Notes and Queries, Number 190, June 18, 1853

"Quel est Vendredi tel Dimanche."

From a MS. now in my possession, dating two centuries back, I extract the following remarks on "Times and Seasons," as not wholly unconnected with the present subject:

"Easter-day never falleth lower than the 22nd of March, and never higher than the 25th of April."

"Shrove Sunday has its range between the 1st of February and the 7th of March."

"Whit Sunday between the 10th of May and the 13th of June."

"A rule of Shrovetide:—The Tuesday after the second change of the moon after New Year's-day is always Shrove Tuesday."

To these I may perhaps be permitted to add certain cautions, derived frown the same source:

"The first Monday in April, the day on which Cain was born, and Abel was slain.

"The second Monday in August, on which day Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

"The 31st of December, on which day Judas was born, who betrayed Christ.

"These are dangerous days to begin any business, fall sick, or undertake any journey."

We smile at the superstition which thus stamps these several periods as days of ill omen, especially when we reflect that farther inquiry would probably place every other day of the week under a like ban, and thus greatly impede the business of life—Friday, for instance, which, since our Lord's crucifixion on that day, we are strongly disinclined to make the starting-point of any new enterprise.

In many cases this superstition is based on unpleasing associations connected with the days proscribed. Who can wonder if, in times less enlightened than our own, undue importance were attached to the strange coincidence which marked the deaths of Henry VIII. and his posterity. They all died on a Tuesday; himself on Tuesday, January 28, 1547; Edward VI. on Tuesday, July 6, 1553; Mary on Tuesday, November 17, 1558; Elizabeth on Tuesday, March 24, 1603.

    John Booker.

Prestwich.

It is a saying in Norwich,—

"When three daws are seen on St. Peter's vane together,
Then we are sure to have bad weather."

I think the observation is tolerably correct.

    Anon.

SCOTCHMEN IN POLAND

(Vol. vii., p. 475.)

In the debates about a union with Scotland in 1606, the "multiplicities of the Scots in Polonia" formed one of the arguments of the opposing party, who thought that England was likely to be overrun in a similar fashion. According to Wilson (Hist. of James I., p. 34.), the naturalisation of the Scots—

"Was opposed by divers strong and modest arguments. Among which they brought in the comparison of Abraham and Lot, whose families joining, they grew to difference, and to those words, 'Vade tu ad dextram, et ego ad sinistram.' It was answered, That speech brought the captivity of the one; they having disjoined their strength. The party opposing said, If we admit them into our liberties, we shall be overrun with them; as cattle, naturally, pent up by a slight hedge, will over it into a better soil; and a tree taken from a barren place will thrive to excessive and exuberant branches in a better,—witness the multiplicities of the Scots in Polonia.

"To which it was answered, That if they had not means, place, custom, and employment (not like beasts, but men), they would starve in a plentiful soil, though they came into it. And what springtide and confluence of that nation have housed and familied themselves among us, these four years of the king's reign? And they will never live so meanly here as they do in Polonia; for they had rather discover their poverty abroad than at home."

This last "answerer" was Lord Bacon. In his speech "Of general Naturalisation" (Works, vol. v. p. 52.), he asserts that the "multiplication of Scots in Polonia" must of necessity be imputed

"To some special accident of time and place that draws them thither; for you see plainly before your eyes, that in Germany, which is much nearer, and in France, where they are invited with privileges, and with this very privilege of naturalisation, yet no such number can be found; so as it cannot either be nearness of place, or privilege of person, that is the cause."

What these "special accidents" were, it would be interesting to ascertain. Large bodies of men were levied in Scotland during the latter half of the sixteenth century, for the service of Sweden, and employed in the Polish wars. Can these have turned merchants, or induced others to follow them? In 1573, Charles de Mornay brought 5000 Scots to Sweden. In 1576, whilst they were serving in Livonia, a quarrel broke out between them and a body of Germans also in the Swedish pay, and 1500 Scots were cut down. (Geiger, ch. xii.)

I believe Mr. Cunningham will find some notices of Scottish merchants in Poland in Lithgow's Travels, which I have not at present by me.

    Richard John King.

MR. JUSTICE NEWTON

(Vol. vii., p. 528.)

Sir Richard Newton was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 1438 to 1444, and died Dec. 13th, 1444, and was buried in a chapel of Bristol Cathedral. (Collins's Baronage, vol. iii. p. 145.) He assumed the name of Newton, instead of Caradoc, from Newton in Powysland. (Collinson's Somersetshire, East Harptrie); and, as Camden, p. 60., says, the Newtons "freely own themselves to be of Welsh extraction, and not long ago to have been called Caradocks." These Caradocs were descended from the ancient kings of Wales. Sir Richard Newton was twice married: 1. to a daughter of Newton, of Crossland; and 2. to Emmett, daughter of John Harvey, of London, according to a MS. in the British Museum; but, according to Somersetshire and Gloucestershire Visitations, to Emma, daughter of Sir Thomas Perrott, of Islington. He had issue by both marriages, and from the second descended Sir John Newton, who was created a baronet 12 Car. II., and died in 1661. The baronetcy was limited in remainder, at its creation, to John Newton, of Hather, in Lincolnshire, and he became the second baronet. There are several pedigrees tracing the descent from Sir Richard to the first baronet; but I have not yet seen the descent to the second baronet, though there can be no doubt that he was also descended from Sir Richard, otherwise the baronetcy could not have been limited to him; and probably he was the next male heir of the first baronet, as that is the usual mode of limiting titles. In the Heralds' College there is a pedigree of Sir Isaac Newton, signed by himself, in which he traces his descent to the brother of the ancestor of the second baronet. It should seem, therefore, that Sir Isaac was himself descended from the Chief Justice. It would confer a great obligation on the writer if any of your readers could afford any assistance to clear up the pedigree of the second baronet.

As to the representatives of Sir Richard, I doubt whether his heir is discoverable, although there are many descendants now living who trace their descent through females.

    C. S. G.

THE MARRIAGE RING

(Vol. vii., p. 332.)

I cannot agree with the answer given, under the above reference, to the question of J. P.: "How did the use of the ring, in the marriage ceremony, originate?" The answer given is taken from Wheatly's Rational Illustration, &c., and is in substance this:—The ring anciently was a seal, and the delivery of this seal was a sign of confidence; and as a ceremony in marriage, its signification is, that the wife is admitted to the husband's counsels. From this argument, and the supposed proofs of it, I beg to dissent; and I conceive that Wheatly has not thrown any light upon the origin of this beautiful ceremony. To bear out his view, it would be necessary to prove that a signet ring had originally been used for the wedding ring—a matter of no slight difficulty, not to say impossibility.

What I take to be the real meaning of the ring as a part of the marriage ceremony, I will now give. It has a far higher meaning in the ceremony, and a more important duty to perform than merely to signify the admission of the wife into the counsels of the husband. Its office is to teach her the duty she owes to her husband, rather than the privilege of admission into his counsels. The ring is a preacher, to teach her lessons of holy wisdom referring to her state of life.

A ring, whenever used by the church, signifies, to use the words of liturgical writers, "integritatem fidei," the perfection of fidelity, and is "fidei sacramentum," the badge of fidelity. Its form, having no beginning and no end, is the emblem of eternity, constancy, integrity, fidelity, &c.; so that the wedding ring symbolises the eternal or entire fidelity the wife pledges to her husband, and she wears the ring as the badge of this fidelity. Its office, then, is to teach and perpetually remind her of the fidelity she owes to her husband, and swore to him at the marriage ceremony.

The wedding ring is to the wife precisely what the episcopal ring is to the bishop, and vice versâ. The language used during the ceremony to the one is very similar to that used to the other, as the object of the ceremony and use of the ring is the same. A bishop's ring, as we read, signifies "integritatem fidei," i. e. that he should love as himself the church of God committed to him as his bride. When he receives the ring at his consecration, the words used are, "Accipe annulum, fidei scilicet signaculum, quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctum videlicet ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus illibate custodias:" (Receive the ring, the badge of fidelity, to the end that, adorned with inviolable fidelity you may guard without reproach the spouse of God, that is, His Holy Church).

Hence the office of the episcopal ring throws light upon the office of the wedding ring; and there can be no doubt whatever that its real meaning is, in the latter as in the former case, to signify the eternal fidelity and constancy that should subsist between the married couple.

That this is the correct view of the meaning of the wedding ring is farther confirmed by the prayer used in blessing the ring: "Benedic, Domine, annulum hunc … ut quæ eum gestaverit, fidelitatem integram suo sponso tenens, in pace et voluntate tua permaneat, acque in mutua charitate semper vivat."—Rituale, &c.

    Cyrep.

CANADA, ETC

(Vol. vii., pp. 380. 504.)

My former Note on the origin of this name suggests a question, which, if you think it worthy of a place in "N. & Q.," may interest many besides myself, viz. At what period and by whom was that part of North America called Canada?

To the French it appears always to have been known as "La Nouvelle France." La Hontan, who quitted the country 1690, I think, calls it Canada. Lajitan certainly does, as well as many other old authors.

In a map of North America, date 1769, the tract bordering on the St. Lawrence, lately called Upper and Lower Canada, is designated "The Province of Quebec;" whilst the region to the northward, lying between it and Hudson's Bay, has the word Canada in much larger letters, as if a general name of the whole. That the name is slightly altered from an Indian word is probable, but not so that it was used by the Indians themselves, who, in the first place, were not in the habit of imposing general names on large districts, although they had significant ones for almost every locality; the former were usually denominated the land of the Iroquois, of the Hurons, &c., i. e. of the people dwelling, on, and in possession of it. Even allowing that the Indians may have had a general name for the country, it is very unlikely that one so unmeaning as "Kanata" would have been imposed upon it by a people whose nomenclature in every other case is so full of meaning.

Moreover, although the Mic-macs of Gaspé may have called themselves Canadians according to Lescarbot, yet we are told by Volney, that—