[ocr errors]


CONTENT 8.-N° 60.

NOTES:-Jack or Jock James, 121-Church Minshull Records, 123-Seals-Decay of History, 124-Dr. Thomas Zouch-John Newton-The Fairy Vase-The Holy Thorn, 125-Denton MSS.-Abp. Parker's Consecration-The Fire of London-Slang: "Paint the town red"-Chaucer's

"Ex Africa

"Stilbon "-A. Raimbach, 126. QUERIES:-" Crocodile"- Judges' Robes -" semper aliquid novi "-" Omerifican"-" Profuse lachrymatory". Descendants of Thomas Becket Mitchell Pigott-Minifie-Heraldry, 127-Dunstan House-Coffeehouse in Chelsea-Girton Court Rolls-Peg Woffington's Almshouses-" Sacerdotes Coronati"-" Boxing Harry "Large and Small Paper Copies " "-The Queen and Robert Owen-Arabella Fermor-Chambers's London Journal, 128-Ey Abbey-St. Jeron-Heraldic-St. Victor-Dress in 1784, 129.


REPLIES:-Portraits as Book-plates, 129-'The Song of the
Silent Land,' 130-The Poets Laureate-"Eating Poor
Jack," 131-Andrew Vesalius-Charles Lamb-Parish Eke-
names-Crank," 132-John Palmer-Plainness versus
Beauty The Hippodrome, 133-Mayor of Wigan'
"Oasts"-Copplestone-A. Rudhall-Folk-lore-Strachey,
Gladstone Bibliography — W. H. Murray-The
Children's Garland'-Chesney, 135-"Coals to Newcastle"
-Printers' Errors-Rev. J. Blair-Anne Vaux, 136-Main-
waring's Discourse of Pirates'-A French Stonehenge
Tennyson's Crossing the Bar-Claypole, 137-White-
chapel Needles - The Christian Year-Recollections

of Rugby'-Latin Translation - Historic Hearts-Tran-
scendental Knowledge-To Darken Bronze, 138.

NOTES ON BOOKS:-Jessopp's Studies by a Recluse'

vulgar form.* Or it may have been the English soldiers in the wars in which they were engaged for so many centuries in the North, and more especially along the greater part of the west side of France, who first picked up the word; and in that have used it=John, and then Ja(c)que (in the form case they may at once, for one reason or another, of Jack) would in England, or in many parts of it, have never meant anything but John. I will not discuss these points, but will proceed to call attention to two circumstances which, if correctly recorded, seem to afford some little indication that Jack and Jock, even after they generally meant John-and this, as I shall show, was probably as early as the beginning of the fifteenth century, and may have been earlier-still sometimes, or in some parts of Great Britain, preserved their original meaning of James. Here it may be objected that it is not likely that one abbreviated Christian name should have had two meanings; but, even at the present day, when people are more particular in such matters than they formerly were, we not so very infrequently find this to be the case. Thus, May=Mary in England, but Margaret in Scotland (Jamieson and Miss Yonge, i. 79, 267), whilst Mysie in Scotland = both Marjorie (Margaret) and

Uzanne's Physiologie des Quais de Paris-Lang's Scott's Marianne (Jamieson), and in France I showed in Rob Roy.'

Notices to Correspondents.





I trust that the discussion will be strictly confined to this one point, and will not be extended to the question whether, as some think, Jack and Jock are both derived ultimately from the acc. Johannem John. This question was threshed out at great length last year in the Academy, and is too wide for the space which could be given to it in 'N. & Q. With regard to my own opinion, this may readily be deduced from my heading, for I should not write this note if I did not believe that Jack and Jock_are both ultimately to be referred to the acc. Jacobum, and that Jack, at any rate, has been borrowed from the French Ja(c)que. But if so, there are two ways in which this Ja(c)que may have found its way into Great Britain. It may have come in (as most French words certainly did) with the Normans, or, subsequently, through intercourse with Normandy and the adjoining parts of France. In this case, Ja(c)que would probably have first been used in England=James, and then have been given the meaning of John (which it is almost as much like as it is to James, and in the form of Jock more like), perhaps because James already had its Jem and Jim (see note t), and it was found impossible to construct out of John itself a more familiar or

'N. & Q.' (7th S. x. 30) that Ninon is, or has been, used = Anne, Catherine, and Eugénie. And I feel sure that many other instances might be found.


The first circumstance to which I will refer is this. Miss Yonge (i. 56, s. v. "Jacob") says, "Dame Jack was what Henry V. [1388-1422] called the wild Jacqueline of Hainault, who, like his other Flemish sister-in-law, Jacquette of Luxemburg, must have been named in honour of the saint of Liège" (i.e., St. Jacques, of whom she had just been speaking). Now Henry V. must have known French well, and yet he calls this lady Dame Jack, and not Dame James, or Jim. was, no doubt, the similarity of sound which led him to use Jack, if he did do it; for Miss Yonge, as usual, gives no references. But would he have chosen Jack if Jack had then been used = John only? Hardly, I should say; and yet, curiously enough, it is at that very time that we are first told that Jack was in some parts of England, at any rate, and perhaps generally, used John. See Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson's useful, though, to my mind, very misleading, little pamphlet on 'The Pedigree of Jack and of various Allied Names,' recast from several letters he had written in the

* And to this reason may well have been added the fact that Ja(c)que (Jack) was so little like James that by those who did not know French-the great majorityit was not recognized as really meaning James. but Mr. Nicholson (quoted further on) gives (p. 4) Jem +I do not know whether Jim existed at that time, as found in one text of Piers Plowman (about 1362-3) in vii, 51.

what might be expected. But Mr. Nicholson, who derives Jack from Jankin (= little Jan= John), is reduced to look upon Jaque as formed in England from Jack (=John) and Jakes and Jaques as formed in England from Jackes! And yet he had told us (p. 4) that the French Jacques (James) appears in England in the form of

Academy (1892, vol. i. pp. 90, 183, 470, 593), and published by Alexander & Shepheard, London, 1892. For (p. 5) he quotes from p. 338 of the 'Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis' -which he considers to have been written by Thomas of Elmham about 1414-to the effect that, among the Saxons especially, it was the custom to transform names, "Apocopando, ac sæpius synco-Jaques (Shakespeare) and of Jakes. pando: ut pro Thoma Tomme sive Tomlin; pro But now that I have come to speak of Jock, it Johanne Jankin sive Jacke." But this passage does not seem quite certain that it really originated shows merely that, so far as this writer's know- in Great Britain, as is generally supposed.* It ledge extended (which would not be very far in may, indeed, well have come into use there quite those days of difficult communication) Jacke was independently, but it is pretty clear to me that used John only, or commonly; but it does not Jocque was at one time in use in France. My show, by any means, that Jacke was so used in attention was first drawn to the matter by meeting every part of Great Britain. Neither does it prove with the surname Jocquelet in a French novel that Jacke really came from Johannes, as the writer called 'Toute une Jeunesse,' by Fr. Coppée (Paris, and Mr. Nicholson think it did; it merely con- 1890, p. 107, &c.). I afterwards found it once in tains the writer's own opinion upon that point. the Paris Directory (Bottin) for 1881. Now And, indeed, the weak point of Mr. Nicholson's Jocquelet is evidently a double diminutive formed pamphlet is, that though he is able to show that from Jocque, the steps being Jocque, Jocquel, Jack was certainly in use so far back as 1312, and Jocquelet. And that this is the case is shown by probably before 1279 (pp. 11, 12), and Jock as my finding in the same directory Jacquel_(several early as 1352, and also probably before 1279 (p. 21), times) and Jacquelot (twice), both from Jacque.t he has not been able to adduce any evidence as to And that Jocque Jacque in these cases I should their being used John beyond that contained in say even Mr. Nicholson would scarcely venture to the passage above quoted, which is not earlier deny. Further evidence, too, will be found by than 1414. And, indeed, this passage is more or those who will take the trouble to compare the less counterbalanced by another passage which he verb jocqueter in Godefroy with the verb and subquotes, and which forms the second circumstance stantive jock in Barrère and Leland's 'Slang,' &c., to which I have alluded above. This other passage and with "(frère) Jacques," which I find in a (p. 21) runs as follows: "Skelton, writing about glossary appended to an edition of Rabelais pub1513, has King Jamy, Jemmy, Jocky my jo'lished, without the name of the author, by Ledentu (Dyce's ed., i. 185)"; and the only suggestion (Paris, 1835). The passage from the a of Ja(c)que which Mr. Nicholson-who is, of course, obliged to the o of Jo(c)que is shown by the form Jauques, to admit that Jocky is here used=Jemmy-can make is that "it looks very much as if Skelton had misunderstood Jocky as a Scottish form of Jacques." But surely it is more reasonable to suppose that Skelton_knew perfectly well what he was about, and that Jock(y) was then still used in some parts-James as well as John. Besides which, Mr. Dyce, according to Mr. Nicholson, suggests that "Jocky my jo" was borrowed from a ballad (a Scotch ballad, I presume), and, if so, the expression did not originate with Skelton at all. A third circumstance is that Mr. Nicholson has discovered that in the sixteenth century, and even as late as the beginning of the seventeenth century, the two forms Jakson and Jaqueson are used of one and the same individual, as are also the three forms Jackes, Jakes, and Jaques (see p. 16). To me, who consider Jack to be an Anglicized form of Jaque James, these variant spellings are precisely

*The earliest instance I can find in which it certainly John is when it was applied to the Sir John Howard (see Burke) who was created the first Duke of Norfolk in 1483, in the well-known lines:

Jocky of Norfolk, be not too bold,
For Diccon thy master is bought and sold.

given by Body in his 'Noms de Famille du Pays de Liège' (Liège, 1880). In the same book I find also Jaume = Jame=James, and Jaume is given also by Mistral and by Larchey, who has Jome also (see s.v. "Jomain"). We see, therefore, that it is quite possible for Jock to have come to us, to a certain extent, at any rate, from France. Mr. Nicholson, however, derives it from Jonkin = little Jo(b)n.

In Germany, also, Jacob James has given rise to the abbreviated and diminutive forms Jak,

The ordinary opinion with regard to Jock is, I should say, that it took its rise in Scotland, where it is now, perhaps, almost exclusively used; and Prof. Skeat, pronunciation of Jack. But Mr. Nicholson (p. 21) has 3.v. "Jockey," says it originated in a Northern English been unable to find it in Scotland earlier than 1468, whilst he has found it in Wales about 1352, and in Oxfordshire, in the form of the surname Jockes as early as 1279, and in Norwich it occurs in the form Jokkes in 1395. It is possible, therefore, that Scotch mercenaries brought it back home with them from France.

[ocr errors]

defines "A Jacke of the clocke-house; or the little man † Compare Cotgrave, s.v. Jacquelet," which he that strikes the quarters in a clocke." This is one instance, out of several instances I could give, in which Jack in English is used where Jacques is used in French.

Jakel, Jäkel, Jäklin, Jack, Jäckel, Jocki, and
Jockel-all-nothing but James. See Kleinpaul
('Menschen- und Völkernamen,' Leipzig, 1885,
p. 251), and more especially Wackernagel (Ab-
handl. z. Sprachkunde,' Leipzig, 1874, iii. 162,
163), who gives other abbreviated forms besides.
It seems to me not improbable, therefore, that
Jack and Jock (if the Fr. Ja(c)que) did at one
time mean James in Great Britain, and I hope
that some confirmatory evidence may be given me
in the pages of 'N. & Q.'
Sydenham Hill.



(Continued from 8th S. ii. 264.)

Allow me to correct the foot-note on p. 263, as to the estate of Church Minshull, &c. After "Henry," insert dying unmarried, the estate passed to his sister's son, Captain Luxmoore Brooke; then delete". was " and substitute the. Perhaps I had better refer rather more particularly to the family of Brooke. Richard Brooke, younger son of Thomas Brook, of Leighton, in the Hundred of Nantwich, purchased in 1545 the manor of Norton. It is said the fact of a brook running under the manor house at Leighton gave the family their surname. Richard married a Devonshire lady. Their eldest son, Thomas, was married three times, first to a daughter of Lord Audley, then to Elizabeth Merbury, and lastly to Elinor Gerard. Richard, by the first wife, was knighted in Ireland. He married the only daughter of William Chaderton, Bishop of Chester, but it was not a happy union; his second wife was Katharine, a daughter of Sir Henry Nevill, and by this marriage was born Henry, who in 1662 was created baronet. The ordinance to which I referred is as follows:"The Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, taking into Consideration the necessitie of appointing an high Sheriffe for the Countie Palatine of Chester, and that such Officer cannot be constituted in the usuall manner, in respect the Castle of Chester, where the Court of Exchequer (being the Auncient ChanceryCourt for that County) and the County Palatine Seale are kept (by which Seale and no other the Sheriffes of that County have been usually there made) as also the City of Chester, are now all in the possession of the Enemies to the King and Parliament, and the Chamberlaine of that County in present rebellion, and in Armes against the Parliament, doe thinke fit to order and ordeine, And be it ordeined and established by the said Lords and Commons, That Henry Brooke Esquire shall be and is hereby authorized and appointed to be Sheriffe of said Countie, and doe commit unto him the said Henry Brooke the office of Sheriffe, and the Custody of the said County Palatine, To have and execute the same in as large and ample manner as any Sheriffe of that Countie heretofore lawfully hath or might have done: And whereas by vertue of a Writ or Commission under the Great Seale of England already issued, Gilbert Millington, William Ashurst, and John Bradshaw, Esquires, Commissioners therein named, have ministred unto the said Henry Brooke, the two usual oaths, to wit, the oath for the due execution of the said office of Sheriffe,

and the oath of Supremacy; the execution of which Writ is hereby enjoyned to be returned to the Chamberlaine of Chester at the said Exchequer of Chester. The said Lords and Commons doe order and ordeine, in respect such returne cannot now be made, that the same be forborne, And that the said Commissioners shall returne in the said Commission to them directed, and the execution thereof into the Chancery of England, there to remaine of record, which shall be a sufficient discharge to them the said Commissioners in that behalfe: And whereby the Statute made in the three and thirtieth yeare of the reigne of the late King Henry the eighth, the Sheriffes of the said County for the time being, are limitted to keepe their Shire Court in the Shire-Hall of that County, which Shire-Hall is within and part of the said Castle of Chester, now in the Enemies hands, And where the usage hath been for the said Sheriffes to keep their County Court upon a Munand others, for saving of expence, have taken occasion day, wherby Bailiffes of Sheriffes, Suitors of the Court to travell on the Lords Day, to the great prophanation of that holy Day, for supply of the said defect, and remedy of the said evill; Be it further ordained and established, by the Authority aforesaid, That during the time that the said Castle of Chester shall continue in the enemies possession and untill the same shall be reduced within the power of Parliament, and that other Order by both Houses of Parliament shall be taken to the contrary, the said Sheriffe of the said County, and other the Sheriffes of the same for the time being, shall keepe hall of or within the Towne of Namptwich, in the said County: And that the Shire Court shall be hereafter constantly kept every moneth upon the Tuesday next ensuing the former usuall Court day, and not upon any Munday, for determination of plaints and actions under forty shillings, And for Proclamations and calling of Exigents, and other necessary causes as hath beene used at other Shire Courts held formerly as aforesaid: And that the Coroners for the body of the said Shire, when any new choice is, or ought to be by reason of death, insufficiency, or otherwise, during the enemies possession of the said Castle as aforesaid, shall be elected and chosen by vertue of the King's Writ, De Coronatore eligendo, to be awarded from the Chancery of England, which Coroners, as also for the time being (not secured or sequestred for their Malignanacy to the Parliament) are hereby enjoyned to sit with the said Sheriffe, at the said Courts, to give Judgement upon Uttaries, and to do all other things as appertaineth to their place and office, any Law, Usage, Statute, Priviledge, or Custome to the contrary notwithstanding: And the Lords and Commons do ordaine, enjoyn, and command all manner of persons of the said County whom the same may concerne, to be to him the said Henry Brook during his continuance in the said Office, Aiding and Assisting in all things which belong to the said Office; And whereas divers Writs, Commissions, Precepts and Warrants, have usually heretofore issued out of his Majesties Court of Chancery, Court of Wards, and other his Majesties Courts at Westminster, directed to Chamberlain of the said County Palatine for the time being, by force whereof divers Writs and Commissions have issued out of the said Court of Exchequer at Chester, under the said County Palatine Seal, directed unto the Sheriffe Escheator, Feodaries and Coroners of the same County: whereupon proceedings have been usually bad, and afterwards returned unto the said Court of Exchequer at Chester; and from thence transmitted to the respective Courts above at Westminster, according to the nature of the Cause. Now for as much as the said Court at Chester, and Seal are in the enemies hands as aforesaid, and the

his and their Sheriffe Court in the Town-hall or Court

Chamberlain and other officers of the Seal there in present rebellion against the King and Parliament, So as such course for Writs, Commissions and Warrants cannot be observed as formerly, neither can the Inhabitants of the said County with safety repair to the Courts of Chester for Justice as formerly; and yet by the Ancient Usages and Priviledges of that County cannot for matters there arising sue one another, or be sued elsewhere, whereby the course of Justice there is for present obstructed, to the great damage of the subject: Be it therefore ordained and established by the Authority aforesaid, That the former course of issuing out Writs, Commissions, Precepts and Warrants out of any the Courts at Westminster, directed to the Chamberlain of Chester shall be forborne, during the time that the said City and Castle of Chester shall continue in the enemies hands: And that during that time, and untill other Order by both Houses of Parliament shall be taken to the contrary, all such Writs, Commissions, Precepts and Warrants henceforth to issue out of the said Courts at Westminster, for and concerning the matters of the said County Palatine, shall be immediately sent and directed unto the Sheriffe, Escheator, Feodary, Coroners, and other officers of the said County of Chester respectively, and shall be by them executed in such sort, manner and forme, as is usually done in like cases, unto and by the Sheriffes, Escheators, Feodaries, Coroners, and other Officers of other Counties not Palatine within the Realme of England. And further, that during such time of the enemies possession of the City and Castle as aforesaid the subjects of the said County shall and may sue and be responsall in the Courts of Justice at Westminster: And that the Kings Writ shall there run as is used in other Counties: any Law, Usage, Statute, Priviledge or Customes to the Contrary notwithstanding: And it is lastly ordained and declared, that as well the said Sheriffe in the execution of his said place and Office, as also all other Officers and persons that shall do any thing by vertue and in execution and pursuance of this Ordinance, and of the power therein contained, and according to the direction of the same, shall be kept indempnified by the Authority and Power of both Houses of Parliament: Provided that nothing herein contained shall for time to come be interpreted

to the disadvantage or prejudice of the ancient Rights, Priviledges, Usages and Customes of the said County Palatine, or of the Inhabitants of the same."

ALFRED CHAS. JONAS, F.R.H.S. Poundfald, near Penclawdd.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Lord James not only beat the parties, but, will be nill he, inforced the said David to eat the subpoena, wax and parchment."-P. 152.

The following passage occurs in John Hill Burton's Book Hunter':

"Most of the bitterest legal jokes are at the expense of the class who have to carry the law into effect. Take, for instance, the case of the bailiff who had been compelled to swallow a writ, and, rushing into Lord Norbury's court to proclaim the indignity done to justice in his person, was met by the expression of a hope that the writ was not returnable in this court."-P. 129.

Southey, in his 'Common-Place Book,' quotes a similar occurrence from a manuscript Memoir of the Countess of Pembroke ':

"Roger, Lord Clifford, who died 1327, was so obstinate and careless of the king's displeasure, as that he caused a pursuivant that served a writ upon him in the Baron's Chamber there, to eat and swallow down part of the wax that the said writ was sealed with, as it were in contempt of the said king; as appears by some writings that were extant within these thirty years in the hands of Master Theun the great antiquary."-First Series, p. 465; cf. Third Series, p. 502.

Something of a similar kind is mentioned in Canon Raine's 'History of Hemingborough' (p. 50). I have not, however, the volume at hand to refer to.

I have at various times met with other stories of the same sort, but have failed to make notes of them. I would fain know whether these tales are to be put down as jests, not intended to be believed, or whether there is satisfactory evidence that this compulsory seal-eating ever occurred. EDWARD PEACOCK.

Dunstan House, Kirton-in-Lindsey.

DECAY OF HISTORY.-The attempt of the Legitimists to decorate the statue of Charles I. on January 30 brings to my memory the celebrations on that day sixty and seventy years ago, when it was a well-known anniversary. The special service for the blessed martyr was performed in many churches, but was waning. In the evening by the Calves Head Clubs of the opposing party celebrations were also held, with their emblem of the blessed martyr. At length the church service became optional and died out, and the Calves Head Clubs, being in protest, died out too. Whether one of these ancient institutions remains is doubtful.

Another anniversary which has disappeared was November 4, 1688, "Landing of Wm. Prince of Orange at Torbay." at the bicentenary it was due to the zeal of Mr. No one knows that now, and in Devonshire. By that time most of the peers of Wright that a suitable commemoration was made revolutionary creation had changed their allegiance to the other side in politics. Gunpowder Plot is not forgotten in the popular mind, but is interfered with in London by the "new" police denying access to the squares and best paying places. The

costermongers are always ready to celebrate it and to expend any amount of money and time when the Stock Exchange is willing to extend its patronage. The same fraternity, rather than the sweeps, maintains, so far as the police allow, the poetic associations of May Day. I can remember when the naval victories of the last century and this were celebrated by the surviving veterans among the watermen on the river. Now, Waterloo hardly commands a casual parade, in the attempt not to excite the susceptibilities of the French.


at the time of his death in 1807 was rector of this parish. With this was also found the coffin of Mrs. Newton. Both coffins, which are described as 'in a good state of preservation,' have been removed to an adjacent shed preparatory, we believe, to their reinterIt will be remembered that ment at Olney, Bucks. Newton was once curate of Olney, where he planned with Cowper the collection of hymns which bears their ioint names. A writer in the Record who has visited the crypt of St. Mary Woolnoth states that the coffing were found one on the other, in the middle of a 'stack of coffins' placed immediately underneath that part of the church where the communion table stands. Newton published a very curious sketch of his life, from which it appears that he was originally a mariner and a comThomas ZOUCH, D.D. (1737–1815), DIVINE.-mander of a vessel engaged in the slave trade. A curious He was born at Sandal Magna, co. York, Sept. 12, circumstance, as the writer in the Record observes, is that even after his conversion, and while he was 'very 1737, and baptized there on Sept. 28 following, as much in earnest about spiritual things,' Newton exthe son of the Rev. Charles Zouch (ob. 1754), hibited no signs whatever of compunction on the subvicar of Sandal, by Dorothy, his wife. The parish ject of the slave trade'; so true is it that it was the register of Sandal records the marriage by licence, immortal labours of Clarkson, Wilberforce, and others on July 14, 1719, of "Mr. Charles Zouch, Vicar," that first awakenrd the national conscience to the iniquiwith Mrs. Dorothy Norton of Wakefield. His ties of the traffic in human beings.” W. D. PINK. first wife, Isabella, daughter of the Rev. John Emerson, Rector of Winston, co. Durham, having died Oct. 18, 1803, Dr. Zouch married secondly, at Sandal aforesaid, on Aug. 25, 1808, Margaret Brooke, of the parish of Wakefield, second daughter of Dr. Wm. Brooke, of Field Head, Dodworth, Yorks, and sister to John Charles Brooke, Somerset Herald. She died at Wakefield, July 14, 1833, aged eighty-nine, and was interred at Sandal in the grave of her husband, who had been buried Dec. 23, 1815.

[ocr errors]

The Rev. Henry Zouch, of Trinity College, Cambridge, B.A. 1746, M.A. 1750, Vicar of Sandal Magna from 1754 to 1789, and Rector of Tankersley and of Swillington, Yorkshire, was Dr. Zouch's elder brother. He was author of 'Remarks upon the late Resolutions of the House of Commons respecting the proposed Change of the Poor Laws,' &c., 8vo. [Leeds], 1766, An Account of the present daring practices of Night-hunters and Poachers,' &c., 8vo., Lond., 1783, 'Hints respecting the public police,' &c., 8vo., Lond., 1786, and of other valuable tracts. He died June 17, 1795, and was buried at Sandal on June 21 following. In a volume, entitled "Odes on Peace and War, written by many eminent and distinguished Persons," 8vo., London, 1795, are three poems, one by Henry Zouch, B. A. Trinity College, Cambridge, and two by Thomas Zouch, B.A., fellow of the same college and university scholar. DANIEL HIPWELL.

17, Hilldrop Crescent, N.

JOHN NEWTON.-The following cutting from the Daily News should be enshrined in the pages of 'N. & Q.':

"The labour of clearing the crypt of the parish church of St. Mary Woolnoth, Lombard Street, of its immense mass of coffins and mouldering remains is now complete. Among other coffins identified are those of the celebrated John Newton, the friend of Cowper, who

THE FAIRY VASE.-The Manchester Courier, in a description of the marriage of Mr. Farquharson, of Invercauld, to Miss Zoe Musgrave, on December 16, 1892, adds the following interesting passage, which is worthy of more lasting perpetuation in N. & Q.' :

"An interesting feature of the wedding accompani-
ments was that the bride-cake, artistically designed by
Messrs. Gunter & Co., was surmounted by a facsimile
reproduction in fine sugar work, coloured, of the
legendary Fairy Vase, the family relic of the Musgrave
family. Most readers of romance will know Longfellow's
rendering of Uhland's ballad on this story. The chalice
itself may be seen still at Eden Hall, Cumberland;
though it is only brought out on rare occasions, and for
a very good reason too, if the legend be true. One of
the earliest Musgraves, so ran the tale, came one day
upon fairies feasting in a wood, and, like a bold knight,
He snatched at the
thought to make one of them.
goblet which the Fairy King held, but quickly had to
run from the angered elves. He raced them, holding the
cup, to his castle; and there the Fairy King owned it a
fair race and a fair win. As the prize the knight claimed
the cup, and the Fairy King assented, but bound the
gift by a condition-

If that cup either breaks or fall,
Farewell the luck of Eden Hall,

Possessed of the lucky cup, the bold Musgrave, so ran
the tale, soon prospered in a love-suit which had till
then been against him. And the goblet, which is of
glass, is of fair size, has on the top the letters I.H.S.,
and has not broken or fallen yet.”

By the way, in which issue of the poems is to be found Longfellow's rendering of Uhland's ballad on this story? It is not in mine (Routledge, 1858), and I should like to see it or know where to find it.


J. B. S.

[See 4th 8. vi. 332, The Luck of Edenhall' is included in an edition published by Routledge in 1865.]

THE HOLY THORN.-The Standard of Jan. 16 has the following, which seems to be worthy

« VorigeDoorgaan »