Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 12.djvu/334

274

NOTES AND QUERIES. uo S.'XIL OCT. 2, im "Faséole": "Flageolet," a Bean (10 S. xii. 149, 233).—I do not think that faséole is the ordinary French for kidney beans. I have a chalet in France this year and our French cook has frequently sent us in an account for "haricots verts," which were kidney beans. Besides, in the market I have bought that excellent vegetable under the name of "haricots verts."

But what are we to understand by "flageolets"? for under this name the French cook referred to Sent us in some beans, and the word appeared in her weekly account of purchases; but when I looked it up in a dictionary of repute, there was no suggestion of a vegetable in any of the meanings given. How comes it to signify beans, whether of kidney or haricot variety?

{{left|{{fine|Arthington Vicarage, Leeds.|offset=2em}}

{{fine|[Beaujean's abridgment of Littré (Hachette, 1875) includes, besides flageolet, the flute, another word, "Fíageolet (altération de fageolet, dim. de fageol, du lat. phaseolus), s.m. Variété de haricots, dite aussi nain hâtif de Laon."]}}

{{sc|Mary, Queen of Scots: her Crucifix}} (10 S. xii. 208).—There was exhibited at the Tercentenary Collection of Mary Queen of Scots Relics, held at Peterborough in 1887, the gold

{{fine|"rosary and crucifix which Queen Mary kept until nearly the last moment. It was bequeathed to the Countess of Arundel, and descended to the Howards of Corby Castle, and was obtained from them by the Duke of Norfolk, in whose possession it now is."}}

It was lent by his Grace to this exhibition, and also to the Stuart Exhibition held at the New Gallery, Regent Street, London, in 1889. An engraving of the relic appeared in The Graphic of 23 Feb., 1889. At the Stuart Exhibition there was also exhibited another relic described as a "crucifix used by Mary, Queen of Scots, on the scaffold, and given by her to Sir John Thirnmelby." This was lent by Lady Petre. {{right|{{sc|John T. Page.}}|offset=2em}}

"Four regular orders of monks" (10 S. xii. 167).—Sir Walter Scott is not an absolutely trustworthy guide in regard to questions of history or antiquities. He was in advance of his own time, but far behind our own. It is not very easy to say what he meant by the phrase "the regular four orders of monks." In the last years of the twelfth century, the date of 'Ivanhoe,' there were four orders of monks, and at least six other religious orders, who all, of course, were regular, but who, much as they resembled monks in some particulars, were not monks, because their rule differed from that of the monks. I cannot say confidently that no writer of that time applies the phrase "the four orders" to the monks, but I do not remember having met with it. At a later time it was very frequent, but always in reference to the four chief orders of friars, the Carmelites, Augustinians, Dominicans or Jacobins, and Franciscans or Minorites, from the initials of whose names profane persons called the houses of friars Cairn's castles. We often find the phrase "the four orders" in reference to the friars in the literature of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as, for example, in the Prologue to Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales':

{{block center|{{fine block| A frere ther was…… In alle the ordres foure is none that can So muche of dalliaunce and fair langage. }}}}

In the Prologue to 'Piers the Plowman' Langland tells us that

{{block center|{{fine block| I fonde there freris • alle the foure ordres Preched the peple · for profit of hemselven. }}}}

Many other references might easily be given to this and other books. At the time when they were written there were other orders of friars in existence; and in the last form (what Prof. Skeat calls the C text) of his poem, Langland has in some passages changed the phrase into "the five orders." The fifth was the Crutched Friars. {{right|{{sc|F. Newman.}}|offset=2em}}

{{sc|V. de Vos}} (10 S. xii. 127, 238).—I fear that my query, to which {{sc|Mr. H. D'Alton St. Clare}} has kindly replied, must have been lacking in lucidity. The picture about which I inquired was bought at an exhibition in Brussels (in 1872) of the works of artists then living. This particular work is signed with unmistakable distinctness "V. de Vos 1871."

Since sending my query I have seen in a private collection in Dublin a picture of dogs of various kinds, apparently by the same artist, and signed "V. de Vos 1866." The owner could tell me nothing about the artist, and of the picture no more than that he believed that he had bought it at Boulogne about forty years ago. {{right|L. A. W.|offset=2em}}

{{sc|"Googlie": Cricket Slang}} (10 S. xii. 110, 194).—It seems possible that the "jugglie" mentioned at the latter reference is akin to the "jogill" of Gavin Douglas. In rendering 'Æeid' x. 383, where the spear is drawn from the body of Lagus, the translator writes: "Pallas it jogglyt, and furth drew in hy"; that is, Pallas shook it from side to side and drew