Ceridwen.
Minor Queries with Answers
Faithfull Teate.—I lately fell in with a small work by this divine, entitled Ter Tria, and on the fly-leaf is a MS. note, stating that some years ago a copy of the same book was priced, in a bookseller's catalogue in London, at 1l. 7s. 6d. I wish to learn some particulars relative to the author, and if the work is valuable, or scarce, or both.
J. S.
[Neither Calamy nor Brook has furnished any biographical notices of Dr. Faithfull Teate. When he wrote Ter Tria, in 1658, he was a "Preacher of the Word at Sudbury in Suffolk." A second edition of it was published in 1669. In 1665 appeared his Scripture Map of the Wildernesse of Sin," 4to. In a discourse on Right Thoughts, the Righteous Man's Evidence, he has the following passage, accommodated to his own destitute state after his ejectment: "The righteous man, in thinking of his present condition of life, thinks it his relief, that the less money he has he may go the more upon trust; the less he finds in his purse, seeks the more in the promise of Him that has said, 'I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee;' so that he thinks no man can take away his livelihood, unless he can first take away God's truth." Lowndes has given the following prices of Ter Tria: Sir M. M. Sykes, part iii. 626., 5s.; Nassau, part ii. 682., 8s.; White Knights, 4068., 1l.; Bibl. Ang. Poet., 764., 1l. 11s. 6d.]
Kelway Family.—Can any of the readers of "N. & Q." guide me to anything like a pedigree of the family of Kelloway, Kaloway, or Kelway; which I find from Lysons' Devonshire possessed the manor of Mokesbean in that county from the time of Henry II.?
In the first year of Edward III., when the property of those who suffered after the battle of Boroughbridge was restored, John de Keilewaye was found "hæres de integro sanguine" to Lord Gifford of Brimesfield.
The last of the family appears to have been John Kelloway of Collampton in Devon, who married Joan Tregarthian; and dying in 1530, left co-heiresses married to Greville of Penheale, Codrington of Codrington, Harwood, and Cooke.
The arms of the family are singular, being, Argent within a bordure engrailed sable, two groving irons in saltire sable, between four pears Or.
R. H. C.
[The pedigree of this family will be found in two copies by Munday of the "Visitation of Devonshire," A.D. 1564, in the Harleian MSS. 1091. p. 90., and 1538, p. 2166. The only difference in the arms is, in both copies, that there is no bordure engrailed; but this has probably been added since as a difference, as was often done to distinguish families. The name is here spelt Kelloway, and the pedigree begins with "Thomas Kelloway of Stowford in County Devon, who married Anne, daughter of – Copleston, of –, in county Somerset," and ends with "John Kelloway, who married Margery, daughter of John Arscott of Dunsland, and left issue Robert, who married –, and Richard."]
Regatta.—What is the etymology of the word regatta? From whence is it derived, and when was it first used in English to mean a boat-race?
C. B. N. C. J. S.
[Baretti says, "Regatta, palio che si corre sull' acqua; a race run on water in boats. The word I take to be corrupted from Remigata, the art of rowing." Florio, in his Worlde of Wordes, has "Regattare, Ital. to wrangle, to cope or fight for the mastery." The term, as denoting a showy species of boat-race, was first used in this country towards the close of the last century; for the papers of that time inform us, that on June 23, 1775, a regatta, a novel entertainment, and the first of the kind, was exhibited in the river Thames, in imitation of some of those splendid shows exhibited at Venice on their grand festivals. The whole river, from London Bridge to the Ship Tavern, Millbank, was covered with boats. About 1200 flags were flying before four o'clock in the afternoon, and vessels were moored in the river for the sale of liquors and other refreshments. Before six o'clock it was a perfect fair on both sides the water, and bad liquor, with short measure, was plentifully retailed. Plans of the regatta were sold from a shilling to a penny each, and songs on the occasion sung, in which "regatta" was the rhyme for "Ranelagh," and "royal family" echoed to "liberty."]
Coket and Cler-mantyn.—Piers Plowman says that when new corn began to be sold—
"Waulde no beggar eat bread that in it beanes were,
But of coket and cler-mantyn, or else of cleane wheate."
What are coket and cler-mantyn? Also, what are coronation flowers, and sops in wine?
Ceridwen.
[Both coket and cler-mantyn mean a kind of fine bread. Coronation is the name given by some of our old writers to a species of flower, the modern appellation of which is not clear. Sops-in-wine were a species of flowers among the smaller kind of single gilliflowers or pinks. Both these flowers are noticed by Spenser, in his Shepherd's Calendar for April, as follows:
"Bring coronations and sops-in-wine
Worn of paramours."]
Replies
CURFEW
(Vol. vi., pp. 53. 112.)
It will be remembered that when Mr. Webster, one of the greatest of American statesmen, was on his death-bed, in October last, he requested his son to read to him that far-famed "Elegy" of Gray:
"The curfew tolls the knell of parting day."
The editor of the Boston Journal, after referring to this circumstance, which he says has caused an unexampled demand for the works of Gray in the United States, goes on to give the result of his researches in many old English works, respecting the origin and meaning of the word curfew, which I trust will interest not only your correspondents who have written on the subject, but also many of your readers. I glean from the clever article now before me the following brief notices, which I have not yet met with in "N. & Q."
In King Alfred's time the curfew was rung at eight o'clock, and called the "cover fire bell," because the inhabitants, on hearing its peals, were obliged to cover their fires, and go to bed. Thomson evidently refers, in the following lines, to this tyrannical law, which was abolished in England about the year 1100:
"The shiv'ring wretches at the curfew sound,
Dejected sunk into their sordid beds,
And through the mournful gloom of ancient time,
Mused sad, or dreamt of better."
On the people finding that they could put out their fires and go to bed when they pleased, it would appear, from being recorded in many places, that the time of ringing the curfew bell was first changed from eight to nine o'clock, then from nine to ten, and afterwards to the early hours of the morning. Thus we find in Romeo and Juliet:
"The curfew bell hath rung:
'Tis three o'clock."
In Shakspeare's works frequent mention is made of the curfew. In the Tempest he gives the following:
"You whose pastime
Is to make midnight mushrooms—that rejoice
To hear the solemn curfew."
In Measure for Measure:
"Duke. Who call'd here of late?
Provost. None since the curfew rung."
In King Lear:
"This is the foul fiend Flibertigibbet;
He begins at curfew, and walks to the first cock."
This old English custom of ringing the curfew bell was carried by the Puritan fathers to New England; and where is the Bostonian of middle age who does not well recollect the ringing of the church bell at nine o'clock, which was the willing signal for labourers to retire to bed, and for shopmen to close their shops?
Before closing this Note, may I be allowed to inform Mr. Sansom, that Charlestown is in Massachusetts, and only separated from Boston by Charles River, which runs between the two cities. The place to which he refers is Charleston, and in South Carolina.
W. W.
Malta.
THE "SALT-PETER-MAN."
(Vol. vii., pp. 377. 433. 460.)
The statute against monopolies (21 Jac. I. c. 3.) contains a clause (sec. 10.) that its provisions should not extend to any commission grant or letters patent theretofore made, or thereafter to be made, of, for, or concerning the digging, making, or compounding of saltpetre or gunpowder, which were to be of the like force and effect, and no other, as if that act had never been made.
In the famous "Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom" agreed upon by the House of Commons in November, 1641, there is special allusion to the vexation and oppression of the subject by purveyors, clerks of the market, and saltpetre men. (Parliamentary History, x. 67.)
Shortly afterwards was passed an act (which obtained the royal assent) giving liberty for importing gunpowder and saltpetre, and for making of gunpowder. The preamble asserts that the importation of gunpowder from foreign parts had of late times been against law prohibited, and the making thereof within this realm ingrossed; whereby the price of gunpowder had been excessively raised, many powder works decayed, this kingdom very much weakened and endangered, the merchants thereof much damnified, many mariners and others taken prisoners and brought into miserable captivity and slavery, many ships taken by Turkish and other pirates, and many other inconveniences had from thence ensued, and more were likely to ensue, if not timely prevented. (17 Car. I. c. 21.)
Lord Clarendon, in reviewing the various "important laws" of the Long Parliament to which the king assented, makes the following observations with reference to this particular act:
"'An Act for the free making Saltpetre and Gunpowder within the Kingdom:' which was a part of the prerogative; and not only considerable, as it restrained that precious and dangerous commodity from vulgar hands; but, as in truth it brought a considerable revenue to the crown, and more to those whom the crown gratified and obliged by that license. The pretence for this exemption was, 'the unjustifiable proceeding of those (or of inferior persons qualified by them) who had been trusted in that employment,' by whom, it cannot be denied, many men suffered: but the true reason was, that thereby they might be sure to have in readiness a good stock in that commodity, against the time their occasions should call upon them."—History of Rebellion, book iii.
On the 3rd April, 1644, the Lords and Commons passed an ordinance for the making of saltpetre, &c. This was grounded on the following allegations:
"1. The great expence of gunpowder, occasioned by the then war within his Majesty's dominions, had well near consumed the old store, and did exhaust the magazines so fast, that without a larger supply, the navy forts and the land armies could not be furnished.
"2. Foreign saltpetre was not in equal goodness with that of our own country, and the foreign gunpowder far worse conditioned and less forcible than that which is made in England.
"3. Divers foreign estates had of date prohibited the exportation of salt-peter and gunpowder out of their own dominions and countries, so that there could be but little hope or future expectation of any peter or powder to be brought into this kingdom, as in former times, which would enforce us to make use of our own materials."
From these circumstances, it was held most necessary that the digging of saltpetre and making of gunpowder should by all fit means be encouraged, at that time when it so much concerned the public safety; nevertheless, to prevent the reviving of those oppressions and exactions exercised upon the people, under the colourable authority of commissions granted to salt-peter-men; which burden had been eased since the sitting of that Parliament. To the end there might not be any pretence to interrupt the work, it was ordained that the committee of safety, their factors, workmen, and servants, should have power and authority, (within prescribed hours) to search and dig for saltpetre in all pigeon-houses, stables, cellars, vaults, empty warehouses, and other outhouses, yards, and places likely to afford that earth.
The salt-peter-men were to level the ground and repair damage done by them; or might be compelled to do so by the deputy-lieutenants, justices of the peace, or committees of parliament.
The salt-peter-men were also empowered to take carts, by the known officers, for carriage of the liquor, vessels, and other utensils, from place to place, at specified prices, and under limitations as to weight and distance; and they were freed from taxes and tolls for carriages used about their works, and empowered to take outhouses, &c., for their workhouses, making satisfaction to the owners.
This ordinance was to continue for two years, from 25th March, 1644.
An ordinance of a similar character was passed 9th February, 1652, to be in force till 25th March, 1656 (Scobell, 231.).
By an act of the Lord Protector and Parliament, made in 1656, it was enacted that no person or persons should dig within the houses or lands of any person or persons of the commonwealth for the finding of saltpetre, nor take the carriages of any person or persons for the carrying of their materials or vessels, without their leave first obtained or had. (Scobell, 377.) This is the act referred to by Broctuna ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 434.), and by my friend Mr. Isaiah Deck ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 460.), though I am not certain that Mr. Deck's inference be correct, that this act was passed in consequence of the new and uncertain process for obtaining the constituents of nitre having failed; and it is quite clear that Lord Coke could not have referred to this act. The enactment referred to is introduced by way of proviso in an act allowing the exportation of goods of English manufacture (inter alia, of gunpowder, when the price did not exceed 5l. per cwt.).
Allow me, in connexion, with this subject, to refer to Cullum's History of Hawsted, 1st edition, pp. 150. and 151., also to the statute 1 Jac. II. c. 8. s. 3., by which persons obtaining any letters patent for the sole making or importing gunpowder are subjected to the pains and penalties of præmunire.
C. H. Cooper.
Cambridge.
FORMS OF JUDICIAL OATHS
(Vol. vii., p. 458.)
Will you permit me to make a few observations in reply to the Queries of Mr. H. H. Breen on this subject?
There is hardly any custom more ancient than for a person imposing a promise on another to call on him to bind himself by an oath to the due performance of it. In this oath the person swearing calls on God, the king, his father, or some person or thing to whom he attaches authority or value, to inflict on him punishment or loss in case he breaks his oath. The mode of swearing is, in one particular, almost everywhere and in every age the same.
When a father, a friend, a sword, or any corporeal object is sworn by, the swearer places his hand upon it, and then swears. When a man, however, swore by the Deity, on whom he cannot place his hand, he raised his hand to heaven towards the God by whom he swore.
When Abraham made Abimelech swear to obey him, he caused him to place his hand under his thigh, and then imposed the oath; and when Jacob, by his authority as a father, compelled his son Joseph to swear to perform his promise, he ordered him to go through a similar ceremony. (Genesis, ch. xxiv. v. 5., and ch. xlvii. v. 29.)
In the prophet Daniel we read that—
"The man clothed in linen which was upon the waters, held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever," &c.—Daniel, ch. xii. v. 7.
In the Revelation we also find—
"And the angel, which I saw stand upon the sea and the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven and sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever," &c.—Revelation, ch. x. v. 5, 6.
Your correspondent inquires how oaths were taken prior to their being taken on the Gospel.
Among the nations who overthrew the Roman empire, the most common mode of swearing was on the relics of the saints. In England, I think, the most common mode was to swear on the corporalia or eucharistic elements, whence we still have the common phrase "upon your corporal oath." In each case the hand was placed on the thing sworn by.
The laws of the Alamanni as to conjurators, direct that the sacrament shall be so arranged that all the conjurators shall place their hands upon the coffer (containing the relics), and that the principal party shall place his hand on all theirs, and then they are to swear on the relics. (Ll. Alam. cap. 657.)
The custom of swearing on the Gospels is repeatedly mentioned in the laws of the Lombards. (Ll. Longo. 1 tit. 21. c. 25.; Ll. Longo. 2. tit. 55. c. 2., and c. 2. tit. 34. et al.)
In the Formularies of Marculphus, two forms of oaths are given, one says that—
"In palatio nostro super capella domini Martini ubi reliqua sacramenta percurrunt debeat conjurare."
In the other we read—
"Posita manu supra sacrosanctium altare sancti … sic juratus dixit. Juro per hunc locum sanctum et Deum altissimum et virtutis sancti … quod," &c.
In the laws of Cnût of England, two forms of oath are given. They both begin with "By the Lord before whom this relic is holy." (Ancient Laws and Justice of England, p. 179.)
Your correspondent asks "what form of Judicial oath was first sanctioned by Christians as a body?"
In the history of the Council of Constantinople, it is stated that—
"George, the well beloved of God, a deacon and keeper of the records, having touched the Holy Gospels of God, swore in this manner, 'By these Holy Scriptures, and by the God who by them has spoken,'" &c.
At the Council of Nice it is said that—
"Prayer having been offered up, every one saluted the Holy Gospels, the venerated cross and image of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our Lady the mother of God, and placed his hands upon them in confirmation of what he had said."
From these I infer that the custom of swearing on the Gospels received the sanction of the church at a very early period.
In reply to the question as to other modes of swearing, it may be said briefly, that men swore by anything to which they attached any importance, and generally by that to which they attached most importance.
By the laws of the Alamanni, a wife could claim her Morgen-gabe (or the gift of the morning after the wedding night) by swearing to its amount on her breast; and by the Droits d'Augsbourg, by swearing to it on her two breasts and two tresses.
Nothing was more common than for a man to swear by his beard. This custom is alluded to by one of Shakspeare's fools, who suggests that if a certain knight swore by his honour, and his mistress by her beard, neither of them could be forsworn.
In the canons of the Fourth Council of Orleans, we read—
"Le Roi lui-même, ou le plus renommé des chevaliers présents, ayant découpé le paon, se leva, et mettant la main sur l'oiseau, fit un vœu hardi; Ensuite il passa le plat, et chacun de ceux qui le reçurent fit un vœu semblable."
In the year 1306, Edward I. of England swore an oath on two swans.
It was also very common from an early period, both in England and abroad, to swear by one, two, seven, or twelve churches. The deponent went to the appointed number of churches, and at each, taking the ring of the church door in his hand, repeated the oath.
One of the most curious specimens of the practice of swearing men by that to which they attached most importance, is to be found in an Hindoo law. It says, let a judge swear a Brahmin by his veracity; a soldier by his horses, his elephants, or his arms; an agriculturist by his cows, his grain, or his money; and a Soudra by all his crimes.
John Thrupp.
Surbiton.
I know nothing about judicial oaths: but the origin of the form Mr. Breen states to be used by the Roman Catholics of the Continent, and the Scotch Presbyterians, may be seen in Dan. xii. 7.: "When he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever." And in Revelation x. 5, 6.: "And the angel … lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him," &c. See also Genesis xiv. 22.
Maria.