Volume 3 — Notes.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHAUCER, NO. VIII. (Vol. iii., pp. 388. 420.)

The Armorican Word "Menez."

I have been induced, in consequence of the scene of one of the Canterbury Tales being

"In Armorike that called is Bretaigne,"

to re-examine that tale (the Frankleine's) in the expectation that in it, if anywhere, some light might be thrown upon this newly discovered Chaucerian word "menez"; and I think I have succeeded in detecting its use in the sense of points or summits of rocks emerging from the surface of the water.

But in weighing the probability of this being the true sense in which it is used in the present instance by Chaucer, the wide applicability of the word "means" in its usual acceptation of instrument to an end, must not be lost sight of. There is scarcely the name of any one thing for which "means" may not be made a plausible substitution; so much so, that if a man were to ask for a hat to cover his head, his demand would be quite intelligible if expressed by "a means" to cover his head.

I make this proviso as an answer to the probable objection, that "menes," in its usual acceptation, gives sufficiently good sense to the passage in question; it may do so, and still not be the sense intended by the author.

The footing on which I wish to place the inquiry is this:

1st. We have an Armorican word which it is desirable to prove was known to, and used by, Chaucer.

2dly. We find this identical word in a tale written by him, of which the scene is Armorica.

3dly. It bears, however, a close resemblance to another word of different meaning, which different meaning happens also to afford a plausible sense to the same passage.

The question then is, in case this latter meaning should not appear to be better, nor even so good, as that afforded by the word of which we are in search, shall we not give that word the preference, and thereby render it doubly blessed, giving and receiving light?

In coming to a decision, it is necessary to take in the whole context. Arviragus and Dorigene live in wedded happiness, until the former, leaving his wife, takes shipping

Dorigene, inconsolable at his loss, sits upon the sea-shore, and views with horror the "grisly, fendly, rockes," with which the coast is studded, in every one of which she sees certain destruction to her husband in his return. She accuses the gods of injustice in forming these rocks for the sole apparent purpose of destroying man, so favoured in other respects, and she concludes her apostrophe in these words,—

Undoubtedly, in the third of these lines, "menes" seems to have a perfectly good meaning in the sense of instrument, or means to destroy. But, in the last line, the same sense is not so obvious—"means to destroy" must necessarily be destructive, and Chaucer would never be guilty of the unmeaning truism of repeating—"means which do no good but ever annoy."

Moreover, I am not aware that the accent is ever thrown upon the silent e where the signification of "mene" is an instrument—

but in the lines under discussion the last syllable in both cases is accented, agreeing in that respect with the Armorican sound—"menez."

Let us now examine whether the Armorican sense is capable of giving a perfect meaning to both lines? That sense is, a rocky ridge or emerging summit. Let us substitute the word rockēs for menēz, and then try what meaning the passage receives.

Here the sense is perfect in both lines—a sense, too, that is in exact keeping with Dorigene's previous complaint of THE USELESSNESS of these rocks—

I therefore propose the following as the true reading of the passage in question: viz.,

And if I have succeeded in making good this position we no longer stand in need of a precedent for the same reading in the case of—"In menez libra."

A. E. B.

Leeds, May 31. 1851.

P.S. I have been favoured, through the publisher of "NOTES AND QUERIES," with an obliging note from S.S.S. (2), communicating some authorities, of which the most germane to this subject are—

1. From Archæologia Britannica (Edward Lhuyd. Oxford, 1707): "Armoric, Men, a stone; menez, a mountain."

2. From Walter's Welsh Dictionary: "Welsh, Maen, a stone; maen terfyn, a boundary stone; maen mawr, a large stone."

FOLK TALK: "EYSELL", "CAPTIOUS."

If folk lore be worthy of a place in your columns, folk talk should not be shut out, and that the etymological solutions, gathered from this source, which I have previously forwarded, have not appeared, is doubtless attributable to some other cause than indifferentism to the authority. I have found many inexplicable words and phrases, occurring in the older writers, rendered plain and highly expressive by folk talk definitions; and a glance at the relative positions of the common people of this day, and the writers of the past, to the educated and scholarly world of the nineteenth century, will suffice to show good reasons for a discriminative reference to the language of the one, for the elucidation of the other's expression. In common with the majority of your readers, as I should think, I found the notes and replies on "eysell" and "captious" to be highly interesting, and of course applied to the folk talk for its definition. In the first case I obtained from my own experience, what I think will be a satisfactory clue to its meaning, and something more in addition. There is a herb of an acid taste, the common name for which—the only one with which I am acquainted—is green-sauce; and this herb is, or rather was, much sought after by children in my boyish days. At a public school not a dozen miles from Stratford-on-Avon, it was a common practice for we lads to spend our holidays in roaming about the fields; and among objects of search, this green-sauce was a prominent one, and it was a point of honour with each of us to notify to the others the discovery of a root of green-sauce. In doing this, the discoverer, after satisfying himself by his taste that the true herb was found, followed an accepted course, and signified his success to his companions by raising his voice and shouting, what I have always been accustomed to write, "Hey-sall." I have no knowledge of the origin of this word; it was with us as a school-rule so to use it; and I have no doubt but that "ey-sell" was in Shakspeare's time the popular name for the herb to which I allude.

Mixing much with the rural population of Warwickshire, I have, on many occasions, seen the word "captious" used in the sense of carping, irritable, unthankfulness, and self-willed; and, in my humble opinion, such a rendering would be more in accordance with the character of the fiction, and the poet's early teaching, than any definition I have yet seen in your pages.

EMUN.

AN OLD MAN WHOSE FATHER LIVED IN THE TIME OF OLIVER CROMWELL.

[We are indebted to the kindness of the Rev. THOMAS CORSER for the opportunity of preserving in our columns the following interesting notice, from the Manchester Guardian of the 19th August, 1843, of the subject of his communication in our No. for May 31. (No. 83, p. 421.)]

Having heard of the extraordinary circumstance of an old man named James Horrocks, in his hundredth year, living in Harwood, about three miles from Bolton, whose father lived in the time of Oliver Cromwell, we took an opportunity, a few days ago, of visiting this venerable descendant of a sire who was contemporary with the renowned Protector. Until within the last few years he resided at Hill End, a small estate left him by an uncle when he was about twenty-six years old; but both his surviving daughters being married, and himself growing feeble, and his sight failing him, he left the land and went to reside with his eldest daughter, Margaret, and his son-in-law, John Haslam, at a place called "The Nook," near the Britannia, in Harwood. Here we found the old man, surrounded with every comfort which easy circumstances and affectionate friends can afford, and, to use his own language, "neither tired of living, nor yet afraid to die." He is a remarkably good-looking old man, with long, silvery locks, and a countenance beaming with benevolence and good nature. He has nearly lost the use of his eye-sight, and is a little dull of hearing, yet he is enabled to walk about. The loss of his sight he regrets most of all, as it prevents him from spending his time in reading, to which he was before accustomed; and, as he remarked, also denies him the pleasure of looking upon his children and his old friends. He converses with remarkable cheerfulness for one of his years. As an instance, we may mention, that, on observing to him that he must have been a tall man in his youth, he sprang up from his arm chair with the elasticity of middle age, rather than the decrepitude usually accompanying those few who are permitted to spin out the thread of life to the extent of a century, and, with a humorous smile upon his countenance, put his hands to his thighs, and stood as straight as an arrow against a gentleman nearly six feet, remarking, at the same time, "I don't think I am much less now than ever I was." He stands now about five feet eight inches and a half. A short time ago, on coming down stairs in the morning, he observed to his daughter, with his accustomed good humour, and buoyancy of spirit, "I wonder what I shall dream next; I dreamt last night that I was going to be married again; and who knows but I could find somebody that would have me yet." His son-in-law is an old grey-headed man, much harder of hearing than himself; and it frequently happens, that when any of the family are endeavouring to explain anything to him, old James will say, "Stop, and I'll insense him;" and his lungs seldom fail in the undertaking.

From this interesting family we learn, that William Horrocks, the father of the present James, of whom we have been speaking, was born in 1657, four years after Oliver Cromwell was declared protector, and one year before his death. He would be two years old when Richard Cromwell, who succeeded his father, resigned; and four years old when Charles II. was crowned in 1661. The exact period of his first marriage we have not been able to ascertain; but it is certain that his bride was employed as nurse in the well-known family of the Chethams, either at Turton Tower, or at Castleton Hall, near Rochdale. By this marriage he had four children, as appears from the following memorandums, written in an excellent hand in the back of an old black-letter Bible, printed in 1583:

"Mary, the daughter of William and Elizabeth Horrocks, was born the 15th day of September, and baptised the 23d day of the same month, Anno Dom. 1683."

"John, the son of William and Elizabeth Horrocks, was born the 18th day of January, and baptized the 25th day of the same month, Anno Dom. 1686."

"Ann, the daughter of William and Elizabeth Horrocks, was born the 14th day of March, and baptized the 23d day of the same month, Anno Dom. 1699."

"William, the son of William and Elisabeth Horrocks, was born the 9th day of June, and baptised the 17th day of the same month, Anno Dom. 1700."

At what time his wife died, we are also unable to ascertain; but there is no doubt he remained a widower for many years, and at length married his housekeeper, a comely blooming young woman, whose kindness to the old man was unremitting, and he married her in 1741, at the age of eighty-four, she being at the time only twenty-six.

This marriage evidently attracted much attention in the neighbourhood, and we find that, about two years afterwards, the old man and his youthful partner were sent for to Castleton Hall, the residence of a branch of Humphry Chetham's family, where they were treated with great kindness, and a portrait painter engaged to take their likenesses, which are now in the possession of their son, and add much to the interest of a visit to him. These portraits are well executed; and, of course, appear rather like those of a grandfather and his grandchild than of husband and wife, although he appears more like sixty than eighty-six. In front of each painting is prominently inscribed the age of each of the parties, and the date when the portrait was taken. Upon that of the husband the inscription is, "ÆTA: 86—1743." And upon that of the wife, "ÆTA: 28—1743." These, it appears, were taken two years after their marriage, and preserved in the Chetham family, at Castleton Hall, as great curiosities.

In the following year, the present James was born, as appears from the following entry on the back of the same old Bible:

"James, the son of William and Elizabeth Horrocks of Bradshaw Chapel, was born March 14th, 1744."

He will therefore complete his hundredth year on the 14th of next March. He was born in a house near Bradshaw Chapel, which has long since been removed. He was about twenty-seven years old when an uncle left him a small estate in Harwood, called Hill End; and soon after he married, we believe in 1773, and by that marriage had eight children. William, the son of James and Margaret Horrocks, was born February 21, 1776; Margaret, March 31, 1778; John, August 11, 1781; Simon, Dec. 23, 1783; Matty, June 28, 1786; James, Jan. 13, 1789; Sarah, Sept. 22, 1791; and Betty, Jan. 8, 1794.

Of these, the only survivors are Margaret, aged sixty-five, the wife of John Haslam, with whom the old man now resides; and Betty, the youngest, aged forty-nine, who is married, and has four children.

The old man was only eleven years old when his father died, and has no recollection of hearing him mention any remarkable event occurring in his lifetime.

On asking the old man how he came into possession of the portraits of his father and mother, he stated, that, some years ago, he saw in the newspapers a sale advertised of the property at Castleton Hall, and went there before the day to inquire after the portraits, with the view of purchasing them before the sale. The servants at the hall admitted him, and he found they were not there. He then went to the house of the steward, and found he was not at home; he, however, left a message, desiring that the steward would send him word if there was any probability of his being able to purchase the portraits. Accordingly, the steward sent him word that they had been removed, with the family portraits, to the residence of a lady near Manchester, where he might have the satisfaction of seeing them. The old man cannot remember either the name or the address of the lady. However, he went to the place, in company with a friend, and saw the lady, who treated him with the greatest kindness. She showed him the portraits, and was so much pleased with the desire he manifested to purchase them, that she said, if she could be certain that he was the heir, she would make him a present of them, as his filial affection did him great honour. His friend assured her that he was the only child of his mother by William Horrocks, and she then gave them to him, although she parted with them with regret, as she had no other paintings that attracted so much attention. His recollection of the circumstances are so perfect, that he remembers offering a gratuity to the servants for packing the portraits, which the lady would not allow them to receive.

As an instance of the health and vigour of this remarkable old man, it may be mentioned, that ten years ago, in the winter of 1832-3, he attended at Newton, to vote for Lord Molyneux, then a candidate for South Lancashire. He was then in his ninetieth year. He walked from Harwood to Bolton, a distance of three miles. From thence he went to Newton by the railway; and, having voted, he by some means missed the train, and walked to Bolton, a distance of fifteen miles. On arriving there he took some refreshment, and again set out for Harwood, and accomplished the distance of twenty-one miles in the day, in the depth of winter.—Manchester Guardian, Aug. 19, 1843.

Minor Notes.

On a Passage in Sedley.

—There is a couplet in Sir Charles Sedley's poems, which is quoted as follows in a work in my possession:

Does the context require the word "divide?" or is it a misprint for "deride?" Of course, the latter word would completely alter the sense, but it seems to me that it would make it more consistent with truth. The word "divide" supposes loyalty to be characteristic of fools, and places the Gods in antagonism to that sentiment; while the word "deride" restores them to their natural position.

HENRY H. BREEN.

St. Lucia, April, 1851.

On a Passage in Romeo and Juliet.

—In the encounter between Mercutio and Tybalt (Act III. Sc. 1.), in which Mercutio is killed, he addresses Tybalt tauntingly thus:—

"Good king of cats, &c., will you pluck your sword out of his pilcher by the ears? Make haste, lest mine be about your ears ere it be out."

The first quarto has scabbard, all the later editions have pilcher, a word occurring nowhere else. There has been a vain attempt to make pilcher signify a leathern sheath, because a pilch was a garment of leather or pelt. To me it is quite evident that pilcher is a mere typographical error for pitcher, which, in this jocose, bantering speech, Mercutio substitutes for scabbard, else why are the ears mentioned? The poet was familiar with the proverb "Pitchers have ears," of which he has elsewhere twice availed himself. The ears, as every one knows, are the handles, which have since been called the lugs. Shakspeare would hardly have substituted a word of his own creation for scabbard; but pitcher was suggested by the play upon the word ears, which is used for hilts in the plural, according to the universal usage of the poet's time. The ears, applied to a leathern coat, or even a sheath, would be quite unmeaning, but there is a well sustained ludicrous image in "pluck your sword out of his pitcher by the ears."

S. W. SINGER.

Inscription on a Tablet in Limerick Cathedral.—

"Mementi Mory.

"Here lieth Littele Samuell Barinton, that great Under Taker, of Famious Cittis Clock and Chime Maker; He made his one Time goe Early and Latter, But now He is returned to God his Creator.

"The 19 of November Then He Seest, And for His Memory This Here is Pleast, By His Son Ben 1693."

The correctness of this copy, in every respect, may be relied upon.

R. J. R.