Minor Queries with Answers.

"Steady and pure as stars that beamIn middle heaven, all mist above,Seen deepest in the frozen stream:—Such is their high courageous love."

"Steady and pure as stars that beam

In middle heaven, all mist above,

Seen deepest in the frozen stream:—

Such is their high courageous love."

I should be grateful for an explanation of thethirdline.

A. A. D.

David's Mother.—I used to think it was impossible to ascertain from the Old Testament the name of David's mother. In theGenealogies recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, by J. S. (usually assumed to stand for John Speed, the historian and geographer), the name of the Psalmist's mother is given "Nahash." Can this be made out satisfactorily? Will the text 2 Sam. xvii. 25., as compared with 1 Chron. ii. 15., warrant it?

Y. B. N. J.

Emblems.—Can any of your readers inform me what are the emblematic meanings of the different precious stones, or of any of them? or in what work I shall find them described?

N. D.

"Kaminagadeyathooroosoomokanoogonagira."—In an appeal to the Privy Council from Madras, the above unparalleled long word occurs as the descriptions of an estate. I believe that its extreme length and unpronounceable appearance is without an equal. Can any of your readers acquainted with Indian literature translate it? if so, it would greatly oblige

F. J. G.

"Quid facies," &c.—I have lately met with the following curious play on words in an old MS. book. Can any of your correspondents give any account of it?

"Quid facies, facies Veneris si veneris ante?Ne pereas, per eas; ne sedeas, sed eas!"

"Quid facies, facies Veneris si veneris ante?

Ne pereas, per eas; ne sedeas, sed eas!"

Balliolensis.

Will of Peter the Great.—M. Lamartinière, in a French pamphlet on the Eastern question, gives a document in several articles containing advice with respect to the policy of his successors on the throne of Russia, in which he advises her to make great advances in the direction of Constantinople, India, &c., and advocates the partition of Poland. Upon what authority does this document rest? and who is M. Lamartinière?

R. J. Allen.

H. Neele, Editor of Shakspeare.—In the preface toLectures on English Poetry, being the Remains of the late Henry Neele(Lond. 1830), mention is made of a new edition of Shakspeare's dramatic works, "under the superintendence of Mr. Neele as editor, for which his enthusiastic reverence for the poet of 'all time' peculiarly fitted him, but which, from the want of patronage, terminated after the publication of a very few numbers." These very few numbers must have appeared about 1824-1827; yet the answer to my repeated inquiries after them in London is always "We cannot hear of them." Can any one give me farther information?—From theNavorscher.

J. M.

MS. by Rubens on Painting.—May I inquire ofM. Philarète Chasleswhether he ever saw or heard of a manuscript said to be written in Latin by Rubens, and existing in theBibliothèque Nationaleat Paris? One or two fragments have occasionally been quoted: I think one may be found in Sir Joshua Reynolds'Discourses, and the same is used by Burnet in his work on painting; but no authority is given as to the source of the information.[2]

If such a work can be found, it would confer a great boon upon the profession of the fine arts, if it were brought to light without delay.

Weld Taylor.

Footnote 2:(return)[This may probably be Rubens's MS. Album, of which an account is given in Vertue'sAnecdotes of Painting, vol. ii. pp. 185, 186.—Ed.]

[This may probably be Rubens's MS. Album, of which an account is given in Vertue'sAnecdotes of Painting, vol. ii. pp. 185, 186.—Ed.]

Peter Allan.—Will some correspondent of "N. & Q." afford information as to the exact date and place of birth of the celebrated Peter Allan, whose cave at Sunderland is regarded as one of the principal curiosities of the north of England?What is known of his general history; and is any member of his family now living?

E. C.

Haschisch or Indian Hemp.—I have been for some time trying to procure some of theHaschisch, or Indian hemp, about which Dr. Moreau has published such an amusing book,Du Haschisch et de l'Aliénation Mentale, Par. 1845.—Can any of your readers tell me where I can get any? The narcotic effects of the common hemp plant are well known in our country districts: where, under its ironical aliasHonesty, the dried stalk is often smoked, but the tropical variety appears to be infinitely more powerful in its operation.

V. T. Sternberg.

Crieff Compensation.—During the rebellion in 1715, the village of Crieff, Perthshire, was burnt by the Highland army, on account of the attachment of its inhabitants to the royal cause. It has been stated that, some years ago, the descendants of the sufferers received from government a sum equivalent to a certain proportion of the loss which had been sustained.

Is there any official record in reference to this compensation?

Admission to Lincoln's Inn, the Temple, and Gray's Inn.—Have there ever been published, or do there exist anywhere in MSS., lists of the persons who have been from time to time matriculated as students of those inns of court?

A publication of them would be of the greatest value to the biographical department of literature.

Orders for the Household of Lord Montagu.—The second Viscount Montagu, grandson and heir of Anthony Browne, created Viscount in 1554, ob. 1592, compiled a detailed code of regulations for his family, thus entitled:

"A Booke of Orders and Rules established by me, Anthony, Viscount Mountague, for the better direction and government of my howsholde and family, together with the generall dutyes and charges apperteyninge to myne officers and other servantes. Anno Dni 1595."

Has this curious illustration of ancient domestic manners ever been published?

Albert Way.

Cateaton Street.—I am anxious to ascertain the meaning and derivation of this word: the London Cateaton Street, I believe, is changed into Gresham Street. I have lately learnt that there is a Cateaton Street in Liverpool also.

Etymo.

[Cateaton Street, or "Catteten Street," says Stow, "is a corruption of Catte Street, which beginneth at the north end of Ironmonger Lane, and runneth to the west end of St. Lawrence Church." In 1845, this street was renamed Gresham Street.]

Portrait of Lee, Inventor of the Stocking-frame.—In Hatton'sHistory of London(published in 1708), it is stated that a picture (by Balderston) of Lee, the inventor of the stocking-frame, hung in the hall of the Framework Knitters' Company. The inquirer wishes to ascertain whether the picture is yet in existence or not; and, if still in existence, where it can be seen.

M. E.

[In Cunningham'sHandbook of London, p. 527., s. v.Weavers' Hall, Basinghall Street, is a quotation from theQuarterly Reviewfor January, 1816, in which the picture is spoken of as then existing in the Stocking Weavers' Hall.]

Cocker's Arithmetic(Vol. iv., pp. 102. 149.).—Some correspondence appears in "N. & Q." about the first edition of "Old Cocker." I should be glad to ascertain the date of the latest edition.

Tyro.

[The British Museum contains the following editions of Cocker'sArithmetic:—the 20th, Lond. 1700; the 37th, perused and published by John Hawkins (with MS. notes), Lond. 1720; 41st, Lond. 1724; 50th, corrected by Geo. Fisher, Lond. 1746. Watt notices one revised by J. Mair, Edinb. 1751. In Professor de Morgan'sArithmetical Books, p. 56., where a full history of Cocker's book is given, mention is made of an Edinburgh edition, 1765, and a Glasgow edition of 1777.]

Lyke Porch or Litch Porch.—What is the proper name for the porch found, not unfrequently, at the churchyard gate under which the body was, I believe, supposed to rest before the funeral? Is itlykeorlitch? The derivation may be different in different parts of England, as they were originally Saxon or Danish.LügDan.,lykDutch, andleicheGer., are all different forms of the same word. The first two approach nearer tolyke, the latter tolitch.

J. H. L.

[In most works on ecclesiastical architecture it is calledlich-gate, from Anglo-Saxonlich, a corpse: henceLich-field, the field of dead bodies. In theGlossary of Architecturewe read "Lich-gate, or corpse-gate,leichengang, Germ., from the Ang.-Sax.lich, a corpse, andgeat, a gate; a shed over the entrance of a churchyard, beneath which the bearers sometimes paused when bringing a corpse for interment. The term is also used in some parts of the country for the path by which a corpse is usually conveyed to the church."]

Henry Burton.—Henry Burton was born in 1579; studied at Oxford, and was at one time minister of St. Matthew, Friday Street. In 1636, he drew upon himself the vengeance of the Star-Chamber, by two discourses in which he severely inveighed against the bishops. For this offence he was fined, deprived of his ears, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was liberated bythe parliament in 1640, and died in 1648. What theological works did he write?—From theNavorscher.

Dionysius.

[Burton's pen was so prolific, that we cannot find room for a list of his works; and must referDionysiusto the Bodleian Catalogue, where they fill nearly a column, and to Watt'sBibliotheca, s.v.]

British Mathematicians.—I am anxious to learn if there is any book which contains an account of the lives and works of eminent British arithmeticians and mathematicians?

Euclid.

[Consult the following:—Biographia Philosophica: being an Account of the Lives, Writings, and Inventions of the most eminent Philosophers and Mathematicians, by Benjamin Martin: London, 1764, 8vo. There is also a Chronological Table of the most eminent Mathematicians affixed to John Bossut'sGeneral History of Mathematics, translated from the French by John Bonnycastle: London, 1803, 8vo. Some notices of our early English mathematicians will also be found in theCompanion to the Almanacfor 1837, and in theMagazine of Popular Science, Nos. 18. 20. and 22.]

"Les LettresJuives."—Will any of your correspondents inform me who is the author ofLettres Juives? The first volume of my edition, in eight volumes 12mo., has the portrait of Jean Batiste B., Marquis de ——, né le 29 Juin, 1704.

J. R.

Sunderland.

["Par le Marquis D'Argens," says Barbier.]

(Vol. viii., pp. 198. 250.)

In replying to ProfessorDe Morgan'slast communication on this subject, it may be as well, in order to avoid future misunderstanding, to revert briefly to my original question. I pointed out Ben Jonson's assertion, through a character in one of his plays, that about the beginning of the seventeenth century, it was the custom to regard the legal rights of majority as commencing with six o'clockA.M., and I asked to have that assertion reconciled with our present commencement at midnight, and with the statement that the latter is in accordance with the old reckoning.

Thus I started with the production of affirmative evidence, to rebut which I cannot find, in the replies ofProfessor De Morgan, any negative evidence stronger than his individual opinion, which, however eminent in other respects, has undoubtedly the disadvantage of being two hundred years later than the contemporary evidence produced by me. I afterwards cited Arthur Hopton as authority that lawyers in England, in his time, did make use of a day which he classifies as that of the Babylonians; but inasmuch as he apparently restricts its duration to twelve hours, whereas all ancient writers concur in assigning to the Babylonians a day of twenty-four hours, there is evidently a mistake somewhere, attributable either to Hopton or his printers.

This mistake may have arisen either from a misprint, or from a transposition of a portion of the sentence.

The supposition of a misprint is favoured by the circumstance that Hopton was, at the time, professing to describe natural days oftwenty-fourhours; of these there are four great classes of commencement, from the four principal quarters of the day; viz. from midnight, from mid-day, from sun-setting and from sun-rising. Hopton had already assigned three of them to different nations, and the fourth he had properly assigned, so far as its commencement at sunrise was concerned, to the Babylonians. What, then, can be more probable than that he intended this day also, like the rest, to be of twenty-four hours' duration; and that the words "holding till sun-setting" ought, perhaps, to have been printed "holding till sun-rising?"

This way of reconciling seeming anomalies, by the supposition of probable misprints, receives great encouragement in the occasional occurrence of similar mistakes in the most carefully printed modern books. I lately noticed, while reading Sir James Ross'sSouthern Voyage of Discovery, a work printed by the Admiralty, and on which extraordinary typographical care had been bestowed, the following, at page 121. of vol. ii.:

"It was full moon on the 15th of September, at 5·38A.M."

But the context shows that "full moon" ought to have been printednew moon, and that "5·38A.M." outlet to be 5·38P.M.: and what renders these two mistakes the more remarkable is, that they have no sort of connexion, nor is the occurrence of the one in any way explanatory of the other.

Now, the misprint of "sun-setting" forsun-rising, which I am supposing in Hopton's book, would be much more likely of occurrence than these, because these form part of a series of carefully examined data from which a scientific deduction is to be drawn, while Hopton's is a mere loose description. And, moreover, a twenty-four hour day, commencing and ending withsunrise, does not, after all, appear to be so wholly unknown to English law asProf. De Morgansupposes, since Sir Edward Coke, to whom the professor especially refers, describes such a day in these words:

"Dies naturalis constat ea 24 horis et continet diem solarem et noctem; and therefore in Inditements for Burglary and the like, we say in nocte ejusdem diei. Iste dies naturalis est spatium in quo sol progreditur ab oriente in occidentem et ab occidente iterum in orientem."

But there is another way of reconciling the discrepancy—Hopton may not have intended the words "holding till sun-setting" to apply to the Babylonians, but only to "the lawyers in England," whose day, he says,commencedat the same time as the Babylonian day. The transposition of the words in question to the end of the sentence would give such a meaning, viz. "The Babylonians begin their day at sun-rising, and so do our lawyers count it in England, holding till sun-setting." Altered in this way, the latter clause does not necessarily apply to the Babylonians.

Here again we have a lawyers' day almost verbally identical with one assigned to them by Sir Edward Coke: "Dies artificialis sive solaris incipit in ortu solis et desinit in occasu, and of this the law of England takes holdin many cases."

Nor does Lord Coke strengthen or vary his description in the least, when speaking of the day commencing at midnight; he uses again the same expression with regard to it, "The Egyptians and Romans from midnight, and so doth the law of Englandin many cases."

Hence the authority of Chief Justice Coke, is at best only neutral; for who will undertake to prove to which of these classes of "many cases" Lord Coke meant to assign the attainment of majority?

In support of Ben Jonson's testimony, it may be urged that the midnight initial of the day was itself derived by us from the Romans; and it is nearly certain thattheydid not perform any legal act, connected with birthday, until the commencement of thedies solis.

A proof of this may be observed in the discussion by Aulus Gellius (Noct. Attic., iii. 2.) as to which day, the preceding or the following, a person's birth, happening in the night, was to be attributed. He quotes a fragment from Varro,—

"Homines qui ex media nocte ad proximam mediam noctem his horisXXIVnati sunt, uno die nati dicuntur."

On which Gellius remarks:

"From these words it may be observed that the arrangement of (birth) days was such, that to any person born after sunset, and before midnight, the day from which that night had proceeded should be the birthday; but to any person born during the last six hours of the night, the day which should succeed that night must be the birthday."

This explanation might seem almost purposely written in reply to some such difficulty as occurred toProfessor de Morgan(antè, p. 250.), when he remarks that, if birthday were to be confined to daylight, "a child not born by daylight would have no birthday at all!" But since it was notorious amongst the Romans that the civil day began at midnight, such aquæri solitumas this could never have been mooted, if the birthday observance had not been known and acknowledged to have a different commencement. In continuation of the same subject, Gellius proceeds to quote another passage from Varro, which I shall also repeat, not only as furnishing still farther proof that the Romans did not regard the night as forming any part of the birthday, but also as affording an opportunity of recording an opinion as to the interpretation of Varro's words, which, in this passage, do not appear to have ever been properly understood.

After stating that many persons in Umbria reckon from noon to noon as one and the same day, Varro remarks:

"Quod quidem nimis absurdum est; nam qui calendarum hora sexta natus est apud Umbros, dies ejus natalis videri debebit et calendarum dimidiatus, et qui est post calendas dies ante horam ejusdem diei sextam."

Now why shouldbeginning one's birthday at noonappear so absurd to Varro? Simply because the hours of the night were not then supposed to be included in the birthday at all, and therefore Varro could notrealizethe idea of a birthday continued through the night.

He says that, according to the Umbrian reckoning, a person born on any dayafterthe point of noon, would have only half a birthday on that day; and for the other half, he would have to take the forenoon of the following day. Varro had no notion of joining the afternoon of one day to the forenoon of another, because he looked upon the unbroken presence of the sun as the very essence of a natal day.

Nothing can be plainer than that this was the true nature of the absurdity alluded to; but it would not suit the prejudices of the commentators, because it would compel them to admit thatsexta hora must have been in the afternoon, in opposition to their favourite dogma that it was always in the forenoon.

For if Varro had intended to represent sexta hora in theforenoon, he would have said that the other half-day must be taken from theafternoon of thepridie, instead of saying, as he does say, that it must be taken from theforenoon of thepostridieof the Calends.

Consequently, Varro means by "qui Calendarum hora sexta natus est," a person born in the sixth hour of the day of the Calends; the sixth hour being that which immediately succeeded noon—themedia horaof Ovid. But what Varro more immediately means by it is, not any particular point of time, but generally any timeafter noonon the day of the Calends.

That the true position ofsexta hora, when implying duration, was in the afternoon, has long been a conviction of mine; and I have elsewhere produced undeniable evidence that it was soconsidered by ancient authors. But this passage from Varro is a new and hitherto unnoticed proof, and certainly it ought to be a most convincing one, because it seems impossible to give Varro's words a rational meaning without the admission of this hypothesis, while with it everything is clear and consistent.

The commentators, driven by the necessity I have just pointed out, either to admit the afternoon position ofsexta hora, or to abstain from reading it as aspaceof time, have attempted to force a meaning by readingsexta horain its other sense, an absolute mathematical point, thepunctus ipseof noon.

In so doing they have not scrupled to libel Varro's common sense; they represent his idea of the absurd to consist in the embarrassment that would be caused by the birth occurring at the critical moment of change,—split as it wereupon the knife-edge of noon; so that, in the doubt that would arise as to which day it should belong, it must be attributed partly to both!

This interpretation is so monstrous, and so evidently wide of the meaning of the words, that its serious imputation would scarcely be believed, if it were not embalmed in the Delphin edition of Aulus Gellius, where we read the following footnote referring to theargumentum ad absurdumof Varro:

"Infirmum omnino argumentum, et quod perinde potest in ipsum Varronem retorqueri. Quid enim? Si quis apud Romanos Calendis hora vi. noctis fuerit natus, nonne pariter dies ejus natalis videri debebit, et partim Calendarum, et partim ejus dici qui sequetur?"

It is not worth while to inquire what may have been the precise dilemma contemplated by the writer of this note, since most certainly it is not a reflex of Varro's meaning. The worddimidiatusis completely cushioned, although Gellius himself has a chapter upon it a little farther on in the same volume.

The anomaly that amused Varro was the necessity of piecing together two halves not belonging to the same individual day and with the hiatus of a night between them; a necessity that would assuredly appear most absurd to one who had no other idea of birthday than the twelve consecutive hours of artificial day, which he would call "the natural day."

This proneness of the Romans to look upon thedies solisas the only effective part of the twenty-four hours, is again apparent in their commencement of horary notation at sunrise, six hours later than the actual commencement of the day. And in our own anomalous repetition of twice twelve, we may still trace the remains of the twelve-hour day; we have changed the initial point, but we have retained the measure of duration.

It is, however, certain that the two methods of reckoning time continued for a long time to exist contemporaneously. Hence it became necessary to distinguish one from the otherby name, and thus the notation from midnight gave rise, as I have remarked in one of my papers on Chaucer, to the English idiomatic phrase "of the clock;" or the reckoning of the clock, commencing at midnight, as distinguished from Roman equinoctial hours, commencing at six o'clockA.M.This was what Ben Jonson was meaning by attainment of majority atsix o'clock, and not, asProfessor De Morgansupposes, "probably a certain sunrise." Actual sunrise had certainly nothing to do with the technical commencement of the day in Ben Jonson's time. For convenience sake, six o'clock had long been takenas conventional sunrise all the year round; and even amongst the Romans themselves, equinoctial hours were frequently used at all seasons. Actual sunrise, in after times, had only to do with "hours inequall," which are said to have fallen into disuse, in common life, so early as the fifth or sixth century.

I trust I may now have shown reasonable grounds for the belief that Ben Jonson may, after all, have had better authority than his license as a dramatic poet, for dating the attainment of majority at six o'clockA.M.; and that nothing short of contemporary evidence directly contradictory of the custom so circumstantially alluded to by him, ought to be held sufficient to throw discredit upon it. It is one of the singular coincidences attending the discussion of this matter by Gellius, that, at the conclusion of the chapter I have been expatiating upon, he should cite the authority of Virgil; observing that the testimony ofpoetsis very valuable upon such subjects, even when veiled in the obscurity of poetic imagery.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

(Vol. viii., p 429.)

Your CorrespondentProf. De Morganhas so ingeniously analysed the facts, which he already possesses, bearing on the connexion of Sir Isaac Newton's niece with Lord Halifax, and her designation in theBiographia Britannica, that I am tempted to furnish him with some additional evidence. This question of Mrs. Catherine Barton's widowhood has often been canvassed by that portion of her relatives who do not possess the custody of Sir Isaac Newton's private letters.

The Montagues had a residence in the village of Bregstock in Northamptonshire, where the Bartons lived. The Bartons were a family of good descent, and had long been lessees of the crown with the Montagues for lands near Braystock.

There were several Colonel Bartons, whose respective ages and relationship can best beexhibited by a short pedigree. Thomas Barton had two sons, Thomas and Robert.

Robert (born in 1630, and who died in 1693) married Hannah Smith, Newton's half-sister, by whom he had Hannah (born 1678), Catherine (born 1679, died 1739), Colonel Robert (born 1684).

Thomas (born in 1619, died in 1704) married Alice Palmer, by whom he had Thomas, who married Mary Dale, by whom he had Thomas (d. s. p.), Colonel Matthew (born 1672), Colonel Noel (born 1674, died 1714). Thomas had a second son, Geoffrey, who married Elizabeth ——, by whom he had Charles (born 1700), Cutts (born 1706), Catherine (born 1709), Montague (born 1717), and others.

In a family paper written by a granddaughter of Colonel Noel Barton, at her mother's dictation, it is stated that Colonel Matthew married a relative of Sir Isaac Newton, and was Comptroller of the Mint; but this paper is not very correct in its other statements.

On the other hand, a connexion of the family who signs himself H. in an old number of theGentleman's Magazine, says of Newton:

"He had a half-sister, who had a daughter, to whom he gave the best of educations, the famous witty Miss Barton, who married Mr. Conduit of the Mint."

Mr. Conduit writes, that his wife lived twenty years before and after her marriage with Sir Issac.

I had always thought that Catherine Barton's brother Robert had died too early to attain the rank of Colonel. In the British Museum, in the Register, there is an account of a sermon preached at the funeral of Robert Barton in the year 1703. I could not find the sermon.

The famous Duchess of Marlborough thus satirises Mouse Montague:

"He was a frightful figure, and yet pretended to be a lover; and followed several beauties, who laughed at him for it."

It is worth mentioning that Colonel Noel Barton died in London in 1714, while in attendance on his patron Lord Gainsborough, soon after he had been appointed Governor of the Leeward Islands. This was the year before Lord Halifax'sLifewas written, and possibly might have been the cause of the designation "Widow" being applied to Catherine Barton by mistake. Whatever the connexion of this lady with Lord Halifax may have been, it does not seem to have given any offence to her relatives. You will observe that Geoffrey Barton names his sons Charles and Montague, and his daughter Catherine. Charles afterwards received the rectory of St. Andrew's Holborn from the family of Montague; and Cutts was Dean of Bristol under Bishop Montague. And Montague obtained preferment from Mr. Conduit. Neither the family of Montague, nor that of Barton, seem to have thought the connexion discreditable. Moreover, the births of these children of Geoffrey Barton, a clergyman, occurred at the very period when the name of Catherine should have been most distasteful, had the intimacy been dishonourable.

Mr. Conduit died in the year 1738, and Mrs. Conduit in the year 1739; and Catherine Conduit did not become Lady Lymington till 1740. Probably both Mr. and Mrs. Conduit made wills. Have they been examined at Doctors' Commons?

J. W. J.

(Vol. viii., pp. 12. 134. 200. 375. 452. 471.)

It is pleasing to find so much interest excited among the readers of "N. & Q." relative to the parentage of this lady; and we may fairly hope that the spirit of research which has thus been awakened, will not die away until the last spark of error and mystery has been extinguished.

T. L. P. has favoured us with quotations from a little pamphlet, entitledHistorical Facts connected with Nantwich and its Neighbourhood. Now, after giving this work a most careful perusal, I cannot but think that the title of the book is, in this instance at least, a misnomer. The authoress, for it was written by a lady long resident in the vicinity, has evidently wrought upon the foundations of others; and taking the veteran Ormerod as a sufficient authority, has given full vent to her imagination, and pictured, with "no 'prentice hand," the welcome visits of Milton to Stoke Hall, a place which, in all probability, was never once honoured with the presence of this great man. There is no evidence whatever adduced to give even the semblance of colour to this unfortunate error; whereas, on the side of the Wistaston family, the proofs of its identity as the family of Mrs. Milton are numerous and, to my notion, incontrovertible.

As if, indeed, to give us "confirmation sure" of the truth of this position, our old friendCranmorestarts up, "like a spirit from the vasty deep," and, after an absence of many months from our ranks, pays off his ancient score by producing the evidence he so long ago promised us. From it we gather that Thomas Paget, the father, named hiscousinMinshull, apothecary in Manchester, overseer of his will; and that his son, Nathan Paget, eighteen years afterwards, names in his will John Goldsmith and Elizabeth Milton ashis cousins, and makes bequests to them accordingly. Now, it so happens that Thomas, son of Richard Minshull of Wistaston, was anapothecary, and that he settled inManchester, and thereupon founded the family of Minshull of Manchester. Thisgentleman was doubtless thecousinreferred to in the will of the elder Paget. It farther happens, that Thomas Minshull, the grandfather of this Manchester apothecary, married a daughter of Goldsmith of Nantwich. The John Goldsmith of the Middle Temple would then doubtless be the nephew or grand-nephew of this lady, and in either case acousinof Thomas Minshull of Manchester, and of Elizabeth Minshull of Wistaston. This is another, if not a completing link in the genealogical chain, and convinces me, now more than ever, of the correctness of my conclusions.

I may add that the whole of the deeds referred to byMr. Singerare now in the safe and worthy keeping of Mr. J. Fitchett Marsh of Warrington; and that they are publishedin extenso, together with a valuable essay on their historical importance by their present possessor, in the first volume ofMiscellaniesissued by the Chetham Society.

T. Hughes.

(Vol. viii., pp. 132. 417.)

I am not sure that any of your correspondents have noticed the resemblance between the letter T t, especially in some of its ancient forms, and the form of the cross. In the Greek, Etruscan, and Samaritan forms of this letter, we have representations of the three principal forms which the cross has assumed:Tau cross, †, ×. It is also remarkable that in Ezekiel ix. 4. 6.: "Set a mark on the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry," &c., the word rendered "mark" isתּו(Tau), the name of the Hebrew letter answering to the above: and as the Samaritan alphabet, which the present Hebrew characters have superseded, was then in use, it is highly probable that the "mark" referred to in Ezekiel's vision was the SamaritanTau, as seen on ancient Hebrew shekels, resembling a St. Andrew's cross.

A circumstance relating to the Paschal sacrifice mentioned by Justin Martyr, in his conference with Trypho the Jew, and which he asserts without contradiction from his learned opponent, is worthy of a note:

"This lamb, which was to be roasted whole, was a symbol of the punishment of the cross, which was inflicted on Christ,Το γαρ οπτωμενον προβατον, κ.τ.λ.For the lamb which was roasted was so placed as to resemble the figure of a cross; with one spit it was pierced longitudinally, from the tail to the head; with another it was transfixed through the shoulders, so that the forelegs became extended."—Vid. Just. MartyriOpera, edit. Oberther, vol. ii. p. 106.

Your correspondent H. N. appears to have fallen into several errors, which (having appeared in "N. & Q.") ought not to pass unnoticed.

1. He confounds the basilica with the cruciform cathedral, and with "the plan of the Roman forum."

Basilica (from Gr.Βασιλικὴ, a royal dwelling) was the name given by the Romans to those public edifices in which justice was administered and mercantile business transacted. Several of these buildings, or the remains of them, still exist in Rome, each forum probably having had its basilica. Vitruvius, who constructed one at Fanum, says it ought to be built "on the warm side of the forum, that those whose affairs call them thither might confer without being incommoded by the weather." Yet H. N. says: "The basilica seems to have originally been the architectural plan of the Roman forum." The most perfect specimen of the antique basilica is that discovered at Pompeii, on the south side of the form and at right angles with it. By consulting a good plan of Pompeii, or glancing at a plan of its basilica, any one may see that it was not cruciform, but "in the form of a long parallelogram," with a central space and side porticoes, answering to the nave and aisles of a church. The early Christians adopted the basilica form for their churches: those built in the form of a Greek or Latin cross are of much later date. Yet H. N.'s learned friend exclaims, when viewing the temple of Muttra, "Here is the cross! the basilica carried out with more correctness of order and symmetry than in Italy!"

2. H. N. assumes that the Jews practised crucifixion as a punishment, and "may have imitated the Assyrians, as crucifixion may have been adopted long before that of Christ and the two thieves (Qy. robbers)." Crucifixion appears to have been in use from a very remote period, but was never adopted by the Jews. The Romans, who with all their greatness were an atrociously cruel people, employed it as the peculiar and appropriate punishment of delinquent slaves. Christ was "crucified under Pontius Pilate," the Roman Procurator of Judea, at a time when that country had become subject to the Romans, and its rulers could say, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."

3. When H. N. refers to "the advocates of conversion and their itinerant agents," it is difficult to perceive exactly what he intends, except "to hint a fault and hesitate dislike." But before a writer undertakes to cast a reflection on those great societies who have been labouring—not by coercion, but by instruction and persuasion, by the circulation of the scriptures and the preaching of the Gospel—to substitute Christianity for idolatry among those who are under the government of Great Britain, he should well understand the grounds of his censures, so as to be able "to explain to the conversionists that, unless this doctrine be openly refuted, the missionaries may in truth be fighting their own shadow."

How then has H. N. explained the doctrine which they are to refute—the meaning of the "cross and basilica" in India? The only witness in proof of it has disappeared "by falling into a volcanic crater." He himself professes to be quite ignorant of cathedral architecture and the English government, and English gentlemen generally, who have shamefully secreted such a treasure, are equally ignorant. Why had they not consulted the living Church of Hindooism, and shown it a little sympathy and respect with a view to getting enlightened? Whereas "the little they do know is derived from books." Farther, "the elder civilians, men of ability, classical scholars, and first-rate Asiatic linguists," when assembled in that very building, though they descanted on the sanctity of the place, "not one of them knew nor remarked the 'cross and basilica.'" And when visiting the great temple of Benares, H. N. does not recollect that the cross was either noticed to him or by him.

It may be true that when the Hindoo "system of government existed in efficiency, there was neither crime nor punishment"—a shadowy tradition, I presume, of the state of innocence! It may also be true that "the mythology of the Nile agrees with that of the Ganges." But it would not follow that the cross is a myth derived from the mysteries of Egypt or the astronomy of India. It would still remain an unquestionable fact, that the cross, for ages an instrument of ignominious torture under Pagan Rome, only ceased to be so when Christianity had won its way through all ranks of society up to the imperial throne; then its employment was abolished by Constantine, partly from the humanising influence of the new faith, and partly out of reverence to Him who had suffered on it for the world's redemption.

The anticipations of Christianity supplied by Paganism, of which Krishna "burnishing the head of the serpent" is a striking example, may be easily accounted for, and their source pointed out. As a corruption of the earliest revelation, Paganism contains, as might be expected, a portion of truth blended with much error. Indeed, it would be no difficult task to prove that classical and oriental mythology is in some sense, and to a great extent, the shadow of biblical truth. What then? In endeavouring to supplant idolatry in the Roman empire, were the Apostles and first preachers of Christianity merely "fighting their own shadow?" They recognised those truths which even heathens admit, but opposed and overthrew the accumulated errors of ages. Yet there were some even then who condemned the preaching of the cross as "foolishness," till success demonstrated its wisdom.

Lastly, H. N., having "travelled much in this country and on the Continent," is convinced "that superstition prevails comparativelylessin Asia than in Europe," and that "the pages of 'N. & Q.' abundantly corroborate the opinion."

This is far more startling than the discovery of the "cross and basilica" at Muttra. To admit it, however, would require us to disregard the testimony of a cloud of witnesses, and to ignore all our former reading. The vast systems of Asiatic superstition, it seems, are less objectionable than our own folk lore; the tremendous shades of Brahma and Budhu, of Juggernaut and the goddess Kali, with their uncouth images and horrid worship, are harmless when compared with Puck, the Pixies, and Robin Goodfellow; and Caste, Suttee, and Devil-worship[3]are evils of less magnitude than cairns, kist-vaens, and cromlechs. The mental balance must be peculiarly constructed that could lead to such a decision. Certainly H. N. is no Rhadamanthus. "Dat veniam corvis, vexat censure columbas."

The appeal to "N. & Q." in corroboration of his opinion forms a pleasant and suitable conclusion of the whole: for while in India superstition still undeniably lives and "prevails," it is one special object of "N. & Q." to embalm the remains of local superstitions in Great Britain that have either breathed their last, or arein extremis; to collect the relics of long-departed superstitions that were once vigorous and rampant in our island, but are now in danger of being lost and forgotten. Their very remnants and vestiges have become so rare that they are unknown to the great mass of the community; and the learned, therefore, especially those versed in ethology, are urged to hunt them out wherever they exist in the different districts of the country, before they fall into utter oblivion.

J. W. Thomas.

Dewsbury.

Back to Index Next