Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 1.djvu/21

 10 Ih S. I. JAX. 2, 1901.]

13

G. Kearsley, at Johnson's Head, No. 46 Fleet Street, MDCCLXXXVIII. Price Half a Crown.'' The preface states: "The same Truth and the same Spirit which prevailed in the two parts of ' Kilkhampton Abbey ' are blended in the continuation, and the whole is offered to the Reader in a single volume." It con- tains 200 epitaphs (the 110 contained in the edition of 1780 inclusive). The last epitaph ends, "Ob. 11 Aug., 1841" obviously a mis- take.

A copy of 'The Abbey of Kilkhampton,' described as an improved edition, 1788, was sold at auction in New York, March, 1892. In the sale catalogue the book is ascribed to Wm. Waring.

In a weekly publication entitled the DeviUs Pocket -Hook (London, 1786) is a series of articles entitled " Monumental Records : being intended as a Supplement to 'The Abbey of Kilkhampton.' "

JOHN TOWNSHEND.

Bennett Building, New York.

" MOLTJBDINOUS SLOWBELLY" (9 th S. xii. 487). Might one observe that the first portion of this elegant phrase is an erroneously anglicized form of " mplybdenous," now a chemical term ? According to current usage, therefore, Mo should replace Pb in the slow- belly formula. J. DORMER.

EUCHRE (9 th S. xii. 484). Mr. R. F. Foster thinks this game is derived from spoil-five. Mr. C. H. Meehan says it was introduced by German settlers into Pennsylvania. Both are agreed that it is not derived from ecarte. Mr. Foster points out that some features of the game resemble " triomphe," from which ecarte is also derived. The earliest mention of euchre that I have found is in ' An Exposure of the Arts and Miseries of Gamb- ling,' by J. H. Green (Philadelphia, 1843). The word is there spelt "eucre." (See also 7 th S. vii. 307, 358.) F. JESSEL.

THE WYKEHAMICAL WORD "TOYS" (9 th S. xii. 345, 437, 492). As I am asked for my opinion on this matter, I give it for what it is worth.

It is clear that the derivation from loise, a fathom, is a mere bad shot.

It is also obvious that Mr. H. C. Adams does not know Grimm's law, or he would not equate the "Dutch tuychen" (i.e, the Mid. Du. tuychen. Mod. Du. tuic/) with the Gk. revx which is, of course, from a totally different root.

It also appears that Mr. Wrench has mis- understood the entry in the ' Promptorium, and mixes up Anglo-French with Parisian

The entry "Teye, of a cofyr," does not mean 1 that theca or teye has the sense of coffer. It means that teye has the sense of the Lat. theca, "an envelope, cover, case, sheath,'' and efers to the cover of a coffer, not the coffer itself. Else why the word " of " ? That thi* s the right sense of theca is clear from the 'act that the modern E. form is tick, a case
 * or a feather-bed or a pillow. And tick is not

remarkably like the Winchester word either in Norman, and teye in Mid. English, and is- 'perhaps) obsolete, unless a trace of it appears- in the unpublished part of the 'Eng. Dial. Diet.' The foreign form was toye or toie ; for xamples see taie in Littre ; but toye was altered to taie in the eighteenth century, as
 * n form or sense. This Lat. theca became tele
 * n modern French. I can find no proof of

the introduction of this F. toye into England at any date, and I greatly doubt the deri- vation from this source. To say that toie comes '' regularly" from Lat. theca is to ignore the most marked distinction between the French of England and that of France.

I cannot at all understand why the word may not be a peculiar use of the common E. toy, which is at least as old as 1530 (see Palsgrave). And this corresponds to Du. tuig, which becomes Zeug in German, and is a word of very wide application.

The peculiar principle on which Godefroy's- 'Old French Dictionary' is written deserves reprobation. I look out toyette, and am referred to taiete in the Supplement ; but there is no such word there. All that I find there is taie, for which I am referred to teie. But of course teie is not there either.

WALTER W. SKEAT.

ISLAND OF PROVIDENCE (9 th S. xii. 428). There are two Providence Islands, about which there has been much confusion. One (now called Old Providence Island) lies east of the Mosquito Coast between 13 and 14 N. latitude and 81 and 82 W. longitude. This is the island referred to by LOBUC. It was granted 4 December, 1630, to the Earl of Warwick, Sir Edmund Mountford, John Pym, and others (of whom the Earl of Arundel was not one) ; and John Pym was the treasurer of the company. Proposals to sell the island to the Dutch were entertained between 1637 and 1639 ; in 1641 it was taken by the Spanish, in 1666 it was retaken by the English, it again fell into the hands of the Spanish, and in 1671 was once more recaptured by the English. Much informa- tion in regard to this island will be found in the 'Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660.'

The other (now called New Providence