Page:Notes and Queries - Series 7 - Volume 5.djvu/130

122 the derivation of the word valentine (See 3  S. iii. 128; 5  S. v. 141; ix. 289, 418) agree in deriving it not from the name of the saint, but from galantin (=petit galant), the g being changed into v. And this view they support either by quoting dictionaries of Norman patois, such as Dubois and Duméril, in which valentin is given =galantin, or other French authors who have written about Normandy, and who have expressed this opinion. I cannot, however, myself see that this view, which has also the support of Mr. Smythe Palmer (‘Folk-Etymology’), is worthy of much attention. It is, indeed, true that in French a Lat. v and a Teut. w have sometimes become g, but here just the contrary is postulated, and we are told that a French g has become a v in the Norman dialect. Now I am bound to admit that a French g does sometimes correspond to Norman v, as in varet (=guéret), varou (=garou), vaule (=gaule), vé (=gué), vêpe (=guêpe), vic or vi (=gui), vimblet (=guimbelet, our gimlet), vipillon (=goupillon), and viquet (=guichet, our wicket); but in all these cases the Norman v represents an original Lat. or Scandinavian v or a Teut. w, whereas in valentin=galantin the Norman v represents an original g, inasmuch as galant is now generally considered to be connected with the O. Fr. gale (=joie, réjouissance), galer (=danser, sauter, se réjouir), with the It. gala, and to be derived from a Teutonic root gal. See Roquefort, Littré, Brachet, and Skeat. And again, if the Norman valentin is really a corruption, or rather variant, of galantin, why do we not also find in that dialect valant=galant?

I myself prefer, therefore, to consider that valentin came to have the signification of galant or galantin (which, according to Ménage and Roquefort, it seems to have had in other places besides Normandy) simply because the festival on which the galants were chosen, and which was originally held on the first Sunday in Lent, came in some parts of France to be identified with St. Valentine’s Day. Such an identification can scarcely be regarded as difficult, for the first Sunday in Lent commonly falls in February, must often fall within a very few days of the 14th, and sometimes on the very day itself. It is very much in this way that Ménage explains the matter; and I would refer the reader also to F. C. H.’s note at 3 S. iii. 169, where the history of poetical valentines is also gone into.

The following catalogue of the writings of John Lilburne, and of those by other persons concerning him, is not offered to the readers of ‘N. & Q.’ as complete. In the present transitional state of knowledge as to the persons and the literature of our great Civil War, it would be extremely rash were I to assume that I had found a trace of every scrap of printed matter that Lilburne, his friends, and his enemies have left behind them. For upwards of thirty years I have had it in my mind to write a biography of John Lilburne. Whether he was a mere noisy agitator and fanatic, as the popular history books for the most part represent him, or an honest and resourceful person who, from the year 1638, when he was whipped at the cart’s tail from the Fleet Ditch to Westminster, to the time of his death, in August, 1657, devoted himself with single-minded earnestness to what he believed to be the highest interests of the English people, I do not now wish to inquire, though I hold the latter opinion with some confidence.

During the time that Lilburne’s career has been an object of interest to me, I have at leisure moments, when in the British Museum and other libraries, endeavoured to compile, for my own use, a bibliography as nearly perfect as possible of Lilburne’s books and those connected with his career. Until this was done with some approach towards completeness, neither I nor any one else could hope to gain an accurate knowledge of his life. Though the catalogue I now give is almost certainly incomplete, I feel pretty well assured that no important pamphlet has been overlooked.

As many of these tracts are very rare—some, indeed, existing, so far as is known at present, in but a single copy—it has been thought advisable to mark in each case the collections in which they may be found. To the abbreviations used the following is the key: B.M., British Museum; Bodl., Bodleian; C.C.C., Corpus Christi College, Oxford; G.L., Guildhall Library, London; Linc. Coll., Lincoln College, Oxford; P., the writer’s own collection; Soc. Ant., the Society of Antiquaries; S.K., the Forster Library, South Kensington Museum.

The articles are arranged in roughly chronological order. Great difficulties stand in the way of doing this perfectly. Many of these tracts occur in more than one edition. Some instances of this, but not nearly all, have been noted by me. Others of what seem to be the same edition are dated on several different days. There was, it would seem, a great demand for many of Lilburne’s publications; and, in consequence, the type was some-