questioned by me on the same page; and p. 190 contains my expression of dissent from what Mr. Jones is stated to have told Mr. Robertson, relative to Hooke's penurious habits. In p. 515, of the June number of the same magazine, I again italicise one of Burrow's memoranda "take the rest out of the Ephemeris." And to prove that his practice did not accord with his professions, I remark that he "knew how to make an Almanack, whatever might be the defects of Hutton and Maskelyne." On p. 517, I state that "Mr. Burrow's opposition to Maskelyne does not appear to have rested on good grounds, and there is little doubt that many of his supposed injuries were merely imaginary. All who are acquainted with the writings and labours of this astronomer-royal, will not place much credit in such depreciations of scientific character as are exhibited in this extract; whilst the fact, that the mutual friends of both parties disapproved of Mr. Burrow's views and conduct, affords strong presumptive evidence that Dr. Maskelyne's proceedings are not represented under their real character." P. 520 contains a quotation from Mr. Swale's memoir to the effect, that though "his heart was good," yet his habits were not justifiable; and I may here add, that MR. DE MORGAN'S pet phrase respecting "excentricities of genius" is due to Mr. Swale, and not to myself. We all know that genius is sometimes excentric; and that it occasionally flashes forth in puns, by way of diversifying more serious discourse: although it must be admitted, that the point of the satire is sometimes so excessively fine, that nothing short of a high microscopical power can show it. On p. 520, I note an ebullition of temper on the part of Mr. Burrow, and distinctly state that his language is such as to "render it necessary to suppress a portion of the journal at this point." The next page contains another caution, in italics, respecting what is said of Dr. Hutton; and the motives attributed to Dr. Bliss are noticed as seeming "scarcely sufficient to account for his opposition to the publication" of the catalogue of Mr. Jones's library. The September number of the Phil. Magazine contains Mr. Burrow's account of the causes which led to the loss of the "Royal George;" but I preface the extracts by the remark that, "if literally true, [they] do not convey a very pleasing impression of the state of naval discipline at that period." The "Howe case" follows next in order; and it is now, perhaps, remarkable for the grave omission, which I indicated by dots towards the bottom of p. 198. Probably, Mr. Burrow only gave permanence to the sentiments of the officers by whom he was surrounded. History tells us that Lord Howe and his brother had been somewhat unfortunate in America; and they were consequently undergoing the ordeal of an excited public criticism at the time; besides, the French fleet was expected in sight every hour. There is, therefore, some excuse for Mr. Burrow's harsh expressions; although they may be pronounced as being unworthy of the slightest attention. But will the fact of his having drawn erroneous conclusions as to what a naval officer ought to have done, or might have done, under certain circumstances, serve to invalidate what the same individual may have written on other subjects? I venture to think I am not reasoning illogically when I affirm the contrary; for in the one case he knew absolutely nothing, but in the other he knew a great deal respecting those matters upon which he gives his own opinions, or those of others. I have served more than an apprenticeship on the juries at our Assize Courts, and have taken instructions from some of the ablest judges on the Bench; but was never yet directed to reject a man's evidence on such untenable grounds. We may now dispense with all that is said in "the special-pleader case" of the "Man versus Private Smith," inasmuch as the cases are not parallel. Both logic and common sense are here at fault, and the promoter of the case is left without even "a halfpenny-worth of umbrella" to cover his position. My last allusion is that given by MR. DE MORGAN himself in his recent reply, and need not be again repeated. I have now given "all I can find" in the shape of caution and allusion; and as they are all made by myself, I will leave my readers to decide whether or not I had anything to fear from the threatened exposure in case of denial. I hope there will be no "ambiguity" in what is now stated; but I will leave to my opponent the task of explaining by what process in logic I am expected to find "more if I can," after "all" has been reprinted! This appears to me to be worthy of a place in some "Budget of Paradoxes," and as such I commend it to its author. I pass over the syllogistic form, every Y is Z," by simply denying the major: for we have knowledge that Mr. Burrow was a competent witness, and of known credibility, in matters relating to "mathematics and mathematicians." All the rest is simply an attempt to create matter for further discussion. Both in "N. & Q.," and elsewhere, PROF. DE MORGAN has evidently been building great gates" to very "small cities." Every attack upon me has been made through a maze of special pleading, and a "world of verbiage;” but I do not suppose he will thereby induce many to join him in my condemnation. The cautions which I have so liberally scattered will, I hope, fully plead my justification; nor can I regret having fallen into the common "error of biogra phers," in suppressing improper or irrelevant passages. Were biographies compelled to be written after the model now proposed, the profits of both It may be "anything but good taste," whatever these words may imply, for me to use the phrase "Wilkinson head" to designate_that particular, alleged head of Cromwell, still, I need scarcely say that I did so without the slightest idea of disrespect to Mr. Wilkinson, as all who have ever heard of the Chandos Shakspeare, Medicæan Venus, Hastings diamond, or any other like-designated and much-valued object of nature or art, must be well aware. Mr. Wilkinson, we are told, considers his head of Cromwell to be a rare and valuable relic, consequently he cannot object to have his name connected with it; if he were ashamed, or had reason to be ashamed of it, is quite another affair. One word, now, about a subject, interesting in itself, that has been dragged into this head-story; I allude to Cox and his museum. Cox was an eminent jeweller, silversmith, and mechanician of the last century. When there was a prospect of the interior of India being opened to British enterprise, he made a number of curious mechanical toys, of the richest materials, hoping to sell them profitably to the Indian princes. War prevented the sale of these articles in India; they were quite unsuitable for the European market, and Cox, as a dernier ressort, exhibited them in Spring Gardens. The insecurity of property at the period compelled him to take the strictest precautions to guard his treasures; only a few persons were admitted at a time, twice in the day; the charge for admission was half-a-guinea; so, as may be imagined, poor Cox made little by his enterprise. In 1773, Cox obtained a private Act of Parliament permitting him to dispose of his museum by lottery. The schedule attached to that Act, containing a list of the things Cox was thus allowed to dispose of, is now before me, as well as two different Catalogues of the contents of his museum, and there is no mention of a Cromwell's head in them. In short, Cox's Museum, though a noted collection in its day, was the very worst, the most unfeasible, place, that the concoctor of a Cromwell's head story could possibly have fixed upon. There was nothing vulgar or Barnum-like connected with it. It consisted, wholly, as described in the writings of its period," of exquisite and magnificent pieces of mechanism and jewellery." In these days of "Great Exhibitions," a retrospective glance at Cox's Museum may have sufficient interest to merit a place here. I take at random, on opening the Catalogue, "PIECE THE FORTY-SECOND—A Cage of Singing-birds" : "It is placed upon a most superb commode of gold and lapis lazuli, set in frames of silver and pannels of gold; ornamented with the greatest taste and elegance, with trophies and finely adapted designs; the cage is supported at the four angles by rhinoceroses, and in the front by an elephant. The commode contains a fine set of bells, that rings changes, and plays many curious tunes. The doors in front, when opened, discover a grand cascade of artificial water falling from rocks: besides this, fresh streams are poured down from dolphins, and blown up by Tritons out of their shells; while a number of mirrors, placed in the cavities of the rock, reflect the whole, and render the effect most pleasingly astonishing. Upon a superb pedestal stands a cage of incomparable richness and beauty, composed of gold, silver, jewellery, and agate; it is designed from an elegant architectural plan wrought in silver and gold, with an execution truly masterly. Under the doors of the cage several birds are seen in motion; on the right appear a nest of birds fed by the old one; on the left, birds are seen picking fruit and flowers. Upon the cage is an eightday musical clock, that chimes, strikes, and repeats, has two dials, and, at the right and left of the cage, gives motion to vertical stars in jewellery. Above the clock is a temple of agate, adorned with pillars of silver and ornaments of gold and jewellery: in front there is the and other pleasing objects in motion. Above the temple representation of a house, with a mill, bridge, people, is a hexagonal pavilion, in the centre of which is a double vertical star, terminating with a large star, in spiral motion, that seems to extend its points. Within the cage are a bullfinch and a goldfinch, all of jeweller's work; their plumage formed of stones of various colours; they flutter their wings, they warble, and move their bills to every note of the different tunes they sing, which are both duets and solos, surprisingly melodious, to the universal astonishment of the auditors." The fifty-six "pieces," valued at 197,500l., composing Cox's Museum, were all of a similarly rich and rare character. The head prize in the lottery was a pair of diamond ear-rings, made for the Empress of Russia, and valued at 10,000l. Cox was not merely an ingenious mechanic; he was probably the first of his trade in England who studied artistic effect; and he employed Nollekens the sculptor, and Zoffany the painter, to make designs for his works. The preamble of the Act of Parliament states that "the painter, the goldsmith, the jeweller, the lapidary. the sculptor, the watchmaker, in short all the liberal arts have found employment in and worthily cooperated" to Cox's Museum. Truly, one would no more expect to find a Cromwell's head in such a collection, than in the Summer Palace of Pekin, where, curiously enough, there were found, at the late plundering of that imperial residence, several remarkable specimens of jewellery and mechanism bearing the name of James Cox, Jeweller, 103, Shoe Lane, London, for in that now commonplace locality did this enterprising, tasteful, and ingenious artist dwell and carry on his business. The Act empowering Cox to dispose of his museum by lottery received the royal assent by commission on June 21, 1773, and on May 1, 1775, the drawing commenced at Guildhall, "when No. 57,808, drawn a blank, was, as first drawn ticket, entitled to 1007." * Among the annals of lotteries this is a memorable one, a man having suborned one of the Blue-coat boys to conceal a ticket, the fraud was detected, and gave rise to much litigation t; this, however, is beyond my subject, my object being merely to show that Cox's Museum was dispersed by lottery in 1775, and consequently was not in existence with a Cromwell's head in it, as incautiously alleged by T. B., in 1787 (p. 180). and replaced afterwards. But it is really strange, that not one of the believers in the Wilkinson head has ever wondered how this small, loose piece of skull has been preserved during the many rude vicissitudes the head has passed through the raising from the grave, identification of the body, the dragging from the coffin, the hanging of the gibbet, the chopping off of the head, the spiking, the long position over Westminster Hall, the blowing down, the hurried grasp of the soldier in a dark night-wonderful, miraculous to relate, after all this contemptuous buffeting, the coronal region is still in its place! "Credat Judæus Apella." The wildest legend of saintly relic must pale its ineffectual fires before the Wilkinson head of Cromwell. T. B. believes that "no such lecture has been delivered as that referred to by MR. PINKERTON," T. B., as a proof of the genuine character of and yet, in the next sentence, he says that" It the head, says, "it is not offered to us by a showwould be a pity to drag the name of such a sim- man to make money, nor by any enthusiastic pleton as the lecturer before the public." I do antiquary". an observation, however uncomplinot know the name of the lecturer, for I have mis-mentary to antiquaries, no doubt strictly correct. laid the newspaper cutting which gave an account of it; but I may have a shrewd suspicion as to what the initials of the simpleton (the word is not mine) are. The writer in the Phrenological Journal, whose name-I acknowledge my erroris Donovan and not O'Donovan, partly corroborates my "piece of puerility" in relation to the lecture, thus: "It was decidedly a round head; and, indeed, when the Cavaliers bestowed the nickname of Roundheads' upon the sourer fanatics of the opposite faction, they were unconsciously giving utterance to a phrenological fact a philosophical truth coeval with the cerebral constitution of man." Whatever difference of opinion there may exist between T. B. and me as regards Cromwell's head, I think he will now agree with me in considering that there are more simpletons than one in the world. And I may add that "the sourer fanatics," being practical men, and totally ignorant of the beauties of phrenology, did not recognise this "philosophical truth coeval with the cerebral constitution of man," as the following title-page of a work now before me amply testifies : "Caveats for Anti-Roundheads. A sad Warning to all malignant Spirits, showing the fearful Judgements that fell on several Persons for speaking contemptuously of Roundheads. Five Examples of fearful Judgements on profane and malignant Spirits, who reproached true Protestants with the name of Roundheads. London: 1642." In justice to Mr. Donovan, I must state that his account of the head is the only one I have seen deserving of any attention. He tells us that the coronal region has been sawn off and replaced. Of course it had been taken off, in the operation of embalming, to remove the brain, The relic-collector is not an antiquary, in any sense of the word; the old race of miscalled antiquaries has utterly disappeared, archæology has become a science, and most of its darker problems can be solved with nearly mathematical certainty. No antiquary, on the evidence adduced, could for an instant entertain the idea that the head was Cromwell's. Simple common-sense alone, without any antiquarian acquirements, is quite sufficient to decide the question in this manner. If the head be that of Cromwell, according to the showing of its advocates, it must have lain in the grave for about a year and a half, it then hung upon a gibbet for a day, and next it remained upon a spike over Westminster Hall till the latter end of James the Second's reign, when it was blown down, through the wooden pole that supported the spike becoming decayed. Now, continues common-sense, no head could have withstood the summer's sun and winter's storms of twenty-eight years in this variable climate, and be ultimately capable of identification. Grant it was embalmed tanned even if you will - nay, if it had been carved in the very stone of the great building now adjoining Westminster Hall, the distinctive features would, in twenty-eight years, have been completely obliterated. It really is pitiable to read of an argument (p. 180) attempted to be founded on the colour of hair after a bleaching exposure to the elements of twentyeight years. But the acme of absurdity is reached by T. B. When I conclusively showed by Dr. Bate's post mortem report on the Protector's body, * that the head was blown down in the great storm of *At the lowest computation, for some accounts state 1704, thus giving an exposure of more than forty years. Defoe, however, gives an exceedingly minute detail of the mischief done by this storm, and never mentions anything about Cromwell's head. The times have been, that an embalmed head could not be that of Crom- would they cease to communicate? I suspect well, I receive the astounding reply, that the that a majority would choose the second alternahead was no doubt embalmed before death"!!*tive, to the great disadvantage of the work. The This mode of setting aside Dr. Bate's evidence is anonymous communicator has no authority until what Dick Swiveller would have called "a stag- he gains it by the value of his communications: gerer ; and I can only reply in the words of this is one of the arguments adduced in favour of Macbeth,avowed articles. Is this really in favour of avowal, or against it? The answer is one thing for one reader, another for another: it depends upon the manner in which authority is allowed to act. It must be remembered that so far as a note or reply is only indicative or suggestive, it matters nothing what signature is employed. On the whole, let things remain as they are: and I give this recommendation the more confidently because I am persuaded things will remain as they are, whether or no. It is always in the power of any one who has a good reason, to communicate that reason to the contributor through the editor, and to ask the contributor to allow himself to be It seems now, that the case is altered, Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis." To conclude seriously. I flatter myself that I have finally disposed of the Protectoral pretensions of the Wilkinson head; and I shall have no more to say of it, as a head of Cromwell. But as it is by no means an ordinary head, as it has a very curious tragi-comical history of its own, I shall, at a future period, with the permission of the Editor, take the liberty of letting Mr. Wilkinson know whose head it really is that he pos sesses. Hounslow. WILLIAM PINKERTON. ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO "N. & Q." (3rd S. v. 238.)- Doubtless the names of some of your contributors give weight to their communications. But in some instances, such would not be the case, and the anonymous contributors themselves must be supposed to be the best judges. I would suggest that the value of all contributions, whether anonymous or avowed, would be greatly increased by each contributor giving, when ticable, the authority upon which his statements are made, so that reader may any have the opportunity of satisfying himself of their correctness or authenticity, and of judging what weight is due to them. An anonymous and unsupported statement of facts is of little, if any, value. prac J. a This question has two sides to it. The anonymous are probably contained, or nearly contained, in three classes: 1. Those who have a feeling stronger thing than a reason-against being known. 2. Those who have a reason, either in their official positions, in their relations to the facts they state, &c. 3. Those who write with their names when they desire to give the authority of their names, and expressly desire to avoid giving that authority where they feel that their knowledge of the subject cannot justify them in employing their personal influence. If it were a certainty that all these parties would communicate, in any case, there would perhaps be no harm in pressing publicity upon them. But the real question is this: should an opinion gain ground that all communications ought to be onymous, would those who now contribute anonymously add their names, or [ Clearly a slip of the pen for "before burial," and which should have been corrected.-ED.] privately named. From the notices to correspondents, I should judge that the editor himself does not always know who the contributor is. If so, I should certainly recommend the adoption of the plan followed by many newspapers, which never print anything without being in private possession of the writer's name. A. DE MORGAN. QUOTATION (3rd S. v. 260.)—I have a reference to the quotation from Euripides, which runs thus: “ Σπάρτην ἔλαχες, κείνην κόσμει,” (Tel., fr. Euripides at hand, I cannot verify it. xx. 1); but not having the complete works of J. EASTWOOD. [We are greatly obliged to our correspondent, and, availing ourselves of the clue which he has thus afforded us, have found the passage from Euripides as cited by Stobæus, xxxix. 10: “ Εὐριπίδου Τήλεφος. Σπάρτην ἔλαχες, κείνην κόσμει, On this passage Wagner remarks, in his Fragmenta Primum vm. Euripidis, " Agamemnonem loqui liquet. qui in proverbium abiit, præbent etiam Plut. De Tranqu. An. 13, De Exsil. 8, Cic. Ad Att. iv. 6, i. sq., et Diogenian. viii. 18, sed præter Diogenianum TaÚTav pro κείνην habent." Since writing the foregoing, we have received the following communications from MR. DAVIES and A. G. S. of Oxford.] If you have not received any other communication, furnishing your readers with the whereabout in Euripides of the above famous proverbial expression, I may direct them to the 23rd Fragment of the Telephus of Euripides (page 112 of the Fragments at the end of the Poeta Scenici Græci of Dindorf, ed. 1830). There I find two dimeter anapæsts Σπάρτην ἔλαχες κείνην κόσμει, Erasmus (Adag. p. 638, ed. Wechel, 1643) seems to think that they were the words of Agamemnon to Menelaus. [Cal. Aurel. Tard., 4, 9, init. "Cum nullus cupiditati locus, nulla satietatis spes est, singulis Sparta non sufficit sua. Loquitur de viris mollibus, qui propter libidinem nonnullis corporis partibus obscene abutuntur."] been well said, by a writer of another nation, "le meilleur moyen d'intéresser les vivans, c'est d'être pieux à l'égard des morts." Englishmen have never been indifferent to the memory of their forefathers; and the suggestions and strictures of your correspondents will meet, it is to be hoped, with that attention which the subject mooted by them so well deserves. Universal concurrence on the part of individuals is scarcely to be expected; but the good will shown by MR. HUTCHINSON will no doubt be followed by many others. Still the subject ought to be considered a national one, and taken up in the spirit which led Sir John Romilly to propose the publication of our national records, a most patriotic proposal, which met with so ready a response, and has been followed by such valuable results. And let not the work be conland and Ireland also. Surely among the readers fined to one part of the empire, but embrace Scotof " N. & Q." there will be found some M.P. who will submit the undertaking to the wisdom of the legislature, and leave no means untried for its adoption. Scotus. ON WIT (3rd S. v. 162.) - Pope, in his Essay The proverb seems to be derived from a use of the Greek word σndpтn, -ns, which meant a rope made of a kind of broom (Funis sparteus). But funiculus (and the Hebrew ) was used to sig-on Criticism, uses the word wit upwards of eighty nify a portion of land measured by an extended rope; and hence came to be applied to land left to an heir. And so the proverb means, that every man should adorn the station of life in which he is placed, i. e. be content with that station. Hieronymus (Ep. 2, ad Nepotian.) says: "Si autem ego pars Domini sum, et funiculus hereditatis ejus, nec accipio partem inter ceteras tribus, habens victum et vestitum, his contentus ero." So This is the explanation given by the dictionary of Facciolati and Forcellini, s. v. "Sparta." There are many forms of the proverb, all of which may be seen by a reference to the passage in Nauck's Fragm. Trag. Græc. (Cf. Cic. ad Att., i. 20, 3: "Eam quam mihi dicis obtigisse Σπάρταν, non modo nunquam deseram, sed etiam," &c.) C. C. C. Oxford. A. G. S. ELMA (3rd S. v. 97.)- Lady Elma de Ruse is a character in Miss Hawkins's Countess and Gertrude, published early in this century, therefore the name is not of recent fabrication. I suppose it is the feminine of St. Elmo. I think it occurs in Blomfield's Norfolk. F. C. B. HUGH BRANHAM, M.A. (3rd S. v. 212, 271.) We wish to add to our reply respecting Hugh Branham, that he was matriculated as a sizar of St. John's College, Cambridge, Nov. 12, 1567, proceeded B.A. 1569-70, commenced M.A. 1573, and became B.D. 1581. C. H. & THOMPSON COOPER. times with the following distinct significations, SAMUEL NEIL. JAMES CUMMING, F.S.A. (3rd S. v. 212.)— "Died, Jan. 23 [1827], at Lovell Hill Cottage, Berks, James Cumming, Esq., F.S.A., and late of the Office of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India.". See Gent. Mag. for 1827, Part 1. Αλιεύς. WILLIAM LILLINGTON LEWIS (3rd S. v. 241.)— In reply to S. Y. R., who seeks through your columns more particulars respecting W. L. Lewis, translator of Statius, and sometime "first usher of Repton school, I beg to refer him to p. 271-2, of Dr. Robt. Bigsby's quarto History of Repton, published in 1854. It will be gathered thence that Mr. Lewis quitted Repton under somewhat awkward circumstances, having, in point of fact, been bought out of his ushership Diarist, who records that Mr. Lewis's departure for 501. Dr. Bigsby refers to a contemporary gave "great joy to all who were under him." As take the pains to compare it with the original, to his translation of Statius, any one who will and the 1st book with the translation of Pope, will, I am sure, be struck with its poorness and inferiority. PARISH REGISTERS: TOMBSTONES AND THEIR At the beginning of this year I was led careINSCRIPTIONS (3rd S. iv. 226, 317; v. 78.)-It has fully to examine the translation of the 1st Book |