Replies.
Reading edition
THE ASTEROIDS OR RECENTLY DISCOVERED LESSER PLANETS.
(Vol. vii., p. 211.; Vol. viii., p. 601.)
Quæstor has asked me a question to which I will not refuse a reply. If he thinks that the breaking up of a planetary world is a mere fancy, he may consult Sir John Herschel's Astronomy, § 434., in Lardner's series, ed. 1833, in which the supposition was treated as doubtful, and farther discoveries were declared requisite for its confirmation; and Professor Mitchell's Discoveries of Modern Astronomy, Lond. 1850, pp. 163-171., where such discoveries are detailed, and the progress of the proof is narrated and explained. It may be briefly stated as follows:—In the last century, Professor Bode discovered the construction of a regular series of numbers, in coincidence with which the distances of all the known planets from the sun had been arranged by their Creator, saving one exception. Calling the earth's solar distance 10, the next numbers in the series are 16, 28, 52. The distances answering to 16 and 52, on this scale, are respectively occupied by the planets Mars and Jupiter; but the position of 28 seemed unoccupied. It was not likely that the Creator should have left the methodical order of his work incomplete. A few patient observers agreed, therefore, to divide amongst themselves that part of the heavens which a planet revolving at the vacant distance might be expected to traverse; and that each should keep up a continuous examination of the portion assigned to him. And the result was the discovery by Piazzi, in 1801, of a planet revolving at the expected solar distance, but so minute that the elder Herschel computed its diameter to be no more than 163 miles. The discovery of a second by Olbers, in the following year, led him to conjecture and suggest that these were fragments of a whole, which, at its first creation, had occupied the vacant position, with a magnitude not disproportionate to that assigned to the other planets. Since then there have been, and continue to be, discoveries of more and more such fragmental planets, all moving at solar distances so close upon that numbered 28, as to pass each other almost, as has been said, within peril; but in orbits which seem capriciously elevated and depressed, when referred to the planes assigned for the course of the regular planets; so that, to most minds capable of appreciating these facts, it will seem that Olber's conjecture has been marvellously confirmed.
As to the theological conjecture appended to it in my previous communication, about which Quæstor particularly questions me, I can only say, that if he deems it rash or wrong, I have no right to throw the blame of it on any other man's shoulders, as I am not aware of its having been hazarded by any one else. But I hope he will agree with me, that if there has been a disruption of a planetary world, it cannot have arisen from any mistake or deficiency in the Creator's work or foresight, but should be respectfully regarded as the result of some moral cause.
Henry Walter.
EMBLEMATIC MEANINGS OF PRECIOUS STONES (Vol. viii., p. 539).—PLANETS OF THE MONTHS SYMBOLISED BY PRECIOUS STONES (Vol. iv., pp. 23. 164.).
The Poles have a fanciful belief that each month of the year is under the influence of a precious stone, which influence has a corresponding effect on the destiny of a person born during the respective month. Consequently, it is customary, among friends and lovers, on birth-days, to make reciprocal presents of trinkets ornamented with the natal stones. The stones and their influences, corresponding with each month, are supposed to be as follows:
January Garnet. Constancy and fidelity.
February Amethyst. Sincerity.
March Bloodstone. Courage. Presence of mind.
April Diamond. Innocence.
May Emerald. Success in love.
June Agate. Health and long life.
July Cornelian. Contented mind.
August Sardonyx. Conjugal felicity.
September Chrysolite. Antidote against madness.
October Opal. Hope.
November Topaz. Fidelity.
December Turquoise. Prosperity.
The Rabbinical writers describe a system of onomancy, according to the third branch of the Cabala, termed Notaricon, in conjunction with lithomancy. Twelve anagrams of the name of God were engraved on twelve precious stones, by which, with reference to their change of hue or brilliancy, the cabalist was enabled to foretel future events. Those twelve stones, thus engraved, were also supposed to have a mystical power over, and a prophetical relation to, the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and twelve angels or good spirits, in the following order:
Anagrams. Stones. Signs. Angels.
יהוה Ruby. Aries. Mulchediel.
יההו Topaz. Taurus. Asmodel.
יוהה Carbuncle. Gemini. Ambriel.
הוהי Emerald. Cancer. Muriel.
הויה Sapphire. Leo. Verchel.
ההיו Diamond. Virgo. Humatiel.
וההי Jacinth. Libra. Zuriel.
ויהה Agate. Scorpio. Barbiel.
הוהי Amethyst. Sagittarius. Adnachiel.
היהו Beryl. Capricornus. Humiel.
והיה Onyx. Aquarius. Gabriel.
היוה Jasper. Pisces. Barchiel.
These stones had also reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, twelve parts of the human body, twelve plants, twelve birds, twelve minerals, twelve hierarchies of devils, &c. &c. usque ad nauseum.
It is evident that all this absurd nonsense was founded on the twelve precious stones in the breast-plate of the High Priest (Exodus xxviii. 15.: see also Numbers xxvii. 28., and 1 Samuel xxviii. 6.). I may add that in the glorious description of the Holy City, in Revelation xxi., the mystical number twelve is again connected with precious stones.
In the Sympathia Septem Metallorum ac Septem Selectorum Lapidum ad Planetus, by the noted Peter Arlensis de Scudalupis, the following are the stones and metals which are recorded as sympathising with what the ancients termed the seven planets (I translate the original words):
Saturn Turquoise. Lead.
Jupiter Cornelian. Tin.
Mars Emerald. Iron.
Sun Diamond. Gold.
Venus Amethyst. Copper.
Mercury Loadstone. Quicksilver.
Moon Chrystal. Silver.
N. D. inquires in what works he will find the emblematical meanings of precious stones described. For a great deal of curious, but obsolete and useless, reading on the mystical and occult properties of precious stones, I may refer him to the following works:—Les Amours et noveaux Eschanges des Pierres Précieuses, Paris, 1576; Curiositez inouyes sur la Sculpture Talismanique, Paris, 1637; Occulta Naturæ Miracula, Antwerp, 1567; Speculum Lapidi, Aug. Vind., 1523; Les Œuvres de Jean Belot, Rouen, 1569.
W. Pinkerton.
NON-RECURRING DISEASES.
(Vol. viii., p. 516.)
To give a full and satisfactory answer to the questions here proposed would involve so much professional and physiological detail, as would be unsuited to the character of such a publication as "N. & Q." I will therefore content myself with short categorical replies, agreeable to the present state of our knowledge of these mysteries of the animal economy. It is true as a general rule that the infectious diseases, particularly the exanthemata, or those attended by eruption—the measles for example—occur but once. But there are exceptional cases, and the most virulent of these non-recurrent diseases, such even as small-pox, are sometimes taken a second time, and are then sometimes, though by no means always, fatal.
Why all the mammalia (for, be it observed, these diseases are not confined to the human race) are subject to these accidents, or why the animal economy should be subject to such a turmoil at all, or, being so subject, why the susceptibility to the recurrence of the morbid action should exist, or be revived in some and not in others; and why in the majority of persons it should be extinguished at once and for ever, remain amongst the arcana of Nature, to which, as yet, the physiology of all the Hunters, and the animal chemistry of all the Liebigs, give no solution.
Those persons who take note of the able, and in general highly instructive, reports of the Registrar of Public Health, will observe that the word zymotic is now frequently used to signify the introduction into the body of some morbific poisons,—such as prevail in the atmosphere, or are thrown off by diseased bodies, or generated in the unwholesome congregation of a crowded population, which are supposed to act like yeast in a beer vat, exciting ferments in the constitution, in the case of the infections diseases, similar to those which gave them birth. But this explains nothing, and only shifts the difficulty and changes the terms, and is no better than a modification of the opinions of our forefathers, who attributed all such disorders to a fermentation of the supposed "humours" of the body. The essence of these changes in the animal economy, like other phenomena of the living principle, remain, and perhaps ever will remain, an unfathomable mystery. It is our business to investigate, as much as in our power, and by a slow and cautious induction, the laws by which they are governed.
M. (2)
MILTON'S WIDOW.
(Vol. viii., p. 594. &c.)
Garlichithe's apologies to Mr. Hughes are due, not so much for neglecting his communications as for misquoting them. We all owe an apology to your readers for keeping up so pertinaciously a subject of which I fear they will begin to be tired.
Mr. Hughes has not stated that Richard Minshull of Chester, son of Richard Minshull, the writer of the letter of May 3, 1656, was born in 1641. What Mr. Hughes did state (Vol. viii., p. 200.) was, that Mrs. Milton's brother, Richard Minshull of Wistaston, was baptized on April 7 in that year; and the statement is quite correct, as I can vouch, from having examined the baptismal register. Richard Minshull of Chester was aged forty or forty-one at the date of his father's letter, as shown below; but even if he had been aged only fifteen, as supposed by Garlichithe, I do not see that there is anything in the language of the letter to call for observation. He had conveyed to his father a communication from Randle Holmes, and the father writes in answer,—"Deare and loveing sonne, my love and best respects to you and to my daughter [Garlichithe may read daughter-in-law if he likes, but I see no necessity for it], tendered wth trust of yr health. I have reaceived Mr. Alderman Holmes his letter, together with yrs, wherin I understand that you desire to know what I can say concerning our coming out of Minshull House;" and he proceeds to give the information asked for.
Garlichithe, in his former communication, confounds Randle the great-grandfather with Randle the great-grandson, and in his present one he confounds Richard Minshull of Chester, the uncle, with Richard Minshull of Wistaston, the nephew. I agree with Garlichithe that "he, Richard, the writer of the said letter, must be fairly presumed to have been married at the date of such letter," which he addresses to his "Deare and loveing sonne;" but what of that? Whom he married, your readers are informed at p. 595. He died in the year following his letter, at the ripe age of eighty-six.
The misquotations noticed above would, if not pointed out, lead to inextricable confusion of facts; and I am compelled therefore again to trouble you. In order, if possible, to set the matter at rest, I will put together in the form of a pedigree, compressed so as to be fit for insertion in your columns, the material facts which have been the subject of so much discussion; but, before doing so, permit me a word of protest against some of the communications alluded to, which are scarcely fair to "N. & Q."
A correspondent (Vol. vii., p. 596.) asks for information as to Milton's widow, and Mr. Hughes (Vol. viii., p. 12.) refers him to a volume in which will be found the information asked for, and gives a brief outline of the facts there stated. On this Garlichithe (Vol. viii., p. 134.), misquoting Mr. Hughes, calls his attention to Mr. Hunter's letter, which, if Garlichithe had availed himself of the reference furnished to him, he would have found duly noticed. A second correspondent, Mr. Singer, whose literary services render me unwilling to find fault with him (Vol. viii., p. 471.), heading his article with five references, of which not one is correct, suggests as new evidence the very documents to which Mr. Hughes had furnished a reference; and a third, T. P. L. (quoting an anonymous pamphlet), jumps at once to the conclusion that "there can be little doubt" the author derived his information from an authentic source, "and, if so, it seems pretty clear"—that all the evidence supplied by heralds' visitations, wills, and title-deeds is to be discarded as idle fiction. Such objections as these, and the replies which they have rendered necessary, are, with the exception of the valuable contribution of Mr. Arthur Paget, the staple of the contributions which have filled so much of your valuable space.
I conclude with my promised pedigree, the authorities for which are the Cheshire Visitation of 1663-4, and the Lancashire Visitation of 1664-5, confirmed by the letter to Randle Holmes, and the legal documents published by the Chetham Society:
John Mynshull, fourth and youngest son of John Mynshull of Mynshull, married the daughter and co-heiress of Robert Cooper of Wistaston, and founded the family subsequently settled there, as stated in his great-grandson's letter.
Randle Mynshull of Wistaston married the daughter of Rawlinson of Crewe, as stated in his grandson's letter.
Thomas Mynshull of Wistaston married Dorothy Goldsmith of Nantwich, as stated in his son's letter.
Richard Mynshull of Wistaston married Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas Goldsmith of Bosworth, in co. Leic. (who was probably maternal aunt or great-aunt to the John Goldsmith mentioned in Dr. Paget's will). He was the writer of the letters in 1656, and died in 1657, aged eighty-six. He had two daughters and three sons, viz.—
Randle Mynshull of Wistaston married Ann Boot, and had seven children, of whom it will be necessary to mention three only, viz.— Thomas Mynshull, the apothecary of Manchester, mentioned in Thomas Paget's will, aged fifty-one in 1664, had five sons and four daughters. Richard Mynshull, alderman of Chester, to whom his father wrote the letter of May 3, 1656, aged forty-seven in 1663.
Richard Mynshull, baptized April 7, 1641. On June 4, 1680, he executed a bond, by the description of Richard Mynshull of Wistaston, frame-work knitter, to Elizabeth Milton of the city of London, widow, who, though not stated to be his sister, was evidently a near relative, as appears from the contents of the bond. John Mynshull appears to have resided in Manchester, where he was buried, May 18, 1720, and administration was granted at Cheshire to Elizabeth Milton of Nantwich, widow, his lawful sister and next of kin. Elizabeth, baptized December 30, 1638, married Milton in 1664, is described as of London in the bond from her brother, on the occasion of her purchase of an estate at Brindley in Cheshire; is described as of Nantwich in three legal documents from 1713 to 1725; by the same description, administered to her brother John in 1720, and made her will on August 22, 1727, which was proved on October 10 in the same year.
J. F. Marsh.
Warrington.
TABLE-TURNING.
(Vol. viii., pp. 57. 398.)
One of the most distinguished men of science in France, M. Chevreul, the editor (late or present) of the Annales de Chimie, &c., has commenced a series of articles in the Journal des Savants on the subject of the divining-rod, the exploring pendulum, table-turning, &c., his intention being to investigate scientifically the phenomena presented in these instances. Having formerly written much on the occult sciences and being a veteran in experimental science, M. Chevreul was generally deemed better qualified than most men living to throw light on the intervention of a principle whose influence he thinks he has proved by his own proper experience. It will be better to quote his own language:
"Ce principe concerne le développement en nous d'une action musculaire qui n'est pas le produit d'une volonté, mais le résultat d'une pensée qui se porte sur un phénomène du monde extérieur sans préoccupation de l'action musculaire indispensable à la manifestation du phénomène. Cet énonce sera développé lorsque nous l'appliquerons à l'explication des faits observés par nous, et deviendra parfaitement clair, nous l'espérons, lorsque le lecteur verra qu'il est l'expression précise de ces mêmes faits."
A farther quotation (if it should not prove too long for "N. & Q.") from M. Chevreul's preliminary remarks will be thought interesting by many persons:
"En définitive, nous espérons montrer d'une manière précise comment des gens d'esprit, sous l'influence de l'amour du merveilleux, si naturel à l'homme, franchissent la limite du connu, du fini, et, dès lors, comment, ne sentant pas le besoin de soumettre à un examen réfléchi l'opinion nouvelle qui leur arrive sous le cachet du merveilleux et du surnaturel, ils adoptent soudainement ce qui, étudié froidement, rentrerait dans le domaine des faits aux causes desquels il est donné à l'homme de remonter. Existe-t-il une preuve plus forte de l'amour de l'homme pour le merveilleux, que l'accueil fait de nos jours aux tables tournantes? Nous ne le pensons pas. Plus d'un esprit fort, qui accuse ses pères de crédulité en rejetant leurs traditions religieuses contemporains de Louis XIV., ont repoussé comme impossible un traité de chimère. Ce fait confirme ce que nous avons dit de la crédulité à propos de l'Essai sur la Magie d'Eusèbe Salverte, car si l'esprit fort qui repousse la révélation ne s'appuie pas sur la méthode scientifique propre à discerner l'erreur de la vérité, l'incertain du fait démontré, il sera sans cesse exposé à adopter comme vraies les opinions les plus bizarres, les plus erronées, ou du moins les plus contestables."
The two articles hitherto published by M. Chevreul in the Journal des Savants for the months of October and November, extend only to the first-mentioned subject of these inquiries, the divining-rod. The world will probably wait with some impatience to learn the final views of so eminent a scientific man.
J. Macray.
Oxford.
CELTIC ETYMOLOGY.
(Vol. viii., pp. 229. 551.)
Your correspondent is a very Antæus. He has fallen again upon uim, and he rises up from it to defend the Heapian pronunciation with renewed vigour. But I cannot admit that he has proved the pedigree of humble from the Gaelic.
But, even if uim were the root of a Sanscrit word, and not itself a derivative, still the many stages through which the derivation undoubtedly passes, without any need of reference to the Gaelic, are quite enough to establish the existence and continuance of an aspirate, until we arrive at the French; and it has already been proved, that many words which lose the aspirate in French do not lose it in English. The progress from the Sanscrit is very clear:
Sanscrit. Kshama.
Pracrit. Khama.
Old Greek. Χάμα; whence χάμαι, χάμαζε, χθαμαλός.
Latin. Humus, humilis.
Italian. Umile; because there is in Italian no initial aspirate.
French. ’Humble; because in words of Latin origin the French almost always omit the aspirate.
English. ‘Humble.
And here it may be observed, that humilis never had, except in the Vulgate and in ecclesiastical writers, the metaphorically Christian sense to which its derivatives in modern tongues are generally confined, and to which I believe the Gaelic umhal to be strictly confined. But the original words for humble are iosal and iriosal, cognate with the Irish iosal and iriseal, and the Cymric isel; and the olden and more established words for the earth are, both in Gaelic and Irish, talamh and lar, cognate with the Cymric llawr.
All these facts lead to a reasonable suspicion that uim, umhal, and umhailteas (an evident naturalisation of a Latin word) are all derived from Latin at a comparatively recent date, as certainly as umile, humilde, ’humble, and ‘humble are, and in the same Christian sense. The omission of an aspirate in the Gaelic word is then easily accounted for, without supposing it not to exist in other languages, and for this very simple reason, that no Gaelic word commences with h. There are some Celtic roots undoubtedly in the Latin language. It would be difficult, for example, to derive mœnia, munire, gladius, vir, and virago from any other origin, but much the larger number of words, in which the two languages resemble each other, are either adoptions from the Latin or derivatives from one common source, e. g. mathair and mother, brathair and brother, as well as the Latin mater and frater, from the Sanscrit matri and bhratri, &c., as all comparative philologists are well aware. Would your correspondents call it the ’Ebrew language, because a Gael calls it, as he must do, Eabrach?
E. C. H.
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.
The Calotype Process: curling up of Paper.—I am happy in having the opportunity of replying to your correspondent C. E. F. (Vol. ix., p. 16.), because, with himself, I have found great annoyance from the curling up of some specimens of paper. In the papers recently sold as Turner's, I find this much increased upon his original make, so much so that, until I resorted to the following mode, I spoiled several sheets intended for negatives, by staining the back of the paper, and which thereby gave a difference of intensity when developed after exposure in the camera.
I have provided myself with some very thick extra white blotting-paper (procured of Sandford). This being thoroughly damped, and placed between two pieces of slate, remains so for many weeks. If the paper intended to be used is properly interleaved between this damp blotting-paper, and allowed to remain there twelve hours at least before it is to be iodized, it will be found to work most easily. It should be barely as damp as paper which is intended to be printed on. This arrangement will be found exceedingly useful for damping evenly cardboard and printed positives when they are intended to be mounted, so as to ensure their perfect flatness.
It is quite immaterial whether the paper is floated on a solution or applied with a glass rod. If a very few sheets are to be manipulated upon, then, for economy, the glass rod is preferable; but if several, the floating has the advantage, because it ensures the most even application. I sent you a short paragraph (Vol. ix., p. 32.) showing how we may be deceived in water-marks upon paper; and when we are supposing ourselves to be using a paper of a particular date, in fact we are not doing so.
I would also caution your photographic correspondents from being deceived in the quality of a paper by the exceeding high gloss which is given it by extra hot-pressing. This is very pleasing to the eye, and would be a great advantage if the paper were to remain dry; but in the various washings and soakings which it undergoes in the several processes before the perfect picture is formed, the artificial surface is entirely removed, and it is only upon a paper of a natural firm and even make that favourable results will be procured.
H. W. Diamond.
Turner's Paper.—There is great difficulty in procuring good paper of Turner's make; he having lately undertaken a contract for Government in making paper for the new stamps, the manufacture of paper for photographic purposes has been to him of little importance. In fact, this observation, of the little importance of photographic compared to other papers, applies to all our great paper-makers, who have it in their power to make a suitable article. Mr. Towgood of St. Neots has been induced to manufacture a batch expressly for photography; but we regret to say that, although it is admirably adapted for albumenizing and printing positives, it is not favourable for iodizing, less so than his original make for ordinary purposes. All manufacturers, in order to please the eye, use bleaching materials, which deteriorate the paper chemically. They should be thoroughly impressed with the truth, that colour is of little consequence. A bad-coloured paper is of no importance; it is the extraneous substances in the paper itself which do the mischief.
Ed.
A Practical Photographic Query.—I have never had a practical lesson on photography. I have worked it out as far as I could myself, and I have derived much information in reading the pages of "N. & Q.," so that now I consider myself (although we are all apt to flatter ourselves) an average good manipulator. Independently of the information you have afforded me, I have read all the works upon photography which I could procure; and as the most extensive one is that by Mr. Robert Hunt, I went to the Exhibition of the Photographic Society just opened, thinking I might there see his works, and gain that information from an inspection of them which I desired. My disappointment was great on finding that Mr. Hunt does not exhibit, nor have I been able to see any of his specimens elsewhere. May I ask if Mr. Hunt ever attempts anything practically, or is it to the theory of photography alone that he directs his attention?
I begin to fear, unless he lets a little of each go hand-in-hand, that he will mislead some of us amateurs, although I am quite sure unintentionally; for personally I much respect him, having a high opinion of his scientific attainments.
A Reader of all Books on Photography.