Notes and Queries, Number 29, May 18, 1850. Various
who visits churchyards at midnight. One witness nearly fainted away at seeing it, and on bringing his neighbours to see the place where he saw it, he found a large spot as if gunpowder had been exploded there. A lane in the parish of Overstrand is called, after him, Shuck's Lane. The name appears to be a corruption of "shag," as shucky is the Norfolk dialect for "shaggy." Is not this a vestige of the German "Dog-fiend?"
QUERIES
NUMISMATIC QUERIES
Can any numismatical contributor give me any information as to the recurrence elsewhere, &c., of the following types of coins in my possession:—
1. A coin of the size of Roman 1 B., of the province of Macedonia Prima.—Obv. A female head, with symbols behind, and a rich floriated edge: Rev. A club within an oaken garland: Legend in the field, ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΗΣ.
The type is illustrated by Dr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Bible, in explanation of Acts, xvi. 11, 12. The specimen in my possession is in lead, finely struck, and therefore not a cast, and in all respects equal in point of sharpness and execution to the silver of the same size and type in the British Museum; and was dug up by a labourer at Chesterton, near Cambridge. How is the metal of which my specimen is composed to be accounted for?
2. A 3 B. coin apparently by the portrait of Tiberius.—Legend defaced: Rev. The type known by collectors as the altar of Lyons: Ex. (ROM)AE ET AV(G.)
3. A 3 B. of Herennia Estruscilla.—Rev. The usual seated figure of Pudicitia; and the Legend, PVDICITIA AVG.
According to Col. Smyth, Akermann, and other authorities, no third brass of this empress exists; but the specimen before me has been decided as undoubtedly genuine by many competent judges.
4. A 3 B. coin of the Emperor Macrinus, struck in some of the provinces.—Obv. A bearded portrait of the emperor: Leg., AVT. K.M.O.C.C. MAKPINOC: Rev. An archaic S.C. in a laurel garland, above L and beneath C. I am anxious to know to what locality I may ascribe this coin, as I have not been able to find it described.
QUERIES PROPOSED, NO. 2
When reflecting on my various pen-and-ink skirmishes, I have sometimes half-resolved to avoid controversy. The resolution would have been unwise; for silence, on many occasions, would be a dereliction of those duties which we owe to ourselves and the public.
The halcyon days, so much desired, may be far distant! I have to comment, elsewhere, on certain parts of the Report of the commissioners on the British Museum—which I hope to do firmly, yet respectfully; and on the evidence of Mr. Panizzi—in which task I must not disappoint his just expectations. I have also to propose a query on the blunder of Malone—to which I give precedence, as it relates to Shakspeare.
The query is—have I "mistaken the whole affair"? A few short paragraphs may enable others to decide.
1. The question at issue arose, I presume to say, out of the statement of Mr. Jebb. I never quoted the Irish edition. If C. can prove that Malone superintended it, he may fairly tax me with a violation of my new canon of criticism—not otherwise. What says Mr. James Boswell on that point? I must borrow his precise words: "The only edition for which Mr. Malone can be considered as responsible [is] his own in 1790." [Plays and poems of W.S. 1821, i. xxxiii.]
2. I am said to have "repeated what C. had already stated."—I consulted the Shakspere of Malone, and verified my recollections, when the query of "Mr. JEBB" appeared—but forbore to notice its misconceptions. Besides, one C., after an interval of two months, merely asserted that it was not a blunder of Malone; the other C. furnished, off-hand, his proofs and references.
3. To argue fairly, we must use the same words in the same sense. Now C. (No. 24. p. 386.) asserts the Malone had never seen the introductory fragment; and asks, who forged it? He uses the word fabrication in the sense of forgery.—The facts are produced (No. 25. p. 404.). He is informed that the audacious fabrication, which took place before 1770, was first published by Malone himself, in 1790—yet he expects me to apply the same terms to the blunder committed by another editor in 1794.
4. As an answer to my assertion that the Irish editor attempted to unite the two fragments, C. proceeds to prove that he did not unite them. The procedure is rather defective in point of logical exactness. It proves only what was not denied. Malone refers to the will of John Shakspere, found by Joseph Moseley, with sufficient clearness; and it is charitable to assume that the Irish editor intended to observe the instructions of his precursor. He failed, it seems—but why? It would be useless to go in search of the rationale of a blunder.
Have I "mistaken the whole affair"?—I entreat those readers of the "NOTES AND QUERIES" who may take up the affirmative side of the question to point out my errors, whether as to facts or inferences.
AUTHORS WHO HAVE PRIVATELY PRINTED THEIR OWN WORKS
Can any of your readers refer me to any source whence I can obtain an account of "JOHN PAINTER, B.A. of St. John's College, Oxford?" He appears to have been a very singular character, and fond of printing (privately) his own lucubrations; to most of which he subscribes himself "The King's Fool." Three of these privately printed tracts are now before me:—1. The Poor Man's Honest Praises and Thanksgiving, 1746. 2. An Oxford Dream, in Two Parts, 1751. 3. A Scheme designed for the Benefit of the Foundling Hospital, 1751.
Who was ROBERT DEVERELL, who privately printed, in 4to., Andalusia; or Notes tending to show that the Yellow Fever was well known to the Ancients? The book seems a mass of absurdity; containing illustrations of Milton's Comus, and several other subjects equally incongruous.
MINOR QUERIES
Seager a Painter.—Marlow's Autograph.—In a MS., which has lately been placed in my hands, containing a copy of Henry Howard's translation of the last instructions given by the Emperor Charles V. to his son Philip, transcribed by Paul Thompson about the end of the sixteenth century, are prefixed some poems in a different handwriting. The first of these is an eclogue, entitled Amor Constans, in which the dialogue is carried on by "Dickye" and "Bonnybootes," and begins thus:—"For shame, man, wilt thou never leave this sorrowe?" At the end is the signature, "Infortunatus, Ch.M." Following this eclogue are sixteen sonnets, signed also "Ch.M.;" in two of which the author alludes to a portrait painter named Seager. One of these sonnets commences thus:—
"Whilest thou in breathinge cullers, crimson white,
Drewst these bright eyes, whose language sayth to me.
Loe! the right waye to heaven; Love stoode by the(e),
Seager! fayne to be drawne in cullers brighte," &c.
I should be glad to receive any information respecting this painter: as also any hints as to the name of the poet Ch. M. May I add, also, another Query? Is any authentic writing or signature of Christopher Marlow known to exist?
MS. Diary of the Convention Parliament of 1660.—The editors of the Parliamentary History give some passages from a MS. Diary of the Convention Parliament of the Restoration, and state that the Diary was communicated to them by the Rev. Charles Lyttleton, Dean of Exeter (vol. iv. p. 73.). I am anxious to know where this Diary now is, and if it may be seen by—
Etymology of Totnes.—Can any of your readers suggest a probable etymology for Totnes, the "prime town of Great Britain," as it is called by Westcote1, who supposes it to have been built by Brutus, 1108 years before the Christian era. Mr. Polwhele, who supposed the numerous Hams in Devon to have owed their names to the worship of Jupiter Hammon, would, I imagine, have derived Totnes from the Egyptian god Thoth or Taut; or, perhaps,