Notes.

THE EYE: ITS PRIMARY IDEA.

I do not remember to have remarked that any writer notices how uniformly, in almost all languages, the same primary idea has been attached to the eye. This universal consent is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the connexion in question, though of course most appropriate and significant in itself, hardly seems to indicate the most prominent characteristic, or what we should deem to be par excellence the obvious qualities of the eye; in a word, we should scarcely expect a term derived from a physical attribute or property.

The eye is suggestive of life, of divinity, of intellect, piercing acuteness (acies); and again, of truth, of joy, of love: but these seem to have been disregarded, as being mere indistinctive accidents, and the primary idea which, by the common consent of almost all nations, has been thought most properly to symbolise this organ is a spring—fons, πηγή.

Thus, from עִין, manare, scatere, a word not in use, according to Fuerst, we have the Hebrew עַיִן, fons aquarum et lacrimarum, h. e. oculus. This word however, in its simple form, seems to have almost lost its primary signification, being used most generally in its secondary—oculus. (Old Testament Hebrew version, passim.) In the sense of fons, its derivative מַעְיָן is usually substituted.

Precisely the same connexion of ideas is to be found in the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the Arabic.

Again, in the Greek we find the rarely-used word ὀπή, a fountain, or more properly the eye, whence it wells out,—the same form as ὀπή, oculus; ὢψ, ὄψις, ὄπτομαι. Thus, in St. James his Epistle, cap. iii. 11.: μήτι ἡ πηγὴ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ὀπῆς βρύει τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν.

In the Welsh, likewise, a parallel case occurs: Llygad, an eye, signifies also the spring from which water flows, as in the same passage of St. James: a ydyw ffynnon o'r un llygad (from one spring or eye) yn rhoi dwfr melus a chwerw?

On arriving at the Teutonic or old German tongue, we find the same connexion still existing: Avg, auga,—oculus; whence ougen ostendere—Gothis augo; and awe, auge, ave, campus ad amnem. (Vid. Schilteri, Thes., vol. iii. ad voc.) And here we cannot help noticing the similarity between these words and the Hebrew יְאֹר, which (as well as the Coptic iaro) means primarily a river or stream from a spring; but, according to Professor Lee, is allied to אוֹר, light, the enlightenment of the mind, the opening of the eyes; and he adds, "the application of the term to water, as running, translucid, &c., is easy." Here, then, is a similar connexion of ideas with a change in the metaphor.

In the dialects which descended from the Teutonic in the Saxon branch, the connexion between these two distinct objects is also singularly preserved. It is to be found in the Low German, the Friesic, and the Anglo-Saxon. In the latter we have eá, eah, eagor, a welling, flowing stream; eah, ægh, eage, an eye, which might be abundantly illustrated.

We could hardly fail to find in Shakspeare some allusion to these connected images in the old tongue; no speck of beauty could exist and escape his ken. Thus:

Many of the phrases of the ancient tongues, in which the eye bears a part, have been handed down to us, and are still preserved in our own. My space, however, forbids me to do more than allude to them; but there is one very forcible expression in the Hebrew עַיִן בְּעַיִן, literally, eye in eye, which we render much less forcibly—face to face. The Welsh have preserved it exactly in their llygad yn llygad. Indeed, this is not the only instance in which they are proud of having handed down the Hebrew idiom in all its purity. Shakspeare twice uses the old phrase:

And in Tro. and Cres., Act III. Sc. 3; but it appears now to be obsolete.

Before concluding, I cannot help noticing, in connexion with this subject, the Old English term "the apple of the eye." I am unable to trace it beyond the Anglo-Saxon. The Teutonic sehandes ougen, pupilla oculi, is totally distinct; seha being merely medius punctus oculi, whence sehan, videre. In the Semitic languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin, the origin of the term is the same, and gives no clue to the meaning of the Saxon term. Thus, in the Hebrew אִישׁוֹן, dim. of אִישׁ, homunculus, the small image of a person seen in the eye. In Arabic it is the man or daughter of the eye. In Greek we have κόρη, κοράσιον, κορασίδον; and in Latin, pupa, pupula, pupilla.

Has any light been thrown on the Anglo-Saxon term? Can it be that iris, not the pupil, is taken to represent an apple? The pupil itself would then be the eye of the apple of the eye.

H. C. K.

—— Rectory, Hereford.

GOSSIPING HISTORY—DE QUINCEY'S ACCOUNT OF HATFIELD.

In proof of the severity with which the laws against forgery were enforced, I have been referred to the case of Hatfield, hanged in 1803 for forging franks. It is given very fully in Mr. De Quincey's "Literary Recollections of Coleridge" in the first volume of the Boston edition of his Works.

The story has some romance in it, and excited great interest fifty years ago. Hatfield had lived by swindling; and, though he underwent an imprisonment for debt, had, upon the whole, a long career of success. The last scene of his depredations was the Lakes, where he married a barmaid, who was called "The Beauty of Buttermere." Shortly after the marriage he was arrested, tried, and executed. Mr. De Quincey afterwards lived in the neighbourhood, dined at the public-house kept by Mary's father, and was waited upon by her. He had the fullest opportunities of getting correct information: and his version of the story is so truthlike, that I should have accepted it without hesitation but for the hanging for forging a frank. As that offence never was capital, and was made a felony punishable with transportation for seven years by 42 Geo. III. c. 63., I was impelled to compare the statement founded on gossip with more formal accounts; and I send the result in illustration of the small reliance which is to be placed on tradition in such matters. The arrival of Hatfield in a carriage is graphically described. He called himself the Hon. Augustus Hope, brother of the Earl of Hopetoun. Some doubts were felt at first, but—

"To remove suspicion, he not only received letters addressed to him under this assumed name, but he continually franked letters by that name. Now, that being a capital offence, being not only a forgery, but (as a forgery on the Post-office) sure to be prosecuted, nobody presumed to question his pretensions any longer; and henceforward he went to all places with the consideration due to an earl's brother."—P. 196.

The marriage with Mary Robinson, and the way in which they passed the honeymoon, are described:

"They continued to move backwards and forwards, until at length, with the startling of a thunderclap to the affrighted mountaineers, the bubble burst; officers of justice appeared, the stranger was easily intercepted from flight, and, upon a capital charge, he was borne away to Carlisle. At the ensuing assizes he was tried for forgery on the prosecution of the Post-office, found guilty, left for execution, and executed accordingly."—P. 199.

"One common scaffold confounds the most flinty hearts and the tenderest. However, it was in some measure the heartless part of Hatfield's conduct which drew upon him his ruin; for the Cumberland jury, as I have been told, declared their unwillingness to hang him for having forged a frank; and both they, and those who refused to aid his escape when first apprehended, were reconciled to this harshness entirely by what they heard of his conduct to their injured young fellow-countrywoman."—P. 201.

Hatfield was not "easily intercepted from flight." Sir Frederick Vane granted a warrant to apprehend him on the charge of forcing franks. Hatfield ordered dinner at the Queen's Head, Keswick, to be ready at three; took a boat, and did not return. This was on October 6: he was married to Mary on the 2nd. In November he was apprehended near Brecknock, in Wales: so those who refused to aid his escape, if such there were, were not "reconciled to the hardship by what they heard of his conduct to their young fellow-countrywoman." The "startling of the thunderclap" was preceded by an ordinary proclamation, describing the offender, and offering a reward of 50l. for his apprehension. He was not "hurried away to Carlisle," but deliberately taken to London on December 12; examined at Bow Street, remanded three times, and finally committed; and sent to Carlisle, where he was tried on August 15, 1803.

Three indictments were preferred against him: the first for forging a bill of exchange for 20l., drawn by Alexander Augustus Hope on John Crump, payable to George Wood; the second for a similar bill for 30l.; and the third for counterfeiting Colonel Hope's handwriting to defraud the Post-office.

The Cumberland jury did not "declare their unwillingness to hang him for forging a frank," that not being a capital offence. I infer, also, that it was one for which he was not tried. He was convicted on the first indictment; the court rose immediately after the jury had given their verdict; and the prisoner was called up for judgment at eight the next morning. Trying a man under sentence of death for a transportable felony, is contrary to all practice. Hatfield was executed at Carlisle on September 3, 1803.

Mary's misfortunes induced the sympathising public to convert her into a minor heroine. She seems to have been a common-place person, with small claims to the title of "The Beauty of Buttermere." A cotemporary account says, "she is rather gap-toothed and somewhat pock-marked." And Mr. De Quincey, after noticing her good figure, says, "the expression of her countenance was often disagreeable."

"A lady, not very scrupulous in her embellishment of facts, used to tell an anecdote of her which I hope was exaggerated. Some friend of hers, as she affirmed, in company with a large party, visited Buttermere a day or two after that on which Hatfield suffered; and she protested that Mary threw on the table, with an emphatic gesture, the Carlisle paper containing an elaborate account of the execution."—P. 204.

Considering the treatment she had received, it is not unlikely that her love, if she ever had any for a fat man of forty-five, was turned into hatred; and it was not to be expected that her taste would keep down the manifestation of such feeling. When Hatfield was examined at Bow Street, Sir Richard Ford, the chief magistrate, ordered the clerk to read aloud a letter which he received from her. It was:

"Sir,—The man whom I had the misfortune to marry, and who has ruined me and my aged and unhappy parents, always told me that he was the Hon. Colonel Hope, the next brother to the Earl of Hopetoun.

"Your grateful and unfortunate servant, "Mary Robinson."

I do not blame Mr. De Quincey, having no doubt that he believed what he was told; but I have put together these facts and discrepancies, to show how careful we should be in accepting traditions, when a man of very high ability, with the best opportunities of getting at the truth, was so egregiously misled.

My authorities are, The Annual Register, 1803, pp. 421. and 428.; The Gentleman's Magazine, 1803, pp. 779. 876. and 983.; Kirby's Wonderful Magazine, vol. i. pp. 309. and 336. The Newgate Calendar gives a similar account but not having it at hand, I cannot vouch it.

H. B. C.

U. U. Club.

NOTES UPON THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE EARLY INHABITANTS OF HELLAS.

I. I have never seen it yet noticed, that the names Pyrrha, Æolus, Xuthus, Ion, are all names of colours. Is there anything in this, or is it fortuitous?

II. In accordance with the above, I think we may refer most of the names of the early inhabitants of Greece to words denoting light or colour, or the like.

(1.) Pelas-gi. The first part of this word is, by Mr. Donaldson, connected with μέλ-ας, which is also, probably, the root of Mol-ossi.

(2.) Hellenes, connected with Helli, Selli, σέλας, εὕλη, ἥλιος. This derivation is made more probable by the fact, that the neighbouring Pelasgic tribes have a similar meaning; e.g.,

Perrhæbi, alike to Pyrrha and πῦρ; Æthices, αἴθω, Tymphæi, τύφω; Hestiæi, ἑστία. Add to this, that the name Phthiotis seems indubitably to derive its name from Phthah, the Egyptian Hephæstus, and to be a translation of the word Hellas.

N.B.—The existence of an Egyptian colony in that part is attested by the existence of a Phthiotic Thebæ.

(3.) On the other hand, the word Achæus seems to be connected with ἄχος, ἀχνύμαι, and ἄχλυς in the sense of gloom (of οὐράνιον ἄχος). So the Homeric Cimmerians are derived from כִּמְרִירִי (Job), denoting darkness.

(4.) Lastly, I submit with great diffidence the following examination of the words Dorus and the Æolian Minyæ, which I shall attempt to derive from words denoting sun and moon respectively.

The word Dorus I assume to be connected with the first part of the names Dry-opes and Dol-opes. The metathesis in the first case seems sanctioned by the analogy of the Sanscrit drî and Greek δείρω, and the mutation of l and r in the second is too common in Greek and Latin to admit of any doubt, e.g. ἀρ-γαλέος and ἀλγαλέτος; Sol and Soracte. With this premised, I think we may be justified in connecting the following words with one another.

Dores, Dryopes with Σείριος (of Σιός and Δῖος) Θέρος, the Scythian sun-god Οἰτό-συρυς, the Egyptian O-siris, and perhaps the Hebrew דוֹר and Greek δηρὸς (the course of the sun being the emblem of eternity).—Dol-opes with Sol, εἵλη, Selli, &c.

On the other hand, the neighbouring Minyæ seem connected with μινύθω, μίνυνθα, minus,—all with the sense of decreasing or waning; hence referable, both in sense and (I fancy) in derivation, to Greek μὴν, and Latin men-sis.

J. H. J.

SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. IX.

"The ass was to wear the shoes, and not to bear them on his back, as Theobald supposed, and therefore would read shows. The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to by our old poets, as the ex pede Herculem was a familiar allusion of the learned." (Mr. Knight in 1839.)

Fourteen years' additional consideration has not altered Mr. Knight's view of this passage. In 1853 we find him putting forth a prospectus for a new edition of Shakspeare, to be called "The Stratford Edition," various portions from which he sets before the public by way of sample. Here we have over again the same note as above, a little diversified, and placed parallel to Theobald's edition in this way:

"The folio reads 'Great Alcides' shoes.' Theobald says, 'But why shoes, in the name of propriety? For let Hercules and his shoes have been really as big as they were ever supposed to be, yet they (I mean the shoes) would not have been an overload for an ass.'" "The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to in our old poets, as the ex pede Herculem was a familiar allusion of the learned. It was not necessary that the ass should be overloaded with the shoes—he might be shod (shoed) with them."

Now who, in reading these parallel notes, but would suppose that it is Mr. Knight who restores shoes to the text, and that it is Mr. Knight who points out the common allusion by our old poets to the shoes of Hercules? Who would imagine that the substance of this correction of Theobald was written by Steevens a couple of generations back, and that, consequently, Theobald's proposed alteration had never been adopted?

I should not think of pointing out this, but that Mr. Knight himself, in this same prospectus, has taken Mr. Collier to task for the very same thing; that is, for taking credit, in his Notes and Emendations, for all the folio MS. corrections, whether known or unknown, necessary or unnecessary.

Indeed, the very words of Mr. Knight's complaint against Mr. Collier are curiously applicable to himself:

"It requires the most fixed attention to the nice distinctions of such constantly-recurring 'notes and emendations,' to disembarrass the cursory reader from the notion that these are bonâ fide corrections of the common text....

"Who cares to know what errors are corrected in" (the forthcoming Stratford edition), "that exist in no other, and which have never been introduced into the modern text?"—Specimen, &c., p. xxiv.

The impression one would receive from Mr. Knight's note upon Theobald is, that Shakspeare had his notion of the shoes from "our old poets," while the learned had theirs from ex pede Herculem; but where the analogy lies, wherein the point, or what the application, is not explained. Steevens' original note was superior to this, in so much that he quoted the words of these old poets, thereby giving his readers an opportunity of considering the justness of the deduction. The only set-off to this omission by Mr. Knight is the introduction of "ex pede Herculem," the merit of which is doubtless his own.

But it so happens that the size of the foot of Hercules has no more to do with the real point of the allusion than the length of Prester John's; therefore ex pede Herculem is a most unfortunate illustration,—particularly awkward in a specimen sample, the excellence of which may be questioned.

It is singular enough, and it says a great deal for Theobald's common sense, that he saw what the true intention of the allusion must be, although he did not know how to reconcile it with the existing letter of the text. He wished to preserve the spirit by the sacrifice of the letter, while Mr. Knight preserves the letter but misinterprets the spirit.

Theobald's word "shows," in the sense of externals, is very nearly what Shakspeare meant by shoes, except that shoes implies a great deal more than shows,—it implies the assumption of the character as well as the externals of Hercules.

Out of five quotations from our old poets, given by Steevens in the first edition of his note, there is not one in which the shoes are not provided with feet. But Malone, to his immortal honour, was the first to furnish them with hoofs:

But Shakspeare nowhere alludes to feet! His ass most probably had feet, and so had Juvenal's verse (when he talks of his "satyrâ sumente cothurnum"); but neither Shakspeare nor Juvenal dreamed of any necessary connexion between the feet and the shoes.

Therein lies the difference between Shakspeare and "our old poets;" a difference that ought to be sufficient, of itself, to put down the common cry,—that Shakspeare borrowed his allusions from them. If so, how is it that his expositors, with these old poets before their eyes all this time, together with their own scholarship to boot, have so widely mistaken the true point of his allusion? It is precisely because they have confined their researches to these old poets, and have not followed Shakspeare to the fountain head.

There is a passage in Quintilian which, very probably, has been the common source of both Shakspeare's version, and that of the old poets; with this difference, that he understood the original and they did not.

Quintilian is cautioning against the introduction of solemn bombast in trifling affairs:

"To get up," says he, "this sort of pompous tragedy about mean matters, is as though you would dress up children with the mask and buskins of Hercules."

["Nam in parvis quidem litibus has tragœdias movere tale est quale si personam Herculis et cothurnos aptare infantibus velis."]

Here the addition of the mask proves that the allusion is purely theatrical. The mask and buskins are put for the stage trappings, or properties, of the part of Hercules: of these, one of the items was the lion's skin; and hence the extreme aptitude of the allusion, as applied by the Bastard, in King John, to Austria, who was assuming the importance of Cœur de Lion!

It is interesting to observe how nearly Theobald's plain, homely sense, led him to the necessity of the context. The real points of the allusion can scarcely be expressed in better words than his own:

"Faulconbridge, in his resentment, would say this to Austria, 'That lion's skin which my great father, King Richard, once wore, looks as uncouthly on thy back, as that other noble hide, which was borne by Hercules, would look on the back of an ass!' A double allusion was intended: first, to the fable of the ass in the lion's skin; then Richard I. is finely set in competition with Alcides, as Austria is satirically coupled with the ass."

One step farther, and Theobald would have discovered the true solution: he only required to know that the shoes, by a figure of rhetoric called synecdoche, may stand for the whole character and attributes of Hercules, to have saved himself the trouble of conjecturing an ingenious, though infinitely worse word, as a substitute.

As for subsequent annotators, it must be from the mental preoccupation of this unlucky "ex pede Herculem," that they have so often put their foot in it. They have worked up Alcides' shoe into a sort of antithesis to Cinderella's; and, like Procrustes, they are resolved to stretch everything to fit.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

GÖTHE'S AUTHOR-REMUNERATION.

The Note in your valuable Journal (Vol. vii., p. 591.) requires, I think, so far as it relates to Göthe, several corrections which I am in the position of making. The amount which that great man is said to have received for his "works (aggregate)" is "30,000 crowns." The person who originally printed this statement must have been completely ignorant of Göthe's affairs, and even biography. Göthe had (unlike Byron) several publishers in his younger years. Subsequently he became closer connected with M. J. G. Cotta of Stuttgardt, who, in succession, published almost all Göthe's works. Amongst them were several editions of his complete works: for instance, that published conjointly at Vienna and Stuttgardt. Then came, in 1829, what was called the edition of the last hand (Ausgabe letzter Hand), as Göthe was then more than eighty years of age. During all the time these two editions were published, other detached new works of Göthe were also printed; as well as new editions of former books, &c. Who can now say that it was 20,000 crowns (thalers?) which the great poet received for each various performance?—No one. And this for many reasons. Göthe always remained with M. Cotta on terms of polite acquaintanceship, no more: there was no "My dear Murray" in their strictly business-like connexion. Göthe also never wrote on such things, even in his biography or diary. But some talk was going around in Germany, that for one of the editions of his complete works (there appeared still many volumes of posthumous), he received the above sum. I can assert on good authority, that Göthe, foreseeing his increasing popularity even long after his death, stipulated with M. Cotta to pay his heirs a certain sum for every new edition of either his complete or single works. One of the recipients of these yet current accounts is Baron Wolfgang von Göthe, Attaché of the Prussian Legation at Rome.

A Foreign Surgeon.

Charlotte Street, Bloomsbury Square.