458 pages exclusive of index. Third volume begins with January, 1694, and ends, in my copy, with April, 1694, containing 140 pages. This is one of the scarcest in the series of literary journals. The editor, as appears from Dunton's Life and Errors, was R. Woolley.

14.-1692. The Gentleman's Journal, or the Monthly Miscellany: London, printed by Richard Baldwin, 4to., to be continued monthly. This interesting work, which may be considered the first English magazine, and which partakes more of the character of a magazine than a review, was edited by Peter Motteux. First volume begins January, 1691-2, and ends with the year 1692. Vol. ii. begins January, 1692-3, and ends with the year 1693. I have only these two volumes; but there appear to be two more (Reed's Cat. 2431.). Perhaps some of your correspondents may have a perfect series, and would give a description of it.

15.-1693. Memoirs for the Ingenious, in miscellaneous letters by J. de la Crose, Ecc. Ang. Presb., to be continued monthly printed for Rhodes and Harris, 1693, 4to. Here we see this laborious editor, nothing daunted by previous mishaps, commencing again. The first volume begins January, 1692-3: it was continued to June, 1693, in 196 pages. Whether it was continued beyond June I do not know. The editor complains that no contributions come in, and laments that he is not in a fit state to reward contributors. "Those who shall be so generous as to send me any papers, are desired to direct them to my lodgings, at Mr. Fage's, a turner, in Playhouse Yard in Blackfriars.

16.-1694. Memoirs for the Ingenious, or the Universal Mercury, in miscellaneous letters, by several hands, to be continued monthly printed by Randal Taylor, 1694, 4to. I have the first Number of this for January. It appears to be made up of miscellaneous observations, without any reviews.

17.-1694. Miscellaneous Letters, giving an account of the works of the learned both at home and abroad, published weekly: London, printed by J. D. for William Lindsay, 1694, 4to. This work was published weekly, from October 17, 1694, to December 19, 1694 (ten Numbers), afterwards monthly, to the end of December, 1695, when the first volume, containing 578 pages exclusive of index, ends. The second volume begins January, 1696; February and March follow, containing together 96 pages. I have no more of it. It is one of the best periodicals in the series, and one of the least common.

18.-1694. History of Learning, giving an account of the choicest new books: London, printed by J. M., and sold by Randal Taylor, 1694, 4to. The first Number contains 36 pages. How far it extended I have been unable to ascertain.

19.-1697. Theosophical Transactions by the

Philadelphian Society, consisting of memoirs," &c. for the advancement of piety and divine philosophy: London, 1697, 4to. In this rare periodical, which was started to disseminate the doctrines of Mrs. Lead, and of which the learned F. Lee was the editor, there are reviews of books of a mystic and ascetic description. I have six Numbers of it, which form a thin 4to. volume.

20.-1698-9. The History of the Works of the Learned, or an imperfect Account of Books lately printed in all parts of Europe, done by several hands: London, printed for II. Rhodes, 4to. The first Number was published 1698-9. Thirteen entire volumes were issued, ending with the year 1711, and one Number for January, February, and March, 1712, being the commencement of a fourteenth volume; but there it appears to have stopped. Ridpath was one of the editors of this journal, which is an important and indeed indispensable one in forming a series of English Literary journals. Complete sets rarely occur. In a future communication I will continue the list from 1700 to 1749. J. CROSSLEY.

HYDROPHOBIA.

(Vol. vi., p. 298.)

In the year 1805 the writer saw a case of hydrophobia at Kensington, with several other medical men, and was one of those who, with great solicitude, visited the patient till his death. The case excited great interest and commiseration, the more so because the sufferer was not quite six years old, a fine, gentle, and affectionate child, and the injury he had received from the dog was not a positive bite. He was fondling a favourite little dog in his lap, when the animal held up its head as if desiring to be caressed, and pressed one of his teeth upon the child's upper lip so firmly as to abrade the skin. No immediate alarm was taken, but the sudden disappearance of the dog created fears which led to a free application of caustic to the lip; the horrid complaint, however, broke out in a few weeks' time, and, notwithstanding every conceivable care, soon proved fatal. The child was wonderfully good and patient, even when suffering from spasms and convulsions; but his strength was soon worn out and exhausted, and after two or three days of suffering, he calmly breathed his last.

It almost surpasses belief that such a case as this, occurring in a respectable family, attended by several medical men of reputation, and in which many of the principal inhabitants of the town took great interest, should by any possibility be converted into a case of feather-bed suffocation; yet so it was. In a short time after the child's death, the writer, visiting a patient near Curzon Street, met a lady who was giving full particulars

of the sad event, and enlarging upon the raging fury and agonising screams of the little boy, which, she said, at length compelled the doctors to order him to be suffocated between two feather beds. Whether the strenuous denial of all this nonsense by the writer was believed, may, perhaps,

be doubtful.

The notice taken in the "N. & Q." of these cases has induced the writer to make some recent inquiries at Kensington about this case. After an interval of forty-seven years, few persons comparatively remember anything about it; but one gentleman remembers that his father was the principal medical attendant, and he recollects distinctly the being told, when he went to school a few years afterwards, that the child had been suffocated between feather beds, a story which all his schoolfellows appeared to believe. He has also ascertained that at one time the belief in the suffocation was extensive among the lower classes at Kensington. At present the case is rarely spoken of, but there is reason to fear that this marvellous story is not altogether abandoned.

S. M.

I have repeatedly heard the late John Dunkin, author of the Histories of Oxfordshire, Dartford, &c., relate that he knew of more than two hydrophobic patients in Oxfordshire being smothered. My own godfather, towards the close of the last century, after being bitten by a mad (or supposed to be mad) dog, was sent from Kensington, Middlesex, to a place in Surrey to be dipped, because a professed dipper resided there: although I have often heard the name of this then celebrated locality, I am unable to remember it at the present moment. The dippings, I believe, required to be performed thrice. If the dog was mad the cure was perfect, for the patient, a Mr. Foster, lived many a long year afterwards.

ALFRED.

In proof of the fact, that the practice of smothering hydrophobic patients was certainly carried on within living memory, I may cite the experience of a clergyman, a friend of mine. A good many years ago he was conversing with one of his parishioners who had survived two or three husbands, and having occasion to mention the particulars of their deaths, she said, "My first died in such and such a manner, and my second we smothered!" My friend was a little startled at so quiet an avowal of murder; but it appeared, on examination, that he had been seized with hydrophobia, and his widow evidently considered that he had met with the regular treatment for that malady. H. W.

EIKON BASILIKE.

(Vol. vi., p. 361.)

Perhaps it may assist the inquiries of Ma. TAYLOR if I send some particulars of an edition of the "Eikon Basilike" which is in my possession. It forms part of a duodecimo volume, entitled Reliquiæ Sacræ Carolina, which contains, also, many of the king's letters, his papers on church government, an account of his trial and execution, with several elegies, one of which is that by Montrose, which is in MS. in MR. TAYLOR's copy. It is dated 1648, and professes to have been printed abroad-"Hague, printed by Sam. Browne;" yet there can be no doubt, I conceive, that it proceeded from an English press. The object of the work itself, and various expressions in it, will sufficiently account for the pretence of its being printed "beyond the seas," where "Sam. Browne" would be out of the reach of the speaker's warrant. In the "Eikon" is a print of Prince Charles, with the inscription "Natus Maij 29, An° 1630, ætatis suæ 19." The Greek line is not in the title-page, but at the foot of a page which faces an emblematical engraving, and contains some Latin and English verses explanatory of the emblems. In my copy the Greek is incorrectly printed, having educnoe. This line MR. TAYLOR terms "the disputed motto," but I am unhappily so ignorant of the controversy, "Who wrote, &c. ?" that I do not know why the line is disputed, nor who are meant by the x and the . The emblematical engraving itself, I imagine, is well known, and it would seem was in those days very popular with the royal party. There is a large painting, precisely similar (if I recollect aright) in St. Martin's Church, Leicester, which is thus mentioned by Mr. Thompson in his Handbook of that interesting old town:

"Over the site of the altar, a picture of Charles L., the work of an artist named Rowley, has long been placed; it was painted in 1686."

then, were copies from some common original, as The engraving and the painting it would seem, book, viz. 1648. What and where is the original? the print is not later, I judge, than the date of the

I

TRAFALGAR.

(Vol. vi., p. 362.)

S. S. S.

W. T. M. is assured that Trafalgár, with the accent on the last syllable, is the right pronunciation. know this from the lips of my deceased connexion, the Rev. Dr. Scott, who was a learned linguist, and the chaplain and friend of Lord Nelson, who died in his arms. Dr. Scott met Mr. Canning at dinner at Fife House, and was mysteriously informed by that statesman, that he was about to publish a poem on the great naval victory, some lines of

which he repeated on approbation. Dr. Scott at once found fault with the accent being thrown on the middle syllable of Trafalgar. Mr. Canning defended this, by citing the example of Gibráltar: but Dr. Scott informed him that even this was wrong; and gave the right pronunciation, Gibral-tár, with the most delicate precision.

At Vol. vi., p. 333. the Rev. John Scott is named. This ought to have been, the Rev. Alexander John Scott. John Scott, Esq., was public secretary to Lord Nelson, and was killed, being nearly cut in two by a cannon-shot, at the beginning of the action. He was no relation to his namesake, the chaplain and foreign confidential secretary. Both men were highly esteemed by the commander-in-chief: and such was his power over the affections of those who were about him, that during the five-and-thirty years that Dr. Scott survived, he was weak as a woman at any mention

of the death of Nelson.

Oct. 21., Anniversary of Trafalgár.

ALFRED GATTY.

"That if they found it would tend to the advancement of trade, that an act be passed for the advancement of trade; that an act be passed for the encouragement of such as should acquire and establish a plantation in Africa or America, or any other part of the world, where plantations might be lawfully acquired, his Majesty being willing to declare that he would grant to the subjects of this kingdom, in favour of these plantations, such rights and privileges as he granted in like cases to the subjects of his other dominions."

After this, it was a little too bad to say, that he had been "ill served in Scotland;" but perhaps

"'Twas on a Grecian autumn's gentle eve
Childe Harold hail'd Leucadia's cape afar,
A spot he long'd to see, nor cared to leave:
Oft did he mark the scenes of vanish'd war,
Actium, Lepanto, fatal Trafalgár."

Childe Harold, Canto II. St. 40.
"The oak leviathans, whose huge ribs make
Their clay creator the vain title take
Of lord of thee, and arbiter of war;
These are thy toys, and, as the snowy flake,
They melt into thy yeast of waves, which mar
Alike the Armada's pride, or spoils of Trafalgár."
Childe Harold, Canto IV. St. 181.

"Nelson was once Britannia's god of war, And still should be so, but the tide is turn'd; There's no more to be said of Trafalgár, 'Tis with our hero quietly inurn'd, Because the army's grown more popular, At which the naval people are concern'd." Don Juan, Canto I. St. 4.

It must be confessed that, in common parlance, the accent is almost uniformly on the penultimate syllable. I doubt not, however, that Scott and Byron are right, and the populace wrong. Cambridge.

C. H. COOPer.

statecraft in the difficulties of William's position, and the then temper of the House of Commons. On the 26th of the following January the House of Commons resolved that the directors of the Scotch Company were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour, and ordered them to be impeached. An incident occurred, in connexion with this business, which is worth noting as indicative of the feeling of the House towards the king. In committee several resolutions had been passed, and amongst others one recommending that certain commissioners of trade, proposed to be appointed, should take an oath acknowledging King William as the rightful and lawful king of the realm; that the late King James had no right or title thereunto; and that no other person had any right or title to the crown otherwise than according to the Act of Settlement, &c. When these resolutions were reported to the House, his majesty's "dutiful commons," after a warm debate, rejected some of them, and, in particular, that recognising William as the lawful sovereign!

The Scotch Company occasioned King William further trouble in 1700, as appears from the parliamentary history. The Marchmont Papers, edited by Sir George Rose, also contain some letters on the subject, written at this time to King William, by Patrick Earl of Marchmont.

C. Ross.

SCOTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY.

(Vol. vi., p. 342.)

This company was established by an act of the Scotch parliament in 1695. Towards the end of the same year the matter attracted the notice of the English parliament, and on the 17th of December the House of Commons, in an address to the king, complained of the Scotch Company as

BARLOW FAMILY.

(Vol. vi., pp. 147. 392.)

I cannot think that your correspondent MR. GEORGE BARLOW (p. 392.) can have any good reason for supposing himself to descend from Thomas Barlow of Sheffield, to whom arms were granted in

1691 and most certainly Mr. Thomas Barlow was not identical with the Mr. Barlow (p. 147.) who in 1676 invented repeating clocks.

The Thomas Barlow of Sheffield was born in 1666 he succeeded to the principal part of the property of his uncle Francis Barlow in 1690. He married in 1691, the year in which he had the grant of arms. His wife died in 1694, and has a handsome monument in the church of Eckington, in Derbyshire; Renishaw, in that parish, being for a time his place of residence. He finally settled at Middle Thorpe, near York, where he built for himself a house after the model of villas which he had seen abroad; and died in France in 1713, while travelling with his son.

His issue was one son and one daughter. The daughter was baptized at Sheffield, July 20, 1692, and buried there January 28, 1693. The baptism of the son I have not found, but it seems probable Francis, and as Francis Barlow, of Middle Thorpe, Esq., he served the office of high sheriff of the county of York in 1735. Ilis will was made December 13, 1769.

that he was born at Renishaw. His name was

There is no reason that I know of to suppose that Thomas Barlow had any other son.

There is a monument in the chancel of the parish church of Sheffield for Francis Barlow, the uncle of Thomas; and in the Table of Benefactors his name appears as the founder of an annual dole, which I believe the poor of the place still enjoy.

The father of Thomas Barlow was named Samuel, and Samuel and Francis were sons of Humphrey Barlow of Sheffield, ironmonger, by Dorothy his wife, daughter of Gregory and Cassandra Sylvester, of Mansfield. JOSEPH HUNTER.

Edward Barlow, whose real name was Booth, was born near Warrington, and ordained in the English College at Lisbon. He took the name of Barlow from his godfather, Ambrose Barlow, a Benedictine, who suffered at Lancaster for his religion.

"He has often," says Dodd," told me that at his first

perusing of Euclid, that author was as easy to him as a newspaper. His name and fame are perpetuated for being the inventor of the pendulum watches; but according to the usual fate of most projectors, while others were great gainers by his ingenuity, Mr. Barlow had never been considered on that occasion, had not Mr. Thompson (accidentally becoming acquainted with the inventor's name) made him a present of 2001. He published a treatise on the origin of springs, wind, and the flux and reflux of the sea, 8vo. 1714, and died about two years afterwards, nearly eighty-one years of age."-Dodd's Church Hist., iii. 380.

Ambrose Barlow was one of the Manchester Barlows, born about 1585, and executed at Laneaster about Sept. 10, 1640. His original name

› Edward Barlow, but he changed his Christian

name to Ambrose. (Chalmer's Missionary Priests, ii. 91.) In the Warrington register there is this entry : "December 1639.

Edward, son to Richard Booth, the 15th day." and assuming that Dodd is not strictly accurate as to the age of Edward Barlow, this entry may relate to his birth. W. BEAUMONT.

OPTICAL CURIOSITIES.

(Vol. vi., p. 198.)

The principle involved in the optical phenome non, respecting which your correspondent C. MANSFIELD INGLEBY desires an explanation, though probably known to Babtista Porta as being exactly the same as that of the camera obscura invented by him in 1560, and described in his Magia Natu ralis, was first satisfactorily explained by Maurolycas in his Theoremata de Lumine et Umbrá, 1575:

"In his work," says Professor Baden Powell (History of Natural Philosophy, p. 127.), "he gives an explanation of the fact noticed by Aristotle, that the light of the sun passing through a small hole, of whatever shape, always gives a circular illuminated space on a screen at a little distance. The rays from the different parts of the sun's disk cross at the aperture (which we will suppose to be, for example, triangular), and each ray gives a small triangular bright spot on the screen; these being partially superposed, but arranged in the cular; and the more accurately so form of the sun's disk, will give an image sensibly cir as the hole is smaller, or the screen more distant."

In that section of his History of the Inductive Sciences which Mr. Whewell has devoted to an investigation of the "cause of the failure of the Greek school philosophy," he has made use of the speculations of Aristotle upon this question, as an illustration of the conclusion, that "the radical and fatal defect in the physical speculations of the Greek philosophical schools, was, that though they possessed facts and ideas, the ideas were not dis tinct and appropriate to the facts." Mr. Whewell proceeds:

"One of the facts which Aristotle endeavours to explain is this: that when the sun's light passes through a hole, whatever be the form of the hole, the bright image, if formed at any considerable distance from the hole, is round, instead of imitating the figure of the hole, as shadows resemble their objects. We shall easily perceive this appearance to be a necessary conse quence of the circular figure of the sun, if we conceive light to be diffused from the luminary by means of straight rays proceeding from every point. But instead of this appropriate idea of rays, Aristotle attempts to circular nature, which it always tends to manifest: and explain the fact by saying that the sun's light has a this vague and loose conception of a circular quality employed, instead of the distinct conception of rays, which is really applicable, prevented Aristotle from

giving a true account even of this very simple optical phenomenon."

Now, with the utmost deference to the Savilian professor, and the equally learned and elegant Whewell, I presume to add a few remarks to their -as it appears to me- incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation. Both these gentlemen, indeed, while assigning a correct cause to the phenomenon, still seem to cling, in words at least, to the Aristotelian idea of the circular nature and tendency of the sun's light. They could not, in fact, be unaware that the bright images are not in variably round, but that, being produced by a luminous body, the rays from which proceed in straight lines, in all directions, and from every point, and which, moreover, cross one another beyond the apertures, they must necessarily resolve themselves into a more or less exact (according to the distance, size of aperture, &c.) and inverted representation of the luminous body itself. Thus, if the rays of the sun during a state of partial eclipse be allowed to pass through variously shaped apertures, the images are of a crescent form, like that part of the sun remaining visible. If the sun's light, however, be transmitted through a circular hole before being allowed to pass through the apertures, the images cease to represent the sun's visible form, and become representations of the apertures themselves. The general principle may be easily brought to the test of experiment, by cutting a small square aperture in a piece of paper, and placing a lighted taper behind it, so as to throw the shadow of the paper upon the wall of a room. At a çertain relative distance of these objects, it will be found that the luminous spot in the shadow of the paper ceases to be square, and assumes the form of an inverted cone, which is in fact the image of the flame of the candle, as may easily be seen by blowing the latter, when a corresponding flickering will be perceived in the bright

mage.

I had intended to make some remarks upon the Other optical phenomenon which has puzzled your Correspondent, but must now defer them to a future opportunity. WILLIAM BATES.

Birmingham.

SCANDINAVIAN SKULL-CUPS.

(Vol. iv., pp. 161. 231.)

I should be glad to be permitted again to revert to this subject. It involves a question of some importance, in a literary and ethological point of view; and is of especial interest to all those who, being conscious of a certain sensation of pride in persuading themselves that they come of the old northern stock, whether Anglo-Saxon or AngloDanish, would fain have their far-off Scandinavian progenitors appear on the page of history with no

66 one

other stigma upon their names than such as may attach to them by evidence of the most undeniable character. With this feeling, however, your correspondents W. B. R. and GEORGE MÉTIVIER have no sympathy. The latter, indeed, is quite angry with Mr. J. A. Blackwell, with Magnusen" (we shall next hear of one Dr. Johnson, of one Prof. Porson, of one Niebuhr), and with "certain ironical dilettante of Cockneyland" whom he does not otherwise specify, for daring to controvert the assertion of Ole Worm, that the Northmen were wont to use the skulls of their enemies as drinking-cups. Whether or no such a practice prevailed elsewhere, is not the subject of disputation. I therefore pass over the long array of authorities and examples adduced by your correspondents in reference to other countries, and proceed to notice only the direct testimony upon which this "railing accusation" against the former inhabitants of Scandinavia is attempted to he founded. This testimony is comprised in a single couplet of the 25th stanza of the "Krákumál, er sumir kalla Lotbrókarkviðu:" a wild rhapsodical Skaldic lay, full of periphrasis, distorted metaphor, and exaggerated expression; setting forth the actions and death of the celebrated sea-king Ragnar Lodbrok, and presented to us as the composition of the hero himself: "verum non ipse, sed Bragius, Boddii filius, verus est carminis autor' the horrors of his Northumbrian dungeon, the (Thorlacius, Antiq. Boreal., sp. vii. p. 70.). Amid expiring chieftain is represented as exulting in the encouraging reflection, that he will soon participate in the joys of Valhalla, when

"Drekkum bjor at bragði

Or bjúgvidum hausa."

The question is, how are these words, or, rather the compound expression "bjúgvidum," to be interpreted? Ole Worm (Dan. Literat. Antiq.: Hafn. 1636) translates the entire passage: "Bibemus cerevisiam brevi ex concavis crateribus craniorum," or, as Bartholin (Antiq. Dan., 1689) renders the latter portion of it, ex concavis craniorum poculis." Southey adopts the same reading: and James Johnstone (1782), with what Mrs. Malaprop would call " a judicious use of epitaphs," Englishes the couplet :

"Soon from the foe's capacious skull

We'll drain the amber beverage."

This is the traditionary account of the matter, without a doubt: or, rather, it is the interpretation first given by Ole Worm; sanctioned by Bartholin; to a certain extent supported by the laborious Dr. Grimm, in his Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache; and by other writers taken up and adopted. But is it the correct one? Is it not rather one of those long-received errors, upheld to support the tottering base of some favourite theory, which it is the peculiar province of "N. & Q."