« AnteriorContinuar »
Delicia Rose, daughter of Forrester Rose, of Ringstead, Thrapston; of Olivebank, Edinburgh ; and Nigg, Ross, N.B.? D. M. R.
'The Squire's Pew.'—Where was this poem of Jane Taylor's first printed 1 W. L.
Dunbar = Ogilvy. — Ninian Dunbar, of Grangehill (circa 1610), is said to nave married a daughter of Ogilvy, Lord of Banff. Is anything definite known as to the lady's parentage? A. C.
Eastwood Family, Flockton Nether, parish of Thornhill, West Riding of Yorkshire.—Information wanted of the above family from the time of Charles I. to the grant of arms in 1747. A. E. Eastwood.
Auckland, New Zealand.
"The Roman Wash."—Face, abusing Subtle in the opening scene of 'The Alchemist,' speaks of
Your pinch'd horn-nose,
What is the meaning of "the Roman wash " 1
Ancient Cookery Term: "Joll."—What is the meaning, in a household book of 1683, ot"»jollot salmon "and" a joll of sturgeon"? I can find no trace of it in my copies of Barclay's ' Dictionary ' or Halliwell's 'Dictionary of Archaic Words,' or in the Indices to' N. & Q.' T. Cann Hughes, M.A.
[Same word as jourf=jaw, cheek. Gay has "The salmon's silver jole." In French the word is hure.]
Prikce Of Wales.—What is the law by virtue of which the heir-apparent to the English crown is created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester1! I have heard it maintained that only he can be Prince of Wales who first draws breath son of a reigning monarch ; but one recollects the fact that certainly five Princes of Wales were born before their fathers ascended the throne.
A. R. Bayley.
(salisbury, Collegium De Valle.—There was a MS. chartulary of this college among the Phillipps MSS. Can any reader of 'N. Jt Q.' tell me where it now is?
A. R. Malden.
Carless Or Carlos Family.—Any information respecting the family of Carless or Carlos will be gladly accepted. My present information is of Col. William Carlos, who sat in the oak with Charles II., and died in 1689, leaving
his property to an adopted son, Edward Carlos. The colonel had a son William, born 1643, died 1668, and buried at Fulham, and a brother John, who had a son William living in 1689 (see 'Boscobel Tracts'). The family lived for a long time at a farm called Bromhall, in the parish of Brewood, co. Stafford, and had to be ejected in 1724, as they claimed possession. Please send all information to (Rev.) F. J. Wrottesley. The Vicarage, Denstone, Uttoxeter.
Corney House.— Can any one tell me where Corney House was? It is mentioned in an unpublished letter from Aaron Hill to Samuel Richardson, the novelist (19 July, 1736) :—
"Corney House is much oftener in my thoughts than perhaps you imagine, and it is not without some impatience that I long for the delight of becoming a witness of that friendly and agreeable
freedom wherein you enjoy a retreat that carries
temptation even in description."
Solihull School for Girls, Solihull.
THE PLACE-NAME OXFORD. (9th S. iii. 44, 309, 389; iv. 70, 130, 382, 479.) Mr. Shore's reply largely consists of irrelevant matter based upon hypotheses that may be true or false. It is hardly necessary to follow him through these digressions. The nature of his arguments may be appreciated by the three points that he specially emphasizes as affecting my contention. They are: (1) the fact (if such it is) that the line from the Cherwell to Binsey was the boundary, "from time beyond the memory of man, between the land of the abbot of Abingdon and "the liberty of Oxford"; (2) that the abbot's court met at Grandpont, which Mr. Shore identifies with Suthanford: (3) that I am " silent as to how the recognized boundaries of the abbey land at Abingdon, if Eoccenford was there, are to be identified with those to which I [mr. Shore] have drawn attention." As my contention throughout has been, and is, that the boundaries in the 955 charter never touch Grandpont or the Cherwell-Binsey line, it is obvious that these points, even if true, do not affect my position that Eoccenford was at Abingdon. As regards (2), it assumes what is not true— that O.E. boundaries start from the place where a court was held. In (3) I am reproached because I do not show how an identification that I have maintained to be impossible can be made.
All this confusion of thought has arisen through Mr. Shore's assuming that the 955 boundaries represent the Hundred of Hormer and not, as they purport to do, the land at Abingdon. He assumes that Ceadwealla granted this hundred to the abbey. Now it has never been proved that private jurisdiction in England is as old as 955, to say nothing of the time of Ceadwealla. As a matter of fact the abbot's jurisdiction over the hundred dated only from a grant of Edward the Confessor ('Chartulary,' i. 465), and not from Ceadwealla.
The point is not whether the boundaries between the abbot's land and Oxford followed the modern county boundary, but whether that line is the one described in the chartulary us the boundary of the Abingdon estate. Mr. Shore assumes the identity of the two, and then uses the identity as a proof that his assumption is true. By a similar logical confusion he tells me that "Nature is against me" when I say that Geafling lacu cannot mean "fork-shaped channel." The evidence of Nature merely consists in this, that there is now a fork-shaped channel in the place where Mr. Shore locates this lacu. That is, he wrongly interprets Geafling lacu as "forkshaped channel," he finds such a channel, and adduces it as a proof by Nature herself that his explanation is correct. If the identification were correct, the argument would be much like claiming that London Bridge means, despite philology, "stone bridge," because there is a stone oridge at the place known as London Bridge.
After this it is not surprising to find Mr. Shore saying that he will "not traverse any argument based on charters centuries later that are not immediately concerned with these issues." The charter referred to is one year later only in date, and, as 1 showed in my last letter, goes over the same line as the imaginary Ceadwealla boundaries between Kennington and Abingdon.
That the Abingdon forgers did not consider the Ceadwealla boundaries to include the land between Kennington and Oxford and Binsey is proved by the fact that they deemed it necessary to provide a charter, dated not later than four years after the one upon which Mr. Shore relies, granting to them this land ('Cart. Sax.,' iii. 200). There are also other charters dealing with this district. It is noteworthy that the charter just cited does not mention Eoccenford and the other features that Mr. Shore holds were on the eastern border of this land.
Mr. Shore is wrong in stating that I indicated the thirteenth century as the date
of the fabrication of these charters. That I gave as the date of the MSS. of the chartulary. The charters were, no doubt, forged about the year 1100, the period when most of the forgeries of O.E. charters were made. Mr. Shore's difficulties about the composition of their boundaries in O.E. have, therefore, no existence. The opinion of Joseph Stevenson as to the authenticity of these charters is not likely to have much weight with either philologists or students of O.E. diplomatics.
Mr. Shore expresses a conviction that if there had been a school of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford in the thirteenth century "we should not now be discussing whether the late Anglo-Saxon name Oxeneford or Oxenaford
was derived from men or oxen." I cannot
answer for the thirteenth century, but the much more important evidence of the preceding century does not support Mr. Shore. The famous Geoffrey of Monmouth in 1129 witnessed a deed relating to Osney Abbey, and was therefore resident in or very near Oxford. This city is represented in his 'Historia Britonum,' x. 4, by a Boso, consul (earl) de Vado Bourn.*
It is more to the point to remember that there is here now an efficient English school, in which the older language is scientifically studied. But this and the similar teaching in Cambridge, London, Victoria University, and other places do not protect us from the publication of theories that are incompatible with an elementary knowledge of English philology. No one with such a knowledge would seriously entertain Mr. Shore's notion that Oxenaford and Osanig are derived from Eocce(n). Still less could he believe that Eocce means "increased ken or kindred," Mr. Shore's latest etymology.
This brings me to trie latter part of Mr. Shore's reply, in which arguments against me are, apparently, derived from the representation of West-Saxon y (or, to speak accurately, the t'-umlaut of West-Germanic u) by e in Kentish. It is obvious that if Mr. Shore were right in assuming that the ken of Eoccein) represented such a Kentish e, this would afford no evidence whatever that Eoccen-ford was not on this river at Abing
* I rather suspect that Geoffrey has, more svo, evolved Boso from the name of Boar's Hill, so well known to Oxonians. I have not been able to trace the name back to his time, but it was still in the early part of the last century called Bone Hill (see Hearne, ' Liber Niger Scaccarii,' pp. 563, 566). This looks like a derivation of the O.K. personal name Bosa, the Norman-French (Frankish) form of which was Boson (U.U.G. Boso, which is also its Latinized form).
don. It is hardly necessary to say that the explanation is grammatically impossible.
The latter part of Mr. Shore's letter is so good an example of the dangers of meddling with questions of philology without having undergone the requisite training that I will briefly examine it. A philologist would know that this change in Kentish is comparatively late in date, and that it is, therefore, impossible that Mr. Shore's imaginary Kentish settlers in the upper Thames valley could have brought it with them. If he were acquainted with the chronology of the change from u to y (Kentish e), he would have doubts as to the possibility independently of the late date of the Kentish change. If, however, he could lay aside these difficulties, he would examine, in the first place, the common words in the Abingdon Chartulary, since their morphology is better known than that of local names. He would find, as he would have expected, that the language has regularly the West-Saxon y, not the Kentish e, to say nothing of other West-Saxon peculiarities. He would, therefore, waste no more thought over Mr. Shore's theories. But in these columns one is not, unfortunately, addressing an audience with all of whom philological evidence has much weight, and it is, therefore, necessary to examine Mr. Shore's examples further.
The astonishing thing about them is that Mr. Shore has not even taken the trouble to assure himself that they contain the vowel in question. He has simply taken any syllable ken, and assumed that it represents an umlauted it. The results are what might be expected from such uncritical recklessness. Kennington is derived not from Kentish ken=cyn (from kunjo-), but from a distinct name stem, viz., West-Saxon (&c.) tin (from kind-). The ken of Wacenesfeld has no other basis than Mr. Shore's impossible division of the name. _ It is the name-stem wcec plus the hypocoristic suffix en. Letokenor is a compound of the man's name Leofeca and ora, and is accordingly recorded as O.E. aet Lemftoin oran (' Cod. Dipl.,' iii. 293, 6). The fact that Chinnor commences with ch in modern English would prove to any one with an elementary knowledge of O.E. philology that there never was an umlautea u in it, since that vowel prevented palatalization and its consequences in English. That is why we say kin, and not chin, for O.E. cyn. Here I must leave Mr. Shore and his impossible theories.
With regard to the note of R. B. S., the derivation referred to by him is well known. It is really a creation of the imaginative
Leland in the sixteenth century. It arose from the mistaken notion that Thamesis, Thame*, is a compound of the name of its affluent the Thame and of an otherwise unknown he or Isis. For some strange reason, Leland Latinized the river-name Oute as Isis, and this imaginary Isis, now represented by the bogus alia* of the Thames at Oxford, was accordingly seized upon by him as proof that the river was called the Ouse. In the spirit of his day he proceeded to derive Oxenaford from this non-existent Ouse * It was left for the seventeenth century to connect this hypothetical Ouse with the Irish uisce (not usque), and this and the unrelated Welsh uisc nave in this century been adduced to explain the name of Oxford. These are a few specimens of the nonsense that has been produced by ingenious but ignorant writers in the attempt to prove that Oxford does not mean "the ford of oxen." The name of our great university seems to exercise as fatal an attraction for the unscientific etymologist as the candle does for the moth. W. H. Stevenson.
'dr. Johnson As A Grecian,' By QenNadius (9th S. iv. 451, 545).—In a private but anonymous communication your correspondent "O, of Pall Mall" (sic), complains tnat, "in supposing that the Madame Vestris referred to by C. was the person of that name who was born in 1797, I have arrived at an erroneous conclusion." Now, C. had said that "her star did not shine in Johnson's time with the brilliancy of her father's." This could only refer to the daughter of one of the famous family of dancers. It is true that the "person born in 1797" was the daughter-inlaw, not the daughter, of one of tliem : but that, I thought, was a pardonable slip of C.'s. Well, I am now told that " the reference of C. was to another Madame Vestris of an earlier date and of equal reputation in her day." I am further informed in this letter that
"tho record of the family is interesting, and Mr. MArshali, will find the details of its members set out in the French biographical dictionary immediately to the left on entering the east door of the Reform Club Library [and only there?]. He will, on perusing the entries under Vestris in this work,
* See his notes to ' Cygnea Cantio' (' Itinerary,' ed. Hearne. ix. 71). It is greatly to the credit of Hearnes intelligence that he saw that this etymology was wrong, and that Oxenaford meant the ford of oxen (it. iii. 135), although he mistakenly regarded this as an O. E. translation of the Welsh Rhydychein, whereas the latter is merely a translation of Oxena-ford. It is the regular name for Oxford in the 'Bruts.'
obtain information about the lady to whom reference was made, and ho will then be in a position to acknowledge ina further communication to'N.4,Q.' that the phrase of C. was strictly accurate."
Were it not for the challenge con veyed in the last few words, I should have taken no notice of this anonymous letter. But the answer is plain. The other Madame Vestris, mentioned in what I suppose to be the 'Biographie Universelle,' which is not so rare a work as to need the particular instructions given above for finding a copy, must be, I presume, the famous French actress, born 1746, died 1804. This reference is, for other reasons, no more accurate than the former one. (J. had said that she was the daughter of Vestris. This lady was nothing of the sort. She was the daughter of no M. Vestris, "preceptor in dancing " or in anything else. She was the daughter of an actor, Dugazon, who had a son and another daughter, both in "the profession." She married Paco Vestris, an indifferent actor, and brother of the famous Vestris, the dancer. But she was in no way related to the dancer. She was a great tragic actress. She never danced. She never taught dancing. She acted at the Comedie Francaise, and for a short time at the Palais Royal, from 1768 to her death. She was never in London. Johnson was never in Paris. She is not a new fact to me. But she was just as much out of the question as the Madame Vestris who charmed London in the early part of this century, if we may still call it by that name, under the Editor's authority and protection. Julian Marshall.
Earls Of St. Pol (9"1 S. iv. 169, 293, 386, 444).—I transcribe from Anquetil's history other notes concerning this family. Francois de Luxembourg, Due de Piney, lived in the year 1590:—
"11 etait arriere petit-fils d'Antoine de Luxembourg, comte de Bnenne, et baron de Piney, fils puinu du fameux Louis, connetable de Saint-Paul; sa petite-fille Marie Charlotte porta les biens de sa branche dans la maison de Clermont Tonnerre, et Madolaine-Charlotte-Bonne-Therese, fille de cette derniere, dans la maison de Montmorenci, par son manage avee Francois - Henri de Montmorenci, comte de Bouteville, connu sous le nom de Marechal de Luxembourg. Les biens de la branche ainee etaient passes a la maison de Bourbon par le manage de Mane, petite-fille du connetable, avec Francois de Bourbon, comte de Vcndomo, bisaieul de Henri IV."—Vol. viii. p. 118, note.
The following note seems to show that the name of one of the branches was Martigues, and not Marigues, as given in another part of the work:—
''Marie de Luxeml)ourg-Martigues etait fille de bebastien de Luxembourg-Martiguos, comte, puis due de Feuthievre, du chef de sa mere Charlotte de
Brosse, sceur et heritiere de Jean de Brosse, dit de Bretagne, et arriere petite - fille de Francois de Luxembourg, premier vicomte de Martigues de cette maison, second fils de Thibaut de Luxembourg, sieur do Fiennes, frere puirie du fameux connetable de Saint-Pol."—Vol. viii. p. 155, note.
The name of St. Pol is mentioned in the list of nobles who rebelled against the Crown in 1614, under the Prince de Conde' and the Due de Bouillon. John, Count of Brienne, who was King of Jerusalem and afterwards Emperor of Constantinople, might seem from his name to have belonged to this family. But Anquetil says nothing about him.
I think that I ought to call attention to dates. Anquetil says that from Henry of Limbourg, who died in 1280, proceeded the principal families of St. Pol and Brienne. Voltaire speaks of a Count of St. Paul who flourished in the year 1204. John, Count of Brienne, Emperor of Constantinople, flourished in the year 1228. It is clear that there were Counts of St. Paul and Counts of Brienne before the time of Henry of Limbourg, who was Count of Luxembourg through his mother. E. Yardley.
"Hoastik Carles " (9th S. iv. 477; v. 16).— The parishioners of Cowling, another parish in Craven, have the story of the floating moon told of them, and are locally well known as the " mooin-rakers." Stanbury, near Haworth, and Trawden, near Colne, have the cuckoo tale as part of their parochial assets. The same tale, too. is told of Zennor and of St. Agnes people in Cornwall. Of "sacred" Haworth it is said that when the church tower needed heightening the farmers of the parisli willingly gave manure to spread round the base of the tower that it might grow the more rapidly. Fearing the vengeance of a certain society on account of this last paragraph, I merely append my initials.
J. H. K.
"middlin"' (9l" S. iv. 416, 495).—This is an expression prevalent in Mid and North Devon as an equivalent for " pretty good " or "fair," and mignt be the answer to an inquiry as to a person's health, condition or yield of crops, a man's ability as a shot, a hand at cards—in fact, is in every-day use in all circumstances. W. Curzon Yeo.
Dandy's Gate (9th S. v. 9).—This old tollgate was situated in Jamaica Road, near the north-east entrance to the churchyard of St. James's, and was removed soon after that church was built in 1820. The toll was fourpence, and its payment cleared all gates to Woolwich. W. T. Lynn.
Hawkwood (9th S. iv. 454: v. 11).—It is better to say that Byron alludes ironically to Hallam as much renowned for Greek." His note to his line is as follows :—
"Mr. Hallam reviewed Payne Knight's 'Taste,' and was exceedingly severe on some Greek verses therein: it was not discovered that the lines were Pindar's till the press rendered it impossible to cancel the critique, which still stands an everlasting monument of Hallam's ingenuity."
"Lowestoft China" (9th S. iv. 498; v. 12). — Are not some of the divergent authorities quoted by Mr. Herbert B. Clayton more or less correct in regard to the painting on what is called Lowestoft china? Very different sorts of ware are thus named ; the best and finest kind has a pure, highly finished and glazed body, which differs in no respect whatever from the choicest Chinese output, and. in that way, is manifestly Oriental. On this body the decorations, including armorials, emblems, and what not, are generally, and to artistic eyes unquestionably, of Oriental execution ; their coloration, its brilliance, havmonies, and design, leave, to me at least, not the least foundation for a doubt about this. I take it that these specimens, of which I have capital instances, are wholly Chinese, made in the Flowery Land to order, so far as regards their armorials, emblems, and the like purely European elements, from drawings sent abroad for the purpose. Several of my plates are enriched with escutcheons which no Chinaman de signed and no Englishman reproduced upon porcelain; the tints are not, except in a general way, heraldic, and as to the drawing of the charges let the heralds who executed them dread the vengeance of the College of Arms. Death could not shield them. On the same plates blossom immortal flowers, gorgeous in colours and gold, and such as no nianof Lowestoft or elsewhere in this brumous isle ever painted, at least during the eighteenth century, nor in that manner, at any time before or after. No, not during the nineteenth century, happy as that is in flower painting. As to the Oriental bodies of white ware which Mr. Chaffers could not find at Lowestoft, the probability is that they never existed; but as to the country being inundated with them in 1802—when the famous factory there came to grief—may I say that it takes many "pots" to overwhelm a country, especially if the factory has long been moribund? On the other hand, there are among my plates and dishes not a few at which—though the bodies may be more or less good and fine, indeed only inferior to the
Oriental porcelain their makers lived to approach—no decent Chinaman would have looked. In no respect are they equal to even moderately hne Oriental porcelain. On these bodies the decorations are manifestly Orientalized, but not Oriental in their coloration, brightness, clearness, delicacy, or finish. These are what the dealers and auctioneers say are Oriental porcelain painted in Lowestoft, or wholly from Lowestoft. The latter assumption is probably the less incorrect; as to which it is not to be forgotten that other factories than the East Anglian one turned out porcelain which was quite as good, while some shops, especially in later days, when the right clay had been found outside of China, produced bodies which left nothing to be desired, except, perhaps, a slight addition to their toughness. It was in the decorations the defects existed, and therein neither Lowestoft, Nantgarw, Worcester, Bristol, Swansea, nor Derby, was ever fit to hold a candle before artistic eyes when the immemorial art of China was looked at. It is "the seeing eye that profits by seeing." Such was the case with Sir A. W. Franks and Mr. Litchfield.
Apart from all this there is something to be said for a notion to the effect that a Chinese painter or two were imported to Lowestoft to paint on Lowestoft ware. We know of one Tan-chet-qua, or an artist of some such name, who exhibited at the Academy and sat, if it was the same person, to Reynolds himself. It may be taken for granted, however, that if a Chinaman had been imported we should have his name among the records of Lowestoft, which I understand are in existence somewhere. Nor, I fancy, would Lowestoft have been alone in such an importation, say at Worcester, where they strained every nerve to produce colorable imitations of the Celestial ware, or at Derby, Nantgarw, and Swansea. The factory-books and pay-bills of some of these works have been printed, but among them I have not found the name of a Chinese. O.
"A GOOD PENNYWORTH " (9th S. iv. 436, 522).
—There was an earlier version of this expression, viz., "Eobin Hood's pennyworths":
"Walton the Baylifle leavyed of the poore mans goods 77" att Robiiihood's peniworths."—'Cases in the Court of Star Chamber, Camden, 8vo. p. 117.
This is explained by :—
"To sell Robin Hoods pennyioorlha.—It is spoken of things sold under half their value; or if you will, half mid half given. Robin Hood came lightly by his ware, and lightly parted therewith ; so that he could afford the length of hU Row for a yard of Velvet."—Fuller,' Worthies of England,' p. 315.