Page:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 1.djvu/150

 142

NOTES AND QUERIES.

<i S. N 7., FEB. 16. '56.

Scottish common people had to say on the sub- ject, drawn from one of their chap books, written probably a hundred years ago, entitled,

"History of the Haveral [talkative] Wives, or the Folly of Witless women displayed, by Humphrey Clinker, the clashing [tattling] wives' Clerk, being a Comical Con- ference between Maggy and Janet, his TwaAuJd Aunties."

u Mag. But, dear woman, what an a body is the deil, that ilka [every] body is sae fear'd for him ? Is't na him they ca' [call] auld [old] Nick? What for do they ca' him auld Nick?"

"Jan. Deed [indeed] woman I dinna ken what like a body he is, but they say he is black, an they ca' him auld Nick because he is older than Adam, and Adam was the first man in the world ; an they say the deil will ne'er die, nor yet be sick, nor hae sair e'en [sore eyes]."

In the subsequent part of the " conference" the two old wives cannot at all satisfy themselves on the points in dispute, even including the different species of deils " the black anes (ones) and white anes o' them, humel'd (without horns) anes and horn'd anes " and we appear to be still in the same mortifying predicament. G. N".

Reading in Darkness (I 1 ' S. xi. 125.) In P. Nieuwland's Letter-en Oudheidk. Verlustigingen (Literary and Antiquarian Recreations}, vol. i. cap. xv. sect. 2., we find some observations on seeing in the dark :

" Some learned men," he says, " have enjoyed the power of seeing by night; of the Scaligers it is well known that they had oculos ccesios, cats' eyes, extended to such a degree, as to enable them, for an hour, to see objects in the dark as if in twilight ; this power, however, they retained no longer than till their twenty-third year, as both Julius Caesar and Joseph Scaliger relate of them- selves ; the former in Comm. ad lib. i. de Hist. Anim., the latter in Vita Patris. Suetonius mentions the same fa- culty as enjoyed by Tiberius, c. 18., although possessed only at short intervals. See Plinius, 1. ii. c. 39., Hist. Nat. Asclepiodorus also, according toPhotius in Biblioth., 1055, had the advantage of being able to distinguish persons, and even of reading in total darkness. Solinus, Polyhist., c. 15., affirms the same of the Albinos gene- rally; and the old physicians speak of certain morbid states, in which the patients can see everything by night and nothing by day. See Casaubon, ad lib. iii. Suetonii, p. 374., where he shows from Galen that seeing in the dark is more common than generally supposed, and asserts that he himself had often experienced it in his own youth, and even at the time of his writing, though then more than fifty."

So far Nieuwland : the possibility of reading in the dark appears nevertheless doubtful. It seems by no means compatible with the structure of the eye ; and though some animals can see in the dark, they probably have no more than an indistinct vision, aided by the keenness of their other senses. From The Navorscher. J. SCOTT.

Norwich.

Publication of Banns (2 nd S. i. 34.) The fol- lowing is forwarded in corroboration of the editor's excellent remarks in reply to VIKTOR. In the earlier part of 1845, petitions to the House of

Lords were presented by Earl Fortescue, from Dr. Carwithen and others in the diocese of Exeter, for a revision of the Liturgy. In the course of the debate which ensued, on Feb. 27, in that year, the Bishop of Exeter said, in reference to an instance " triumphantly quoted," viz. those of the Rubrics prefixed to the office for matri- mony, and subjoined to the Nicene Creed :

" My Lords, the reverend petitioner and the noble earl tell us that the Marriage Act (26 Geo. II. c. 33.) made an alteration in the Rubric, and thus established a precedent, which they call on us to follow. My Lords, here again, with all renpect for the noble earl, I must demur to his authority, I must deny his precedent. The Marriage Act made no alteration in the Rubric, it cau- tiously abstained from doing: so. The clause had reference to the case of parishes in which there is no service in the morning, and in which, therefore, banns of matrimony could not be published in that part of the service which is prescribed in the Rubric. I will beg leave to read the clause; it is worded thus [as already given by the editor, p. 34. supra"]. Your Lordships will here perceive that the Marriage Act provides for the publication of banns in the evening service, where there is none in the mornii%. Is this a repeal of any Rubric? True it is that a change has been made in the Rubric, as it is flow printed, in respect of the time of publishing banns of marriage, even in the morning service. But by whom, or by what authority, has this change been made ? Not by the Mar- riage Act, my Lords, nor by any authority properly de- rived from it. For many years after the passing of that act, no such change was made. It was made (as I am assured by a learned friend, who has inquired minutely into it) since the commencement of the present century ; it was first made by the curators of the press at Oxford, without authority, I repeat, and I must think, very im- properly," &c. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. Ixxviii. pp. 21 22.

Y. B. N. J.

" Marriages are made in Heaven" (1" S. xi. p. 486.) (Normal) marriages being so innocent of all premeditation by man, can only be ascribed to the will of "the angel" espoused, or to fate, in either case (for " ce qui femme veut, Dieu le veut") to the will of heaven. After marriage, another sense may appear in the saying, viz. that expressed in the words of St. Francis de Salis : " Marriage is a state of continual mortifica- tion;" and hence a sacrament for human salva- tion. . Again, in suggesting the meaning of this phrase, we are led to the well-known beautiful myth of Plato (Banquet, 16., Bonn's edit.) ; ac- cording to which, in a true marriage, the two counterparts have met by destiny, and form^a perfect homo. The account in Genesis (chap, ii., end), is not to a dissimilar effect. In this view, marriages are of those "whom God has joined" only (Mark x. 9.). In a literal sense, the phrase in question clearly expresses an impossibility ; since in heaven are no marriages (Matt. xxii. 30.), according to the usual interpretation; though some may take refuge in the beautiful evasion of Swedenborg who says that, in the next world, the married couple will become one angel.