe into a sort of antithesis to Cinderella's; and, like Procrustes, they are resolved to stretch everything to fit. A. E. B. Leeds. * * * * * GÖTHE'S AUTHOR-REMUNERATION. The Note in your valuable Journal (Vol. vii., p. 591.) requires, I think, so far as it relates to Göthe, several corrections which I am in the position of making. The amount which that great man is said to have received for his "works (aggregate)" is "30,000 crowns." The person who _originally_ printed this statement must have been completely ignorant of Göthe's affairs, and even biography. Göthe had (unlike Byron) several publishers in his younger years. Subsequently he became closer connected with M. _J. G. Cotta_ of Stuttgardt, who, in succession, published almost all Göthe's works. Amongst them were _several_ editions of his complete works: for instance, that published conjointly at Vienna and Stuttgardt. Then came, in 1829, what was called the edition of the last hand (_Ausgabe letzter Hand_), as Göthe was then more than eighty years of age. During all the time these two editions were published, other detached new works of Göthe were also printed; as well as new editions of former books, &c. Who can now say that it was 20,000 crowns (_thalers?_) which the great poet received for each various performance?--_No one._ And this for many reasons. Göthe always remained with M. Cotta on terms of polite acquaintanceship, no more: there was no "My dear Murray" in their strictly business-like connexion. Göthe also never wrote on such things, even in his biography or diary. But some talk was going around in Germany, that for _one_ of the editions of his _complete_ works (there {30} appeared still many volumes of posthumous), he received the above sum. I can assert on good authority, that Göthe, foreseeing his increasing popularity even long after his death, stipulated with M. Cotta to pay his _heirs_ a certain sum for every new edition of either his complete or single works. One of the recipients of these yet _current accounts_ is Baron Wolfgang von Göthe, Attaché of the Prussian Legation at Rome. A FOREIGN SURGEON. Charlotte Street, Bloomsbury Square. * * * * * Minor Notes. _Parallel Passages._-- "The Father of the gods his glory shrouds, Involved in tempests and a night of clouds."--Dryden's _Virgil_. "Mars, hovering o'er his Troy, his terror shrouds In gloomy tempests and a night of clouds."--Pope's _Homer's Iliad_, book xx. lines 69, 70. UNEDA. _Unpublished Epitaphs._--I copied the following two epitaphs from monuments in the churchyard of Llangerrig, Montgomeryshire, last autumn. They perhaps deserve printing from the slight resemblance they bear to that in Melrose Churchyard, quoted in Vol. vii., pp. 676, 677.: "O earth, O earth! observe this well-- That earth to earth shall come to dwell: Then earth in earth shall close remain Till earth from earth shall rise again." "From earth my body first arose; But here to earth again it goes. I never desire to have it more, To plague me as it did before." P. H. FISHER. _The Colour of Ink in Writings._--My attention was called to this subject some years ago by an attempt made in a judicial proceeding to prove that part of a paper produced was written at a different time than the rest, because part differed from the rest in the shade of the ink. The following conclusions have been the result of my observations upon the subject: 1. That if the ink of part of a writing is of a different shade, though of the same colour, from that of the other parts, we cannot infer from that circumstance alone that the writing was done at different times. Ink taken from the top of an inkstand will be lighter than that from the bottom, where the dregs are; the deeper the pen is dipped into the ink, the darker the writing will be. 2. Writing performed with a pen that has been used before, will be darker than that with a new pen; for the dry residuum of the old ink that is encrusted on the used pen will mix with the new ink, and make it darker. And for the same reason-- 3. Writing with a pen previously used will be darker at first than it is after the old deposit, having been mixed up with the new ink, is used up. M. E. Philadelphia. _Literary Parallels._--Has it ever been noticed that the well-known epitaph, sometimes assigned to Robin of Doncaster, sometimes to Edward Courtenay, third Earl of Devon, and I believe to others besides: "What I gave, that I have," &c., has been anticipated by, if not imitated from, Martial, book v. epigr. 42., of which the last two lines are: "Extra fortunam est, quicquid donatur amicis; Quas dederis, solas semper habebis opes." The English is so much more terse and sententious, besides involving a much higher moral signification, that it may well be an original itself; but in that case, the verbal coincidence is striking enough. J. S. WARDEN. _Latin Verses prefixed to Parish Registers._--On a fly-leaf in one of the registers of the parish of Hawsted, Suffolk, is the following note in the handwriting of the Rev. Sir John Cullum, the rector and historian of the parish: "Many old register books begin with some Latin lines, expressive of their design. The two following, in that of St. Saviour's at Norwich, are as good as any I have met with: 'Janua, _Baptismus_; medio stat _Tæda jugalis_ Utroque es felix, _mors_ pia si sequitur.'" Can any of your correspondents contribute other examples? BURIENSIS. _Napoleon's Bees_ (Vol. vii., p. 535.).--No one, I believe, having addressed you farther on the subject of the Napoleon Bees, the models of which are stated to have been found in the tomb of Childeric when opened in 1653, "of the purest gold, their wings being inlaid with a red stone, like a cornelian," I beg to mention that the small ornaments resembling bees found in the tomb of Childeric, were only what in French are called _fleurons_ (supposed to have been attached to the harness of his war-horse). Handfuls of them were found when the tomb was opened at Tournay, and sent to Louis XIV. They were deposited on a green ground at Versailles. Napoleon wishing to have some regal emblem more ancient than the _fleur-de-lys_, adopted the _fleurons_ as bees, and the green ground as the original Merovingian colour. This fact was related to me as unquestionable by Augustin Thierry, the celebrated historian, when I was last in Paris. WM. EWART. University Club. * * * * * {31} Queries. WAS THOMAS LORD LYTTELTON THE AUTHOR OF JUNIUS'S LETTERS? In the _Quarterly Review_ for 1852 (vol. xc. No. 179.) appeared a clever and speciously written article on the long debated question of the identity of Junius, in which the writer labours at great length to prove that Thomas, second Lord Lyttelton, who died in 1779, was the real substance of the shadow of Junius, hitherto sought in vain. That this Lord Lyttelton was fully competent to the task, I do not doubt; and that there are many points in his character which may well be reconciled with the knowledge we possess of the imaginary Junius, I also admit--but this is all. The author of the review has wholly failed, in my opinion, to prove his case and the remark he makes on Mr. Britton's theory (as to Col. Barré) may equally well apply to his own, namely, that it affords "a [another] curious instance of the delusion to which ingenious men may resign themselves, when they have a favourite opinion to uphold!" The reviewer, indeed, admits that he has "traced the parallel from the scantiest materials;" and in another passage repeats, that but "few materials exist for a sketch of Thomas Lyttelton's life." Of these materials used by the reviewer, the principal portion has been derived from the two volumes of letters published in 1780 and 1782, attributed to Lord Lyttelton, but the authorship of which has since been claimed for William Coombe. The reviewer argues, that they are "substantially genuine;" but evidence, it is believed, exists to the contrary.[1] According to Chalmers, these letters were "publicly disowned" by the executors of Lord Lyttelton; and this is confirmed by the notice in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for 1780, p. 138., shortly after the publication of the first volume. Putting aside, however, this moot-point (which, I trust, will be taken up by abler hands, as it bears greatly on the theory advanced by the author of the _Review_), I proceed to another and more conclusive line of argument. In the _Preliminary Essay_, prefixed to Woodfall's edition of Junius, 1812 (vol. i. p. *46.), the following statement is made in regard to that writer, the accuracy of which will scarcely be doubted: "There is another point in the history of his life, during his appearance as a public writer, which must not be suffered to pass by without observation: and that is, _that during a great part of this time, from January 1769 to January 1772, he uniformly resided in London, or its immediate vicinity, and that he never quitted his stated habitation for a longer period than a few weeks._" Now, do the known facts of Thomas Lyttelton's life correspond with this statement or not? The reviewer says, p. 115.: "For a period of three years after Mr. Lyttelton lost his seat[2]--_that period during which Junius wrote his acknowledged compositions_--we hardly find a trace of him in any of the contemporaneous letters or memoirs that have fallen under our observation." But how is it, let me ask, that the author of the review has so studiously avoided all mention of one work, which would at once have furnished traces of Thomas Lyttelton at this very period? I allude to the volume of _Poems by a Young Nobleman of distinguished Abilities, lately deceased_, published by G. Kearsley: London, 1780, 4to. Does not this look much like the _suppressio veri_ which follows close on the footsteps of the _assertio falsi_? It is hardly credible that the reviewer should not be acquainted with this book, for he refers to the lines spoken in 1765, at Stowe, in the character of Queen Mab, which form part of its contents; and the existence of the work is expressly pointed out by Chalmers, and noticed by Lowndes, Watt, and other bibliographers. Among the poems here published, are some which ought to have received a prominent notice from the author of the review, if he had fairly stated the case. These are: 1. Lines "to G----e Ed----d Ays----gh, Esq., [George Edward Ayscough, cousin to Thomas Lyttelton] _from Venice, the 20th July, 1770_."--P. 22. 2. "An Irregular Ode, _wrote at Vicenza, in Italy, the 20th of August, 1770_."--P. 29. 3. "On Mr. ----, _at Venice, in J----, 1770_." 4. "An Invitation to Mrs. A----a D----, _wrote at Ghent in Flanders, the 23rd of March, 1769_."--P. 41. 5. "_An Extempore, by Lord Lyttelton, in Italy, anno 1770_."--P. 48. Admitting that these poems are genuine, it is evident that their author, Thomas Lyttelton, was abroad in Flanders and Italy during the years 1769 and 1770; and consequently could not have been the mysterious Junius, who in those years (particularly in 1769) was writing constantly in or near London to Woodfall and the _Public Advertiser_. Of what value then is the assertion so confidently made by the reviewer (p. 133.): "The position of Thomas Lyttelton in the five years from 1767 to 1772, is exactly such a one as it is reasonable to suppose that Junius held during the period of his writings;" or how can it be made to agree with the fact of his residence on the Continent during the greater part of the time? {32} The reviewer, indeed, tells us that "just as Junius concluded his great work, Thomas Lyttelton returned to his father's house, and Chatham was one of the first to congratulate Lord Lyttelton on the event." This was in February 1772; and in the _Chatham Correspondence_, vol. iv. p. 195., is Lord Lyttelton's letter of thanks in reply. The reviewer would evidently have it inferred, that Thomas Lyttelton had returned home like a prodigal son, after a temporary estrangement, and from a comparatively short distance; but surely, had the volume of _Poems_ been referred to, it might or rather _must_ have occurred to a candid inquirer, that in February 1772 Thomas Lyttelton returned from his _travels on the Continent, after an absence of nearly three years_! But, perhaps, the authenticity of the _Poems_ may at once be boldly denied? Is this the case? Chalmers certainly includes them with the _Letters_, as having been "disowned" by Lord L.'s executors; but says, "as to the _Poems_, they added, '_great part whereof are undoubtedly spurious_.'" It is certain, therefore, that _some_ of the _Poems_ are genuine; and it is a pity that the exceptions were not specified, as the discussion might then have been confined within narrower limits. The editor of the _Poems_, in his address "To the Reader," writes thus in vindication of them: "There is scarcely a line in the collection which does not bear testimony of its origin; the _places and dates_ are also strong corroborations to such of his friends as he corresponded with _on his last journey across the Alps_. His style was elegant, and his ideas so animated, that _spurious productions would be immediately detected_." This is the testimony of one who "had the honour of his friendship, which terminated only with his death," and is not to be lightly rejected.[3] My own conviction is in favour of the authenticity of the whole; but, at all events, I shall be able to offer undoubted evidence as to the genuineness of part of the volume, and additional proof that the author was abroad at the precise time when, if he were Junius, he must have resided in this country. By Thomas Lord Lyttelton's will (dated Oct. 30, 1777), he appointed as his executors his brother-in-law Arthur Viscount Valentia, his uncle William Henry Lord Westcote, and Wilson Aylesbury Roberts of Bewdley. To the latter he left all his "letters, verses, speeches, and writings," with directions that, if published, it should be for his sole emolument. The important Query therefore at once arises, _what became of these manuscripts, and were they destroyed or preserved_? The above Mr. Roberts was an intimate personal friend; and from his local influence as bailiff and deputy-recorder of Bewdley, had no doubt contributed towards Thomas Lyttelton's return for that borough in 1768. His son continued to keep up a close connexion with the Valentia family at Arley Hall[4]; and this fact, coupled with the close proximity of Bewdley, Arley, and Hagley, and the circumstance of the co-executorship of Lord Valentia and Mr. Roberts, would make us naturally look to the library at Arley as a not unlikely place of deposit for Thomas Lyttelton's papers. This is not mere conjecture, and brings me immediately to the point at issue: for, at the sale of the Valentia Library at Arley Castle, in December last, a manuscript volume made its appearance in a lot with others thus designated: "Original Diary of Travels [of Lord Valentia] 4 vols.; Five Memorandum Books of Journeys and Travels; also _Two Old Folio Volumes of Original Poetic Pieces_." One of the folio volumes thus catalogued subsequently came into my hands, and is evidently one of the manuscripts left by Thomas Lord Lyttelton's will to the care of Mr. Roberts, since it consists wholly of pieces in verse and prose of his composition, written either _in his own hand_, as rough draughts, or copied (apparently by a female scribe) and afterwards _corrected by himself_. Among the poetry in this MS. I find the greater part of the long poem printed in the edition of 1780, p. 1., entitled "The State of England in the year 2199," which is without date in the MS., but in the edition bears date March 21, 1771; as likewise the "Invitation to Miss Warb[u]rt[o]n," edit. p. 35., which appears in the MS. without any name; and the "Extempore Rhapsody, March 21, 1771," edit. p. 37., also undated in the MS., but which supplies the name of "Yates," expressed in the edition by asterisks; and also six lines at the end, which were omitted in the edition on account of their indecency. There are several variations in the manuscript, which prove that some other copy was followed by the printer; and many typographical errors in the edition may hence be corrected. Besides these poems, the following pieces constitute the chief contents of this manuscript volume: Draughts of four letters _written by Thomas Lyttelton from Lyons, the first of which is dated September_ 10, 1769. Heads of a series of Dialogues, in imitation of "Dialogues of the Dead," by his father George, first Lord Lyttelton. Poetical Fragments, imitated from Lucretius. {33} Two letters addressed by Thomas Lyttelton to his father; and a third to "Dear George," probably his cousin George Edward Ayscough. Some Latin lines, not remarkable for their delicacy. Political letter, _written from Milan_, by Thomas Lyttelton; in which indignant notice is taken of the commital of Brass Crossby, Lord Mayor, _which took place in March, 1771_. Fragment of a poem on Superstition, and various other unfinished poetical scraps. Private memoranda of expenses. A page of writing in a fictitious or short-hand character, of which I can make nothing. Remarks, in prose, on the polypus, priestcraft, &c. Poem in French, of an amatory character. Portion of a remarkable political letter, containing some bitter remarks by Thomas Lyttelton on the "first minister." He ends thus: "The play now draws to a conclusion. I am guilty of a breach of trust in telling him so, but I shall [not] suffer by my indiscretion, for it is an absolute impossibility any man should divine who is the author of the letter signed ARUSPEX." It would appear from the water-mark in the paper of which this MS. is composed, that it was procured in Italy; and there can be little or no doubt it was used by Thomas Lyttelton as a draught-book, during his travels there in 1769-1771; during which period, nearly the whole of the contents seem to have been written. The evidence afforded therefore by this volume, comes peculiarly in support of the dates and other circumstances put forth in the printed volume of _Poems_; and leads us inevitably to the conclusion, _that it was utterly impossible for Thomas Lyttelton to have had any share in the Letters of Junius_. He has enough to answer for on the score of his early profligacy and scepticism, without being dragged from the grave to be arraigned for the crime of deceit. His heart need not, according to the reviewer, be "stripped bare" by the scalpel of any literary anatomist; but he may be left to that quiet and oblivion which a sepulchre in general bestows. Before I conclude these remarks (which I fear are too diffuse), I will venture to add a few words in regard to the signature of Thomas Lord Lyttelton. In the _Chatham Correspondence_, a letter from him to Earl Temple is printed, vol. iv. p. 348., the signature to which is printed LYTTLETON, and the editors point out in a note the "alteration adopted" in the spelling of the name; but it is altogether an error, for the fac-simile of this signature in vol. iv. p. 29., as well as his will in the Prerogative Court, prove that he wrote his name _Lyttelton_, in the same manner as his father and uncle. As to the resemblance pointed out by the author of the _Review_ between the handwriting of Thomas Lyttelton and that of Junius, it exists only in imagination, since there is really no similitude whatever between them. Some Queries are now annexed, in reference to what has been above discussed: 1. In what publication or in what form did the executors of Thomas Lord Lyttelton disown the _Letters_ and _Poems_? 2. Is it known who was the editor of the _Poems_ published in 1780? 3. Can the present representative of the family of Roberts give any farther information respecting Thomas Lord Lyttelton's manuscripts? 4. Lastly, Is any letter known to exist in the public journals of the years 1770, 1771, under the signature of ARUSPEX? F. MADDEN. British Museum. [Footnote 1: I have been unable to refer to these letters, as no copy exists in the British Museum library.] [Footnote 2: As M.P. for Bewdley. He was returned in 1768, and unseated in January, 1769.] [Footnote 3: In the _Public Advertiser_ for January 1, 1779 [1780], appeared a notice of the _Poems_, said to have been "published yesterday;" and although two pieces are extracted at length, not a syllable of doubt is expressed as to their genuineness.] [Footnote 4: The estate at Arley was left to the Hon. George Annesley (afterwards Earl of Mountnorris), son of Lord Valentia, by the will of Thomas Lord Lyttelton, and Mr. Roberts was one of the trustees appointed.] * * * * * Minor Queries. _Lord Chatham._--I would suggest as a Query, whether Lord Chatham's famous comparison of the Fox and Newcastle ministry to the confluence of the Rhone and Saone at Lyons (_Speech_, Nov. 13, 1755), was not adapted from a passage in Lord Roscommon's _Essay on translated Verse_. Possibly Lord Chatham may have merely quoted the lines of Roscommon, and reporters may have converted his quotation into prose. Lord Chatham (then of course Mr. Pitt) is represented to have said: "_I remember_ at Lyons to have been carried to the conflux of the Rhone and the Soane: the one a gentle, feeble, languid stream, and, though languid, of no depth; the other, a boisterous and _impetuous_ torrent." Lord Roscommon says: "Thus _have I seen_ a rapid headlong tide, With foaming waves the passive Saone divide, Whose lazy waters without motion lay, While he, with eager force, urg'd his _impetuous_ way." W. EWART. University Club. _Slow-worm Superstition._--Could any of your correspondents kindly inform me whether there is any foundation for the superstition, that if a slow-worm be divided into two or more parts, those parts will continue to live till sunset (life I suppose to mean that tremulous motion which the divided parts, for some time after the cruel operation, continue to have), and whether it exists in any other country or county besides Sussex, in which county I first heard of it? TOWER. _Tangiers_ (Vol. vii., p. 12.).--I have not seen any opinion as to these Queries. A. C. _Snail Gardens._--What are the continental enclosures called snail gardens? C. M. T. Oare. _Naples and the Campagna Felice._--Who was the author of letters bearing this title, which {34} originally appeared in Ackermann's _Repository_, and were published in a collected form in 1815? In a catalogue of Jno. Miller's (April, 1853), I see them attributed to Combe. Q. Philadelphia. "_The Land of Green Ginger_"--the name of a street in Hull. Can any of your correspondents inform me why so called? R. H. B. _Mugger._--Why are the gipsies in the North of England called _Muggers?_ Is it because they sell mugs, and other articles of crockery, that in fact being their general vocation? or may not the word be a corruption of _Maghrabee_, which is, I think, a foreign name given to this wandering race? H. T. RILEY. _Snail-eating._--Can any of your correspondents inform me in what part of Surrey a breed of large white snails is still to be found, the first of which were brought to this country from Italy, by a member, I think, of the Arundel family, to gratify the palate of his wife, an Italian lady? I have searched Britton and Brayley's History in vain. H. T. RILEY. _Mysterious Personage._--Who is the mysterious personage, what is his real or assumed lineage, who has, not unfrequently, been alluded to in recent newspaper articles as a legitimate Roman Catholic claimant of the English throne? Of course I do not allude to those _pseudo_-Stuarts, the brothers Hay Allan. W. PINKERTON. _George Wood of Chester._--Of what family was George Wood, Esq., Justice of Chester in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1558? CESTRIENSIS. _A Scale of Vowel Sounds._--Can any correspondent tell me if such scale has anywhere been agreed on for scientific purposes? Researches into the philosophy of philology are
{'title': 'Notes and Queries, Number 193, July 9, 1853 by Various', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}