« EelmineJätka »
Ieroe ! or, the Third Day's Journey"; and “The may move the milestone a yard or so without Sprigs of Fashion ; or, the Spur Club.” The poem injury, provided the mark remain.” Or did Bacon is full of allusions to the various publishers, parti- use an old verb “to mere,” to divide, from the Greek cularly the Longmans, and appears to have been ueépw, which is used by Spenser, and quoted by issued during the first quarter of the present cen- Jobason ? Mere-stone is not in Prof. Skeat's tury. W. ROBERTS. Dictionary.'
J. CARRICK MOORE. 63, Chancery Lane, W.C.
“ SLOPSELLER.”-A witness to the execution of a deed of conveyance of lards at Bredgar, Kent,
Beplies. dated 1813, subscribes himself as “ John Smith,
(8th S. ii. 445, 498; iii. 37, 171.) ("Slops" are cheap ready-made clothes. Smock
The extract given at the last reference from a frocks and the loose linen, "overalls worn by painters, letter addressed to MR. INGLEBY by an
“unimengineers, &c., are called "slops. See Annandale's peachable” authority by no means warrants him in
Ogilvie,' s.v. “Slops." “ Slop-shop is, or was, & arriving at the firm conclusion that he was correct familiar phrase.]
io stating that a king would never be addressed in ENGLISH SAPPHICS.-In the Youth's Magazine,
Italian as voi. August, 1825, there was a letter to the editor from
The extract—which does not ppear to me to 'R. S. F., Cambridge, on English Sapphics,
' which possess the authoritative character ascribed to it contained some
“Sapphic stanzas from the com- treats of the Italian so-called polite mode of mencement of the 138th [137th] Psalm,” begin. address, and, incidentally, of the customary usage ning :
in addressing royal personages. The rule for the Fest by thy stream, O Babylon, reclining, employment of this polite mode--known in Italy Woe-begone exile, to the gale of evening as dar del lei-is laid down in all of the numerous Only responsive, my forsaken harp I
Italian grammars I have seen, but the strict and Hung on the willow,
invariable agreement of the verb with the subject The stanzas—stated, and probably rightly stated, is not de rigueur in every case, as I sball have no to be superior to the sapphics of “Sir P. Sidney, difficulty in showing. From the examples which Dr. Watts, and Mr. Southey”.
'-were written by I am about to adduce it will be seen that “misschoolboy, whose name was known to R. S. F., takes, very similar to those made by English although he does not mention it. The paraphrase people who try to write in the third person, aro was taken from some book, and will be found, as often made” by many, if not all, of the best writers printed in the Youth's Magazine, in ‘N. & Q., in the Italian language. The fact is there is no js S. iv. 182. Is it known who the schoolboy mistake in the matter ; grammatical rule is not was, and in what book the sapphics were first rigorously adhered to, nor is the use of the published ?
J. F. MANSERGA.
second person plural in any way unusual. I Liverpool.
bave before me a booklet, ' Dieci Lettere ad un THOMAS, SECOND EARL OF Onslow. What is Uomo di Stato......scritte da cinque Ecclesiastici' the correct rendering of the lines commencing (Turin), and I find that, in the principal letters, “What can Tommy Onslow do ?" and what is the second person plural is used throughout;
in their original source ?
G. F. R. B.
others there is an occasional lapse into the third
person singular ; whilst all conclude “di Vostra ARTHUR Onslow (1731–92), M.P. FOR GUILD- Eccellenza.” And I would remind MR. INGLEBY'S FORD, appears to have become a lieutenant-colonel correspondent that not one commercial letter in a in the army on March 27, 1759. I should be thousand is written in the third person, even when glad to know (1) where he was educated ; (2) when the addressee is a sole partner. Tasso, in dedicating he entered and retired from the army, with the some of his “ Rime" to Leonora Sanvitale, condates of his several promotions; and (3) where he clades “senz' alcun biasimo è V. Signoria. E le was buried.
G. F. R. B. bacio le mani,” whilst, in a letter to the Duke of
Mantua, he begins “Vostra Signoria si stancherà," MERE-STONES. -Lord Campbell, in his 'Lives and concludes “ Baciate in mio nome le mani...... of the Chancellors,' vol. ii. p. 428, tells that e vivete felice." The employment of “ vostra” Bacon gave excellent advice to Justice Hutton, instead of sua, in conjunction with “Signoria,” then just made a Judge of the Common Pleas. “Eccellenza," and the like, in letters written in Among other counsels, be says, Contain the the third person, appears to be rather the rule than jurisdiction of your Court within the ancient mere- the exception. Whether grammatical or pot, vosstones, without removing the mark.” What is a signoria and its congeners, although incorporating mere-stone? Can it be a misprint for milestone ? the possessive adjective of the second person plural, In which case the meaning would be clear : “You are used in agreement with the third person singular.
A like incongruity is found in Roumanian, e.g., “Maestà" is a nominative in the singular, and “Cui ati* dat Dumneavostra cârtile* ?" where that it would be no less incongruous to say in “ Dumneavostra” is considered equivalent to you” English, "Do your Majesty wish ?" than to say, and is preceded by the plural form of the verb. An “Spero che vostra Maestà volete !" in Italian. analogous custom in modern Greek is cited by MR. INGLEBY says, in concluding bis note, ". As Diez, i củyéviá govňścúpecs ötl K.F.d., where the I expected, the speaker would naturally drop into singular noun is followed by the verb in the plural. the use of the third person.” I am assured by an The subject of the “ pronomen reverentiæ " is Italian friend that the contrary is the case, and treated at some length by this author in bis well that sustained conversation, starting in the elevated known grammar of the Romance languages. style, very soon drops into the second person
With regard to the form of address to be plural. observed in the case of royal personages, it is In despite, therefore, of the deliverance of MR. tolerably certain that DR. CHANCE, in his remark INGLEBY's friend, I submit that “ Voi, Signore,” on the use of voi when addressing the king, did to the king, is the most formal and deferential not have in view such of the royal entourage as are mode of address.
J, YOUNG. privileged to greet the sovereign with a familiar Glasgow i Buon giorng !" I certainly did not contemplate MR. YOUNG accuses me of having declared the such a case in stating that in my opinion MR. construction “voi avevi” to be analogous to the INGLEBY was in error in taking exception to DR. well-known French irregularity in which, l. 9, CHANCE's observation. I alluded to the formal“ vous aimiez " is used after a past tense instead mode of address, such, for instance, as would be of “vous aimassiez." I never said anything 80 used in a communication to the king from Parlia- utterly ridiculous. What I compared was not the ment, in which case-unless my memory deceives construction, but the similar regard for brevity and me—it is customary to use voi. It may be, but I euphony in the two cases. think it unlikely, that I have confused this de- As for the Italian idiom itself, MR. ADAMS and ferential voi with the Spanish usage, spoken of by I disagree upon two points only. One point is Diez in the above-mentioned grammar : “doch whether, at the present time, “vui avevi” is used wird vos (nach dem Wörterbuch der Akad.) immer of one person only or indifferently of one or more noch Geringeren gegen sehr Vornehmen und um-persons. The second point relates to the origin of gekehrt gebraucht. In Portuguese also “ vós is the avevi which is used with voi. employed in elevated style ; in sermons, lectures, With regard to the first poiot, it is quite true addresses ; 'Vós, Senhor,' to the king.” (D'Orsey's that in all the grammars which have been brought ‘Port. Gram.'), and it is to be borne in mind that before me, whether the more ancient ones quoted the third person is the almost exclusive form of by MR. ADAMS or the more modern ones which address in both of these languages. There are two I happen to possess, such as Diez (third edition, obsequious prefaces in Italian to Florio’s ‘New ii. 146), Corticelli (revised edition, 1874, p. 76), World of Words '; they are addressed to Queen Petrocchi (1887, 161), there is, as MR. ADAMS Anne in the second person singular. That of says, no question of numerical restriction. Bet Florio himself begins thus : “In su l'altare della this seems to me to be due either to too great contua eccelsa e serenissima Maestà ......che le tue ciseness or to carelessness. They content tbeminnato e reali virtù ecc.” Io Salvini's translation selves with saying that avevi is used for avevate, of 'Macbeth' the following passage occurs in the and do not say whether the avevate is used of one last act :
or more persons. In favour of my contention that Macbello. Di tua lingua
“ voi avevi ” is now used by educated people of one A far saggio qui giungi; or presto, narra.
person only I have the Italian lady mentioned in Ufficiale. Grazioso signor, quello che vidi Io deggio dirvi, e non so come.
my last pote. She will not budge from her stateIn this case the officer is addressing the king, and ment, though she is willing to allow that some does so in the second person plural. However, I am educated people who have not been in the babit, not disposed to lay much stress on examples taken in conversation, but in conversation only-use the
as she has, of teaching Italian may sometimes from translations. “In Portuguese novels," says idiom of more than one person, wbilst she believes D'Orsey, (translated from a foreign language such a use to be common among the uneducated. professing to represent people speaking as in real And I have, moreover, the testimony of no less a life, all the dialogues are invos,' instead of being in the third person singular !"
person than the Italian statesman Massimod'Azegło. MR. INGLEBY's informant makes rather a curious In his bistorical novel · Niccolò de' Lapi' (written observation with respect to “volete used with
in 1841), in the 1866 edition (published by Le “Vostra Maestà.” He is presumably aware that Monnier, of Florence), I find no fewer than six
passages in which voi, addressed to a single person, * In theso words é bas a cedilla, and is pronounced is used with a singular verb. These are, in p. 39,
voi vi dovessi," "
;"" poi eri,” “voi ascoltavi "; is
p. 43, “se voi non mandavi”; in p. 74, “ la più MR. ADAMS, however, prefers to believe that the piacevol beffa che voi udissi mai”; and in p. 137, idiom did not arise in a popular use. He follow
se voi m'avessi ummazzata." It will be noticed Nappucci, who takes this avevi to be a plural that in three of these passages the voi is used with derived from the Lat. habebatis, through habebati, the imperf. subj. In other places, however, abebati, avevati, avevai, avevi. But Nannucci D'Azeglio uses the regular second person plural of cannot produce any of these intermediate forms. one individual, as, e.g., in p. 41 " dicevate," and Noranything more, so MR. ADAMS tells me, in favour in p. 317 “che m'avevate promessa " (of a girl of his view, than that some anciont writers (such speaking to ber father), so that it would seem that as Jacopone in the thirteenth century) made the avevate is more respectful than voi avevi. But I second person plural of every verb to end in ing cannot discover that be anywhere uses such a con- instead of e as at present.* Sach evidence seems struction as voi avevi when more than one person to me altogether too scanty, and till much better is addressed. Indeed, there are at least three is produced I must believe that this avevi was passages in wbich, in such a case, the plural is always really a singular used by the uneducated as used. These are “speravate degli uomini” (p. 376), a plural.
F. CHANCE, “che volevate vedere (p. 398), and "già sape
Sydenham Hill. vate (p. 521). With regard to the second passage, the Italian lady is rather surprised that PRIMROSE, COWSLIP, AND OXLIỂ IN FRENCE is che volevi vedere” was not used, as the speaker (8th S. iii. 245).—MR. BOUCHER is quite right; is a “popolano." And here I may observe that French dictionaries are in a fog with regard to the the voi may be left out when the verb is singular exact equivalents of these flowers ; but the fault (just as it is commonly when the verb is plural), lies with the scientists, not with the lexicographers. provided always that it bas already been made I have bad myself to wade through many a worse clear that the person is addressed with voi. muddle, from A to Z, in scientific works, chiefly
It seems to me very doubtful, therefore, whether botanical and zoological. Here it happens that voi avevi is over now used by educated people of the English botanists bave given special names to more than one person. Oan MR. ADAMS quote any varities of the same plant, while the French example from a modern anthor ?
botanists have not done so; and, on the other And now with regard to the origin of this avevi band, as to coucou, laymen have given the same when used with voi. MR. ADAMS has well shown name to plants of totally different kiods. Primevèrs that in Old Italian a singular verb is not infre. is primrose, in a general sense (Latio primula). quently found with a plural pronoun used of more See Chambers's Encyclopædia' and Bouillet's than one person, and this in other tenses than the Dictionnaire des Sciences.' “ The common primimperfect and with demonstrative pronouns as well rose (Primula vulgaris) is the plant,” says Chamas with the personal pronoun voi; and, indeed, he bers,“ to which the English pame primrose specially has since been kind enough privately to supply me belongs." And the French primevère, used alone, with examples in which a singular verb is used means that only. But primevère, with some adjecafter a plural noun. All this would be likely to tive or other, is also cowslip, oxlip, and polyanthus, originate with uneducated persons, and such is the which are themselves kinds of primroses (Primulæ). view of the three grammarians I have quoted, for Cowslip (Primula veris) is, according to Bouillet, Diez uses the word "volksüblich,” Corticelli the primevère commune, called also coucou and " popolaresco," and Petrocchi “popolare"; and brayette. So Spiers's explanation of brayette as their view is confirmed by the fact that the voi cowslip is right, and that as common primrose by avevi is still used of more than one person as a rule the dictionary-maker whom MR. BOUCHier wenby the people only. But for a time, as is evident tions by the way, is wrong. Oxlip (Primula from MR. Adams's quotations, this irregular use of elator) is, according to Bouillet, the primevère the singular verb was not confined to the people, élevée. With reference to the different renderings but extended from them upwards and prevailed of coucou, we find in Littré, and also in Bescherelle among good writers, partly, perhaps, for the reason (under "Coucou”) and in Bouillet (under “Narnamed in my last pote. Later on, when the cisse” and “ Lychnide"), that, besides cowslip, it use of voi of a single person bad become more means the barren strawberry plant, the cuckoogeneral, the voi avevi" came to be restricted, Aower, or ragged-robin (Lychnis flos cuculi), and among the better educated, to one person only, the common daffodil (Narcissus pseudo-narcissus). possibly, in part at least, for the reason assigned In the last two senses the French is fleur de coucou, by the Italian lady, viz., that one person only is as well as coucou alone. MR. BOUCHIER asks how addressed.*
an educated man would translate such a sentence
as “ I am going out to gather cowslips and prim* Strictly speaking, voi avevi is equally ungrammatical whether it is used of one person or of more than one ungrammatical than voi avevi addressed to more than person. But voi is now so universally need of one person one person. that voi avevi addressed to one person strikes one as less As, e.g., andati for andale,
roses, and I hope to find some oxlips as well.” the query signed A. I. K. The reference to CounAll I can say is, that any one who tries to do this tess Tasker, whatever the facts of that case, is must be content to make the best of imperfect obviously irrelevant. The pedigree of the Kearneys materials, and use the terms coucous, primevères, of Knockanglas, co. Tipperary, afterwards of Bal. and primevères élevées. It can be done in no other linvilla (in Landed Gentry “Ballinvalla"), co. way, and it is easy enougb, but that French trans- Mayo, is stated in the account of Robert Cecil, lation must needs look somewhat clumsy.
Count Kearney, in Burke's 'Peerage' for 1884,
F. E. A. GASC. which I happen to have at band, to be" on record In all the French floras I have looked into in Ulster's Office,” where it could presumably be coucou is given as the vernacular name for the verified. Comparing the deduction of the descent cowslip of our meadows or the polyanthus of our
as given in Burke's 'Peerage,' above cited, with gardens, which is a derivative from it. Other
that given s.v. Kearney of Blanchville," "Landed French names for the same plants are brayette, eldest son of James Kearney of Rathcoole (b. 1625,
Gentry,'1879, it would appear that John Kearney, coqueluchon, primerole, printanière. The application of the name oxlip is not so
m. 1648, d. 1709), was a Secretary of State to simple as appears at first sight. I may explain it Haydn's Book of Dignities '), and accompanied
James II. (I have been unable to trace him in by stating that there are in Britain three species him to France, and that his younger brother,
" of the genus Primula, in addition to others which are not relevant in this connexion. The three Michael (b. 1658, d. 1716), was father of Martin species are (1) the common primrose, Primula created Count de Kearnie (in 'Landed Gentry'
. P. veris; (3) the Bardfield, or true oxlip, P. elatior. ton, daughter of the sixth Earl of Abercorn. From Why No. 3 should be considered the true oxlip, or
the Peerage' it would seem that the Secretary the oxlip par excellence, I do not know. It is a
was father, not uncle, of Martin, Count de Kear. rare plant, and the size of the flower does not ney, an antinomy wbich I am not able to reconcile. warrant the application “ox lip” (see Britten and the statement there made. Robert Cecil Kearney,
The dates given in the 'Landed Gentry'favour Holland's Dictionary of Plant Names'). Other in whose favour the title of Count Kearney is two much more common oxlips, one of which must stated ('Peerage, loc
. cit.) to have been “revived bave been Shakspero's plant, remain to be mentioned. flowers singly on stalks direct from the root-stock, tive of Richard, the eldest brother of the ancestor The common primrose throws up its by letters patent, 1868, was third son of Robert
Kearney of Ballinvilla (or Ballipvalla), representabut there is a variety of it, which is not uncommon; of Secretary Kearney.
NOMAD. which throws up from the stock a common shaft, at the top of which is borne a cluster of flowers Countess Tasker, mentioned incidentally by instead of a single bloom. This is the variety A. I. K., was not the keeper of a Catholic school at caulescens of the common primrose, and is, so far Brook Green (though that was her residence), bat & as I know, the commonest oxlip.
Roman Catholic lady of large fortune, which she Then there is a form which is supposed to be a devoted principally to charitable purposes. She hybrid, or cross, between the primrose and the had a country seat near Brentwood, in Essex, and cowslip, bearing its flowers on the top of a common she was a special friend of Cardinal Wiseman. shaft, as in the last-mentioned plant. This is
E. WALFORD, M.A. known botanically as Primula variabilis, so called Ventnor. because its characteristics are, as might be expected from its hybrid origin, variable. I presnme all
JOAN OF GAUNT (8th S. iii. 109, 231).- I do these oxlips occur in France as well as in our not see any descent of John of Gaunt from Fair country, and I suspect the peasantry would apply Rosamond; but bis first wife Blanche was prothe word coucou to each and all of them.
bably her descendant, though there is a weak link The common primrose in Northern France and in the chain. The pedigree is made out thus :Belgium is not so common as it is here; and, so far
Ida, youngest daughter of William de Longespée as I can glean from the French books at my dis- | (son of Rosamond), married Roger Bigod, who
died in 1221. posal at the moment, is never called coucou. MAXWELL T. MASTERS.
Hugh Bigod, her son, married Maud, daughter
of William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, and died KEARNEY (8th S. iii. 188). -Unless it is desired in 1225. either to throw doubt on the published pedigree Ralph Bigod, of Settrington, his youngest son, of Count Kearney, in which case the point or married Bertba, daughter of Gerard de Furnival. points in doubt should be clearly stated, or to dis- Isabel, his daughter, married, (1) Gilbert de pute the right of the Pope, while a temporal prince, Lacy, (2) John Fitz-Geoffrey. [Dates, howover, to confer titles of nobility on others than his own raise the presumption that Isabel was Ralph's subjects, it is difficult to see the precise value of sister rather than his daughter.]
Maud Fitz-John, who was probably the daughter more difficult and more rare than they are now of John Fitz-Geoffrey and Isabel, though the last I have run up the ancestry of John of Gaunt link of actual proof has not yet been discovered, for most of the five steps ; but I do not find Fair married William de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, Rosamond's descendants anywhere. The inquiry who died in 1298.
did not go far enough to be exhaustive. Isabel, her daughter, married (1) Patrick Cha
THOMAS WILLIAMS. wortb, (2) Hugh Le Despenser.
Aston Clinton. Maud Obaworth, ber daughter, married Henry Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster, who died in 1345. by Rosamund Clifford-generally known as Fair
The statement that Henry II. had two children Henry, Duke of Lancaster, her son, married Rosamund-William de Longespée and Geoffrey, Isabel, daughter of Henry, Lord Beaumont, and titular Bishop of Lincoln, and consecrated Arch. died in 1361. Blanche, bis younger daughter, was the wife of first appears in 'Speed's ' History of Great Britain'
, rests on no sure It John of Gaunt.
, Geoffrey, Bishop of Lincoln and Archbishop of disproved by chronology. The futuro Archbishop
in 1611. That Geoffrey was Rosamund's son is York, was certainly not the son of Rosamond, and of York was born in 1151/2, while Rosamund is was not much, if at all, her junior.
spoken of as a girl” (puella) by Giraldus Cam.
brensis more than twenty years later. Walter I wrote, proving
conclusively, but my reply was Map also distinctly tells us that the name of Geofnot inserted, that Henry bad not two children by frey's mother was Ykenai or Hikenai, and that Rosamond. Now MR. C. W.Cass repeats the previous she was a low woman of profligate life, who prestatement. It is quite clear to any one who will sented the boy to Henry as his at the beginning consult my reference to Walter Mapes's ' De Nugis of his reign. The evidence for Longsword being Curialium, Dist
. v. cap. vi. p. 235, Cam. Soc., Rosamund's son is equally untrustworthy, and the 1850, that Geoffrey was the son of the king and fact is discredited by all sound recent historical Ykenai or Hikenai. He became Bishop of Lincoln writers. The name of his true mother is unknown at the uncanonical age of twenty, and was after. even in early tradition. The argument drawn from wards Archbishop of York, A.D. 1191, ob. 1212. the grant made to Longsword by his father, shortly It is only a popular error which makes him the before his death, in 1188, of the manor of Appleby, son of Rosamond. There can be no question about in Lincolnshire, rests on a confusion between that it. Walter Mapes was both a contemporary and manor and the manor of Appleby, in Westmorean acquaintance of Geoffrey. Ed. MaRSHALL. land, which was held by Rosamund's family, the
EDMUND VENABLES. I cannot see the full bearing of the suggestion that the assertion of John of Gaunt's Chaucer's “STILBON” (8th S. iii. 126, 249). — descent from Fair Rosamond might have arisen The remarks by E. S. A. at the last reference are from ignorance or forgetfulness of the fact that the sadly bebind the age. The passages from Alanus heiress of the main line left no children by Thomas de Insulis, which he repeats, were long ago of Lancaster. She married twice, if not thrice, printed by Prof. Hales, and are given in full in after. She certainly left no child by her second my edition of Chaucer's "Mioor Poems,' Oxford, husband, Ebulo le Strange. But what about ber 1888, p. lxv. Of the existence of this book be third (or fourth ?) husband ? I do not think, seems entirely unaware ; so I trust he will buy a as a fact, that the lady left any children. But copy. MR. Cass does not notice the possibility, The fact that Chaucer was well acquainted with neither does be refer to the fact that the first Jobn of Salisbury, &c., is really very old indeed. William de Longespée had two sons and three All these authors, and many more, have long ago daughters married, with issue, I believe ; apother been consulted by me. Or, if I do not count, daughter was twice married, but issueless. From Prof. Loudsbury's 'Studies in Chaucer,' at any one of the sons one of John of Gaunt's sons-in- rate, discusses them at great length, bordering on law was descended. Then, again, William de prolixity, Longespée the second had, I think, three sons As to Stilbo, I am bebind the age myself. Dr. and one daughter at least ; 80_the possibilities of Köppel showed, in Anglia,' xiii. 183 (1890), that John of Gaunt's descent from Fair Rosamond are he was Stilpo, of Megara, mentioned by Seneca ; greater than MR. Cass seems to imply. When also that Chaucer got the name from Walter Map's we remember that every man has two grandfathers Valerius,' cap. 27. Stilbon, for Mercury, occurs and two grandmothers, and that in those days the in Alamis, 'Anticlaud,' iv. 6. next ascending generation would be of eight differ- It is of no consequence what new opinion may ent persons, one higher would include sixteen, and be offered as to the person meant by Bernard the the next step thirty-two — by " those days ” I Monk. He is certainly Bernard of Clairvaux, as mean days when marriages of affinity were much was expressly explained, more than two hundred