The Project Gutenberg EBook of Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 100, September 27, 1851, by Various This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 100, September 27, 1851 A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc. Author: Various Editor: George Bell Release Date: January 23, 2012 [EBook #38656] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOTES AND QUERIES, SEPT 27, 1851 *** Produced by Charlene Taylor, Jonathan Ingram and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Library of Early Journals.) Vol. IV.—No. 100. NOTES AND QUERIES: A MEDIUM OF INTER-COMMUNICATION FOR LITERARY MEN, ARTISTS, ANTIQUARIES, GENEALOGISTS, ETC. "When found, make a note of."—Captain Cuttle. VOL. IV.—No. 100. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27. 1851. Price Sixpence. Stamped Edition, 7d. CONTENTS. Our Hundredth Number 217 NOTES:— Notes on the Calendar, by Professor de Morgan 218 Inedited Letters of Swift 218 Nineveh Inscriptions, by T. J. Buckton 220 Inedited Letter of Alfieri 222 Stanzas in Childe Harold 223 Notes on Oxford Edition of Jewel 225 Anagrams, by Henry H. Breen 226 Folk Lore:—Cure for Hooping Cough—Cure for the Toothache—Medical Use of Pigeons— Obeism 227 Notes on Julin, No. II., by K. R. H. Mackenzie 228 Minor Notes:—Curious Epitaph in Dalkeith Churchyard—Device of SS.—Lord Edward Fitzgerald—The Michaelmas Goose—Gravesend Boats—Scullcups 230 QUERIES:— Minor Queries:—Equestrian Figure of Elizabeth—Indian Ants—Passage in George Herbert— The King's-way, Wilts—Marriages within ruined Churches—Fees for Inoculation—"Born in the Eighth Climate"—Aubrey de Montdidier's Dog—Sanford's Descensus—Parish Registers—Briefs for Collections—Early Printing Presses—Bootikins—Printers' Privilege —Death of Pitt—"A Little Bird told me"—Baroner—William III. at Exeter—History of Hawick—Johannes Lychtenberger—Lestourgeon the Horologist—Physiological Query— De Grammont's Memoirs—"Frightened out of his Seven Senses"—Fides Carbonaria— Bourchier Family—Warnings to Scotland—Herschel anticipated—Duke of Wellington 231 Minor Queries Answered:—An Early Printer—"Nimble Ninepence"—Prince Rupert's Balls— Knock under—Freemasons 234 REPLIES:— Conquest of Scotland 234 Borough-English 235 Pendulum Demonstration 235 Lord Mayor not a Privy Councillor 235 Collars of SS. 236 Written Sermons 237 Replies to Minor Queries:—Authoress of "A Residence on the Shores of the Baltic"— Winifreda—Querelle d'Alleman—Coins of Constantius II.—Proverb, what constitutes one?—Dr. Matthew Sutcliffe—Pope's Translations of Horace—M. Lominus, Theologus —Corpse passing makes a Right Way—Horology—Curfew—"Going the whole Hog"— John Bodley—Language of Ancient Egypt—William Hone—Bensley—John Lilburne— School of the Heart—Sir W. Raleigh in Virginia—Siege of Londonderry—Cowper Law —Decretorum Doctor—Nightingale and Thorn—Carli the Economist—Tale of a Tub— Wyle Cop—Visiting Cards—Absalom's Hair—MS. Book of Sentences—The Winchester Execution—Locke's MSS.—Peal of Bells—Pope's "honest Factor"—Bells in Churches—Passage from Virgil—Duke of Berwick—Nullus and Nemo—Grimsdyke— Coke, how pronounced—Marcus Ælius Antoninus 237 MISCELLANEOUS:— Notes on Books, Sales, Catalogues, &c. 245 Books and Odd Volumes wanted 245 Notices to Correspondents 246 Advertisements 246 List of Notes and Queries volumes and pages OUR HUNDREDTH NUMBER. It is the privilege of age to be garrulous; and as we have this week reached our Hundredth Number—an age to which comparatively few Periodicals ever attain—we may be pardoned if, on thus completing our first Century of Inventions, we borrow a few words from the noble author of that well-known work, and beg you, Gentle Reader, "to cast your gracious eye over this summary collection and there to pick and choose:" and when you have done so, to admit that, thanks to the kind assistance of our friends and correspondents, we have not only (like Master Lupton) presented you with A Thousand Notable Things, but fulfilled the [217] objects which we proposed in the publication of "Notes and Queries." During the hundred weeks our paper has existed we have received from Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France—from the United States—from India—from Australia—from the West Indies—from almost every one of our Colonies—letters expressive of the pleasure which the writers (many of them obviously scholars "ripe and good," though far removed from the busy world of letters), derive from the perusal of "Notes and Queries;" and it is surely a good work to put to students so situated, "—— all the learning that our time Can make them the receivers of." And, on the other hand, our readers cannot but have noticed how many a pertinent Note, suggestive Query, and apt Reply have reached us from the same remote quarters. Our columns have, however, not only thus administered to the intellectual enjoyment of our brethren abroad, but they have rendered good service to men of letters here at home: and We could set forth a goodly list of works of learning and research—from Mr. Cunningham's Handbook of London Past and Present, published when we had been but a few months in existence, down to Wyclyffe's Three Treatises on the Church, recently edited by the Rev. Dr. Todd—in which the utility of "Notes and Queries" is publicly recognised in terms which are highly gratifying to us. We do not make these statements in any vainglorious spirit. We believe our success is due to the manner in which, thanks to the ready assistance of zealous and learned Friends and Correspondents, we have been enabled to supply a want which all literary men have felt more or less: and believing that the more we are known, and the wider our circulation, the greater will be our usefulness, and the better shall we be enabled to serve the cause we seek to promote. We feel we may fairly invite increased support for "Notes and Queries" on the grounds of what it has already accomplished. And so, wishing ourselves many happy returns of this Centenary—and that you, Gentle Reader, may be spared to enjoy them, We bid you heartily Farewell! Notes. NOTE ON THE CALENDAR. What every one learns from the almanac, over and above Easter and its consequences for the current year, is that what happens this year is no index at all to what will happen next year. And even those who preserve their almanacs, and compare them in long series, never have been able, so far as I know, to lay hands upon any law connecting the Easters of different years, without having had recourse to the very complicated law on which the whole calendar is constructed. Nevertheless there does exist a simple relation which reduces the uncertainty in the proportion of five to two; so that by means of one past almanac, we may name two Sundays, one or the other of which must be Easter Sunday. I have never seen this relation noticed, though I have read much (for these days) on the calendar: has any one of your readers ever met with it? Let us make a cycle of the days on which Easter day can fall, so that when we come to the last (April 25), we begin again at the first (March 22). Thus, six days in advance of April 23, comes March 25; seven days behind March 24, comes April 21. The following is the rule, after which come two cases of exception:— Take any year which is not leap year, then, by passing over eleven years, we either leave Easter day unaltered, or throw it back a week; and it is nearly three to one that we have to leave it unaltered. Thus 1941 is not leap year, and eleven years more give 1952; both have April 13 for Easter day; but of 1943 and 1954, the first gives April 25, the second April 18. Take any year which is leap year, then, by passing over eleven years, we either throw Easter one day forward, or six days back; and it is about three to two that it will be thrown forward. Thus 1852 (leap year) gives April 11, but 1863 gives April 5. But when, in passing over eleven years, we pass over 1700, 1800, or any Gregorian omission of leap year, the common year takes the rule just described for leap year; while, if we begin with leap year, the passage over eleven years throws Easter two days forward, or five days back. There is another class of single exceptions, occurring at long intervals, which it is hardly worth while to examine. The only case which occurs between 1582 and 2000, is when the first year is 1970. Any number of instances may be taken from my Book of Almanacs, and the general rule may be easily seen to [218] belong also to the old style. Those who understand the construction of the calendar will very easily find the explanation of the whole. A. DE MORGAN. INEDITED LETTERS OF SWIFT. [By the great kindness of a correspondent who has placed at our disposal two hitherto inedited letters written by Swift, we are enabled to present the following literal copies of them to our readers. They are obviously addressed to Frances Lady Worsley, only daughter of Thomas Lord Viscount Weymouth, and wife of Sir Robert Worsley, Baronet, and the mother of Lady Carteret. In Sir Walter Scott's edition of Swift's Works (vol. xvii. p. 302.) will be found one letter from the Dean of St. Patrick to Lady Worsely; and in vol. xviii. p. 26. is the letter from that lady to the Dean which accompanied the escritoire alluded to in the second of the two letters which we now print. This appears from Swift's endorsement of it—"Lady Worsley, with a present of a writing-box japanned by herself."] "Madam,—It is now three years and a half since I had the Honor to see Your Ladyship, and I take it very ill that You have not finished my Box above a Month. But this is allways the way that You Ladyes treat your adorers in their absence. However upon Mrs. Barber's account I will pardon You, because she tells me it is the handsomest piece of work she ever saw; and because you have accepted the honor to be one of her protectors, and are determined to be one of her principall recommenders and encouragers. I am in some doubt whether envy had not a great share in your work, for you were I suppose informed that my Lady Carteret had made for me with her own hands the finest box in Ireland; upon which you grew jealous, and resolved to outdo her by making for me the finest box in England; for so Mrs. Barber assures me. In short, I am quite overloaden with favors from Your Ladyship and your Daughter; and what is worse, those loads will lye upon my Shoulders as long as I live. But I confess my self a little ungrateful, because I cannot deny Your Ladyship to have been the most constant of all my Goddesses, as I am the most constant of all your Worshippers. I hope the Carterets and the Worsleys are all happy and in health, and You are obliged to let Sir Robert Worsley know that I am his most humble Servant; but You need say nothing of my being so long his Rival. I hear my friend Harry is returning from the fiery Zone, I hope with more money than he knows what to do with; but whether his vagabond Spirit will ever fix is a question. I beg your Ladyship will prevail on Sr Robert Worsley to give me a Vicarage in the Isle of Wight; for I am weary of living at such a distance from You. It need not be above forty pounds a year. "As to Mrs. Barber, I can assure you she is but one of four Poetesses in this town, and all Citizens' wives; but she has the vogue of being the best: yet one of them is a Scholar, and hath published a new edition of Tacitus, with a Latin dedication to My Lord Carteret. "I require that Your Ladyship shall still preserve me some little corner in your memory; and do not think to put me off onely with a Box, which I can assure you will not contribute in the least to[1] ... my esteem and regard for Your Ladyship.... I have been always, and shall ever remain, "Madam, "Your Lady ... "Obedient and ... humble ... Jon N.... "Dublin, May 1re, 1731." [1] A small portion of the original letter has been lost. [As Lady Worsley's letter serves to explain several allusions in Swift's letters, and is obviously the one to which the second letter we print is the reply, we here insert it.] "August 6th, 1732. "Sir,—I flatter myself, that if you had received my last letter, you would have favoured me with an answer; therefore I take it for granted it is lost. "I was so proud of your commands, and so fearful of being supplanted by my daughter, that I went to work immediately, that her box might not keep her in your remembrance, while there was nothing to put you in mind of an old friend and humble servant. But Mrs. Barber's long stay here (who promised me to convey it to you) has made me appear very negligent. I doubt not but you think me unworthy of the share (you once told me) I had in your heart. I am yet vain enough to think I deserve it better than all those flirting girls you coquet with. I will not yield (even) to dirty Patty, whom I was the most jealous of when you were last here. What if I am a great-grandmother, I can still distinguish your merit from all the rest of the world; but it is not consistent with your good-breeding to put one in mind of it, therefore I am determined not to use my interest with Sir Robert for a living in the Isle of Wight,[2] though nothing else could reconcile me to the place. But if I could make you Archbishop of Canterbury, I should forget my resentments, for the sake of the flock, who very much want a careful shepherd. Are we to have the honour of seeing you, or not? I have fresh hopes given me; but I dare not please myself too much with them, lest I should be again disappointed. If I had it as much in my power as my inclination to serve Mrs. Barber, she should not be kept thus long attending; but I hope her next voyage may prove more successful. She is just come in, and tells me you have sprained your foot, which will [219] prevent your journey till next summer; but assure yourself the Bath is the only infallible cure for such an accident. If you have any regard remaining for me, you will shew it by taking my advice; if not, I will endeavour to forget you, if I can. But, till that doubt is cleared, I am as much as ever, the Dean's "Obedient humble Servant, "F. Worsley." [2] Where her husband, Sir Robert Worsley, possessed the estate of Appuldercombe. "Madam,—I will never tell, but I will always remember how many years have run out since I had first the honor and happiness to be known to Your Ladyship, which however I have a thousand times wished to have never happened, since it was followed by the misfortune of being banished from You for ever. I believe you are the onely Lady in England that for a thousand years past hath so long remembered a useless friend in absence, which is too great a load of favor for me and all my gratitude to support. "I can faithfully assure your Ladyship that I never received from You more than one letter since I saw you last; and that I sent you a long answer. I often forget what I did yesterday, or what passed half an hour ago; and yet I can well remember a hundred particulars in Your Ladyship's company. This is the memory of those who grow old. I have no room left for new Ideas. I am offended with one passage in Your Ladyship's letter; but I will forgive You, because I do not believe the fact, and all my acquaintance here joyn with me in my unbelief. You make excuses for not sooner sending me the most agreeable present that ever was made, whereas it is agreed by all the curious and skilfull of both sexes among us, that such a piece of work could not be performed by the most dextrous pair of hands and finest eyes in Christendom, in less than a year and a half, at twelve hours a day. Yet Mrs. Barber, corrupted by the obligations she hath to you, would pretend that I over reckon six months, and six hours a day. Be that as it will, our best virtuosi are unanimous that the Invention exceeds, if possible, the work itself. But to all these praises I coldly answer, that although what they say be perfectly true, or indeed below the truth, yet if they had ever seen or conversed with Your Ladyship as I have done, they would have thought this escritoire a very poor performance from such hands, such eyes, and such an imagination. To speak my own thoughts, the work itself does not delight me more than the little cares you were pleased to descend to in contriving ways to have it conveyed so far without damage, whereof it received not the least from without; what there was came from within; for one of the little rings that lifts a drawer for wax, hath touched a part of one of the Pictures, and made a mark as large as the head of a small pin; but it touches onely an end of a cloud; and yet I have been carefull to twist a small thread of silk round that wicked ring, who promiseth to do so no more. "Your Ladyship wrongs me in saying that I twitted you with being a great-grandmother. I was too prudent and carefull of my own credit to offer the least hint upon that head, while I was conscious that I might have been great- grandfather to you. "I beg you, Madam, that there may be no quarrells of jealousy between Your Ladyship and My Lady Carteret: I set her at work by the authority I claymed over her as your daughter. The young woman showed her readynesse, and performed very well for a new beginner, and deserves encouragement. Besides, she filled the Chest with Tea, whereas you did not send me a single pen, a stick of wax, or a drop of Ink; for all which I must bear the charge out of my own pocket. And after all if Your Ladyship were not by I would say that My Lady Carteret's Box (as you disdainfully call it instead of a Tea-chest) is a most beautiful piece of work, and is oftener used than yours, because it is brought down for tea after dinner among Ladyes, whereas my escritoire never stirrs out of my closet, but when it is brought for a sight. Therefore I again desire there may be no family quarrells upon my account. "As to Patty Blount, you wrong her very much. She was a neighbor's child, a good Catholick, an honest Girl, and a tolerable Courtier at Richmond. I deny she was dirty, but a little careless, and sometimes wore a ragged gown, when she and I took long walks. She saved her money in summer onely to be able to keep a Chair at London in winter: this is the worst you can say; and she might have a whole coat to her back if her good nature did not make her a fool to her mother and sanctifyed sister Teresa. And she was the onely Girl I coquetted in the whole half year that I lived with Mr. Pope in Twitenham, whatever evil tongues might have informed your Ladyship, in hopes to set you against me. And after this usage, if I accept the Archbishoprick of Canterbury from your Ladyship's hands, I think you ought to acknowledge it as a favor. "Are you not weary, Madam? Have you patience to read all this? I am bringing back past times; I imagine myself talking with you as I used to do; but on a sudden I recollect where I am sitting, banished to a country of slaves and beggars; my blood soured, my spirits sunk, fighting with Beasts like St. Paul, not at Ephesus, but in Ireland. "I am not of your opinion, that the flocks (in either Kingdom) want better Shepherds; for, as the French say, 'à tels brebis tel pasteur:' and God be thanked that I have no flock at all, so that I neither can corrupt nor be corrupted. "I never saw any person so full of acknowledgment as Mrs. Barber is for Your Ladyship's continued favors to her, nor have I known any person of a more humble and gratefull spirit than her, or who knows better how to distinguish the Persons by whom she is favored. But I will not honor myself so far, or dishonor you so much, as to think I can add the least weight to your own naturall goodness and generosity. "You must, as occasion serves, Present my humble respects to My Lord and Lady Carteret, and my Lady Dysert, and to Sr Robert Worsley. "I am, and shall be ever, with the truest respect, esteem, and gratitude, "Madam, [220] "Your Ladyship's most obedient and most humble Servant, "Jonath. Swift. "Dublin, Nov. 4re, 1732. "I know not where my old friend Harry Worsley is, but I am his most humble servant." [On the back of the Letter is the following Postscript.] "Madam,—I writ this Letter two months ago, and was to send it by Mrs. Barber; but she falling ill of the gout, and I deferring from day to day, expecting her to mend, I was at last out of patience. I have sent it among others by a private hand. "I wish Your Ladyship and all your family many happy new years. "Jan. 8e, 1732." NINEVEH INSCRIPTIONS. The accumulation of these treasures in London and Paris, leads to the belief that they will soon be decyphered. The following remarks are offered in promotion of so desirable an object. It must be premised that a printer, when requiring type from the type-founder for English books, does not order the same quantity for each letter; but, according to a scale adapted to the requirements of printing, he orders only so many of each letter as he is likely to use. That scale may be nearly represented in the following way: the letter z being the one least used in English, he will require Twice the number of letter z for letter x Twice also —— j 2½ times —— q 4 " —— k 6 " —— v 8 " —— b 8½ " —— p 8½ " —— g 10 " —— y 10 " —— w 15 " —— m 15 " —— c 17 " —— u 20½ " —— l 21 " —— f 22 " —— d 31 " —— r 32 " —— h 40 " —— s 40 " —— n 40 " —— o 41½ " —— i 42½ " —— a 45 " —— t 60 " —— e Suppose now a person to write English in cypher, using unknown characters for the well-known letters; it would be easy to decypher his writing, if of sufficient length to make the general rule acted on in the printing trade applicable. The decypherer, by selecting each distinct unknown character, and numbering them respectively, would find that the character oftenest occurring was e, the next oftenest t, and so on to the character having the lowest number, being least used, which would of course be z. Persons accustomed to decypher European correspondence for diplomatic purposes, will pronounce best on the practicability of this method for the decyphering of modern languages. It is proposed then to apply the same method in the several languages supposed nearest of kin to that of the Nineveh inscriptions. Without entering into the reasons for that opinion, it may suffice, for the present purpose of illustration, to assume that the language of these inscriptions is Chaldee. To apply this method the numbers of each letter occurring in the Targum of Onkelos on Genesis, or the whole Pentateuch, should be taken. This enumeration has been made as regards the Hebrew (see Bagster's Family Bible, at the end of Deuteronomy). The readiest mode of effecting such enumeration would be to employ twenty-two persons knowing the Chaldee letters, and to assign a letter to each, calling out to them each letter as it occurred in Onkelos, whilst each person kept count of his own letter on a tally, and [221] summing up the total gave in the result to the reader at the end of each chapter. This would be necessary with a view to ascertain what quantity of unknown inscription was required to evolve the rule, as the proposed method is clearly inapplicable when the quantity of matter to be decyphered is inconsiderable. List of Niniveh letters Having gone over sufficient ground to satisfy himself of the certainty of the rule, the decypherer would next count the numbers of each distinct character in all the cuneiform inscriptions accessible to him, making allowance for final letters, also for vowel points which may be attached to the character, as in Ethiopic. Assuming the rule in Chaldee to be the same as in Hebrew (it is in fact very different), he would find the character oftenest occurring in the Nineveh inscriptions to be ו, the next מ, the rest in the following order as to frequency of occurrence, ]?[ , ח]?[ , ק , ז , פ , ד]?[ , צ , ע , ס , ט י , ת , כ , ה , א , נ , ל , ב]?[ , ד]?[ , ש , ב , the first letter, ו, vau, occurring nearly seven times as often as ט, teth. The order of the letters would, in fact, vary much from this in Chaldee; the servile letters being different would alone much disturb the assumed order, actually ascertained nevertheless, as respects the Hebrew letters, in the five books of Moses. One word as to the order in which the several languages should be experimented on. The Chaldee would be the first, and next in succession, (2) the Syriac, (3) the Ethiopic, (4) the Arabic, (5) the Hebrew (die jungste Schwester),[3] and (6) the Pehlvi. The Indo-European languages would, in case of failure in the above, claim next attention: of these first the Zend, next (2) the Sanscrit, then (3) the Armenian, &c. &c. [3] Adelung in Mithridates. The resemblance of many of the characters on the Babylonian bricks, as well as on the stones of Nineveh, is very great to the characters known in our Bibles as Hebrew, but which are in fact not Hebrew but Chaldee, and were introduced by the Jews subsequent to their Babylonish captivity: the original Hebrew character was that still existing on coins, and nearly approximates in many respects to the Samaritan character. In some MSS. collated by Kennicott, he found the tetragrammaton "Jehovah" written in this ancient character, whilst the rest was Chaldee. The characteristic of the unknown letters is their resemblance to nails, to arrow-heads, and to wedges, from which, indeed, they are commonly designated. In the Chaldee (the Hebrew of our Bibles) this is also strikingly visible, notwithstanding the effect of time in wearing down the arridges: thus, in the oftenest recurring letter, ו, in the left leg of the ת, in ע, in צ, in ט, in נ, in מ, and especially in ש, the cuneiform type is most clearly traceable. One of the unknown characters, seems almost identical with ש, allowance being made for the cursive form which written characters assume after centuries of use. The horn is very conspicuous on the heads of men in the Nineveh (Asshur) sculptures, still, as a fashion, retained in Ethiopia (Cush, Abyssinia[4]), the origin of the Chaldeans, through Nimrod the Cushite (Gen. x. 8.), who probably derived their chief sustenance from the river Tigris (Hiddekel). Subsistence from (1) fishing, (2) hunting (e.g. Nimrod), (3) grazing, and (4) agriculture, seems to have succeeded in the order named. The repeated appearance of fish on the same sculptures, is in allusion, doubtless, to the name Nineveh (= fish + habitation); and their worship of the half-man, half-fish (the fabulous mermaid or merman), to which many of the Cetaceæ bear a close resemblance (the sea-horse for example), common with them and the Phœnicians (in the latter tongue named Dagon), is probably allusive, in their symbolic style, to the abstract notion of fecundity, so general an element of veneration in all the known mythological religions of ancient and modern times. See Nahum passim. [4] Alexander the Great adopted the horns as Jupiter Ammon. See Vincent's Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, and frontispiece. The women of Lebanon have, it appears, retained the fashion. See Pict. Bible on Zech. i. 18. From an attentive examination of these monuments in the British Museum, it appears highly probable that the writing is from left to right, as in the Ethiopic and Coptic, and in the Indo-European family generally, and is the reverse of all the other Shemitic tongues. This inference is derived from the fact that each line (with few exceptions) ranges with those above and below, as in a printed book, perpendicularly on the left, and breaks off on the right hand, as at the termination of a sentence, whilst some of the characters seem to stretch beyond the usual line of limit to the right, as if the sculptor had made the common error of not having quite space enough for a word not divisible. The daguerreotype might be advantageously used in copying all the inscriptions yet discovered, of each of which three or four copies should be taken, to obviate mistakes and accidents. These being brought to England and carefully examined by the microscope, should be legibly engraved and stereotyped, and sent to all the linguists of Europe and elsewhere, and copies should also be deposited in all public libraries. A comparison of the twelve cursive letters in Mr. Layard's Nineveh, vol. ii. p. 166., with Büttner's tables at the end of the first volume of Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzic, 1803), has led to an unexpected result. The particular table with which the comparison was instituted, is No. II. Class i. Phœnician, col. 2., headed "Palæstinæ in nummis;" any person therefore can verify it. This result is the following reading in the proper Chaldee character:— [222] דן-ושש-רבקלבנו RaBKaLBeNO—VeSheeSh—DiN. The meaning is "Rabbi (Mr.) Kalbeno"—"And six"—"Judge." Perhaps Kalbeno should be Albeno, the initial letter being obscure. The above is put forth as a curious coincidence, not by any means with the certainty which a much more extended examination than a dozen letters can afford. T. J. BUCKTON. Lichfield. INEDITED LETTER OF ALFIERI. [The circumstances which led to Alfieri's hasty retreat from England in 1771, and to Lord Ligonier's successful application for a divorce, are doubtless familiar to all who have read the very amusing Autobiography of the Italian poet. At all events we must presume so, as they are scarcely of a nature to be reproduced in "Notes and Queries." Twenty years after that even, when about to embark for the Continent with the Countess of Albany, Alfieri, as he was stepping on board the packet, saw again for the first time since 1771 Lady Ligonier, who was on the quay. They recognised each other, but that was all. Alfieri, after describing this event in the 21st chapter of his Autobiography, proceeds:—"Si arrivo a Calais; di dove io molto colpito di quella vista così inespettata le volli scrivere per isfogo del cuore, e mandai la mia lettera al Banchiere de Douvres, che glie la rimettesse in proprie mani, e me ne trasmettesse poi la risposta a Bruxelles, dove sarei stato fra pochi giorni. La mia lettera, di cui mi spiace di non aver serbato copia era certamente piena d' affetti, non già d' amore, ma di una vera e profonda commozione di vederla ancora menare una vita errante e sì poco decorosa al suo stato e nascita, e di dolore che io ne sentiva tanto più pensando di esserne io stato ancorchè innocentement o la cagione o il pretesto." The original letter of Alfieri (which we presume he would have inserted in his Autobiography, had he kept a copy of it, seeing that he has there printed Lady Ligonier's reply) is in the possession of a nobleman, a relative of the unfortunate lady; and we are enabled by the kindness of a correspondent to lay before our readers the following copy of it. How far it bears out the writer's description of it we do not stop to ask; but certainly if the reader will take the trouble to turn to the conclusion of the chapter to which we have referred, we think he cannot fail to be struck with the difference between the terms in which the quondam lover writes of the lady, and those which he addresses to her in the following Epistle.[5]] [5] In the only edition of the Vita (12mo. 1809) to which we have an opportunity of referring, this event is represented as occurring in 1791: it will be seen that it really took place in 1792. The lady's reply is there dated (tom. ii. p. 193.) "Dover, 25th April," instead of 24th August. "Calais, Mercredi, 24 Aout, 1792. "Madam,—Mon silence en vous revoyant après vingt années d'absence, a été le fruit de l'étonnement, et non pas de l'indifférence. C'est un sentiment qui m'est inconnu pour les personnes qui m'ont intéressé une fois, et pour vous surtout, dont j'ai à me reprocher toute ma vie d'avoir été la principale cause de toutes vos vicissitudes. Si j'avois eu le courage de m'approcher de vous, ma langue n'auroit certainement jamais retrouvé d'expression pour vous rendre tous les mouvemens tumultueux de mon âme et de mon cœur à cette apparition si subite et si momentanée. Je n'aurois trouvé que des larmes pour vous dire tout ce que je sentais; et en vous le traçant confusement sur ce papier, elles viennent encore m'interrompre. Ce n'est pourtant pas de l'amour qui me parle pour vous, mais c'est un mélange de sentimens si tendres, de souvenirs, de regrets, et d'inquiétude pour votre sort présent et future, que vous pouvez seule comprendre ou diviner. Je n'ai dans le cours de ces vingt ans jamais sçu au juste de vos nouvelles. Un mariage d'inclination que j'appris que vous aviez fait, devoit faire votre bonheur. J'apprends à présent que cela n'a pas rempli vos espérances: je m'en afflige pour vous. Au nom de Dieu, faites-moi seulement sçavoir si vous êtes heureuse au moins; c'est là l'objet de mes vœux les plus ardents. Je ne vous parle point de moi; je ne sçais pas si mon sort peut vous intéresser de même; je vous dirai seulement que l'âge ne me corrige point du défaut de trop sentir; que, malgré cela, je suis aussi heureux que je puis l'être, et que rien ne manqueroit à ma félicité, si je vous sçavois contente et heureuse. Mais au cas que cela ne soit pas, adoucissez-moi du moins l'amertume de cette nouvelle en me disant expressément que ce n'est point moi qui en ai été la cause, et que vous ne désespérez pas d'être encore heureuse et d'accord avec vous-même. "Je finis, parce que j'aurois trop de choses à vous dire, et que ma lettre deviendroit plustôt celle d'un père, que celle d'un ancien amant. Mais la cause de mes paroles étant dans le sensibilité de mon cœur, je ne doute point que la sensibilité du vôtre, dont j'ai été convaincu, ne les reçoive avec indulgence, et avec un reste d'affection que je n'ai pas mérité de perdre de votre part. Si vous voulez donc me dire quelque chose de vous, et que ma lettre ne vous a point déplu, vous pouvez addresser votre réponse à Bruxelles, poste restante. Si vous ne jugez point à-propos de me répondre, faites seulement sçavoir à la personne qui vous fera remettre celle-ci, que vous l'avez reçue. Cela me [223] consolera un peu de la douleur que m'a causé le rétracement subit de vos infortunes, que votre vue a toute réveillées dans mon âme. Adieu, donc, adieu. "VITTORIO ALFIERI." STANZAS IN "CHILDE HAROLD." There is a famous passage in one of Lord Byron's most famous poems, which I am ashamed to confess that, though I am English born, and a constant reader of poetry, I cannot clearly understand. It seems to present no difficulties to anybody else, for it has been quoted a thousand times over and over, without any intimation that it is not as clear as light. It is in the sublime Address to the Ocean at the end of Canto IV. of Childe Harold, stanza 182.: "Thy shores are empires, changed in all save thee— Assyria, Greece, Rome, Carthage, what are they? Thy waters wasted them while they were free, And many a tyrant since; their shores obey The stranger, slave, or savage; their decay Has dried up realms to deserts:—not so thou, Unchangeable save to thy wild waves' play— Time writes no wrinkle on thine azure brow— Such as creation's dawn beheld, thou rollest now." I have copied out to the end of the stanza; for in fact it is not easy to stop the pen when copying such stanzas as these: but my business is with the fourth and fifth lines only. In the fourth line, as you will observe, a semicolon is inserted after the word "since." I find it there in the first edition of the fourth canto of Childe Harold, published in 1818; it is there in the standard edition of Lord Byron's Works, issued by Murray about 1832; it is there in the splendid illustrated edition of Childe Harold published by Murray in 1841,—one of the finest books of the kind, if not the finest, that has yet done honour to the English press. This punctuation is found, therefore, in the earliest edition that was issued, and in those on which the most care has been bestowed. Yet what is the sense which the lines thus punctuated present? "Thy waters wasted them [i. e. the empires] while they were free, And many a tyrant since." They waters wasted many a tyrant? How, in the name of wonder? What sort of an occupation is this to assign to the majestic ocean? Does the poet mean to assert that anciently it wasted empires, and now it only wastes individuals. Absurd! Yet such is the only meaning, as far as I see, that can be assigned to the lines as they stand. If the punctuation be altered, that is, if the semicolon after "since" be removed, and a comma placed at the end of the line, the whole becomes luminous: "Thy waters wasted them while they were free, And many a tyrant since their shores obey." That is (I beg pardon if I am unnecessarily explanatory), "The waters wasted these empires while they were free, and since they have been enslaved,"—an apt illustration of that indifference to human affairs which the poet is attributing to the ocean. The words, "the stranger, slave, or savage," which follow in the next line, are to be taken in connexion with the phrase "many a tyrant," and as an enumeration of the different sorts of tyrants to which these unhappy empires have been subjected. This is my view of the sense of this famous passage: if any of your correspondents can point out a better, I can only say "candidus imperti," &c. There was a very elaborate article on Lord Byron's Address to the Ocean in Blackwood's Magazine for October, 1848; but the writer, who dissects it almost line by line, has somehow, as is the wont of commentators, happened to pass over the difficulty which stands right in his way. To make up for this, however, he contrives to find new difficulties of his own. The following is a specimen: "Recite," he says, "the stanza beginning, 'Thy shores are empires, changed in all save thee;' and when the sonorous roll has subsided, try to understand it. You will find some difficulty, if we mistake not, in knowing who or what is the apostrophized subject. Unquestionably the world's ocean, and not the Mediterranean. The very last verse we were far in the Atlantic: 'Thy shores are empires.' The shores of the world's ocean are empires. There are, or have been, the British empire, the German empire, the Russian empire, and the empire of the Great Mogul, the Chinese empire, the empire of Morocco, the four great empires of antiquity, the French empire, and some others. The poet does not intend [224] names and things in this very strict way, however," &c. What empires the poet did mean there is surely no difficulty in discovering, for those who wish to understand rather than to cavil. The very next line to that quoted is— "Assyria, Greece, Rome, Carthage, what are they?" and it would require some hardihood to assert that these empires were not on the shores of the Mediterranean. After all, the best commentators are translators: they are obliged to take the difficulties by the horns. I find, in a translation of Byron's Works published at Pforzheim in 1842, the lines thus rendered by Dr. Duttenhofer: "Du bleibst, ob Reiche schwinden an den Küsten,— Assyrien, Hellas, Rom, Carthago—schwand, Die freien könnte Wasserfluth verwüsten Wie die Tyrannen; es gehorcht der Strand Dem Fremdling, Sclaven, Wilden," &c. Duttenhofer has here taken the text as he found it, and has given it as much meaning as he could; but alas for those who are compelled to take their notion of the poetry of Childe Harold from his German, instead of the original English! There is one passage in which the reader finds this reflection driven hard upon him. Who is there that does not know Byron's stanza on the Dying Gladiator, when, speaking of "The inhuman shout which hail'd the wretch who won," he adds, in lines which will be read till Homer and Virgil are forgotten: "He heard it, but he heeded not—his eyes Were with his heart, and that was far away; He reck'd not of the life he lost nor prize, But where his rude hut by the Danube lay, There were his young barbarians all at play, There was their Dacian mother—he, their sire, Butcher'd to make a Roman holiday— All this gush'd with his blood—shall he expire And unavenged? Arise, ye Goths! and glut your ire!" There are two phrases in this stanza which seem to me to have never been surpassed: "young barbarians," and "all this gushed with his blood." How inimitable is "young barbarians!" The "curiosa felicitas" of Horace never carried him farther,—or perhaps so far. Herr Duttenhofer contents himself by saying— "fern am Donaustrand Sind seine Kinder, freuend sich am Spiel." "Afar on the shore of the Danube are his children, diverting themselves at play." Good heavens! is this translation, and German translation too, of which we have heard so much? Again: "wie sein Blut Hinfliesst, denkt er an dies." "As his blood flows away, he thinks of this!" What could Herr Duttenhofer be thinking of? To my surprise, on turning to the passage this moment in Byron's poems, I find it stands— "All this rush'd with his blood," instead of "gush'd." It is so in the original edition, in the Works, and in the splendid edition of 1841, all three. Can there be any doubt of the superiority of "gush'd?" To me there seems none; and, singularly enough, it so happens that twice in conversation with two of the most distinguished writers of this age—one a prosaist and the other a poet, whose names I wish I were at liberty to mention—I have had occasion to quote this passage, and they both agreed with me in ascribing the highest degree of poetical excellence to the use of this very word. I wish I could believe myself the author of such an improvement; but I have certainly somewhere seen the line printed as I have given it; very possibly in Ebenezer Elliott the Corn-law Rhymer's Lectures on Poetry, in which I distinctly remember that he quoted the stanza. T. W. "NOTES" ON THE OXFORD EDITION OF BISHOP JEWEL'S WORKS. I send, with some explanation, a few Notes, taken from among others that I had marked in my copy of the edition of Bishop Jewel's Works, issued by the Oxford university press, 8 vols. 8vo. 1848. Vol. ii. p. 352., l. 6., has, in Jewel's Reply to Harding's Answer, Article v., "Of Real Presence," seventh division, the following: "And therefore St. Paul saith, 'That I live now, I live in the flesh of the Son of God.'" To this the following is [225] appended by the Oxford editor: "[Galatians ii. 20 '... And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me?' It cannot be denied that Jewel is here guilty, to say the least, of very unjustifiable carelessness.]" The true state of the case is, that Bishop Jewel, in the original Reply to Harding, published in his lifetime, 1565, had given the text with entire correctness—"That I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God:" but this, long after the Bishop's death, was misprinted in the editions of 1609 and 1611. The Oxford Jewel, moreover, of 1848 does not even profess to follow the editions of 1609 and 1611; and it is stated, vol. i. p. 130., that "this edition of the Reply in passing through the press has been collated with the original one of 1565." Still in this vital case, where the very question was, what Jewel himself had written, it is plain that the early edition of 1565 was never consulted. The roughness of the censure might surely in any case have been spared. It may be noted (vol. viii. p. 195. Oxf. edit.), that Jewel in 1568 wrote to Archbishop Parker: "I beseech your grace to give strait orders that the Latin Apology be not printed again in any case, before either your grace or some other have well perused it. I am afraid of printers: their tyranny is intolerable." In vol. iv. p. 92., l. 1. et seq., in the Recapitulation of Jewel's Apology, the words of the original Latin, "quid de Spiritu sancto," marked in the following extract by Italics, are omitted in the Oxford edition "Exposuimus tibi universam rationem religionis nostræ, quid de Deo Patre, quid de ejus unico Filio Jesu Christo, quid de Spiritu sancto, quid de ecclesia, quid de sacramentis ... sentiamus." And in vol. vi. p. 523., l. 6., where Bishop Jewel gives that passage as rendered by Lady Bacon, namely: "We have declared at large unto you the very whole manner of our religion, what our opinion is of God the Father, and of his only Son Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, of the church, of the sacrament," the following is appended:— "[In the Latin Apology no words occur here relating to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.]" A similar notice is also given in vol. viii. p. 385.—The fact is, that the words "quid de Spiritu sancto" do occur in the Latin Apology, 1562, which was the first edition of that work, and, so far as I am aware, the only edition printed in Jewel's life, from which too the Oxford reprint professes to be taken, and a copy of which any one can consult in the British Museum. Those words will also be found, within six or eight pages of the end, in the various later editions, as for example those of Vautrollier, London, 1581; Forster, Amberg, 1606; Boler, London, 1637; and Dring, London, 1692 (which are in my own possession); as also in the editions of Bowier, 1584; Chard, 1591; and Hatfield, London, 1599. The editions of Jewel's works printed in 1609 and 1611, edited by Fuller, under the sanction of Archbishop Bancroft, did not contain the Latin Apology. There is not a shadow of authority for the omission. All the modern reprints too, with which I am acquainted, only excepting a small edition printed at Cambridge, 1818, p. 140., give the words in question. It would seem that the Oxford editor must have used the very inaccurate reprint of 1818, for supplying copy for the printer;[6] and reference either to that first edition of 1562, which the reprint of 1848 professes to follow, or to any early edition, even in this case, where the context clearly requires the omitted words, was neglected. [6] I have observed another error in the Cambridge edition, 1818, p. 115., last line but five, "domum manere" instead of the original and classical reading, "domi manere." That misprint of 1818 is followed by the Oxford edition of 1848, vol. iv. p. 77. l. 12., Apol. pars vi. cap. 8. div. 1. I have said that the Oxford Jewel of 1848 professes to follow the Latin Apology of 1562, as a copy of the Latin title, with the date 1562, is prefixed to the Oxford edition, vol. iv. p. 1.: but the colophon appended to that reprint, p. 95., is strangely dated 1567. Was there any Latin edition of the Apology printed in that year? And, if so, why are different dates given for the title and colophon of the Oxford reprint? One can only conclude that the date 1567 is itself an error. The following is printed in vol. viii. p. 290., l. 11., from Lady Bacon's translation of Jewel's Apology, 1564, part ii. ch. 7. div. 5.: "As touching the Bishop of Rome, for all his parasites state and ringly sing those words in his ears, 'To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,'" &c. This case is different from those mentioned above, in the respect that the words "state and ringly" do occur in the printed edition of 1564; but it scarcely need be observed that the words "state & ringly" are a misprint for "flatteringly," when it is added that Jewel himself, in his revised edition of Lady Bacon's translation, in the Defence of the Apology, 1567 and 1570, reads: "for all that his flattering parasites sing these words in his ears." The original Latin is "quamvis illi suaviter cantilentur illa verba a parasitis suis." There are also various errors and several omissions in the Oxford Jewel, in the verification of the numerous references. Among various notes (I would however add) which are inaccurate, and several that appear to me superfluous, there are some which are most useful, as, for example, that in vol. ii. p. 195., on the Gloss in the Canon Law, "Our Lord God the Pope." COLET. ANAGRAMS. You have now completed the third volume of "Notes and Queries," and, to the no small surprise of all lovers of "jeux de mots," not a single specimen of the genus Anagram has found its way into your columns. To what are we to ascribe such a circumstance? The ancients were not ashamed to indulge in this intellectual pastime, and their anagrams, says [226] Samuel Maunder, occasionally contained some happy allusion. The moderns have given unequivocal proofs of their fecundity in the same line, and the anagrammatic labours of the French nation alone would form several volumes. Indeed, to that nation belongs the honour of having introduced the anagram; and such is the estimation in which "the art" was held by them at one time, that their kings were provided with a salaried Anagrammatist, as ours are with a pensioned Laureate. How comes it then that a species of composition, once so popular, has found no representative among the many learned correspondents of your popular periodical? Has the anagram become altogether extinct, or is it only awaiting the advent of some competent genius to restore it to its proper rank in the republic of letters? To me it is clear that the real cause of the prevailing dearth of anagrams is the great difficulty of producing good ones. Good anagrams are, to say the least of it, quite as scarce as good epic poems; for, if it be true that the utmost effort...