Part 4

"10th May, the Boocke of Spartes vpon the Lord's Day, was burnt by the hangman in the place where the Crosse stoode, and at (the) Exchange."

That great lover of sights, Master Pepys, notices one of these exhibitions:

"1661, 28th May, with Mr. Shipley," says our gossip, "to the Exchange about business; and there, by Mr. Rawlinson's favour, got into a balcone over against the Exchange, and there saw the hangman burn, by vote of Parliament, two old acts: the one for constituting us a Commonwealth, and the other I have forgot; which still do make me think of the greatness of this late turne, and what people will do to-morrow against what they all, thro' profit or fear, did promise and practise this day."

A note to this passage in the _Diary_ (vol. i. p. 236., 3rd edit.) supplies the defective memory of Pepys, by informing us that the last was an "Act for subscribing the Engagement;" and adds, on the same day there had been burnt by the hangman, at Westminster Hall, the "Act for erecting a High Court of Justice for trying and judging Charles Stuart." They seem to have been just then cleansing out the Augean stable of the Commonwealth: for it is added, "two more acts" were similarly burnt next day.

In _A Letter to a Clergyman, relating to his Sermon on the 30th Jan._, by a Lover of Truth, 1746, the lay author (one Coade, I believe), inveighing against high churchmen, reminds the preacher that he--

"Was pleased to dress up the principles of the Presbyterians in a frightful shape; but let me tell you, Sir, in my turn, that the principles of your party have been burnt, not by a rude and lawless rabble, but by the common hangman, in broad day-light, before the Royal Exchange in London, and by authority of Parliament. Perhaps," he continues, "you never heard of this contemptuous treatment of the Oxford principles, and therefore I will give it you from the Parliamentary Records:--'Anno Domini 1710. The House of Lords, taking into consideration the judgment and decree of the University of Oxford, passed in their Convocation July 21, 1683,--it was resolved by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that the said judgment and decree contains in it several positions contrary to the Constitution of this kingdom, and destructive to the Protestant Succession as by law established. And it was thereupon ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that the said judgment and decree shall be burnt by the hands of the common hangman before the Royal {426} Exchange, between hours of twelve and one, on Monday the 17th March, in the presence of the Lord Mayor of the City of London,' &c."

Doleman's _Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England_, reprinted at N. with licence, in 1681, was, in 1683, condemned by the University of Oxford, and burnt by the common hangman.

In the above examples I have confined myself to those books, &c. only which were expressly consigned to the flames by the hangman. The instances of book-burning where this indignity was either not imposed, or its infliction not recorded, are numerous. Among the curiosities of literature of Elizabeth's reign, were certain books ascribed to a Dutchman, by name Henry Nicholas, translated into English, and probably imported from the Low Countries. This person, imbibing the "damnable heresies" of David George, of Leyden, became the apostle of a sect who styled themselves "The Family of Love," and their fanatical books becoming obnoxious to the dominant party, they were, by proclamation, ordered to be burnt; and, as such manifestations of the royal will usually ran, all persons were held punishable for having them in their possession. (See Herbert's _Ames._) As an example of the spiritual power thus dealing with a book, apparently upon its own authority, the following may be offered:--_Servetus de Trinitate, &c._ (London, 1723.) This edition, which is without name of place or printer, and without date, was printed by Palmer for Osborne the bookseller; but, as soon as completed was seized at the instance of Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, and burnt, with the exception of a very few copies. (Davis' _Journey round the Library, &c._) The last unfortunate book I shall mention is the _Metrical Psalms_ of Dod; which was also, most likely, an episcopal seizure. Mr. Holland, in his _Psalmists of Britain_, quoting from George Withers' _Scholler's Purgatory_, says, "Dod the silkman's late ridiculous translation of the Psalms was, by authority, worthily condemned to the fire," and, judging from its extreme scarcity, I should say very few escaped.

J. O.

I have not seen in your list of martyred books the following, in the year A.D. 1684: _A Plea for the Nonconformists_, by Thomas De Laune, Gentleman. He died in Newgate, during his imprisonment for the book, in pursuance of the following sentence:

"Ad General. Quartercal. Session. Pacis Dom. Regis tent. pro Civitat. London per adjornament, apud Justice-hall in le Old Bayly, die Mercurii Scil. Decimo Sexto die January, Anno Regis Caroli Secundi cundi nunc Ang. &c.

"Thomas De Laune Convict. pro illicite Scribend. Imprimend. et Publicand. Libel. Seditios. dert. concernen. librum Communis praecationis. Fin. 100 Marc. Et committit, etc.! Et ulterius quousq; Inven. bon. de se bene gerend. per spacium Unius Anni Integri ex tunc prox. sequen. Et quad libel. sedit. cum igne Combust. sint apud Excambium Regal. in London, et si Del. Sol. 5 shil. WAGSTAFFE."

In a letter containing a narrative of his trial and imprisonment, written by him from prison, occur many touches of humour. In his remarks on the sentence he says,--

"The six shillings to be paid on my discharge is to the hangman, for the faggots, I suppose."

"The Court told us that, in respect to our education as scholars, we should not be pillory'd, though ('twas said) we deserved it.... We were sent back to our confinement, and _the next execution-day_ our books were burnt WITH FIRE (not with water, you must note), and we continue here; but, since I writ this, Mr. Ralphson had a supersedeas by _death_ to a _better place_!"

In his account he affirms that, on his own confession of being the author of _The Plea_, and because he could find no bail, he was committed to Newgate--

"Lodged among the felons, whose horrid company made a perfect representation of that horrible place which you describe when you mention hell. A hard bench was my bed, and two bricks my pillow. But after two days and nights, _without any refreshment_, the unusualness of that society and place having impaired my health, which at the very best is tender, and crazy, I was removed, and am now in the press-yard, a _place of some sobriety_, though still a prison _ubi nihil amabile est_!"

Twenty years after, 1704, his Plea was republished, with his narrative, by one of his fellow-prisoners, who had been released, and who calls it "an elaborate piece"! He adds, that De Laune, being unable to pay

"the seventy-five pound, his children, his wife, and himself were imprison'd, and _all_ dy'd in New-gate; of which myself was an eye-witness, and a companion with him for the same cause in the same prison, where I continued above a year after his death."

E. F. WOODMAN.

P. S.--Query, What is the meaning, in the foregoing, of the expression "at the next execution-day"? Have we any instance on record of the execution of a malefactor in front of the Royal Exchange? and, if not, did the hangman come from Newgate, after "doing duty" there, and burn the book at the Exchange?

In 1611 the books of Conrad Vorstius were publicly burnt in St. Paul's Churchyard and both the universities by the king's order. (Wilson's _Life and Reign of James I._, p. 120.)

On Sunday, November 21, 1613, the books of Francis Suarez, the Spanish Jesuit, were publicly burnt at St. Paul's Cross. (_Court and Times of James I._, vol. i. pp. 279, 280.)

C. H. COOPER.

Cambridge.

* * * * *

{427}

SACK.

(Vol. ix., p. 272.)

With respect to the wines called Sacks, much diversity of opinion has prevailed, and although the question has been frequently discussed, it still remains, in a great measure, undetermined. It seems admitted, on all hands, that the term _sack_ was originally applied to certain growths of Spain. In a MS. account of the disbursements by the chamberlain of the city of Worcester for 1592, Dr. Percy found the ancient mode of spelling to be _seck_, and thence concluded that sack is a corruption of _sec_, signifying a dry wine. Moreover, in the French version of a proclamation for regulating the prices of wines, issued by the privy Council in 1633, the expression _vins secs_ corresponds with the word _sacks_ in the original. The term _sec_ is still used as a substantive by the French to denote a Spanish wine; and the dry wine of Xerez is known at the place of its growth by the name of _vino seco_. The foregoing account is abridged from _The History of Ancient and Modern Wines_, by Alex. Henderson, Lond. 1824. The following is taken from Cyrus Redding's _History of Modern Wines_, Lond. 1833:

"In the early voyages to these islands (the Canaries), quoted in Ashley's collection, there is a passage relative to sack, which will puzzle wise heads about that wine. It is under the head of 'Nicols' Voyage.' Nicols lived eight years in the islands. The island of Teneriffe produces three sorts of wine, Canary, Malvasia, and Verdona, 'which may all go under the denomination of sack.' The term then was applied neither to sweet nor dry wines exclusively, but to Canary, Xeres (_i. e._ sherry), or Malaga generally. In Anglo-Spanish dictionaries of a century and a quarter old, sack is given as _Vino de Canarias_. Hence it was Canary sack, Xeres sack, or Malaga sack."

[Greek: Halieus].

Dublin.

In reply to your correspondent, I believe sack to be nothing but _vino secco_, dry wine, probably identical with sherry or madeira. I once, when an undergraduate at Oxford, ordered a dozen from a travelling agent to a London wine merchant, probably from Shakspearian associations, and my belief is that what he sold me under that name was an Italian wine of some sort, bearing a good deal of resemblance to the _vino panto_, of which Perugia is the head-quarters.

B. D.

This is the same wine which is now named sherry. Falstaff calls it _sherris sack_, and also _sherris_ only, using in fact both names indiscriminately (2 _Henry IV._, Act IV. Sc. 3.). For various commentaries regarding it, see Blount's _Glossographia_; Dr. Venner's _Via recta ad Vitam longam_, published in 1637; Nares' _Glossary_, &c. Cotgrave, in his _Dictionary_, makes sack to be derived from _vin sec_, French; and it is called _seck_ in an article by Bishop Percy, from an old account-book at Worcester, anno Elizbethae 34.

N. L. J.

* * * * *

IRISH LAW IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

(vol. ix., p. 270.)

What has been mistaken by your correspondent for a piece of Irish barbarity, was, until the Act 12 Geo. III. c. 20., the usual punishment awarded by the law to culprits standing mute upon an arraignment of felony (that is, without speaking at all, or without putting himself upon God and the country). The judgment in such case was:

"That the man or woman should be remanded to the prison, and laid there in some low and dark room, where they should lie naked on the bare earth, without any litter, rushes, or other clothing, and without any garment about them, but something to cover their privy parts, and that they should lie upon their backs, their heads uncovered and their feet, and one arm to be drawn to one quarter of the room with a cord, and the other arm to another quarter, and in the same manner to be done with their legs; and there should be laid upon their bodies iron and stone, so much as they might bear, and more; and the next day following, to leave three morsels of barley bread without any drink, and the second day to drink thrice of the water next to the house of the prison (except running water), without any bread; and this to be their diet until they were dead. So as, upon the matter, they should die three manner of ways, by weight, by famine, and by cold. And the reason of this terrible judgment was because they refused to stand to the common law of the land."--2 _Inst._ 178, 179.

In the Year-Book of 8 Henry IV. the form of the judgment is _first_ given. The Marshal of the King's Bench is ordered to put the criminals into "diverses measons bases et estoppes, que ils gisent par la terre touts nuds forsque leurs braces, que ils mettroit sur chascun d'eux tants de fer et poids quils puissent porter et plus," &c., (as above).

It appears also, from Barrington's _Observations on the Statutes_, that, until the above-mentioned act, it was usual to torture a prisoner by tying his thumbs tightly together with whipcord in order to extort a plea; and he mentions the following instances where one or more of these barbarous cruelties have been inflicted:

"In 1714 a prisoner's thumbs were thus tied at the same place" (Old Bailey), "who then pleaded; and in January, 1720, William Spigget submitted in the same manner after the thumbs being tied _as usual_, and his accomplice, Phillips, was absolutely pressed for a considerable time, till he begged to stand on his trial. In April, 1720, Mary Andrews continued so obstinate, that three whipcords were broken before she would plead. In December, 1721, Nathanael Haws suffered in the same manner by squeezing the thumbs; after {428} which he continued under the press for seven minutes with 250 lbs., and then submitted."

Barrington also says in the text:

"As it is very unusual for criminals to stand mute on their trials in more modern days, and it was not unfrequent, if we go some centuries back in English History, it may not be improper to observe, that the occasion of its being then more common, was to prevent forfeitures, and involving perhaps innocent children in their parents' guilt. These forfeitures only accrued upon judgment of _life and limb_, and, to the disgrace of the crown, were too frequently levied with the utmost rigour. The sentence, however, hath continued to be put into execution till the late Act of Parliament (12 Geo. III. c. 20.) properly abolished it."

He mentions two other cases, one of which happened at the Sussex assizes, under Baron Thompson, and the other at Cambridge, in 1741, when Baron Carter was the judge. I do not think there are any more modern instances than these, for they are the only ones cited by counsel in General Picton's case, in justification of inflicting torture on a prisoner. (_State Trials_, vol. xxx.) The Marquis Beccaria, in an exquisite piece of raillery, has proposed this problem with a gravity and precision truly mathematical:

"The force of the muscles and the sensibility of the nerves of an innocent person being given, it is required to find the degree of pain necessary to make himself guilty of a given crime."--_1 Bl. Com. 327. n._

A prisoner standing mute at the present day would be sentenced to undergo the punishment that would be awarded to him, if found guilty of the crime laid to his charge.

INVESTIGATOR.

Manchester, April 4, 1854.

Blackstone (book iv. chap. 25.) speaks of the cases in which punishment of "peine forte et dure" was inflicted according to the ancient law. It would occupy too great space to quote what he says on this point, and, therefore I must refer your correspondent to his work itself, where he will also find an inquiry into its origin. The punishment is described almost in the words of your correspondent's quotation; thus:

"That the prisoner be remanded to the prison from whence he came, and be put into a low, dark chamber; and there be laid on his back, on the bare floor, naked, unless where decency forbids, that there be placed upon his body as great a weight of iron as he could bear, and more; that he have no sustenance, save only, on the first day, three morsels of the worst bread, and, on the second day, three draughts of standing water, that should be nearest to the prison door; and in this situation this should be alternately his daily diet, _till he died_, or (as anciently the judgment ran) till he answered."

Blackstone farther intimates that this punishment was abolished by statute 12 Geo. III. c. 20., which shows, of course, that it continued to be according to law for more than thirty years after the date mentioned by ABHBA.

R. O.

The punishment, or more properly torture, alluded to by ABHBA, was the "peine forte et dure," commonly applied in the early part of the last century to such criminals as refused to plead. Many died under it in order to save their estates, &c. from forfeiture to the crowns. In my forthcoming anecdotes of "The Eighteenth Century," several cases are cited from the newspapers of the time; but, as the MS. is now in the printer's hands, I cannot refer to them. Writing from memory, I think that the last case in which this torture was applied at the Old Bailey in London was in 1735, and reported in the _London Magazine_ of that year. The "Press-yard" at Newgate derives its name from being the scene of these tortures.

ALEXANDER ANDREWS.

* * * * *

JOB XIX. 26.

(Vol. ix., p. 303.)

Perhaps the best mode in which I can comply with MR. C. MANSFIELD INGLEBY'S request, is to send for insertion in the "N. & Q." my MS. note on the text in question:

[Hebrew: W'CHR `WRY NQPW Z'T] [Hebrew: WMBSHRY 'CHZH 'LWH:]

The difficulties which the reader experiences, on reading the authorised version of this passage, are by no means trifling. Every one knows that the words printed in _Italics_ are not to be found in the original; the strictly literal rendering, according to the construction put upon the verse by our translators, would therefore run thus:

"And after my skin, destroy this, Yet in my flesh shall I see God."

To say the least of it, "it is hard to be understood." The three words in Italics, arbitrarily introduced, make the passage by no means more intelligible.

The erudite author of the marginal readings (see "N. & Q.," Vol. ix., p. 108.) felt the difficulty, and therefore proposed another translation, which is,--

"After I shall awake, though this _body_ be destroyed, Yet out of my flesh shall I see God."

By an effort of violent criticism, [Hebrew: `WRY] might be translated _my awaking_; but it will require an extraordinary critical mind to turn [Hebrew: NQPW Z'T] into _though this body be destroyed_.

The difficulties seem to have originated with the misapprehension of the proper meaning of the verb [Hebrew: NQP] here. Instead of translating it according to its primitive signification, viz. _to surround_ {429} a foreign sense has been palmed upon it, viz. _to destroy_. Job, no doubt, meant to say thus:

"And after my skin has returned, this shall be; And out of my flesh shall I see God."

Thus the literal meaning demonstrates a connecting link between verses 25 and 26. The authorised version and the marginal reading seem to lack that link:

"And I know that my Redeemer liveth, And He shall at length abide upon the earth."

But would you know when this _at length_ is to take place? It will come to pass when a shaking of the dry bones shall take place, when bone to bone shall be joined, when sinews and flesh shall come upon them, and skin cover them above; that is, when the skeleton of my mutilated body shall be raised a glorified body. In other words,--

"And after my skin returned, this shall be; And out of my flesh shall I see God."

The most ancient translators have evidently put this construction upon the verse under consideration. The Chaldee paraphrase runs thus:

[Chaldee: WMN BTR D'TPCH MSHKY TH' D'] [Chaldee: WMBSRY 'CHMY TWB 'LH'::]

"And after my skin is healed, this shall be; And out of my flesh shall I see the return of God."

[Chaldee: 'TPCH] does not mean here _inflated_, as some suppose. The Syriac version translates the word [Hebrew: NQPW] by the word [Syriac: 'TKRK], which means _surround_, _wind round_. The Vulgate has the following version of the patriarch's prophetic exclamation:

"Et rursum circumdabor pelle mea, Et in carne mea videbo Deum meum."

Jerome evidently knew not what to do with the word [Hebrew: Z'T], and therefore omitted it. He might have turned it to good account by translating it _erit hoc_.

The above note has been penned upwards of five years ago, and I transcribe it now, without a single alteration, for the benefit of MR. C. MANSFIELD INGLEBY and his friends.

MOSES MARGOLIOUTH.

Wybunbury, Nantwich.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Photographic Experiences._--We have received from our valued correspondent DR. MANSELL, of Guernsey, a suggestion to which we are happy to give publicity, and to the promotion of which we shall be very glad to lend the columns of "N. & Q." Our photographic readers are probably aware that the Talbotype process is increasing in favour; we have recorded DR. DIAMOND'S strong testimony to its advantages. MR. LLEWELLYN has just described his process (which is strikingly similar) in the _Photographic Journal_; and in a recent number of _La Lumiere_ the VICOMTE VIGIER confirms the views of our countrymen. DR. MANSELL, who has given our readers the benefit of his experience, well remarks that in all his acquaintance with physical science, he knows nothing more remarkable than that MR. FOX TALBOT should not only have discovered this beautiful process, but likewise have given it to the world (in 1841) in so perfect a form, that the innumerable experiments of a dozen years have done nothing essential to improve it, and the best manipulators of the day can add nothing to it. It is, however, with a view to testing some of the points in which photographers differ, so as to establish which are best, that DR. MANSELL suggests, that a table giving,

1. The time of exposure in the camera, in a bright May sun, 2. The locality, 3. The iodizement, 4. The maker of the paper, 5. The diameter of the diaphragm, 6. Its distance from the lens, and 7. The diameter, focal length, and maker of the lens,

would, if carefully and honestly stated by some twenty or thirty photographers, be extremely valuable. Of this there can be little doubt, and we hope that our scientific photographic friends, will respond to this suggestion. We for our parts are ready to receive any such communications, and will, at the end of the month, collate and arrange them in such form as may best exhibit the results. It is obvious that, in a matter of such a nature, _we_ at least should be furnished with the names of our correspondents.

_The Ceroleine Process._--The unfavourable state of the weather has prevented me from making many experiments as to the value of the process given in your 234th Number, but I have seen enough to convince me that it will effect a great saving of trouble, and be more sensitive than any modification of Le Gray's process that has yet been published. It will, however, be rather more expensive, and, in the hands of persons unaccustomed to chemical manipulations, rather difficult; but the solutions once made, the waxing process is delightfully easy.

WILLIAM PUMPHREY.