language.* And, as descriptions of places and persons are transcribed for the most part from one such document into another, this error is perpetuated, to the infinite bewilderment and discomfiture, not only of the etymologist, but also, which is of far more consequence, of the conveyancer and the genealogist. Although it must be admitted that, when rightly understood, the vulgar provincial sound of a word, if it be one of native growth, is frequently our safest clue to its unde derivatur, still the misspelling, mispronunciation, and other changes surnames are perpetually undergoing, as they spread themselves over a country, present obstacles in the way of tracing personal designations to their true origin, which demand much diligent inquiry and local information to surmount. I have met with many a man who could not give me what I knew to be his own proper name with any approach to correctness; and thus, as my own experience testifies, Edmondson is transformed into Emmerson, Immerson, and Impson; Parrington into Parnton, Panton, and Barnton; Peremore into Perramore and Palmer, &c. Still, such like accidental and unintentional effects of blundering ignorance, for similar variæ lectiones rarely exist in reference to the patronymics of the educated classes, are not, I would suggest, sufficient to justify MR. LOWER's remark (Vol. v., p. 509.), "That family names have scarcely become hereditary, in some parts of England, even now in the middle of the nineteenth century." The right name is still there, and is meant to be expressed, if its owner did but know how. But until we can all of us "speak, read, and write with propriety," such like variations must continually occur; nor, I would beg W. L. (Vol. v., p. 424.) to observe, do they at all invalidate the somewhat indefinite statement made by me (Vol. v., p. 290.), that surnames were not completely adopted by the mass of the people until the close of the fourteenth century." 46 We find, however, "in many isolated parts of the country," as that statement asserts, occasional instances of "a total change from one designation to another," that is to say, a person obtains a nickname, and this, here and there, as in the case referred to by E. S. (Vol. v., p. 425.), may haply supersede his paternal name, and be transmitted to his children. But this is an unwarranted irregularity, for, after all, the newly adopted appellative does not legally belong to him; and its use, in certain proceedings, might subject him to unplea sant consequences. The truth is, a man, proprio motu, may not lawfully divest himself of his parental surname; it descends to him as an inde feasible inheritance; and, till within the last few years, no less a sanction than that of a solemn act of the legislature was necessary to enable him to change or modify it, though now the licence of the crown alone suffices for that purpose. The still prevailing custom referred to by W. L. (Vol. v., p. 424.), of distinguishing an individual by the addition of his father's or mother's Christian name to his own Christian name, and which, I may remark, is by no means confined to the locality indicated by that correspondent, will in itself immediately account for the anomalous personal description to which he alludes as occurring temp. Car. I. I could readily exemplify this custom by innumerable instances, some of them sufficiently curious, e.g. "Matty Johan Ned," "Dick o' Dick o' Dicky's," &c., and point to other similar peculiarities of a highly suggestive character. It is enough, however, to invite especial attention to these accidental names, in the use of which multitudes of existing surnames had their origin; and the places to look for them in most abundance are those where the same family designations largely prevail, as in Wensleydale, amongst the Metcalfes and Dinsdales, and in Weardale amongst the Featherstons and Waltons. Old parish registers, again, will amply reward the labour of investigation; they are full of illustrative matter. COWGILL. A. C.'s excellent observations on the assumption of surnames embolden me to offer a suggestion which, I conceive, if commonly adopted, would tend to clear up family history very remarkably, Suppose that every child was given as a second name (between his Christian and surname) that of his mother's family. By this means the cotemporary branches of each family would be instantly distinguished, and after the lapse of a few generations, the clue to the maternal lines would be of incalculable service. Thus, three brothers, Charles, Robert, and Thomas Russell, marry respectively Mary Howard, Anne Somerset, and Jane Cavendish. The children of Charles Russell and Mary Howard are Charles Howard Russell, William Howard Russell, and Mary Howard Russell. Their cousins, the children of Robert Russell and Anne Somerset, are Richard Somerset Russell and Charles Somerset Russell. The third branch similarly are Cavendish Russells. By this means there can be no confusion between cousins, even if two or more should bear a favourite Christian name; and in speaking of the various branches collectively, there would be great convenience in designating not only the family but the generation, as the "Somerset Russells," the "Howard Russells," &c. Of course in the second generation the grandmother's name would be dropped for the mother's, and Charles Howard Russell's son by his wife Jane Percy will be Thomas Percy Russell. URSULA. SURNAMES ASSUMED. (Vol. vi., p. 97.) son, her son There is one practice of this kind not adverted to by A. C. which strikes me as peculiarly unjust, when the heirs-general assume a name that is not extinct. I know a case where a sister inherited her brother's estate; and wishing to take the name, was for the time prevented by the male heir; but during the minority of his assumed it by act of parliament. The descendants of the latter having again failed in the male line, the name has been a second time assumed by their heirs-general, and these now call themselves the elder branch of the family, whose name they have taken. In the same family, the eldest of the remaining male line having left a daughter, it is said that her descendants are also to assume the name, while there is still a direct male heir, who, if he does not inherit the estates, ought surely not to be deprived of the representation of his ancient and honourable name. I know no remedy that would be effectual, unless it were permitted to the real representatives of families who ranked as European nobility in the Middle Ages, to call themselves by some such honourable distinction as "noble gentleman," or the like, their wives having the designation of "dame." I would give them no rank beyond what they are entitled to as hereditary esquires. But when it is considered that the name and arms (for example) of Chaworth are on the tombs of the Dukes of Burgundy, among the greatest princes of Europe; that Sir Philip Sydney is said to have had the offer of the crown of Poland; and that English families, many of which remain, were admissible as knights of Rhodes and Malta, which required nobility of four descents, it must seem rather incongruous that their direct representatives might now write themselves "Rentier," and be supposed by foreigners to be of the same rank which we now understand in England by the term "Gentleman Farmer." If the eldest representatives of such families would combine for such an object, as the baronets did a few years ago, I think they might gain their point. And even those of them who possess rank and title would not be sorry, I think, to be thus distinguished from the new-made aristocracy. O. I will not discuss with A. C. the propriety of the practice which he censures, but which is now fully sanctioned by custom. The instances in which a change of surname, or an additional surname, has been authorised by the crown, are far too nu merous to be counted. The practice, however, does not appear to be a very ancient one, and I should like to know what is the earliest instance on record? At first, I presume, it was a special favour; at present, any one that is able and willing to pay the fees may, I believe, obtain it. How long, How long has this been the case? too, has it been the custom for a person of equestrian rank, who has assumed a second surname, to prefix to it his original surname, as if it were a Christian name, after the title "Sir?" The dates of these innovations are worth being re corded. ENGLISH BISHOPS DEPRIVED. (Vol. vi., p. 100.) D. X. English Bishops deprived by Queen Elizabeth in June, 1599: 1. John White, Bishop of Winchester, died at South-Warnborow, Hampshire, Jan. 11, 1559-60. Some account of him will be found in Cassan's pp. 544Bishops of Winchester, 8vo., 1827, vol. i. See also Wood's Ath. Oxon., by Bliss, vol. i. col. 311. 551. 2. Owen Oglethorp, Bishop of Carlisle, who crowned Queen Elizabeth, died Dec. 31, 1559, and was buried in the church of St. Dunstan's, Fleet Street, London. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 792. Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, fol. 1716, p. 335. 3. Cuthbert Scot, Bishop of Chester, died at Louvain. Fuller's Church History by Nichols, 8vo., 1842, vol. ii. p. 449. Le Neve, p. 341. by R. Izacke, in his Antiquities of the City of Exeter, 8vo., 1677, to have died Nov. 1, 1559. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 795. 4. James Tubertyle, Bishop of Exeter, is said 5. Ralph Bayne, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, died at Islington in 1560, and was buried in the church of St. Dunstan's in the West, London. Zouch's Works, 1820, 8vo., vol. ii. p. 283. Neve, p. 125. Fuller's Worthies, by Nuttall, 8vo., 1840, vol. ii. p. 410. Le 6. Francis Mallet, Canon of Windsor, Chaplain to Queen Mary, and Dean of Lincoln, died Dec. 1570. Le Neve's Fasti, p. 146. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 781.; and Wood's Fasti, vol. i. c. 48. 7. Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph, was living at Rheims in 1580, being then about eighty years of age; and is said to have died shortly afterwards at Rome. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 822. 8. Henry Morgan, Bishop of St. David's, died at Wolvercote, Oxfordshire, Dec. 23, 1559. Le Neve's Fasti, p. 514. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 788. Fuller's Church Hist., vol. ii. p. 449. 9. Richard Pate, Bishop of Worcester, died at Louvain. Thomas's Survey of the Cathedral Church of Worcester, 4to., 1736, Part II. pp. 209-10. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 794. Le Neve's Fasti, p. 299. 10. Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York, died at Cobham, in Surrey, 1579. Nichols' Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, 4to., 1823, vol. i. p. 250. Le Neve's Fasti, p. 310. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 817. 11. Gilbert Bourne, Bishop of Bath and Wells, died at Silverton, in Devonshire, Sept. 10, 1569. Cassan's Bishops of Bath and Wells, 8vo., 1829, Part I. pp. 462-467. Le Neve's Fasti, p. 33. 12. David Pole, Bishop of Peterborough, died in 1568. Le Neve's Fasti, p. 239. Wood's Ath. Oxon., vol. ii. c. 801. 13. Thomas Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, is said in Chalmers's Biog. Dict. to have died in 1582. This however is unsupported by his authorities, unless Dodd's Church Hist., to which I am unable to refer, gives this date. According to the following authorities, he died at Wisbeach Castle, Cambridgeshire, in 1584; and was privately buried in the church of that town, Sept. 27. Philpot's Examination and Writings, edited for the Parker Society, 8vo., 1842, p. 168. Hutchinson's Durham, 4to., 1787, p. 141. Wood's Fasti, vol. i. c. 145. English Bishops deprived, Feb. 1, 1691: 1. Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, died at Longleat, March 19, 1710-11, aged seventythree; and was buried at Frome Selwood, Somersetshire, March 21. Cassan's Bishops of Bath and Wells, Part II. pp. 83-101. Lathbury's History of the Nonjurors, 8vo., 1845, p. 225. 2. Francis Turner, Bishop of Ely, died Nov. 2, 1700; and was buried in the church of Therfield, Herts. Chalmers's Biog. Dict. Lathbury's Nonjurors, p. 183. 3. Robert Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, died in 1708, aged eighty-six; and was buried privately at Standish, in Gloucestershire. Lathbury, p. 203. 4. William Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, died at Hammersmith, where he had lived privately for twenty years, Jan. 1, 1709-10; and was interred in the belfry of the chapel. Britton's Cathedral Antiquities of Norwich, p. 74. 5. Thomas White, Bishop of Peterborough, died 1698; and was buried in St. Gregory's churchyard, or vault, at St. Paul's, June 5th. Lathbury, p. 179. Evelyn, vol. iii. p. 364. JOHN I. DRedge. STRADA'S SYMPATHETIC MAGNETIC TELEGraph. (Vol. vi., p. 93.) Addison has repeated his account of Strada's mathetic magnetic telegraph in No. 119. of Guardian, in which work he has three papers on the "Prolusiones Academica"; in the first of which he says, — "Strada's Prolusion on the style of the most famous among the ancient Latin poets who are extant, and have written in Epic verse, is one of the most entertaining as well as the most just pieces of criticism that I have ever read." The Prolusions were first printed at Rome in 1617, in a handsome volume in small 4to.; but that edition is very rare, and Chalmers and others have erroneously stated it to have been first printed at Cologne in 1617, 8vo. The verses containing the relation are a happy imitation of the style of Lucretius, and are thus inscribed: "Rationem expeditissimam absentes a lmonendi nullis eo missis tabellis, nullis tabellariis." He concludes thus with the "Commoda hujus inventi": "O utinam hæc ratio scribendi prodeat usu! Cautior, et citior properaret epistola, nullas Latronum verita insidias, fluviosque morantes. Ipse suis Princeps manibus sibi conficeret rem: Nos soboles scribarum emersi ex æquore nigro, CONSECRAREMVS CALAMVM, MAGNETIS AD ORAS.' How far from dreaming that it could be ever so nearly realised, as it is in the electric telegraph, must the poet have been when concluding his ingenious fiction with these lines! 66 con The Prolusions have been frequently reprinted, and were long a favourite academical book. In the same chapter we have the well-known tention between the nightingale and the musician," written in imitation of the style of Claudian. In a pleasing miscellany, published periodically. in 1750, entitled The Student, or the Oxford and Cambridge Miscellany, is given the following ver sion, which, as the book is not common, may be worthy of transposition into your pages: THE SYMPATHETIC LOADSTONE. (From Strada; “Magnesi genus est lapidis mirabile,” §c.) Which quivering still, in changeful turnings tost, To distant climes thy parting friend shall bear, To mark th' instructive steel, and note its varied way. Each word he marks to full perfection brought, ΜΙΣΟΓΡΑΦΟΣ.” MUMMIES OF ECCLESIASTICS. (Vol. vi., p. 53.) In Mrs. Trollope's Belgium and Western Germany, the following passage is found touching the Kreutzberg monks: All unruffled was his face, We trusted his soul had gotten grace.' Round others, the dust lies where it had fallen as it Elgin. RICHARD BAXTER. (Vol. vi., p. 86.) Your correspondent R. G. wishes me to verify a severe criticism which he transcribes from a work entitled The Scholar armed against the Errors of the Time, 1795, and in which it is said that, instead of the "kingdom of heaven," as it is in the Scripture, Baxter calls it "parliament of heaven." Now, for your correspondent's information, I may be allowed to state that Baxter has done nothing of the kind. He never throughout the Saint's Rest fails to employ the Scriptural representations S. W. SINGER. of the heavenly world; and though he uses the phrase "parliament of heaven," it is merely in a figurative sense, not instead of the "kingdom of heaven," but as a figure which it would be necessary to adopt in contrasting the inhabitants of heaven with those who were wont to meet in the Parliament that then existed. It is further said that into this "parliament of heaven" he puts some of the regicides; that is, I suppose, Brooke, Pim, Hampden, White, &c. But these were not regicides; at least not in the opinion of very many who were thoroughly competent to judge of their characters. Some think Oliver Cromwell was a regicide, but not so others, -Thomas Carlyle to wit, and no mean authority. The men whom Baxter put in heaven were those whom he fully believed to be worthy of a place there; whom he looked upon as earth. That he should have left them out of the having wrought righteousness and peace upon the later editions of his work was a sad defection of judgment; for it was like blotting them out of the book of life. He did this, not because his views of their history and acts were altered, but that in the omission he would be enabled to please the enemies of Puritanism. Of course this failed, and he did "The wonderful state of preservation in which these bodies remain, though constantly exposed to the atmo sphere by being thus exhibited, is attributed by good Catholics to the peculiar sanctity of the place; but to those who do not receive this solution of the mystery, it is one of great difficulty. The dates of their interment vary from 1400 to 1713; and the oldest is quite as fresh as the most recent. There are twenty-six, fully exposed to view, and apparently many more beneath them. From the elder ones, the coffins have either crumbled away, or the bodies were buried without them. In some of these ghastly objects the flesh is still full, and almost shapely upon the legs; in others it appears to be gradually drying away, and the bones are here and there becoming visible. The condition of the face also varies very greatly, though by no means in proportion to the antiquity of each. In many, the violence to his own feelings; for his judgment respecting them remained the same, and he rejoiced in the prospect of meeting them in heaven. Perhaps the following extract from the first edition of the Saint's Rest may still further elucidate the verification of the criticism referred to. "I think, Christian, this will be a more honourable assembly than you ever beheld, and a more happy society than you were ever of before. Surely Brooke, and Pim, and Hampden, and White, &c. are now members of a more knowing, unerring, well-ordered, right-ayming, self-denying, unanimous, honourable triumphant senate, than this from whence they were taken is, or ever Parliament will be. It is better to be doorkeeper to that assembly, whither Twisse, &c. are translated, than to have continued here the Moderator of this. That is the true Parliamentum Beatum, the Blessed Parliament; and that is the only church that cannot erre." To hang a severe criticism on a few isolated passages from a book, is unjust to its author. H. M. BEALBY. North Brixton. sup I beg to thank your correspondent A. N. for his notice of my Query with respect to Baxter; and as to his question concerning the antiquity of posed miraculous hosts, I would refer him to the fourteenth chapter of the treatise by Paschasius Radbertus "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini" (Martene et Durand, Vet. scriptt. ampliss. Collect., tom. ix. col. 433.: Paris, 1733). He may find as many extraordinary narratives connected with this subject as he can reasonably wish for, in the second volume of the Thesaurus Catholicus of Jodocus Coccius; lib. vi. De Eucharistia, Colon. 1620. So far as I am aware, the most extended account of any particular prodigy of this description is contained in the Thaumaturgus Eucharisticus of Anastasius Vochetius, 8vo. Aug. Vind. 1637; my copy of which book belonged to the College of the Jesuits at Brussels in 1653. The "rubea carnis species" is herein said to have subsisted in a host preserved in a church at Augsburg, for more than four hundred years; and one of the verses of the sequence publicly chanted in its honour was as follows: "Ecce signum, Deo dignum, HYDROPHOBIA. rous are the cases on record, and so distinct from any other disease the characters which they present. It is true that tetanus and hydrophobia are nearly allied; and, like all other named diseases, are merely the most prominent forms of infinitely varied morbid gradations, which we make absolute by specific description and set terms; but if these prominent forms are to be distinguished at all, if typhus be distinct from synocha, spedalskhed from struma, or hysteria from epilepsy, then surely hydrophobia is an affection different from tetanus. Such at least is the generally received and established opinion of the medical profession, with which the miscellaneous readers of " N. & Q." are most concerned. The doubts and peculiar opinions of individual medical men are best discussed among themselves, as in the case of any other profession; and the curious can always gain ample information on such subjects, orally or in print, from professional sources. To prevent possible misconceptions, I may state that the established practice of the medical profession in hydrophobia is the same as their duty prescribes in all other diseases, viz., to endeavour suffering. In popular talk, with which they have to find a cure, to lengthen life, and to diminish nothing to do, two ways of dealing with hydrophobic patients are mentioned. One is to smother give them their quietus with a dose of laudanum. them between two feather-beds; the other is to I never knew or heard of either being done, and sincerely hope they are fables; at all events, no respectable medical man would allow them to be attempted, even with the sufferer's consent. Such it, even by suggestion, would be liable to a crimian act would be MURDER; and all concerned in been done in this country, or in earnest suggested, nal prosecution. If such things have really ever I hope the instances will be communicated to your but it is hardly to be credited that we are so little pages, authenticated with name, time, and place; removed from barbarism. medical profession which do not belong to them, Many things are popularly attributed to the and for which they are not responsible. Such, for instance, as that it is the invariable rule to bleed after a fall or an accident, whereas this is very. seldom done. It would be beneficial to all parties, if the public would more frequently inquire of medical men what is the received opinion and R. G. practice of the profession on this or that point. It will often be found to vary from what is cur rently believed to be the case. (Vol. v., p. 10.; Vol. vi., p. 110.) The pages of "N. & Q." are hardly suitable for discussing the question whether there be such a disease as hydrophobia or not. It is better fitted for a medical journal. I never heard the doubt started before, nor does it seem tenable, so nume 28. Bryanstone Street. WILLIAM E. C. NOURSE. Smothering between Two Feather-beds. —A correspondent of yours (Vol. v., p. 10.) makes inquiry if it were the practice formerly to smother patients in decided cases of hydrophobia. I cannot |