« EelmineJätka »
took place in June, 1824. The Catalogue is in Five Parts, 4to. The print of the ten "Parliamentary Generals" is one of most uncommon rarity, and perhaps unique. The names of the ten Generals are-“Earl of Essex, Alexander Leslie, Sir Thomas Fairfax, Edward Earl of Manchester, Major-General Skippon, Oliver Cromwell, Sir William Waller, Sir William Brereton, and Major-Generals Massey and Brown, with a perfect list of all the victories obtained by the Parliament's forces, and the names of the cities, towns, castles, and forts, taken since the beginning, to this present month, August, 1646, by Josiah Ricraft." The print was purchased by Woodburn. Sir William Musgrave's copy sold for 114. See his Catalogue of English Portraits, (Anon.) 8vo, 1800, p. 166.
2. John Theyre's collection of manuscripts is now in the British Museum. Vide A Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the King's Library, by David Casley. Lond. 1734, 4to. In the arrangement of this Catalogue, the manuscripts are taken as they originally stood on the shelves at St. James's, or sometimes in the order of acquisition, without any classification whatever; the former method appears, however, to have generally prevailed. For a Catalogue of the Books in the library of the Lanthony Priory, see Harl. MS. 460. Some account of John Theyre may be
found in Wood's Athena Oxon. iii. 996 (ed. Bliss), and in Bigland's Gloucestershire, i. 251, ed. 1791.
3. Elegiack Memorials is attributed to Thomas Twittee, S. T. P. of Oriel College, Oxford, and vicar of Kingstonupon-Thames, ob. 1667. A short notice of him is given in Wood's Fasti (Bliss), i. 469.]
SONG.-Where are the words to be found of a song which contains the following lines? "Oh! the oak, and the ash, and the ivy tree, They flourish the best in the North Countree."
[This song, with the music, is printed in that charming work, Chappell's Popular Music of the Olden Time, ii. 456. It is entitled "I would I were in my own Country." A black-letter copy of it is in the Roxburghe Collection, ii. 367, entitled "The Northern Lasses Lamentation; or, The unhappy Maid's Misfortune;" and reprinted in Evans's Old Ballads, i. 115, ed. 1810. It commences "A North-country lass up to London did pass,
Although with her nature it did not agree;
Still wishing again in the North for to be.
BURIALS AT KENSINGTON.-Perhaps the editor can kindly inform F. M. S. where he should look for the tombstone of a celebrated individual who is said to have been "buried at Kensington in 1729"? Where was the parish churchyard of Kensington at that date?
[The old Kensington church was taken down in 1811; a few epitaphs in its churchyard have been preserved by Faulkner in his History of Kensington, 4to, 1820, who
has also supplied eight pages of extracts from the burial register. Under the year 1729 he has recorded the deaths of Sir Thomas Colby, Bart., Oct. 15, and the Right Hon. Catherine, wife of William Lord Abergavenny, Dec. 12.]
(4th S. i. 578.)
I can assure T. P. F. that I have again and again seen the experiment mentioned by Sir David Brewster tried, and always with success. As, however, the inflation of the lungs of the lifters admits of the full exertion of their strength at the time of making their effort, which they could not do if the air in those organs was exhausted (every one takes a full breath before attempting any feat of the kind), this fact is not so inexplicable as several others in reference to the weight of the human body, the sudden variaable. These do not seem to occur in the case of tions in which seem to be perfectly unaccountjockeys and others in constant or regular training, but in that of amateurs they sometimes present themselves in a manner that is utterly unaccountable. I may mention one instance which came under my own personal experience: - A wellknown wine merchant in Glasgow was going to ride for the Commanding-officers' Cup of the Lanarkshire Yeomanry. He met me on the steps of the inn, and asked me to go over with him to the market scales and see him weighed. He pulled the weight so fully that I advised him to make the 21b. declaration. We proceeded to our drill ground, and went through a by no meanɑ into the weighing-house, where I was acting severe review day. When this was over he came the fourteen stone, and I had to lend him the steward. To my utter surprise he was short of whole of the small weights I had, amounting to some four or five pounds.
The next day I was to ride for the Officers' Challenge Whip, and in the morning he in turn accompanied me to the market scales. I hardly pulled the weight. He reminded me of what occurred to himself the day before, and advised me to make sure of accidents. I told him I could carry seven pounds of lead in my saddle cloth, which we agreed would be sufficient. On going to scale on the course, I however found that I did not require an ounce of it, but, on the contrary, had to make the declaration.
A still more remarkable instance was, many years ago, mentioned to me by Lord Haddington as having occurred at the Kelso races. A most respectable farmer, for whose veracity his lordship could personally vouch, came in as winner of the deciding heat of a severely-contested race, but failed to draw the scales; and his lordship,
then Mr. Baillie, was obliged to disqualify him, and award the stakes to the second horse. A few minutes afterwards the gentleman returned to the weighing-room, and, while admitting the correctness of the decision, expressed a wish to try the scale again for his own satisfaction. This being permitted, to the surprise of all present he was found to be full weight. Mr. Baillie immediately asked, "Have you eaten or drunk anything since you were here? "No, sir." "Have you done anything? "The only thing except talking was to go behind one of the tents for a few minutes." I may add that the gentleman's saddlery had remained during the whole interval in the weighing-room, and could not have been tampered with.
I have known persons attempt to explain these strange variations by referring them to the high or low spirits of the rider; but although this might apply to the last of these instances, it could not to the former, as the discrepancy occurred before the race.
The whole subject, I admit, is far beyond my philosophy, and I should be delighted to hear if any reader of "N. & Q." can give any explanation of it.
GEORGE VERE IRVING.
After Sir D. Brewster (Nat. Magic, p. 256) has pronounced the phenomena to be inexplicable, I shall only venture to state that I have repeatedly experimented, and have to note that the filling the lungs is a sine qua non, a person who is consumptive not possessing the same lifting power that another has whose lungs are in better order. The weight of air supported by the body is fifteen pounds on every square inch, but, acting as water and other fluids, that pressure is counterpoised in every direction; sometimes the pressure is less (the barometer falls), and we experience lassitude; sometimes the pressure is greater (the barometer rises), and we are exhilarated. When we attempt to use great force in striking, leaping, &c., we involuntarily hold in the breath, or ought to do so, to be the more effective. The equilibrium being destroyed by the continued retention of the breath, brings into operation, I conceive, the difference of pressure (externally fifteen pounds, internally say sixteen pounds, or) one pound additional for each square inch of surface. I assume sixteen pounds for illustration merely.
The experiments I have been concerned in were when the man, to be raised by the tip of one finger of four men, was laid on a table. According to Brewster, the most striking effect was when six men raised one man laid on two chairs, his legs being supported by the one and his back by the other. A converse experiment is referred to by Evelyn, May 7, 1662:
"I waited on Prince Rupert to our Assembly [afterwards the Royal Society], where we tried several expe
riments in Mr. Boyle's vacuum. A man thrusting in his arm, upon exhaustion of the air, had his flesh immediately swelled so as the blood was near bursting the veins."
This is similar to cupping. So far aërostatics: and by analogy, in hydrostatics, the pressure of water on the hull of a vessel is made to vary from the equilibrium by means of the rudder, which, in effect, lengthens one side of the vessel and shortens the other, thus rapidly moving into a line opposed to its direct course, by current, wind, or steam, a large vessel of many hundred tons burthen and many hundred tons dead weight. T. J. BUCKTON.
Wiltshire Road, Stockwell, S.W.
NOY AND NOYES.
(4th S. i. 390, 566.)
I cannot agree with T. M. when he says that the grant of arms to Attorney-General Noy's grandfather in the name of Noy or Noyes "goes to show that both these names belonged to the same family." In my opinion it goes to prove the ignorance of the person who made the entry in the Register in the College of Arms. The circumstance might be accounted for in this way. The herald may have received instructions for the grant in the name of Noy, but not having met with the name before, and knowing that not only were Noy and Noyes similar, but that the same arms had previously been granted to a Noyes, concluded that Noy was an error, but had no authority to alter it. To get over the difficulty, then, he registered the name as it appeared in the instructions, and added or Noyes to it by way of query. It might also be accounted for in this way. Noy and Noye, when used to denominate any of the Attorney-General's family, appear both to be correct. Noy is, however, the oldest and most common mode of spelling. The herald or his clerk probably knew of this, and entered the name in both forms. But then MEMOR says the Register gives Noy or Noyes. Possibly the s after Noye is, if I may so put it, not an s at all, but a simple flourish. Those who know how the e is shaped in old MSS. will readily understand how the slight curve which invariably follows the terminating e could be mistaken for the letter s.
The Visitations of Cornwall, which begin with the Attorney-General's grandfather, give Noy and Noye.
Norden, whose description of Cornwall was probably written about 1584, though not published till 1728, mentions Edward Noye of Carnanton.
Noah, the tenth in descent from Adam, may be a possible derivation of Noy. The Greek form of the patriarch's name in the New Testament is Nwe, Noë. Now, in the Origo Mundi contained in the Cornish dramas edited by Mr. Edwin Norris, which, as that gentleman informs us, is pretty
certainly of the fifteenth century, Noah's name is spelt Noe.
In the sacred Cornish drama called The Creation of the World with Noah's Flood, the patriarch is always referred to as Noy. According to the MS. of this drama it was written by William Jordan in 1611, but Mr. Whitley Stokes, who has given us a critical edition of it, leaves it doubtful whether William Jordan was the author or merely the copyist, and thinks the text may belong to a much earlier date.
In the old stained glass windows of St. Neot's church in Cornwall, some of which are considered as early as 1200, are representations of the Creation and the Noachical period. The last of the series is devoted to the death of Noah, and bears this inscription, Hic Noy mortuus est.
These to some extent show that there is a curious relationship between Noah and Noy; but the relationship, if any, is by name alone. In the Cornish vocabulary, arranged by Mr. Norris, the word noi, a nephew or descendant, is found pronounced noee. I in Cornish, as our ee, is generally written y, rarely i, and now and then e; so that Noe and Noy, standing for Noah in the dramas, may be identified with noi, which, I think, is the correct derivation of the Attorney-General's name. The surname Noy may possibly have been given to that person who represented the patriarch in the ancient plays of Cornwall.
That a connection between the two was understood to exist in the time of the Attorney-General is slightly shown by contemporaneous writings. For instance, in the following lines written in Sept. 1634, on the official changes consequent on the death of the Attorney-General and the dismissal of Lord Chief Justice Heath:
"Noy's flood is gone, the Banks appear,
The Heath is cropt, the Finch sings there." One day when Mr. Attorney Noy was entertaining King Charles I. at his house in London, Ben Jonson, who was at that time in very indifferent circumstances, sent a plate to him with this verse inscribed on it, in the hope of having something
"When the world was drowned
No deer was found,
Because there was noe park;
And here I sitt
Without ere a bitt,
Cause Noyah hath all in his arke."
according to Davies Gilbert, was Teg yw Hedwich, i. e. "Beautiful in Rest," in allusion to Noy and Noah. Lamech called his son Noah, rest, saying, "this same shall comfort us."
T. M. is, I think, mistaken in stating the Cornish estates left by the Attorney-General to have been held forty years ago by Davies Gilbert, "in right of the descent of his mother or grandmother from Catherine Noyes." The principal estates passed out of the Noy family and from its descendants very many years before Davies Gilbert was born. Perhaps T. M. will kindly specify them, and at the same time give his reason for denominating the ancestress of Mr. Gilbert Catherine Noyes instead of Catherine Noy or Noye.
In conclusion, I think it well to state that, after examining some thousands of manuscripts and printed books in the study of this particular subject, I have never found Noyes in the remotest way connected with or referring to Noy or Noye; and that, if it so occurs in the Register of Arms, 1 believe it to be a solitary instance. W. N.
(4th S. i. 510, 561.)
I suppose it is quite impossible accurately to trace the origin and intention of the use of the ring in marriage. MR. PIGGOT's communication, interesting as it is, adds little or nothing to the valuable information, on this topic, collected in. your first and second series; neither does it supply an adequate answer to the particular questions on p. 510. Having lately paid special attention to this subject, and having recently delivered (and published) a lecture on The Wedding-Ring, its History, Poetry, Literature, and Superstitions, perhaps I may be allowed to state, in order, the four distinct reasons given for the original employment of the wedding-ring. I am aware that I have nothing very new to state, and that I may lay myself open, with MR. PIGGOT, to the charge of repeating much of what has already appeared in print. But I have never yet seen these four different accounts brought together, for the purpose of comparing their value, into one article. Every writer on this topic adduces his own favourite idea of the origin of the ring, ignoring all others. These ideas are
1. That defended by Hooker and MR. PIGGOT,
The reply was a dish of venison, and the fol- which regards the ring in marriage, from its shape lowing:
"When the world was drowned
There deer was found,
Although there was noe park;
To quicken thy witt,
Which comes from Noya's arke."
Mr. Noy was evidently aware of the connection, as is shown in the selection of his motto, which,
and portability, as a pledge of sincere affection"the badge of fidelity, and the emblem of constancy and integrity."
2. That given by Wheatly, in his book on the Common Prayer (quoted by MR. PIGGOT), who regards the ring simply as the pledge of the woman's dowry.
• London: W. Freeman, Fleet Street, 1868.
3. The still more probable opinion, that the original wedding-ring was a signet, which the husband handed to his wife on the day of the marriage, in token that he entrusted her with equal rights in the protection, management, and dispensation of his property, more particularly his household and domestic effects. It would seem that in the early ages things of value were protected in cases, not locked, but sealed; and that the wife, in order to the care of these things, would require a facsimile of the husband's signet, to wear both as a pledge of trust and equality with him in domestic affairs, and also for the more ready and convenient discharge of her duty as custodian of his valuables at home.
4. An additional reason is, that as a chain consists of links or rings, the ring is the token of that mutual bondage to each other into which marriage brings husband and wife. See Müller's Chips from a German Workshop (vol. ii. p. 282) :— "What is the meaning of the wedding-ring which the wife has to wear? There is no authority for it, either in the Old or New Testament. It is simply a heathen custom; whether Roman or Teutonic, we shall not attempt to decide, but originally expressive of the fetter by which the wife was tied to her husband. In England it is the wife only who wears the golden fetter, while all over Germany the tie is mutual; both husband and wife wearing the badge of the loss of their liberty."
The third and fourth of these reasons gain strength from the consideration that the weddingring was, in ancient times, worn by the husband as well as the wife: hence the exchange of betrothal rings in more modern times.
There would seem, however, to be no means of deciding which is the likeliest of the above four reasons. As to the questions on p. 510, I should be thankful to have satisfactory replies to them.
I add, as a supplementary note on this topic, the following, from Barrera's Gems and Jewels, 8vo, London, 1860:
"The ring presented to the betrothed maiden was an iron one: a loadstone was set in place of a gem. It indicated the mutual sacrifice made by the husband and wife of their liberty: the magnet indicated the force of attraction which had drawn the maiden out of one family into another."-P. 325.
"Among the Romans the seal-ring belonged to the wife, and betokened her prerogative of having the charge of the valuables. As there were not then, as in modern times, locks and keys to every piece of furniture, precious articles, like jewels, were kept in caskets sealed by the mistress of the house."-P. 335.
The wedding-ring was given anciently at the espousals, before the actual marriage. This is mentioned by Tertullian, and the ring is called by him pronubus. Speaking of Christian women, he says:
"Cum aurum nulla (femina) norat, præter unico digito, quem sponsus oppignerasset pronubo annulo.”— Apologet. cap. vi.
St. Clement of Alexandria, speaking of the nuptial ring, explains it as still intended for a signet, as it is well known that rings originally
Δίδωσιν οὖν αὐταῖς δακτύλιον ἐκ χρυσίον· οὐδὲ τοῦτον εἰς κόσμον, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὸ ἀποσημαίνεσθαι τὰ οἴκοι φυλακῆς ἄξια, διὰ τὴν ἐπιμελείαν τῆς οἰκουρίας. Padag. lib. iii. cap. 11.
sidered the ring as a pledge of mutual fidelity, St. Ambrose however, and other Fathers, conbinding as it were the hearts of the couple in a bond of conjugal affection. Thus, St. Ambrose relates the speech of St. Agnes to one who sought her in marriage, alluding to her having chosen a heavenly spouse :—
"Discede a me, quia jam ab alio amatore præventa sum, qui mihi satis meliora te obtulit ornamenta; et annulo fidei suæ subarrhavit me.”—Epist. XXXIII.
Pope Nicholas also mentions the ring as given at the espousals for a pledge of mutual fidelity :"Postquam arrhis sponsam sibi sponsus per digitum fidei annulo insignitum desponderit."-Resp. ad Consulta Bulgar.
The nuptial ring was always fixed on the fourth finger: never on the thumb. The old Sarum Ritual not only so directs, but adds the reason. It was indeed placed first upon the thumb, but immediately removed to the first and other fingers in succession, till it was finally fixed on the fourth. The order was as follows:
"Tunc inserat sponsus annulum pollici sponsæ dicens, 'In nomine Patris': deinde secundo digito dicens, et Filii': deinde tertio digito dicens, et Spiritus Sancti': deinde quarto digito dicens, 'Amen.' İbique dimittat annulum: quia in medico est quædam vena procedens usque ad cor."-Ordo ad faciendum Sponsalia.
The same form has always been retained in the Ordo administrandi Sacramenta, used by Catholics in this country.
F. C. H.
Wheatly has some authority for his statement that "anciently the ring was a seal." Bingham (book xxii. chap. iii. 5) says:
"Clemens Alexandrinus is cited by Mr. Selden himself as an evidence of the antiquity of the use of the ring in espousals among Christians. He says, "The ring is given her not as an ornament, but as a seal, to signify the woman's duty in preserving the goods of her husband, because the care of the house belongs to her.""
Comber, in his Companion to the Temple, of which Wheatly probably made much use, says (Part IV. sec. iii. Î) :
"First, we may note that the ring is of so great antiquity that Pliny professeth he knew not its first original, but we may justly believe the first use thereof was for sealing, as Macrobius affirms." H. P. D.
As we have not yet found out where "N. & Q." is not read, perhaps its pages may be conned over by some of the worthies of Newport, Rhode Island, North America. Some nine or ten years ago I made out, from historical documents, that William Coddington, and not Roger Williams, was the true founder of the Rhode Island colony. I am anxious to be informed on two points respecting him: first, something more of his pedigree and descendants than I am now in possession of; and second, whether he bore a coat of arms? and if so, what were the charges? Perhaps some gentleman having access to the archives or city papers of Newport, or elsewhere, might come upon an impression of his seal appended to some document. If so, I should feel obliged by a description of such a seal in true heraldic language. With respect to pedigree, I should much like to know whether there is any person of the name of Coddington now living who can prove his descent from the said founder of the colony? I believe there is not. As far as I know, he has now no male representatives, but some of his blood runs in my veins through other channels. William Coddington had a son Nathaniel, and no other child, as far as I now know; but if he had, I should much like to be informed. Nathaniel married Susannah Hutchinson, April 19, 1677, who was a grand-daughter of William and Ann Hutchinson, well known in the colonies. Nathaniel and his wife had an only child (I believe), a daughter, who married Colonel Peleg Sanford, styled (in Governor Hutchinson's Memoirs, p. 18) "Governor of the colony." The Sanfords and Hutchinsons had been long before acquainted in Lincolnshire, England, prior to their emigration to America in Charles I.'s time, and the father or grandfather of Peleg had married Bridgetta Hutchinson. (See Boston and Alford registers, co. Lincolnshire.). Peleg and wife had a son William Sanford, and no other child that I know of. William had no son, but three daughters: eg. Margaret, married Governor Hutchinson; Mary, married Lieut.-Governor Oliver; and Grizel, who died an old maid. In one pedigree I have it is doubtful, by the arrangement, whether William Sanford was father or brother of the three women. If these statements are understood, it will be seen that both the families of Coddington and Sanford, who once held prominent places in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, have now merged into the descendants of Governor Hutchinson and Lieut-Governor Oliver. The Sanford arms were: Argent, a chief gules. My authority for this is a seal belonging to a descendant of Lieut.-Governor Oliver. The American branch of the Hutchinson family bore, and bear, as follows:
"He Beareth, parted per Pale, gules & Azure, A Lyon Rampant Argent, Armed & Langued or, ye feild [sic] charged with Cross Crossletts of ye 4th, for ye Crest a Cockatrice azure, Crested, Weloped, & Armed Gules, Issuing out of a Ducall Crown or; and is Borne by the name of Hutchinson of Linconshire."
This inscription is written in faded ink under an old coat of arms done on vellum, which now lies on the table before me. T. Flower, Norroy, granted arms like these to Edward Hutchinson, July 4, 1581; and I am inclined to think that this painting is old enough to have been done from the original, and to have been taken out to America when the family went in 1634. It is one of the few things saved from the wreck and brought back to England by the family at the time of the Revolution. I have also got a dozen old-fashioned silver-handled knives and forks, which had belonged to the governor and his ancestors. These were brought back too. The blades of the knives are curved and broad at the end, to take up gravy when it was not considered infra dig. to put the knife in the mouth. The forks have two steel prongs, like those in use before four-pronged silver forks had been introduced. At an evening party given by my late father and mother, one of the forks was stolen after supper by a waiter, supposed for the sake of the silver handle. I have, therefore, only eleven forks. I do not recollect the circumstance myself, but I have often heard my mother tell the story. P. HUTCHINSON. INSON.
CIGARS AND SEGARS. (4th S. i. 553.)
What is the origin of the word cigar, or as it is now pretty generally spelled, segar? Smoking is not, as is sometimes assumed, a custom only known since the discovery of America and the introduction of Virginian tobacco. Tobacco was known long before in Persia, and smoking was a fashion of Eastern origin, and as ancient as the eating of opium, or perhaps the burning of incense. I am not acquainted with Persian and its cognate languages sufficiently to know whether they contain a word equivalent to segar and its European form cigar. But a learned friend suggests to me as a derivative the Aramaic, or , segar, or sagar, hot, and tells me that in the Targum (Ezekiel, xxxix. 9) the Hebrew word is rendered they shall burn.
Connected with this term there occurs to me another word of similar origin, and of curiously ubiquitous acceptance-I mean segar, or sagger, which is the cylindrical case of fire-clay within which fine stoneware is inclosed whilst undergoing the process of baking in the furnace. I am assured that this implement is in use in every country in the world in which potteries exist, and