Notes and Queries, Number 46, September 14, 1850

the capitals, thus placed, giving it the double reading, Proba coniscientia, and Pro Bacon Scientia.

    NOCAB.

Armorials.—Sable, a fesse or, in chief two fleurs de lis or, in base a hind courant argent. E.D.B. will feel grateful to any gentlemen who will kindly inform him of the name of the family to which the above coat belonged. They were quartered by Richard or Roger Barow, of Wynthorpe, in Lincolnshire (Harl. MS. 1552. 42 b), who died in 1505.

    E.D.B.

Artephius, the Chemical Philosopher.—What is known of the chemical philosopher Artephius? He is mentioned in Jocker's Dictionary, and by Roger Bacon (in the Opus Majus and elsewhere), and a tract ascribed to him is printed in the Theatrum Chemicum.

    E.

Sir Robert Howard.—Can any reader assist me in finding out the author of

"A Discourse of the Nationall Excellencies of England. By R.H., London. Printed by Thomas Newcomb for Henry Fletcher, at the Three Gilt Cups in the New Buildings, near the west end of St. Paul's, 1658. 12 mo., pp. 248."

This is a very remarkable work, written in an admirable style, and wholly free from the coarse party spirit which then generally prevailed. The writer declares, p. 235., he had not subscribed the engagement, and there are internal evidences of his being a churchman and a monarchist. Is there any proof of its having been written by Sir Robert Howard? A former possessor of the copy now before me, has written his name on the title-page as its conjectured author. My copy of Sir Robert's Poems, published two years after, was published not by Fletcher, but by "Henry Herringman, at the sign of the Anchor, in the lower walk of the New Exchange." John Dryden, Sir Robert's brother-in-law, in the complimentary stanzas on Howard's poems, says,

"To write worthy things of worthy men,
Is the peculiar talent of your pen."

I would further inquire if a reason can be assigned for the omission from Sir Robert Howard's collected plays of The Blind Lady, the only dramatic piece given in the volume of poems of 1660. My copy is the third edition, published by Tonson, 1722.

    A.B.R.

Crozier and Pastoral Staff.—What is the real difference between a crozier and a pastoral staff?

    I.Z.P.

Marks of Cadency.—The copious manner in which your correspondent E.K. (Vol. ii., p. 221.) has answered the question as to the "when and why" of the unicorn being introduced as one of the supporters of the royal arms, induces me to think that he will readily and satisfactorily respond to an heraldic inquiry of a somewhat more intricate nature.

What were the peculiar marks of cadency used by the heirs to the crown, apparent and presumptive, after the accession of the Stuarts? For example, what were the changes, if any, upon the label or file of difference used in the coat-armour of Henry, Prince of Wales, eldest son of James I., and of his brother Charles, when Prince of Wales, and so on, to the present time?

Miniature Gibbet, &c.—A correspondent of the Times newspaper has recently given the following account of an occurrence which took place about twenty-five years ago, and the concluding ceremony of which he personally witnessed:—

"A man had been condemned to be hung for murder. On the Sunday morning previous to the sentence being carried into execution, he contrived to commit suicide in the prison by cutting his throat with a razor. On Monday morning, according to the then custom, his body was brought out from Newgate in a cart; and after Jack Ketch had exhibited to the people a small model gallows, with a razor hanging therefrom, in the presence of the sheriffs and city authorities, he was thrown into a hole dug for that purpose. A stake was driven through his body, and a quantity of lime thrown in over it."

Will any correspondent of "NOTES AND QUERIES" give a solution of this extraordinary exhibition? Had the sheriffs and city authorities any legal sanction for Jack Ketch's disgusting part in the performances? What are the meaning and origin of driving a stake through the body of a suicide?

    A.G.

Ecclesfield

REPLIES

COLLAR OF SS

If you desire proof of the great utility of your publication, methinks there is a goodly quantum of it in the very interesting and valuable information on the Collar of SS., which the short simple question of B. (Vol. ii., p. 89.) has drawn forth; all tending to illustrate a mooted historical question:—first, in the reply of [Greek: Phi.] (Vol. ii., p. 110.), giving reference to the Gentleman's Magazine, with two rider-Queries; then MR. NICHOLS'S announcement (Vol. ii., p. 140.) of a forthcoming volume on the subject, and a reply in part to the Query of [Greek: Phi.]; then (Vol. ii, p. 171.) MR. E. FOSS, as to the rank of the legal worthies allowed to wear this badge of honour; and next (Vol. ii., p. 194.) an ARMIGER, who, though he rides rather high on the subject, over all the Querists and Replyists, deserves many thanks for his very instructive and scholarlike dissertation.

What the S. signifies has evidently been a puzzle. That a chain is a badge of honour, there can be no doubt; but may not the Esses, after all, mean nothing at all? originating in the simple S. link, a form often used in chain-work, and under the name of S. A series of such, linked together, would produce an elegant design, which in the course of years would be wrought more like the letter, and be embellished and varied according to the skill and taste of the workman, and so, that which at first had no particular meaning, and was merely accidental, would, after a time, be supposed to be the initial letters of what is now only guessed at, or be involved in heraldic mystery. As for [Greek: Phi.]'s rider-Query (Vol ii., p. 110.), repeated by MR. FOSS (Vol. ii., p. 171.), as to dates,—it may be one step towards a reply if I here mention, that in Yatton Church, Somerset, there is a beautifully wrought alabaster monument, without inscription, but traditionally ascribed to judge Newton, alias Cradock, and his wife Emma de Wyke. There can be no doubt, from the costume, that the effigy is that of a judge, and under his robes is visible the Collar of Esses. The monument is in what is called the Wyke aisle or chapel. That it is Cradock's, is confirmed by a garb or wheat-sheaf, on which his head is laid. (The arms of Cradock are, Arg. on a chevron az. 3 garbs or.) Besides, in the very interesting accounts of the churchwardens of the parish, annis 1450-1, among the receipts there is this entry:

"It.: Recipim. de Dnà de Wyke p. man. T. Newton filii sui de legato Dni. Riei. Newton ad – p. campana … xx."

Richard Cradock was the first of his family who took the name of Newton, and I have been informed that the last fine levied before him was, Oct. Mart. 27 Hen. VI. (Nov. 1448), proving that the canopied altar tomb in Bristol Cathedral, assigned to him, and recording that he died 1444, must be an error. It is stated, that the latter monument was defaced during the civil wars, and repaired in 1747, which is, probably, all that is true of it. But this would carry me into another subject, to which, perhaps, I may be allowed to return some other day. However, we have got a date for the use of the collar by the chief judges, earlier than that assigned by MR. FOSS, and it is somewhat confirmatory of what he tells us, that it was not worn by any of the puisne order.

    H.T. ELLACOMBE.

Bitton, Aug. 1850.

The Livery Collar of SS.—Though ARMIGER (Vol. ii., p. 194.) has not adduced any facts on this subject that were previously unknown to me, he has advanced some misstatements and advocated some erroneous notions, which it may be desirable at once to oppose and contradict; inasmuch as they are calculated to envelope in fresh obscurity certain particulars, which it was the object of my former researches to set forth in their true light. And first, I beg to say that with respect to the "four inaccuracies" with which he charges me, I do not plead guilty to any of them. 1st. When B. asked the question, "Is there any list of persons who were honoured with that badge?" it was evident that he meant, Is there any list of the names of such persons, as of the Knights of the Garter or the Bath? and I correctly answered, No: for there still is no such list. The description of the classes of persons who might use the collar in the 2 Hen. IV. is not such a list as B. asked for. 2dly. Where I said "That persons were not honoured with the badge, in the sense that persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals," I am again unrefuted by the statute of 2 Hen. IV., and fully supported by many historical facts. I repeat that the livery collar was not worn as a badge of honour, but as a badge of feudal allegiance. It seems to have been regarded as giving certain weight and authority to the wearer, and, therefore, was only to be worn in the king's presence, or in coming to and from the king's hostel, except by the higher ranks; and this entirely confirms my view. Had it been a mere personal decoration, like the collar of an order of knighthood, there would have been no reason for such prohibition; but as it conveyed the impression that the wearer was especially one of the king's immediate military or household servants, and invested with certain power or influence on that ground, therefore its assumption away from the neighbourhood of the court was prohibited, except to individuals otherwise well known from their personal rank and station. 3dly. When ARMIGER declares I am wrong in saying "That the collar was assumed," I have every reason to believe I am still right. I may admit that, if it was literally a livery, it would be worn only by those to whom the king gave it; but my present impression is, that it was termed the king's livery, as being of the pattern which was originally distributed by the king, or by the Duke of Lancaster his father, to his immediate adherents, but which was afterwards assumed by all who were anxious to assert their loyalty, or distinguish their partizanship as true Lancastrians; so that the statute of 2 Hen. IV. was rendered necessary to restrain its undue and extravagant assumption, for sundry good political reasons, some notion of which may be gathered by perusing the poem on the deposition of Richard II. published by the Camden Society. And 4thly, Where ARMIGER disputes my conclusion, that the assumers were, so far as can be ascertained, those who were attached to the royal household or service, it will be perceived, by what I have already stated, that I still adhere to that conclusion. I do not, therefore, admit that the statute of 2 Henry IV. shows me to be incorrect in any one of those four particulars. ARMIGER next proceeds to allude to Manlius Torquatus, who won and wore the golden torc of a vanquished Gaul: but this story only goes to prove that the collar of the Roman torquati originated in a totally different way from the Lancastrian collar of livery. ARMIGER goes on to enumerate the several derivations of the Collar of Esses—from the initial letter of Soverayne, from St. Simplicius, from St. Crispin and St. Crispinian, the martyrs of Soissons, from the Countess of Salisbury, from the word Souvenez, and lastly, from the office of Seneschalus, or Steward of England, held by John of Ghent,—which is, as he says, "Mr. Nichols's notion," but the whole of which he stigmatises alike "as mere monkish or heraldic gossip;" and, finally, he proceeds to unfold his own recondite discovery, "viz. that it comes from the S-shaped lever upon the bit of the bridle of the war steed,"—a conjecture which will assuredly have fewer adherents than any one of its predecessors. But now comes forth the disclosure of what school of heraldry this ARMIGER is the champion. He is one who can tell us of "many more rights and privileges than are dreamt of in the philosophy either of the court of St. James's or the college of St. Bennet's Hill!" In short, he is the mouthpiece of "the Baronets' Committee for Privileges." And this is the law which he lays down:—

"The persons now privileged to wear the ancient golden collar of SS. are the equites aurati, or knights (chevaliers) in the British monarchy, a body which includes all the hereditary order of baronets in England, Scotland, and Ireland, with such of their eldest sons, being of age, as choose to claim inauguration as knights."

Here we have a full confession of a large part of the faith of the Baronets' Committee,—a committee of which the greater number of those who lent their names to it are probably by this time heartily ashamed. It is the doctrine held forth in several works on the Baronetage compiled by a person calling himself "Sir Richard Broun," of whom we read in Dodd's Baronetage, that "previous to succeeding his father, he demanded inauguration as a knight, in the capacity of a baronet's eldest son; but the Lord Chamberlain having refused to present him to the Queen for that purpose, he assumed the title of 'Sir,' and the addition of 'Eques Auratus,' in June, 1842." So we see that ARMIGER and the Lord Chamberlain are at variance as to part of the law above cited; and so, it might be added, have been other legal authorities, to the privileges asserted by the mouthpiece of the said committee. But that is a long story, on which I do not intend here to enter. I had not forgotten that in one of the publications of Sir Richard Broun the armorial coat of the premier baronet of each division is represented encircled with a Collar of Esses; but I should never have thought of alluding to this freak, except as an amusing instance of fantastic assumption. I will now confine myself to what has appeared in the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES;" and, more particularly, to the unfounded assertion of ARMIGER in p. 194., "that the golden Collar of SS. was the undoubted badge or mark of a knight, eques auratus;" which he follows up by the dictum already quoted, that "the persons now privileged to wear the ancient golden Collar of SS. are the equites aurati." I believe it is generally admitted that knights were equites aurati because they wore golden or gilt spurs; certainly it was not because they wore golden collars, as ARMIGER seems to wish us to believe; and the best proof that the Collar of Esses was not the badge of a knight, as such, at the time when such collars were most worn, in the fifteenth century, is this—that the monumental effigies and sepulchral brasses of many knights at that time are still extant which have no Collar of Esses; whilst the Collar of Esses appears only on the figures of a limited number, who were undoubtedly such as wished to profess their especial adherence to the royal House of Lancaster.

    JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS.

SIR GREGORY HORTON, BART

(Vol. ii., p. 216.)

The creation of the baronetcy of Norton, of Rotherfield, in East Tysted, co. Hants, took place in the person of Sir Richard Norton, of Rotherfield, Kt., 23d May, 1622, and expired with him on his death without male issue in 1652.

The style of Baronet, in the case of Sir Gregory Norton, the regicide, was an assumption not uncommon in those days; as in the case of Prettyman of Lodington, and others.

The regicide in his will styles himself "Sir Richard Norton, of Paul's, Covent Garden, in the county of Middlesex, Bart." It bears date 12th March, 1651, and was proved by his relict, Dame Martha Norton, 24th Sept., 1652. He states that his land at Penn, in the county of Bucks, was mortgaged, and mentions his "disobedient son, Henrie Norton;" and desires his burial-place may be at Richmond, co. Surrey.

The descent of Gregory Norton is not known. There is no evidence of his connexion with the Rotherfield or Southwick Nortons. His assumption of the title was not under any claim he could have had, real or imaginary, connected with the Rotherfield patent; for he uses the title at the same time with Sir Richard of Rotherfield, whose will is dated 26th July, 1652, and not proved till 5th Oct, 1652, when Sir Gregory was dead; and, what is singular, the will of Sir Richard was proved by his brother, John Norton, by the style of Baronet, to which he could have had no pretension, as Sir Richard died without male issue, and there was no limitation of the patent of 1622 on failure of heirs male of the body of the grantee.

    G.

SHAKSPEARE'S WORD "DELIGHTED."

That the Shakspearian word delighted might, as far as its form goes, mean "endowed with delight," "full of delight," I should readily concede; but this meaning would suit neither the passage in Measure for Measure,—"the delighted spirit,"—nor (satisfactorily) that in Othello,—"delighted beauty." Whether, therefore, delighted be derived from the Latin delectus or not, I still believe that it means "refined," "dainty," "delicate;" a sense which is curiously adapted to each of the three places. This will not be questioned with respect to the second and third passages cited by MR. HICKSON: and the following citations will, I think, prove the point as effectually for the passage of Measure for Measure:

1. "Fine apparition".—Tempest, Act i. sc. 2.

2. "Spirit, fine spirit."—Ditto.

3. "Delicate Ariel."—Ditto.

4. "And, for thou wast a spirit too delicate,

To act her earthy and abhorred commands."

    Ditto.

5. "Fine Ariel."—Ditto.

6. "My delicate Ariel."—Ditto. Act iv. sc. 1.