Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 49, October 5, 1850», страница 3

Various

Шрифт:

MINOR NOTES

Numerals.—For the old Indian forms, see Prinsep's Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 1838, p. 348. The prospectus of Brugsh, Numerorum apud Egyptios Demoticorum Doctrina, Berlin, promises to give from papyri and inscriptions not only the figures, but the forms of operation. Probably the system assumed its present form by the meeting of the Indian and Egyptian traders at some emporium near the mouth of the Indus. Peacock seems to give undue weight to the fact, that the Tibetans have a copious nomenclature for high numbers: their arithmetic, doubtless, came with their alphabet, and the Buddhist legends from India.

F.Q.

Junnius and Sir Philip Francis.—A few years ago, an aged intelligent person named Garner was living at Belgrave, near Leicester. I have heard him say that, when he was a farm bailiff to Lord Thanet, at Sevenoaks, in Kent, Sir Philip Francis was a frequent visitor there, and had a private room set apart for literary occupation. On one occasion, when he (Mr. Garner) was riding over the farm with Sir Philip Francis, the former alluded to one of the replies to Junius, by a clergyman who had been the subject of the "Great Unknown's" anonymous attacks, adding, "They say, Sir Philip, you are Junius." Sir Philip did not deny that he was the man, but simply smiled at the remark. This, and other circumstances coupled with the fact of Sir Philip's frequent visits to the house of so noted a politician as Lord Thanet, rendered Mr. Garner a firm believer in the identity of Sir Philip and Junius to the end of his days.

JAYTEE.

Jews under the Commonwealth (Vol. i., pp. 401. 474.; vol ii., p. 25.).—There is a confirmation of the story of the Jews being in treaty for St. Paul's and the Oxford Library in a passage in Carte's Letters, i. 276, April 2, 1649:—

"They are about demolishing and selling cathedral churches. I hear Norwich is designed already, and that the Jews proffer 600,000l. for Paul's and Oxford Library, and may have them for 200,000l. more."
CH.

"Is anything but," &c.—As your work seems adapted, amongst other subjects, to check the introduction into our language of undesirable words, phrases, and forms of speech, I would call the attention of your readers to the modern phrases, "is anything but," and the like, which have lately crept into use, and will be found, in many (otherwise) well-written books.

I read the phrase "is anything but," for the first time, in Napier's Peninsular War; where it struck me as being so much beneath the dignity of historical composition, and at the same time asserting an impossibility, that I meditated calling the author's attention to it. The not unfrequent use of the same phrase by other writers, since that time, has by no means reconciled me to its use.

In the Edinburgh Review for January last (1850) I find the following sentence:—"But as pains have been taken to fix the blame upon any one except the parties culpable;" and in the July number of the same Review (p. 90.) occurs the sentence, "any impulse rather than that of patriotism," &c.

Now, a "thing," or "person," or "impulse,"—though it may not be the "thing," or "person," or "impulse" charged as the agent,—must yet be some certain and specific thing, or party, or impulse, if existing as an agent at all in the matter; and cannot be "any thing," or "any party," or "any impulse," in the indefinite sense intended in these phrases. Moreover, there seems no difficulty in expressing, in a simple and direct manner, that the agent was a very different, or opposite, or dissimilar "thing," or "person," or "impulse" from that supposed.

I wish some persons of competent authority in the science of our language (and many such there are who write in your pages) would take up this subject, with a view to preserve the purity of it; and would also, for the future, exercise a watchful vigilance over the use, for the first time, of any incorrect, or low words or phrases, in composition; and so endeavour to confine them to the vulgar, or to those who ape the vulgar in their style.

P.H.F.

Fastitocalon.—Fastitocalon. Cod. Exon. fol. 96. b. p. 360. 18. read [Greek: Aspido … chelonae]. Tychsen, Physiologus Syrus, cap. xxx.: did the digamma get to Crediton by way of Cricklade?

F.Q.

QUERIES

BISHOP COSIN'S CONFERENCE

Basire in his Dead Man's Real Speech (pp. 59, 60.), amongst other "notable instances" of Bishop Cosin's zeal and constancy in defence of the Church of England, mentions

"A solemn conference both by word and writing betwixt him and the Prior of the English Benedictines at Paris, supposed to be Robinson. The argument was concerning the validity of the ordination of our priests, &c., in the Church of England. The issue was, our Doctor had the better so far, that he could never get from the Prior any reply to his last answer. This conference was undertaken to fix a person of honour then wavering about that point; the sum of which conference (as I am informed), was written by Dr. Cosin to Dr. Morley, the now Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Winchester, in two letters bearing date June 11, July 11, 1645."

The substance of this conference has been preserved among the Smith Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library; but it is not in the form of letters to Dr. Morley. Vol. xl. of this valuable collection of manuscripts contains (as described in Smith's table of contents):—

1. "Papers of Bp. Cosins in defence of the Ordination of the Church of England against father Prior.
"The first of these is Bp. Cosin's Review of the Father's Letter, &c. [the title-page is placed at p. 77.]
"Then follows a letter (which is indeed the Bishop's first paper, and should be put first) from Bishop Cosin to the Father.
"After that the Father's Answer to Bishop Cosin's Review at p. 81.
"Then come two other papers about the validity of our Ordination, with a preface concerning the occasion, p. 89."
2. "Then, p. 101., A Letter from a Rom. Cath. to a Lady about communicating in one kind,—with Bishop Cosin's Answer."
3. "Lastly, in p. 123., is A Letter of Bp. Cosin's to Dr. Collins concerning the Sabbath."

The order in which the papers under the first head, about our English ordination, should fall, appears to be as follows:—

1. There is a note attached to p. 65., evidently written by Dr. Tho. Smith himself in the following words:

"Transcript of several papers of Bishop Cosin's sent to me by Dr. J. Smith, Prebendary of Durham.—T.S."

2. At p. 77. the title-page is given thus:

"A Review of a Letter sent from F.P.R. to a Lady (whom he would have persuaded to the Rom. party) in Opposition to a former paper given him for the defence of the Church of England in the Ordination of Priests."

To this are appended the respective forms of ordering priests used in the Church of England and in the Roman Church.

3. Then, at p. 89., we have the "occasion of this … Discourse concerning the Ordination of Priests," &c. This is a kind of preface, which contains the first paper that was given to the Prior, dated June 14, 1645; also another paper, bearing date July 11, 1645, but ending abruptly in the middle of a sentence, and having written below it (probably in Dr. J. Smith's hand) the following note:

"The rest of this is not yet found, and that which is written thus far is not in the Bishop's own hand, but the copy is very fair."

However, this second paper (ending thus abruptly) appears to be no more than the first draft of a long letter from Cosin to the Prior, which commences at p. 65. of this MS., and which is dated "from the Court of S. Germains, July 11, 1645;" for not only does this letter bear the same date as the before-mentioned fragment, but it begins by complaining of the tone of expression in a letter evidently received from the Prior after the draft had been prepared, but before it was sent off; and it concludes with the following note appended as a postscript:

"Sir,
"The enclosed (most of it) was prepared for you a fortnight since; but now (upon the occasion given by your letter) you have it with some advantage from
"Your servt., J.C.
"I desire the fav"
"S. Germ. July 12."

4. The most important part of this MS., however, is contained in the long letter or treatise placed first in the volume, and bearing for its title, "A View of F.P.'s Answer to the First Paper."

This is dated from S. Germains, July 25, 1645 and would appear to be Cosin's last letter. But, if it be really so, Basire must, I think, be in error, when he says, "Our Doctor … could never get from the Prior any reply to his last answer." For at p. 81. of the MS. there is a reply to the above "Review of a Letter sent by F.R. to a Lady," &c. which, though copied without either date or signature, was evidently written by the Prior, whilst it professes to be a reply to a treatise closely answering to Cosin's letter of July 25, but which letter the writer did not receive (as he states) before the 26th of September.

I wish yet further to take notice, that Dr. Tho. Smith, in His Vitæ (Lond. 1707, præf. pp. vii, viii.), refers to these manuscripts in the following satisfactory manner:—

"Cum, post mortem D. Cosini, de pretio et valore schedarum, quas reliquit, hæredibus non satis constaret, … auspieatò tandem devenit, ut favore, beneficio, et perquam insigni humanitate reverendi et doctissimi viri, D. Joannis Smith, Sacræ Theologiæ Professoris Ecclesiæ Dunelmensis Præbendarii, quorum frequens hac de re commercium literarum, occasione data, (opportunè intercedente prænobili et reverendo, D. Georgio Whelero, equite aurato, et Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Presbytero, ejusdem quoque Ecclesiæ Cathedralis Prebendario), habui, duos libellos (tanquam prætiosas tabulas ab isthoc infami naufragio servatas) a D. Cosino, dum in Galliâ exularet, Anglieè conscriptos jam possidieam: quarum unus Vindicias Ordinatianum Ecclesieæ Anglicanæ contra exceptiones et cavillationes cujusdem Pontificii sacerdotis e gente nostra, alter Responsionem ad Epistolam nobili fæminæ Anglæ ab alio saccrdote pro defensione communionis sub unicâ specie administrandæ inscriptam, complectitur," &c.

I should still be glad to add to this long note the followng Queries:—

1. Can any of your readers kindly inform me whether Cosin's two letters to Dr. Geo. Morley are still in existence, either in MS. or in print?

2. Whether there be any fuller or more authentic account of the controversy than that in these MS. preserved by the care of Dr. Smith?

3. Whether Cosin wrote any letter to the Prior later than that of July 25?

4. Who was the lady the Prior wished to seduce to the Roman party?

5. Is there any other account of the controversy?