Notes and Queries, Number 44, August 31, 1850

    B.

Saffron-bag.—Having lately read Sir E.B. Lytton's novel of The Caxtons—to which I must give a passing tribute of admiration—I have been a good deal puzzled, first, to ascertain the meaning, and, second, the origin of the saffron-bag of which he speaks so much. I have asked many persons, and have not been able to obtain a satisfactory solution of my difficulty. Should you or any of your contributors be able, I wish you would enlighten not only me but many of my equally unlearned friends.

    W.C. Luard.

Bishop Berkley's successful Experiments.—I have somewhere read that Bishop Berkley succeeded in increasing the stature of an individual placed in his charge. Will any of your correspondents give me the details of such process, with their opinions as to the practicability of the scheme?

    F.W.

Portrait (Unknown).—A very carefully painted portrait, on an oak panel, has been in the possession of my family for many years, and I should be much pleased if any of your correspondents could enable me to identify the personage.

The figure, which is little more than a head, is nearly the size of life, and represents an elderly man with grey hair and a long venerable beard: the dress, which is but little shown, is black. At the upper part of the panel, on the dexter side, is a shield, bearing these arms:—Argent on a fess sable between three crosses patées, Or, as many martlets of the last. Above the shield is written "In cruce glorior." I have searched in vain for those arms. On the prints published by the Society of Antiquaries, of the funeral of Abbot Islip, is one nearly similar,—the field ermine on a fess between three crosses patées, as many martlets. The colours are not shown by the engraver. A manuscript ordinary, by Glover, in my possession, contains another, which is somewhat like that on the picture, being—Argent on a fess engrailed sable, bearing three crosses patées, Gules, as many martlets on the field. This is there ascribed to "Canon George." It is very probable that the gold crosses on the white field was an error of the portrait painter.

The size of the oak panel, which is thick, is seventeen inches wide, and twenty-two in height. The motto is in a cursive hand, apparently of about the time of Edward VI.

    T.W.

Wives, Custom of Selling.—Has there ever been any foundation in law for the practice of selling of wives, which our neighbours the French persist in believing to be perfectly legal and common at the present day? What was the origin of the custom? An amusing series of "Notes" might be made, from instances in which the custom is introduced as characteristic of English manners, by French and other foreign writers.

    G.L.B.

Hepburn Crest and Motto.—Can some of your numerous readers give me the origin of the crest and motto of the family of Hepburn, namely, a horse argent, furnished gules, passant, and tied to a tree proper. Motto, "Keep Traist."

I should also be glad to know the name of any book containing the legends, or authentic stories, relating to the heraldic bearings of various families?

    R.E.

Concolinel.—I have recently met with a curious manuscript which contains numerous tunes of the time of Queen Elizabeth, one of which is stated in a recent hand to be the "tune of Concolinel mentioned by Shakspeare;" but the old index, if there was one that indicated this, is now missing. My reason for writing to you is to ask whether Dr. Rimbault, or any of your other correspondents, can refer me to any information that will enable me to ascertain whether my MS. really contains that tune. It certainly does contain several others noticed by Shakspeare.

    R.

"One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."—Can any of your correspondents inform me how, or why, the word "holy" is omitted in the above article of the Nicene (Constantinopolitan) Creed, in all our Prayer-books? It is not omitted in the original Greek and Latin.

    J.M.W.

The Norfolk Dialect.—Mr. Dickens' attempt to give interest to his new novel by introducing this dialect would have been even more successful had he been more familiar with the curious peculiarities of that east-coast language. Many of the words are, I believe, quite peculiar to Norfolk and Suffolk, such as, for instance, the following:

Mawther, a girl, a wench.
Gotsch, a stone jug.
Holl, a dry ditch.
Anan? An? an interrogation used when the
speaker does not understand a question put to him.
To be muddled, to be distressed in mind.
Together, an expletive used thus: where are
you going together? (meaning several persons)—what
are you doing together?

Perhaps some reader can explain the origin of these words.

    Icenus.

Sir John Perrot.—Sir John Perrot, governor of Ireland in the reign of Henry VIII., was one of the few rulers over that most unfortunate country who have ruled it wisely. I believe that he was beheaded in the reign of Elizabeth. Will any of your readers kindly inform me whether his life has ever been published, or where I can meet with the best account of him?

    E.N.W.

"Antiquitas sæculi juventus mundi."—Mr. Craik in his admirable little work on Bacon; his Writings and his Philosophy, after quoting the paragraph containing this fine aphoristic expression, remarks that,

"From the manner in which it is here introduced as a Latin phrase, there would seen to be some reason for doubting whether it be an original thought of Bacon's. It has much the appearance of some aphorism or adage of the schools." (Vol. ii. p. 55.)

Mr. Craik adds in a note,

"A friend, however, who, if we were to name him, would be recognised as one of the first of living authorities on all points connected with the history of learning and philosophy, informs us that he feels certain of having never met with the expression or the thought in any writer previous to Bacon."

In Basil Montagu's edition of The Advancement of Learning it is marked as a quotation. Query. Has the expression, or the thought, been traced to any writer previous to Bacon?

    J.M.B.

REPLIES

DERIVATION OF NEWS

I have no wish to prolong the controversy on this word, in which I feel I, at least, have had my share. I beg room, however, for an observation on one or two very pertinent remarks by Mr. Singer.

In the course of this argument I have seen that if news were originally a plural noun, it might be taken for an ellipsis of new-tidings. My objection to this would be twofold. First, that the adjective new is of too common use, and, at the same time, too general and vague to form an ellipsis intelligible on its first application; and, secondly, that the ellipsis formed of new-tidings would be found to express no more than tidings, still requiring the new, if the idea of new were required, as in the instance Mr. Singer cites of new newes.

I would not pretend to determine whether the word were taken from the High German or the Dutch; but Mr. Singer's remark, that our language has derived scarcely anything from the former, brings back the question to the point from which I originally started. That there was a political and commercial connexion between the two countries, I suppose there can be no doubt and such, I imagine, never existed without leaving its marks on languages so near akin.

Taking up Bailey's Dictionary by accident a day or two ago, I turned to the word, which I there find as derived from Newes, Teut.; Bailey using the term Teutonic for German.

I think I shall express the feelings of the majority of your readers in saying that nothing could be more acceptable or valuable to the consideration of any etymological question than the remarks of Mr. Singer.

    Samuel Hickson.

I have read with much interest the respective theories of the derivation of news, and it seems to me that Mr. Hickson's opinion must give way to an excellent authority in questions of this kind, Dr. Latham, who says,

Some say, this news IS good in which case the word is singular. More rarely we find the expression, these news ARE good; in which case the word "news" is plural. In the word "news", the -s (unlike the -s in alms and riches) is no part of the original singular, but the sign of the plural, like the -s in "trees." Notwithstanding this, we cannot subtract the s, and say "new," in the same way that we can form "tree" from "trees." Hence the word "news" is, in respect to its original form, plural; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural, most frequently the former.—Eng. Grammar, p. 62.

The above extract will probably suffice to show the true state of the case, and for information on similar points I would refer your readers to the work from which the above extract is taken, and also to that on The English Language, by the same author.

    T. C.

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES

Swords worn in public (Vol. i., p. 415.; vol. ii. p. 110.).—I am surprised that the curious topic suggested by the Query of J.D.A. has not been more satisfactorily answered. Wedsecuarf's reply (Vol. ii., p. 110.) is short, and not quite exact. He says that "Swords ceased to be worn as an article of dress through the influence of Beau Nash, and were consequently first out of fashion at Bath;" and he quotes the authority of Sir Lucius O'Trigger as to "wearing no swords there." Now, it is, I believe, true that Nash endeavoured to discountenance the wearing swords at Bath; but it is certain that they were commonly worn twenty or thirty years later.

Sir Lucius O'Trigger talks of Bath in 1774, near twenty years after Nash's reign, and, even at that time, only says that swords were "not worn there"—implying that they were worn elsewhere; and we know that Sheridan's own duel at Bath was a rencontre, he and his adversary, Mathews, both wearing swords. I remember my father's swords hung up in his dressing-room, and his telling me that he had worn a sword, even in the streets, so late as about 1779 or 1780. In a set of characteristic sketches of eminent persons about the year 1782, several wear swords; and one or two members of the House of Commons, evidently represented in the attitude of speaking, have swords. I have seen a picture of the Mall in St. James's Park, of about that date, in which all the men have swords.

I suspect they began to go out of common use about 1770 and were nearly left off in ordinary life in 1780; but were still occasionally worn, both in public and private, till the French Revolution, when they totally went out, except in court dress.