proprietor all the honey found in his woods; which was
certainly a much more important gift than it would at first
appear, since the Hon. Daines Barrington remarks, that perhaps
there has been no lawsuit or question concerning it for the
last three hundred years. In the middle ages, however, the
use of honey was very extensive in England, as sugar was not
brought hither until the fifteenth century; and it was not
only a general substitute for it in preserving, but many of
the more luxurious beverages were principally composed of it,
as mead, metheglin, pigment, and morat, and these were famous
from the Saxon days, down even to the time of the present
charter (1217). In the old Danish and Swedish laws bees form a
principal subject; and honey was a considerable article of rent
in Poland, in which it was a custom to bind any one who stole
it to the tree whence it was taken. The Baron de Mayerberg also
relates, that when he travelled in Muscovy in 1661, he saw
trees there expressly adapted to receive bees, which even those
who felled their own wood were enjoined to take down in such a
manner that they who prepared them should have the benefit of
the honey. Nor was the wax of less importance to the woodland
proprietors of England, since candles of tallow are said to
have been first used only in 1290, and those of wax were so
great a luxury, that in some places they were unknown: but a
statute concerning wax-chandlers, passed in 1433 (the 11th of
Henry VI. chap. 12.), states that wax was then used in great
quantities for the images of saints. Only referring, however,
to the well-known use of large wax tapers by King Alfred in
the close of the ninth century, it may be observed that in the
laws of Hoel Dha, king of South Wales, which are acknowledged
as authentic historical documents, made about A.D. 940, of
much older materials, is mentioned the right of the king's
chamberlain to as much wax as he could bite from the end of
a taper."--_Coke_; _Manwood_; _Barrington_; _Statutes of the
Realm_.
Perhaps you will allow a few words more in illustration of B. B.'s Query
(Vol. v., p. 498.). A recent correspondent, writing of some modern
experiments on the venom of toads, suggests the propriety of contributing
to a list of "vulgar errors" which have proved to be "vulgar truths." It
would not much surprise me to learn that, after all, the popular belief
in the efficacy of the rough music of the key and warming-pan might be
added to his list. At all events the reason stated by B. B. to prove its
uselessness, viz. that bees have no sense of hearing, must, I think, be
abandoned, as a Query of MR. SYDNEY SMIRKE (Vol. vii., p. 499.), and an
answer (Vol. vii., p. 633.), will show. That all insects are possessed
of hearing, naturalists seem now as well convinced of as that they have
eyes; though some naturalists formerly considered they were not, as
Linnæus and Bonnet; while Huber (his interesting observations on bees
notwithstanding) seems to have been quite undecided on the point. Bees,
as well as all other insects, hear through the medium of their antennæ,
which in a subordinate degree are used as feelers; observing which,
perhaps, Huber and others were indisposed to ascribe to them the sense in
question.
In reference to MR. SYDNEY SMIRKE'S Query, so far from other naturalists
confirming Huber's observations as to the effect produced by the sound
emitted by the _Sphynx atropos_ on the bees, besides Dr. Bevan (quoted
Vol. vii., p. 633.), the intelligent entomologist, Mr. Duncan, author
of the entomological portion of _The Naturalist's Library_ (vol. xxxiv.
pp. 53-55.), completely disproves them. He tells us that he has closely
watched bees, and has seen the queen attack the larva cells; but the
sentinels, notwithstanding the reiteration of the queenly sound, so far
from remaining motionless, {200} held their sovereign in check, and
stubbornly persisted in the defence of their charge against the attacks
of their queen and mother. Besides this disproval of the incapacitation
of bees by the emission of a sound, another from the experiments of Huber
himself may be mentioned. He introduced a _Sphynx atropos_ into a hive in
the daytime, and it was immediately attacked and killed by the workers.
Query, Might not the explanation of the robbery of hives by this moth be,
that the darkness of night incapacitates the bees, while it is the time
nature has provided for the wanderings of the _Sphynx_?
TEE BEE.
* * * * *
MILTON'S WIDOW.
(Vol. vii., p. 596.; Vol. viii., pp. 12. 134.)
A contribution of mine to the miscellaneous vol. of the Chetham Society's
publications having been introduced to your readers by the handsome
notice of MR. HUGHES, I feel bound to notice the objection raised by
your correspondent GARLICHITHE (Vol. viii., p. 134.), who has confounded
Randle the _grandfather_ and Randle the _son_ of the writer of these
letters quoted by Mr. Hunter. Richard Minshull, who was the writer of
these letters in 1656, and died in the following year, had several sons,
of whom the eldest, Randle, correctly described by MR. HUGHES as the
great-great-grandson of the Minshull who first settled at Wistaston,
had seven children, of whom Elizabeth, the widow of Milton, was one.
She was baptized at Wistaston on the 30th Dec. 1638. In 1680 (about six
years after her husband's death), by means of a family arrangement with
Richard Minshull of Wistaston, frame-work knitter, who, there can be
little doubt, was her brother, evidenced by a bond in my possession, she
acquired a leasehold interest in a farm at Brindley, near Nantwich. On
the 20th July, 1720, by her name and description of Elizabeth Milton, of
Nantwich, widow, she administered to the effects of her brother, John
Minshull, in the Consistory Court of Chester; and her will, the probate
of which is also in my possession, is dated 22nd August, and proved 10th
October, 1727. MR. HUGHES having given a reference to the volume where
this information will be found in detail, a reference to it might have
saved GARLICHITHE the trouble of starting an objection, and shown him
that, so far from the facts stated being irreconcilable with Mr. Hunter's
tract, that gentleman's reference to Randle Holme's _Correspondence_
was suggested by a communication of my own to _The Athenæum_, and in
its turn furnished me with the clue from which I eventually ascertained
the particulars of Mrs. Milton's birth and parentage. I am sorry to say
that I have wholly failed in finding the register of her marriage: it is
not in the register-book of her native place. It might be worth while
to search the register of the parishes in which Milton's residence in
Jewin Street, and Dr. Paget's in Coleman Street, are situate. There is
no uncertainty as to the date, which Aubrey tells us was in "the yeare
before the sicknesse."
Though CRANMORE (Vol. v., p. 327.) is said to be a deserter from the
ranks of "N. & Q.," I hope he is known to some of your readers, and that
they will convey to him a hint that he is under something like a promise
to furnish information, which, as regards Dr. Paget's connexion with the
poet's widow, will still be welcome.
J. F. MARSH.
Despite his acknowledged infidelity, I must tender my thanks to
GARLICHITHE for his obliging reference to Mr. Hunter's tract; albeit
there is, I may be permitted to suggest, no position assumed in any note
upon Milton's widow which that tract in any way contravenes or sets
aside. The fact is, GARLICHITHE, in the outset, entirely misapprehends
the nature of my argument; and so leads himself, by a sort of literary
"Will-o-the-wisp," unconsciously astray.
It was not Randle the _grandfather_ of Richard Minshull, writer of the
two letters transcribed by Mr. Hunter, but Randle the eldest _son_ of
this Richard Minshull to whom I referred as the father of Elizabeth
Milton. Nor is it _possible_ that this Elizabeth could have "died in
infancy," seeing that I possess a copy of a bond (the original is also
extant) from her brother Richard, then of Wistaston, where he was
baptized April 7, 1641, secured to her as Elizabeth _Milton_, dated June
4, 1680.
As to the marriage itself, it may have taken place in London, where the
poet resided; or, which is more probable, at or near the residence of
their mutual friend, Dr. Paget. Milton was certainly not over-careful
about ritual observances, and it is not therefore unlikely that the rigid
Puritan preferred a private, or what is termed a civil marriage, to one
religiously and properly conducted in the church of his forefathers.
T. HUGHES.
* * * * *
PECULIAR ORNAMENT IN CROSTHWAITE CHURCH.
(Vol. viii., p. 55.)
It is probable that these circles with eight radiations are the original
dedication-crosses of the church. Such crosses are still to be seen
painted on the piers of the nave in Roman Catholic churches. Durandus,
describing the consecration of a church, says:
"In the meanwhile within the building twelve lamps be burning
before twelve crosses, which be depicted on the walls of the
church.... Lastly, he [the bishop] anointeth with chrism the
twelve crosses {201} depicted on the wall."--Durandus _On
Symbolism_, ed. Neale and Webb, p. 115.
In the Pontifical, _De Ecclesiæ Dedicatione_, the rubric directs,--
"Item, depingantur in parietibus Ecclesiæ intrinsecùs per
circuitum duodecim cruces, circa decem palmos super terram,
videlicet tres pro quolibet, ex quatuor parietibus. Et ad
caput cujuslibet crucis figatur unus clavus, cui affigatur una
candela unius unciæ."
Dedication-crosses occur at Salisbury Cathedral, and at Uffington Church,
Berks, and in both cases on the exterior of the buildings.
The crosses at Salisbury are seven in number, viz. one over each
side-door at the west end, two on the buttresses of the north and south
transepts, two on the buttresses of the east end, and one in the centre
of the east wall. The number at Uffington is twelve, disposed as follows:
Three under the east window, three under the west window, one under the
south window of the south transept, one under the north window of the
north transept, one on the south wall of the nave, one on the north wall
of the nave, one on the south wall of the chancel, and one in the east
wall of the south transept. In each case the crosses have been of brass
inlaid in the wall, with the exception of one, which is of stone, and of
more elaborate design. The _rationale_ of dedication-crosses, according
to Durandus, is,--
"First, as a terror to evil spirits, that they, having been
driven forth thence, may be terrified when they see the sign
of the cross, and may not presume to enter therein again.
Secondly, as a mark of triumph; for crosses be the banners of
CHRIST, and the signs of his triumph.... Thirdly, that such
as look on them may call to mind the passion of CHRIST, by
which he hath consecrated his Church, and their belief in his
passion," &c.--Page 125.
Under these aspects the exterior would seem the more fitting, and may
have been the original position of them. Perhaps MR. ELLIOT will inform
us what is the number of crosses at Crosthwaite?
CHEVERELLS.
* * * * *
CURIOUS MISTRANSLATIONS.
(Vol. vi., p. 321.)
I have found, in _D'Israeli's Curiosities of Literature_, two or three
instances in which he mistranslates from the French. The first occurs in
the following passage in the article headed "Inquisition:"
"Once all were Turks when they were not Romanists. Raymond,
Count of Toulouse, was constrained to submit. _The inhabitants
were passed on the edge of the sword_, without distinction of
age or sex."
From the words which I have marked for Italics, it is clear that
D'Israeli translated the passage from some French author; but not being
aware of the idiomatic expression "passer au fil de l'épée," and that it
means "to put to the sword," he translated the words in their literal
sense, which in English is no sense at all.
The second example will be found in the article headed "Mysteries,
Moralities," &c. D'Israeli quotes some extracts from the _Mystery of St.
Dennis_, and concludes with the following on the subject of baptism:
"Sire, oyez que fait ce fol prestre:
Il prend de l'yaue _en_ une escuelle,
Et gete aux gens sur le cervele,
Et dit que _partants_ sont sauvés."
which he translates thus:
"Sir, hear what this mad priest does:
He takes water _out of_ a ladle,
And, throwing it at people's heads,
He says that _when they depart_ they are saved!"
The error of "out of" for "into" is unimportant; but not so where
he renders "partants" by "when they depart." The word "partant," in
the original, is an adverb, and means "thereupon," "forthwith." This
D'Israeli has mistaken for "partant," the participle of "partir:" and
hence the erroneous construction given to the passage.
A third sample occurs in the same article, where the author quotes from
one of the dramas called _Sotties_, a passage in which are these lines:
"Tuer les gens pour leurs plaisirs,
_Jouer le leur_, l'autrui saisir."
These he translates as follows:
"Killing people for their pleasures,
_Minding their own interests_, and seizing on what belongs to another."
Here we have "jouer le leur," to gamble, rendered by "to mind their
own interests;" a rather equivocal method, it must be confessed, of
accomplishing that object.
These are among the very few instances in which D'Israeli, by quoting
from the original authorities, enables us to form an opinion as to
the correctness of his anecdotes; and when we consider that by far
the greater proportion of these are drawn from French sources, there
is reason to apprehend that they may not have always been given with
sufficient fidelity. I am confirmed in this view by another quotation
which D'Israeli seems to have misunderstood. He is speaking of the feudal
custom of the French barons, according to which they were allowed to
cohabit with the new bride during the first three nights after marriage.
Upon this he remarks:
"Montesquieu is infinitely French when he could turn this
shameful species of tyranny into a bon mot; for he boldly
observes on this: 'C'était bien ces trois nuits là qu'il
fallait choisir; car pour les autres on {202} n'aurait pas
donné beaucoup d'argent.' The legislator, in the wit, forgot
the feelings of his heart."
I have never been able to conceive what meaning D'Israeli could have
attached to this quotation from Montesquieu, so as to torture it into a
_bon mot_. Not only is there nothing of the kind in the words he quotes,
but there is not even an attempt at it. The writer merely suggests a
reason for the preference given to the first three nights; and in doing
so he expresses the sentiments of the barons, and not his own. And yet,
it is upon this strange misapprehension of Montesquieu's meaning, that
D'Israeli lays at the door of that illustrious man the imputation of
being "infinitely French," and of forgetting, for the sake of a _bon
mot_, the feelings of his heart!
HENRY H. BREEN.
St. Lucia.
* * * * *
"TO SPEAK IN LUTESTRING."
(Vol. iii., p. 188.)
The Query on the meaning of the phrase "to speak in lutestring," used by
Philo-Junius, has remained so long without an answer, that to attempt to
give one now seems almost to require an apology. I will however do so. In
Letter XLVII., dated May 28, 1771, Philo-Junius says:
"I was led to trouble you with these observations by a passage,
which, _to speak in lutestring_, 'I met with this morning in
the course of my reading,' and upon which I mean to put a
question to the advocates for privilege."
Now we know, that if two lutes, or other stringed instruments, be placed
near each other, when a chord of one of them is struck, the corresponding
chord of the other will vibrate in unison, and give a similar note; one
lutestring will echo the other. The story of the maiden who believed
that the spirit of her dead lover was near her, because his harp sounded
responsive notes to hers, and who died heart-broken when she was
undeceived, is sufficiently well known. "To speak in lutestring" is then
to speak as another man's echo; and Philo-Junius here was the echo of the
Duke of Grafton, and used this affected phrase derisively, as being a
favourite, or at least well-known expression of his. In a letter which is
appended as a note to Letter XX., and which is dated six days previous to
the one just quoted, viz. May 22, 1771, he says:
"But Junius has a great authority to support him, which, _to
speak with the Duke of Grafton_, 'I accidentally met with this
morning in the course of my reading.' It contains an admonition
which cannot be repeated too often," &c.
I have not found the phrase "to speak in lutestring" anywhere else; but
I think, from a comparison of these two quotations, that it must mean
what I have supposed it to mean--to speak as the echo or exact repeater
of another man's words. Where can instances be found of the Duke of
Grafton's using this expression, which Philo-Junius ridicules?
W. FRASER.
Tor-Mohun.
* * * * *
BURIAL IN UNCONSECRATED PLACES.
(Vol. vi. _passim._)
So many interesting notices have been made by your correspondents on the
subject of peculiar interments,--skipping about from one part of the
country to another, and dropping down from the south into Lincolnshire,
as if in search of farther instances,--that I am induced to add to the
number of records, by stating the fact as to the late Mr. Dent, of
Winterton, whose body, at his particular request, was deposited after his
death in his own garden, on the south of the house in Winterton, where he
not only lived but died.
Friend Jonathan, as he was familiarly called, was a man of shrewd
understanding, and possessing strong common sense; yet, like others,
he had his failings, and amongst them the _amor nummi_ was not the
least obtrusive. As a very wealthy man he was looked up to by a little
aspiring community of Quakers in the neighbourhood; and his own dress,
when in a better suit, exhibited an appearance of his connexion with that
fraternity.
The Quakers had a small burial-ground at Thealby, in the parish of
Burton-upon-Stother, which I some years ago had the curiosity to inspect,
but such a forlorn lost place for such a sober and serious purpose I
never in my life before looked upon; it is posited at a little distance
from the public road entering Thealby from Winterton, where no doubt at
one time stood a lot of cottages and crofts, surrounded by common stone
walls, made from the flat stone of the neighbourhood. But so small and
so neglected was this burial place, that I could compare it to nothing
better than an old parish pinfold; it had been so little attended to
when I visited it, that the whole area was under a most luxuriant crop
of flourishing nettles, six or seven feet high. And as to graves, or the
purport of its occupation, we could see nothing; and yet its position was
such that with ordinary attention it might have been even a picturesque
spot, having three or four large trees overlooking it.
Upon an after inquiry I was told that a funeral had lately taken
place here, at which Friend Jonathan was the presiding attendant. But
in preparation for this ceremony they had found so much difficulty
in stubbing up the strong nettles, and digging the roots to form a
decent grave; and it was after all so difficult to find comfortable
standing-room about the grave, that I have ever {203} since concluded
that Mr. Dent must have been disgusted with it, as, upon depositing their
lost friend in the earth, he, as spokesman, thought it unnecessary to
make any observations, and he recommended that they should at once cover
the body up; and so it was done.
That Mr. Dent had any antipathy to the church I do not know, but that he
had a great dislike to paying unnecessary fees I have a good recollection
of. Before his death he requested that his body should be deposited in
his own garden; and his request was attended to by his nephew.
After the old gentleman's death, the present Mr. Dent, with a
praiseworthy attention, repaired and restored in the Elizabethan style
the old dilapidated dwelling-house and homestead where his uncle lived.
And I one day paid a visit to the grave, which is an unpretending ridge
on a well-mown grass-plat, and which, with the house and ground, appeared
to be properly attended to; and so, I presume, it continues to be.
WM. T. HESLEDEN.
J. H. M., in bringing forward Baskerville as an example of this unusual
occurrence, says, that "he directed he should be buried under a
_windmill_ near his garden." In a volume of Epitaphs, printed at Ipswich
in 1806, once the property of Archdeacon Nares, and containing several
MS. notes by him, Baskerville's is given, with a note by the editor, in
which he is stated to have been "inurned according to his own desire in a
_conical building_ near his late widow's house." The epitaph, written by
Baskerville himself, commences with these lines--
"Stranger,
Beneath this _cone_, in _unconsecrated_ ground,
A friend to the liberties of mankind directed
His body to be inurned."
The expression in each case, respecting the place of his interment, seems
scarcely strong enough for us to conclude it was a _windmill_. Perhaps J.
H. M. will kindly favour me with the authority for his statement. Nares
has made the following note on the epitaph at the bottom of the page:
"I heard John Wilkes, after praising Baskerville, add, 'But he
was a terrible infidel; he used to shock me!'"
R. W. ELLIOT.
Clifton.
* * * * *
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.
[At the suggestion of several correspondents we have reprinted
from _The Athenæum_ of the 22nd Nov. 1851, the article
detailing the new process by Mr. Muller referred to by the Rev.
MR. SISSON in our last Number.]
_Mr. Muller's Process._--"The following photographic process has been
communicated to us by Mr. C. J. Muller, from Patna in the East Indies.
We have submitted it to an experienced photographer; and he informs us
that it offers many advantages over the Talbotype or the Catalissotype
of Dr. Woods, which it somewhat resembles; that it is easy in all its
manipulatory details, and certain in its results. We give Mr. Muller's
own words--
"'A solution of hydriodate of iron is made in the proportion of eight
or ten grains of iodide of iron to one ounce of water. This solution I
prepare in the ordinary way with iodine, iron-turnings, and water.--The
ordinary paper employed in photography is dressed on one side with a
solution of nitrate of lead (fifteen grains of the salt to an ounce
of water). When dry, this paper is iodized either by immersing it
completely in the solution of the hydriodate of iron, or by floating
the leaded surface on the solution. It is removed after the lapse of a
minute or two, and lightly dried with blotting-paper. This paper now
contains iodide of lead and protonitrate of iron. While still moist, it
is rendered sensitive by a solution of nitrate of silver (one hundred
grains to the ounce) and placed in the camera. After an exposure of the
duration generally required for Talbot's paper, it may be removed to a
dark room. If the image is not already out, it will be found speedily
to appear in great strength and with beautiful sharpness _without any
farther application_. The yellow tinge of the lights may be removed by a
little hyposulphite of soda, though simple washing in water seems to be
sufficient to fix the picture. The nitrate of lead nay be omitted; and
plain paper only, treated with the solution of the hydriodate of iron,
and acetic acid may be used with the nitrate of silver, which renders it
more sensitive. The lead, however, imparts a peculiar colorific effect.
The red tinge brought about by the lead may be changed to a black one by
the use of a dilute solution of sulphate of iron:--by which, indeed, the
latent image may be very quickly developed. The papers however will not
keep after being iodized.'
"Mr. Muller suggests, that as iodide of lead is completely soluble in
nitrate of silver, it might furnish a valuable photographic fluid, which
could be applied at any moment when required.
"No small degree of interest attaches to this process, originating in
experiments carried on in Central India. It appears perfectly applicable
to the albumenized glass and collodion processes."
_Detail on Negative Paper._--I have not observed before this, that any
photographic operator has "noted" the burnishing of the iodised paper
previous to adding the exciting solution, though I know it is usual to
burnish before taking a proof. This is a very useful adjunct to obtaining
minuteness, and it is a plan I have sometimes adopted. I at first thought
it would injure or knock off the iodized surface, but no injury whatever
arises from the rubbing. I use a small piece of glass rod, polished flat
at one end, so that it may present {204} a facet about half an inch
square; but I should imagine a better instrument might be manufactured
with a proper handle, and some mode of obtaining pressure; not obtaining
sufficient is the cause of a little after-disarrangement if the nitrate
of silver is laid on with a brush, but if floated the polish remains.