Chapter 3

Why may we not have the liberty of forming a plural noun _news_ from the adjective _new_, though we have never used the singular _new_ as a noun, when the French have indulged themselves with the plural noun of adjective formation, _les nouvelles_, without feeling themselves compelled to make _une nouvelle_ a part of their language?

Why may we not form a plural noun _news_ from _new_, to express the same idea which in Latin is expressed by _nova_, and in French by _les nouvelles_?

Why may not goods be a plural noun formed from the adjective _good_, exactly as the Romans formed _bona_ and the Germans have formed _Güter_?

Why does MR. HICKSON compel us to treat goods as singular, and make us go back to the Gothic? Does he say that _die Güter_, the German for _goods_ or _possessions_, is singular? Why too must riches be singular, and be the French word _richesse_ imported into our language? Why may we not have a plural noun _riches_, as the Romans had _divitæ_, and the Germans have _die Reichthumer_? and what if _riches_ be irregularly formed from the adjective _rich_? Are there, MR. HICKSON, no irregularities in the formation of a language? Is this really so?

If "from convenience or necessity" words are and may be imported from foreign languages bodily into our own, why might not our forefathers, feeling the convenience or necessity of having words corresponding to _bona_, _nova_, _divitiæ_, have formed _goods_, _news_, _riches_, from _good_, _new_, _rich_?

_News_ must be singular, says MR. HICKSON; but _means_ "is beyond all dispute plural," for Shakspeare talks of "a mean:" with _news_, however, there is the slight difficulty of the absence of the noun _new_ to start from. Why is the absence of the singular an insuperable difficulty in the way of the formation of a plural noun from an adjective, any more than of plural nouns otherwise formed, which have no singulars, as _clothes_, _measles_, _alms_, &c. What says MR. HICKSON of these words? Are they all singular nouns and imported from other languages? for he admits no other irregularity in the formation of a language.

2. _Noise._--I agree with MR. HICKSON that the old derivations of _noise_ are unsatisfactory, but I continue to think his monstrous. I fear we cannot decide in your columns which of us has the right German pronunciation of _neues_; and I am sorry to find that you, Mr. Editor, are with MR. HICKSON in giving to the German _eu_ the exact sound of _oi_ in _noise_. I remain unconvinced, and shall continue to pronounce the _eu_ with less fullness than _oi_ in _noise_. However, this is a small matter, and I am quite content with MR. HICKSON to waive it. The derivation appears to me nonsensical, and I cannot but think would appear so to any one who was not bitten by a fancy.

I do not profess, as I said before, to give the root of _noise_. But it is probably the same as of _noisome_, _annoy,_ the French _nuire_, Latin _nocere_, which brings us again to _noxa_; and the French word _noise_ has probably the same root, though its specific meaning is different from that of our word _noise_. Without venturing to assert it dogmatically, I should expect the now usual meaning of _noise_ to be its primary meaning, viz. "a loud sound" or "disturbance;" and this accords with my notion of its alliances. The French word _bruit_ has both the meanings of our word _noise_; and _to bruit_ and _to noise_ are with us interchangeable terms. The French _bruit_ also has the sense of _a disturbance_ more definitely than our word _noise_. "Il y a du bruit" means "There is a row." {139} I mention _bruit_ and its meanings merely as a parallel case to _noise_, if it be, as I think, that "a loud sound" is its primary, and "a rumour" its secondary meaning.

I have no doubt there are many instances, and old ones, among our poets, and prose writers too, of the use of the noun _annoy_. I only remember at present Mr. Wordsworth's--

"There, at Blencatharn's rugged feet, Sir Lancelot gave a safe retreat To noble Clifford; from annoy Concealed the persecuted boy."

3. _Parliament._--FRANCISCUS's etymology of Parliament (Vol. ii., p. 85.) is, I think, fit companion for MR. HICKSON's derivations of _news_ and _noise_. I take FRANCISCUS for a wag: but lest others of your readers may think him serious, and be seduced into a foolish explanation of the word _Parliament_ by his joke, I hope you will allow me to mention that _palam mente_, literally translated, means _before the mind_, and that, if FRANCISCUS or any one else tries to get "freedom of thought or deliberation" out of this, or to get Parliament out of it, or even to get sense out of it, he will only follow the fortune which FRANCISCUS says has befallen all his predecessors, and stumble _in limine_. The presence of _r_, and the turning of _mens_ into _mentum_, are minor difficulties. If FRANCISCUS be not a wag, he is perhaps an anti-ballot man, bent on finding an argument against the ballot in the etymology of _Parliament_: but whatever he be, I trust your readers generally will remain content with the old though humble explanation of _parliament_, that it is a modern Latinisation of the French word _parlement_, and that it literally means a talk-shop, and has nothing to do with open or secret voting, though it be doubtless true that Roman judges voted _clam vel palam_, and that _palam_ and _mens_ are two Latin words.

C.H.

* * * * *

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."

"_Delighted_" (Vol. ii., p. 113.).--I incline to think that the word _delighted_ in Shakspeare represents the Latin participle _delectus_ (from _deligere_), "select, choice, exquisite, refined." This sense will suit all the passages cited by MR. HICKSON, and particularly the last. If this be so, the suggested derivations from the adjective _light_, and from the substantive _light_, fall to the ground: but MR. HICKSON will have been right in distinguishing Shakspeare's _delighted_ from the participle of the usual verb _to delight, delectare_=gratify. The roots of the two are distinct: that of the former being _leg-ere_ "to choose;" of the latter, _lac-ere_ "to tice."

B.H. KENNEDY.

_Meaning of the Word "Delighted."_--I am not the only one of your readers who have read with deep interest the important contributions of MR. HICKSON, and who hope for further remarks on Shakspearian difficulties from the same pen. His papers on the _Taming of the Shrew_ were of special value; and although I do not quite agree with all he has said on the subject, there can be no doubt of the great utility of permitting the discussion of questions of the kind in such able hands.

Perhaps you would kindly allow me to say thus much; for the remembrance of the papers just alluded to renders a necessary protest against that gentleman's observations on the meaning of the word _delighted_ somewhat gentler. I happen to be one of the unfortunates (a circumstance unknown to MR. HICKSON, for the work in which my remarks on the passage are contained is not yet published) who have indulged in what he terms the "cool impertinence" of explaining _delighted_, in the celebrated passage in _Measure for Measure_, by "delightful, sweet, pleasant;" and the explanation appears to me to be so obviously correct, that I am surprised beyond measure at the terms he applies to those who have adopted it.

But MR. HICKSON says,--

"I pass by the nonsense that the greatest master of the English language did not heed the distinction between the past and the present participles, as not worth second thought."

I trust I am not trespassing on courtesy when I express a fear that a sentence like this exhibits the writer's entire want of acquaintance with the grammatical system employed by the great poet and the writers of his age. We must not judge Shakspeare's grammar by Cobbett or Murray, but by the vernacular language of his own times. It is perfectly well known that Shakspeare constantly uses the passive for the active participle, in the same manner that he uses the present tense for the passive participle, and commits numerous other offences against correct grammar, judging by the modern standard. If MR. HICKSON will read the first folio, he will find that the "greatest master of the English language" uses plural nouns for singular, the plural substantive with the singular verb, and the singular substantive with the plural verb. In fact, so numerous are these instances, modern editors have been continually compelled to alter the original merely in deference to the ears of modern readers. They have not altered _delighted_ to _delightful_; but the meaning is beyond a doubt. "Example is better than precept," and perhaps, if MR. HICKSON will have the kindness to consult the following passages with attention, he may be inclined to arrive at the conclusion, it is not so very dark an offence to assert that Shakspeare did use the passive participle for the active; not in ignorance, but because it was an ordinary practice in the literary compositions of his age.

"To your _professed_ bosoms I commit him."

_King Lear_, Act i. Sc. 1. {140}

"I met the youthful lord at Laurence' cell, And gave him what _becomed_ love I might. Not stepping o'er the bounds of modesty."

_Romeo and Juliet_, Act iv. Sc. 3.

"Thus ornament is but the _guiled_ shore To a most dangerous sea."

_Merchant of Venice_, Act iii. Sc. 2.

"Then, in despite of _brooded_ watchful day, I would into thy bosom pour my thoughts."

_King John_, Act iii. Sc. 3.

"And careful hours, with time's _deformed_ hand, Have written strange defeatures in my face."

_Comedy of Errors_, Act v. Sc. 1.

In all these passages, as well as in that in _Measure for Measure_, the simple remark, that the poet employed a common grammatical variation, is all that is required for a complete explanation.

J.O. HALLIWELL.

* * * * *

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES.

_Execution of Charles I.--Sir T. Herbert's "Memoir of Charles I_." (Vol. ii. pp., 72. 110.).--Is P.S.W.E. aware that Mr. Hunter gives a tradition, in his _History of Hallamshire_, that a certain William Walker, who died in 1700, and to whose memory there was an inscribed brass plate in the parish church of Sheffield, was the executioner of Charles I.? The man obtained this reputation from having retired from political life at the Restoration, to his native village, Darnall, near Sheffield, where he is said to have made death-bed disclosures, avowing that he beheaded the King. The tradition has been supported, perhaps suggested, by the name of Walker having occurred during the trials of some of the regicides, as that of the real executioner.

Can any one tell me whether a narrative of the last days of Charles I., and of his conduct on the scaffold, by Sir Thomas Herbert, has ever been published in full? It is often quoted and referred to (see "NOTES AND QUERIES," Vol. i., p. 436.), but the owner of the MS., with whom I am well acquainted, informs me that it has never been submitted to publication, but that some extracts have been secretly obtained. In what book are these printed? The same house which contains Herbert's MS. (a former owner of it married Herbert's widow), holds also the stool on which King Charles knelt at his execution, the shirt in which he slept the night before, and other precious relics of the same unfortunate personage.

ALFRED GATTY.

Ecclesfield, July 11. 1850.

_Execution of Charles I._ (Vol. ii., p 72.).--In Ellis's _Letters illustrative of English History_ Second Series, vol. iii. p. 340-41., P.S.W.E. will find the answer to his inquiry. Absolute certainty is perhaps unattainable on the subject; but no mention occurs of the Earl of Stair, nor is it probable that any one of patrician rank would be retained as the operator on such an occasion. We need hardly question that Richard Brandon was the executioner. Will P.S.W.E. give his authority for the "report" to which he refers?

MATFELONENSIS.

_Simon of Ghent_ (Vol. ii., p. 56.).--"Simon Gandavensis, patria Londinensis, sed patre Flandro Gandavensi natus, a. 1297. Episcopus Sarisburiensis."--Fabric. _Bibl. Med. et Infint. Latin._, lib. xviii. p. 532.

_Chevalier de Cailly_ (Vol. ii., p. 101.)--Mr. De St. Croix will find an account of the Chevalier Jacque de Cailly, who died in 1673, in the _Biographie Universelle_; or a more complete one in Goujet (_Bibliothèque Françoise_, t. xvii. p. 320.).

S.W.S.

_Collar of Esses_ (Vol. ii., pp. 89. 110.).--The question of B. has been already partly answered in an obliging manner by [Greek: ph]., who has referred to my papers on the Collar of Esses and other Collars of Livery, published a few years ago in the _Gentleman's Magazine_. Permit me to add that I have such large additional collections on the same subject that the whole will be sufficient to form a small volume, and I intend to arrange them in that shape. As a direct answer to B.'s question--"Is there any list extant of persons who were honoured with that badge?" I may reply, No. Persons were not, in fact, "honoured with the badge," in the sense that persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals; but the livery collar was _assumed_ by parties holding a certain position. So far as can be ascertained, these were either knights attached to the royal household or service, who wore gold or gilt collars, or esquires in the like position, who wore silver collars. I have made collections for a list of such pictures, effigies, and sepulchral brasses as exhibit livery collars, and shall be thankful for further communications. To [Greek: ph].'s question--"Who are the persons _now_ privileged to wear these collars?" I believe the reply must be confined to--the judges, the Lord Mayor of London, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the kings, and heralds of arms. If any other officers of the royal household still wear the collar of Esses, I shall be glad to be informed.

JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS.

[To the list of persons now privileged to wear such collars given by Mr. Nichols, must be added the Serjeants of Arms, of whose creation by investiture with the Collar of Esses, Pegge has preserved so curious an account in the Fifth Part of his _Curialia_.]

_Hell paved with good Intentions_ (Vol. ii., p. 86.).--The history of the phrase which Sir Walter Scott attributed "to a stern old divine," and which J.M.G. moralises upon, and asserts to be a misquotation for "the _road_ to hell," &c., is this:--Boswell, {141} in his _Life of Johnson_ (_sub_ 15th April, 1775), says that Johnson, in allusion to the unhappy failure of pious resolves, said to an acquaintance, "Sir, hell is paved with good intentions." Upon which Malone adds a note:

"This is a proverbial saying. 'Hell,' says Herbert, 'is full of good meanings and wishings.'--_Jacula Prudentum_, p. 11. ed. 1631."

but he does not say where else the proverbial saying is to be found. The last editor, Croker, adds,--

"Johnson's phrase has become so proverbial, that it may seem rather late to ask what it means--why '_paved_?' perhaps as making the _road_ easy, _facilis descensus Averni_."

C.

_The Plant "Hæmony"_ (Vol. ii., p. 88.).--I think MR. BASHAM, who asks for a reference to the plant "hæmony", referred to by Milton in his _Comus_, will find the information which he seeks in the following extract from Henry Lyte's translation of Rembert Dodoen's _Herbal_, at page 107, of the edition of 1578. The plant is certainly not called by the name of "hæmony," nor is it described as having prickles on its leaves; but they are plentifully shown in the engraving which accompanies the description.

"_Allysson._--The stem of this herbe is right and straight, parting itself at the top into three or foure small branches. The leaves be first round, and after long whitish and _rough_, or somewhat woolly in handling. It bringeth foorth at the top of the branches little _yellow_ floures, and afterward small rough whitish and flat huskes, and almost round fashioned like bucklers, wherein is contained a flat seede almost like to the seed of castell or stocke gilloflers, but greater.

"Alysson, as Dioscorides writeth, groweth upon rough mountaynes, and is not found in this countrey but in the gardens of some herboristes.

"The same hanged in the house, or at the gate or entry, keepeth man and beast from _enchantments and witching_."

K.P.D.E.

As a "Note" to DR. BASHAM'S "Query", I would quote Ovid's _Metamorph._, lib vii. l. 264-5.:

"Illic Hæmoniá radices valle resectas. Seminaque, et flores, et succos incoquit acres."

T.A.

_Practice of Scalping amongst the Scythians--Scandinavian Mythology._--In Vol. ii., p. 12., I desired to be informed whether this practice has prevailed amongst any people besides the American Indians. As you have established no rule against an inquirer's replying to his own Query, (though, unfortunately for other inquirers, self-imposed by some of your correspondents) I shall avail myself of your permission, and refer those who are interested in the subject to Herodotus, _Melpomene 64_, where they will find that the practice of scalping prevailed amongst the Scythians. This coincidence of manners serves greatly to corroborate the hypothesis that America was peopled originally from the northern parts of the old continent. He has recorded also their horrid custom of drinking the blood of their enemies, and making drinking vessels of their skulls, reminding us of the war-song of the savage of Louisiana:--

"I shall devour their (my enemies') hearts, dry their flesh, drink their blood; I shall tear off their scalps, and make cups of their skulls." (Bossu's _Travels_.) "Those," says this traveller through Louisiana, "who think the Tartars have chiefly furnished America with inhabitants, seem to have hit the true opinion; you cannot believe how great the resemblance of the Indian manners is to those of the ancient Scythians; it is found in their religious ceremonies, their customs, and in their food. Hornius is full of characteristics that may satisfy your curiosity in this respect, and I desire you to read him."--Vol. i. p. 400.

But the subject of the "Origines Americanæ" is not what I now beg to propose for consideration; it is the tradition-falsifying assertion of Mr. Grenville Pigott, in his _Manual of Scandinavian Mythology_ (as quoted by D'Israeli in the _Amenities of English Literature_, vol. i. p. 51, 52.), that the custom with which the Scandinavians were long reproached, of drinking out of the skulls of their enemies, has no other foundation than a blunder of Olaus Wormius, who, translating a passage in the death-song of Regner Lodbrog,--

"Soon shall we drink out of the curved trees of the head,"

turned the trees of the head into a skull, and the skull into a hollow cup; whilst the Scald merely alluded to the branching horns, growing as trees from the heads of aninals, that is, the curved horns which formed their drinking cups.

T.J.

_Cromwell's Estates.--Magor_ (Vol. ii., p. 126.).--I have at length procured the following information respecting _Magor_. It is a parish in the lower division of the hundred of Caldicot, Monmouthshire. Its church, which is dedicated to St. Mary, is in the patronage of the Duke of Beaufort.

SELEUCUS.

_"Incidis in Scyllam," &c._ (Vol. ii., p. 85.).--MR. C. FORBES says he "should be sorry this fine old proverb should be passed over with no better notice than seems to have been assigned to it in Boswell's _Johnson_," and then he quotes some account of it from the _Gentleman's Magazine_. I beg leave to apprise MR. FORBES that there is no notice whatsoever of it in Boswell's _Johnson_, though it is introduced (_inter alia_) in a note of _Mr. Malone's_ in the later editions of Boswell; but that note contains in substance all that MR. FORBES'S communication repeats. See the later {142} editions of Boswell, under the date of 30th March, 1783.

C.

_Dies Iræ_ (Vol. ii., p. 72. 105.).--Will you allow me to enter my protest against the terms "extremely beautiful and magnificent," applied by your respectable correspondents to the _Dies Iræ_, which, I confess, I think not deserving any such praise either for its poetry or its piety. The first triplet is the best, though I am not sure that even the merit of that be not its _jingle_, in which King David and the Sybil are strangely enough brought together to testify of the day of judgment. Some of the triplets appear to me very poor, and hardly above macaronic Latin.

C.

_Fabulous Account of the Lion._--Many thanks to J. EASTWOOD (Vol. i., p. 472.) for his pertinent reply to my Query. The anecdote he refers to is mentioned in the _Archæological Journal_, vol. i. 1845, p. 174., in a review of the French work _Vitraux Peints de S. Etienne de Bourges_, &c. No reference is given there; but I should fancy Philippe de Thaun gives the fable.

JARLTZBERG.

_Caxton's Printing-office_ (Vol. ii., p. 122.).--The abbot of Westminster who allowed William Caxton to set up his press in the almonry within the abbey of Westminster, was probably John Esteney, who became abbot in the year 1475, and died in 1498. If the date mentioned by Stow for the introduction of printing into England by Caxton, viz. 1471, could be shown to be that in which he commenced his printing at Westminster, Abbot Milling (who resigned the abbacy for the bishopric of Hereford in 1475) would claim the honour of having been his first patron: but the earliest ascertained date for his printing at Westminster is 1477. In the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for April, 1846, I made this remark:

"There can, we think, be no doubt that the device used by Caxton, and afterwards by Wynkyn de Worde, (W. 4.7 C.) was intended for the figures 74, (though Dibdin, p. cxxvii, seems incredulous in the matter), and that its allusion was to the year 1474 which may very probably have been that in which his press was set up in Westminster."

Will the Editor of "NOTES AND QUERIES" now allow me to modify this suggestion? The figures "4" and "7" are interlaced, it is true, but the "4" decidedly precedes the other figure, and is followed by a point (.). I thinly it not improbable that this cypher, therefore, is so far enigmatic, that the figure "4" may stand for _fourteen hundred_ (the century), and that the "7" is intended to read doubled, as _seventy-seven_. In that case, the device, and such historical evidence as we possess, combine in assigning the year 1477 for the time of the erection of Caxton's press at Westminster, in the time of Abbot Esteney. If _The Game and Play of the Chesse_ was printed at Westminster, it would still be 1474. In the paragraph quoted by ARUN (Vol. ii., p. 122.) from Mr. C. Knight's _Life of Caxton_, Stow is surely incorrectly charged with naming Abbot Islip in this matter. Islip's name has been introduced by the error of some subsequent writer; and this is perhaps attributable to the extraordinary inadvertence of Dart, the historian of the abbey, who in his _Lives of the Abbots of Westminster_ has altogether omitted Esteney,--a circumstance which may have misled any one hastily consulting his book.

JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS

* * * * *

MISCELLANEOUS

NOTES ON BOOKS, SALES, CATALOGUES, ETC.

_The Fawkes's of York in the Sixteenth Century, including Notices of the Early History of Guye Fawkes, the Gunpowder Plot Conspirator_, is the title of a small volume written, it is understood, by a well-known and accomplished antiquary resident in that city. The author has brought together his facts in an agreeable manner, and deserves the rare credit of being content to produce a work commensurate with the extent and interest of his subject.