  (Vol. viii., pp. 512. 632.) The story referred to is certainly a very curious one, and I should like to know whether it is exactly as it was told by Baxter, especially as there seems to be reason for believing that De Foe (whom on other grounds one would not trust in such a matter) did not take it from the work which he quotes. Perhaps if you can find room for the statement, some correspondent would be so good as to state whether it has the sanction of Baxter:
After this story, De Foe says:
But he does not say that the story which he has already quoted as from Baxter stands just as he has given it, and with a reference to Baxter, in Beaumont's Historical, Physiological, and Theological Treatise of Spirits, p. 182. Of course one does not attach any weight to De Foe's saying that he knew Dr. Beaumont "personally," but does anybody know anything of him? Nearly four years ago you inserted somewhat similar inquiry about this Duncan Campbell, but I believe it has not yet been answered. OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER.(Vol. viii., p. 535.) From a volume of Forms of Prayer in the library of Sir Robert Taylor's Institution, I send you the following list, as supplementary to Mr. Lathbury's. This volume forms part of a collection of books bequeathed to the University by the late Robert Finch, M.A., formerly of Baliol College:
In both the Morning and Evening Services of this Form "A Prayer for the Reformed Churches" is included, which is omitted in all the subsequent Forms. This is a copy of it:
The following MS. note is inserted in the handwriting of Mr. Finch, father of the gentleman who bequeathed the collection:
Oxford. CELTIC AND LATIN LANGUAGES.(Vol. viii., p. 174.) There was a Query some time ago upon this subject, but though it is one full of interest to all scholars, I have not observed any Notes worth mentioning in reply. The connexion between these two languages has only of late occupied the attention of philologers; but the more closely they are compared together, the more important and the more striking do the resemblances appear; and the remark of Arnold with regard to Greek literature applies equally to Latin, "that we seem now to have reached that point in our knowledge of the language, at which other languages of the same family must be more largely studied, before we can make a fresh step in advance." But this study, as regards the comparison of Celtic and Latin, is, in England at least, in a very infant state. Professor Newman, in his Regal Rome, has attention to the subject; but his induction does not appear sufficiently extensive to warrant any decisive conclusion respecting the position the Celtic holds as an element of the Latin. Pritchard's work upon the subject is satisfactory as far as it goes, but both these authors have chiefly confined themselves to a tabular view of Celtic and Latin words; but it is not merely this we want. What is required is a critical examination into the comparative structure and formal development of the two languages, and this is a work still to be accomplished. The later numbers of Bopp's Comparative Grammar are, I believe, devoted to this subject, but as they have not been translated, they must be confined to a limited circle of English readers, and I have not yet seen any reproduction of the views therein contained in the philological literature of England. As the first step to considerations of this kind must be made from a large induction of words, I think, with your correspondent, that the pages of "N. & Q." might be made useful in supplying "links of connexion" to supply a groundwork for future comparison. I shall conclude by suggesting one or two "links" that I do not remember to have seen elsewhere. 1. Is the root of felix to be found in the Irish fail, fate; the contraction of the dipththong ai or Ê being analogous to that of amaÏmus into amÊmus? 2. Is it not probable that Avernus, if not corrupted from ??????, is related to iffrin, the Irish inferi? This derivation is at any rate more probable than that of Grotefend, who connects the word with ??????. 3. Were the Galli, priests of Cybele, so called as being connected with fire-worship? and is the name at all connected with the Celtic gal, a flame? The word Gallus, a Gaul, is of course the same as the Irish gal, a stranger. GEOMETRICAL CURIOSITY.(Vol. viii., p. 468.) Mr. Ingleby's question might easily be the foundation of a geometrical paper; but as this would not be a desirable contribution, I will endeavour to keep clear of technicalities, in pointing out how the process described may give something near to a circle, or may not. When a paper figure, bent over a straight line in it, has the two parts perfectly fitting on each other, the figure is symmetrical about that straight line, which may be called an axis of symmetry. Thus every diameter of a circle is an axis of symmetry: every regular oval has two axes of symmetry at right angles to each other: every regular polygon of an odd number of sides has an axis joining each corner to the middle of the opposite sides: every regular polygon of an even number of sides has axes joining opposite corners, and axes joining the middles of opposite sides. When a piece of paper, of any form whatsoever, rectilinear or curvilinear, is doubled over any line in it, and when all the parts of either side which are not covered by the other are cut away, the unfolded figure will of course have the creased line for an axis of symmetry. If another line be now creased, and a fold made over it, and the process repeated, the second line becomes an axis of symmetry, and the first perhaps ceases to be one. If the process be then repeated on the first line, this last becomes an axis, and the other (probably) ceases to be an axis. If this process can be indefinitely continued, the cuttings must become smaller and smaller, for the following reason. Suppose, at the outset, the boundary point nearest to the intersection of the axes is distant from that intersection by, say four inches; it is clear that we cannot, after any number of cuttings, have a part of the boundary at less than four inches from the intersection. For there never is, after any cutting, any approach to the intersection except what there already was on the other side of the axis employed, before that cutting was made. If then the cuttings should go on for ever, or practically until the pieces to be cut off are too small, and if this take place all round, the figure last obtained will be a good representation of a circle of four inches radius. On the suppositions, we must be always cutting down, at all parts of the boundary; but it has been shown that we can never come nearer than by four inches to the intersection of the axes. But it does not follow that the process will go on for ever. We may come at last to a state in which both the creases are axes of symmetry at once; and then the process stops. If the paper had at first a curvilinear boundary, properly chosen, and if the axes were placed at the proper angle, it would happen that we should arrive at a I will, however, suppose that the original boundary is everywhere rectilinear. It is clear then that, after every cutting, the boundary is still rectilinear. If the creases be at right angles to one another, the ultimate figure may be an irregular polygon, having its four quarters alike, such as may be inscribed in an oval; or it may have its sides so many and so small, that the ultimate appearance shall be that of an oval. But if the creases be not at right angles, the ultimate figure is a perfectly regular polygon, such as can be inscribed in a circle; or its sides may be so many and so small that the ultimate appearance shall be that of a circle. Suppose, as in Mr. Ingleby's question, that the creases are not at right angles to each other; supposing the eye and the scissors perfect, the results will be as follows: First, suppose the angle made by the creases to be what the mathematicians call incommensurable with the whole revolution; that is, suppose that no repetition of the angle will produce an exact number of revolutions. Then the cutting will go on for ever, and the result will perpetually approach a circle. It is easily shown that no figure whatsoever, except a circle, has two axes of symmetry which make an angle incommensurable with the whole revolution. Secondly, suppose the angle of the creases commensurable with the revolution. Find out the smallest number of times which the angle must be repeated to give an exact number of revolutions. If that number be even, it is the number of sides of the ultimate polygon: if that number be odd, it is the half of the number of sides of the ultimate polygon. Thus, the paper on which I write, the whole sheet being taken, and the creases made by joining opposite corners, happens to give the angle of the creases very close to three-fourteenths of a revolution; so that fourteen repetitions of the angle is the lowest number which give an exact number of revolutions; and a very few cuttings lead to a regular polygon of fourteen sides. But if four-seventeenths of a revolution had been taken for the angle of the creases, the ultimate polygon would have had thirty-four sides. In an angle taken at hazard the chances are that the number of ultimate sides will be large enough to present a circular appearance. Any reader who chooses may amuse himself by trying results from three or more axes, whether all passing through one point or not. THE BLACK-GUARD.(Vol. viii., p. 414.) Some of your correspondents, Sir James E. Tennent especially, have been very learned on this subject, and all have thrown new light on what I consider a very curious inquiry. The following document I discovered some years ago in the Lord Steward's Offices. Your readers will see its value at once; but it may not be amiss to observe, that the name in its present application had its origin in the number of masterless boys hanging about the verge of the Court and other public places, palaces, coal-cellars, and palace stables; ready with links to light coaches and chairs, and conduct, and rob people on foot, through the dark streets of London; nay, to follow the Court in its progresses to Windsor and Newmarket. Pope's "link-boys vile" are the black-guard boys of the following Proclamation. Whereas of late a sort of vicious, idle, and masterless boyes and rogues, commonly called the Black-guard, with divers other lewd and loose fellowes, vagabonds, vagrants, and wandering men and women, do usually haunt and follow the Court, to the great dishonour of the same, and as Wee are informed have been the occasion of the late dismall fires that happened in the towns of Windsor and Newmarket, and have, and frequently do commit divers other misdemeanours and disorders in such places where they resort, to the prejudice of His Majesty's subjects, for the prevention of which evills and misdemeanours hereafter, Wee do hereby strictly charge and command all those so called the Black-guard as aforesaid, with all other loose, idle, masterless men, boyes, rogues, and wanderers, who have intruded themselves into His Majesty's Court or stables, that within the space of twenty-four houres next after the publishing of this order, they depart, upon pain of imprisonment, and such other punishments as by law are to be inflicted on them. (Signed) Ormond. H. Bulkeley. H. Brouncker. Rich. Mason. Ste. Fox. THE CALVES' HEAD CLUB.(Vol. viii., pp. 315. 480.) The Calves' Head Club existed much earlier than the time when their doings were commemorated in the Weekly Oracle (Vol. viii., p. 315.) of February 1, 1735, or depicted in the print of 1734 (Vol. viii., p. 480.). There is a pamphlet,
We are told in the latter part of the long title-page that the work was published "to demonstrate the restless, inplacable spirit of a certain party still among us," and certainly the statements therein, and more than all the anthems at the end, do show the bitterest hatred—so bitter, so intense and malignant, that we feel on reading it that there must be some exaggeration. The author professes to have at first been of opinion "that the story was purely contrived on purpose to render the republicans more odious than they deserv'd." Whether he was convinced to the contrary by ocular demonstration he does not tell us, but gives us information he received from a gentleman—
The anthems for the years 1693, 1694, 1695, 1696, and 1697, are given; but they are too long and too stupidly blasphemous and indecent to quote here. They seem rather the satires of malignant cavaliers than the serious productions of any Puritan, however politically or theologically heretical. Bottesford Moors. PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.The Calotype Process.—I have made any first essay in the calotype process, following Dr. Diamond's directions given in "N. & Q.," and using Turner's paper, as recommended by him. My success has been quite as great as I could expect as a novice, and satisfies me that any defects are due to my own want of skill, and not to any fault in the directions given. I wish, however, to ask a question as to iodizing the paper. Dr. Diamond says, lay the paper on the solution; then immediately remove it, and lay on the dry side on blotting-paper, &c. Now I find, if I remove immediately, the whole sheet of paper curls up into a roll, and is quite unmanageable. I want to know, therefore, whether there is any objection to allowing the paper to remain on the iodizing solution until it lies flat on it, so that on removal it will not curl, and may be easily and conveniently laid on the dry side to pass the glass rod over it. As soon as the paper is floated on the solution (I speak of Turner's) it has a great tendency to curl, and takes some time before the expansion of both surfaces becoming equal allows it to lie quite flat on the liquid. May this operation be performed by the glass rod, without floating at all? Photographers, like myself, at a distance from practical instruction, are so much obliged for plain and simple directions such as those given by Dr. Diamond, which are the result of experience, that I am sure he will not mind being troubled with a few inquiries relative to them. Hockin's Short Sketch.—Mr. Hockin is so well known as a thoroughly practical chemist, that it may suffice to call attention to the fact of his having published a little brochure entitled How to obtain Positive and Negative Pictures on Collodionized Glass, and copy the latter upon Paper. A Short Sketch adapted for the Tyro in Photography. As the question of the alkalinity of the nitrate bath is one which has lately been discussed, we will give, as a specimen of Mr. Hockin's book, a quotation, showing his opinion upon that question:
Photographic Society's Exhibition.—The Photographic Society opened their first Exhibition of |
|
