NOTES AND QUERIES. [io s. XL j A y. w,
Sir John married secondly Mary, relict o~
John Baker, and daughter of Sir Thomas
Guilford, Kt. She survived her husband
and dwelt in Drury Lane, London.
According to ' The Peerage of Scotland, by Douglas, Andrew, Lord Gray, had two wives the first being Anne, relict of James Earl of Buchan, and daughter of Sir Walter Ogilvy, Kt., of Deskford and Findlater and the second Dame Catherine Cadell Perhaps some of the readers of ' N. & Q.' wil be able to unravel the query.
JOHN RADCLIFFE.
For "Bart." (surely "Bart." should be giving way by now to " Bt.," in accordance with the wishes of the Committee of the Baronetage) read Kt. The first Baronet <cr. 1641) was a grandson of Sir John the Knight. For " Brompton " read Brimp- ton, Somerset.
Mary, second wife of Sir John Sydenham, and subsequently second wife of Andrew, Lord Gray, was a daughter of Sir Thomas Guldefprd of Hemsted in Cranbrook, Kent, and wife of John Baker of Sissinghurst in the same county (pedigree of Sydenham, by H. Stanley Head, Misc. Gen. et Her., Second Series, iii. 327, and ' Complete Baronetage,' vol. i. sub Baker). A letter of Arthur Sanders to Edmund Parr of 15 Feb., 1628, mentions the marriage of Lady Sydenham with Lord Gray, " she being fourscore, and he four-and-twenty " (' S.P. Dom.,' p. 258). The difference in age is exaggerated, as such discrepancies are in gossip : the writer probably aimed at euphony rather than truth. Lord Gray was certainly older, but his bride need not have been much younger, having borne a son to her ^ former husband as far back as 1587 or so (' Complete Baronetage,' as above).
G. E. C. states in a foot-note to the Gray peerage ('Complete Peerage') that "both herbage and her first husband seem doubt- ful." There can be no doubt, however, on the latter point. A State Paper of 10 Jan 1629, records that
" Mary, Lady Gray, now wife of Andrew, Lord Gray, and sometime wife of Sir John Sydenham standing convicted of Popish recusancy, and being seized of certain lands in cos. Kent and' Somerset," was deprived of two-thirds of the said estates (' S.P. Dom., 1628-9,' p. 447). Sir John Sydenham by his will, proved 10 Mav 1626 (P.C.C. 70 Hele), bequeathed to his wife^whom he did not mention by name,
"all the Jewells, chaynes, rings, and ornaments which my said wief now possesseth and useth which now are in the house in Drurye Lane
within the Parrishe of St. Gyles in the Fieldes in
the County of Middlesex, wherein shee hathe of
late lived ; "
and letters of administration of the estate of Mary, Lady Gray, of St. Giles-in-the- Fields, were granted, 4 Jan., 1631/2, to her grandson Sir John Baker, Bt., and on the 16th of the same month to her husband Andrew, Lord Gray (P.C.C.).
Three errors should be pointed out, inci- dentally, in G. E. C.'s monumental works referred to above. The compiler's doubts as to Lady Gray's first marriage have resulted in superfluous and mistaken foot-notes on the subject of the 1631/2 administration both under Gray in the ' Peerage ' and under Baker in the ' Baronetage ' (vol. i. p. 72). Under the Sydenham baronetcy (vol. ii.) the statement that Sir John Sydenham, the first Baronet, succeeded his father in 1625 is incorrect, since his father, John Sydenham, proved the will of his father Sir John Sydenham, Kt. (whose name heads this reply), in 1626. PERCEVAL LUCAS. 188, Marylebone Road, N.W.
OMAR KHAYYAM BIBLIOGRAPHY (10 S. x. 307, 391). The following versions in Welsh- ii -mani may be worth mention :
1. 'Omar Khayyam Bish Ta Dui Gilia Chide Are Volshitika Romani Chib John Sampsonestar,' London, 1902.
2. 'Tanengreske Shtarenge Gilia' : 22 stanzas, by Principal MacAlister, in ' Echoes,' Cambridge, 1907.
ALEX. RUSSELL. Stromness.
" PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT " (10 S. x. 488 ; xi. 13). In Nathan Drake's compilation entitled ' Memorials of Shakspeare ' we have a chapter, which is an extract from ' The Encyclopaedia Metropolitana,' in which these words occur :
"The second answer is, that Shakspeare was pursuing two methods at once ; and besides the psychological method, he had also to attend to the poetical.
In a footnote the writer of the article, who was no doubt S. T. Coleridge, says :
"We beg pardon for the use of this -innolens 'erbtim [psychological] ; but it is one of which our language stands in great need. We have no single
- erm to express the philosophy of the human mind;
and what is worse, the principles of that philosophy are commonly called metaphysical, a word of very different meaning." 'Memorials of Shakspeare,' &c., by Nathan Drake, p. 153, London, 1828.
This note does not solve the query, but ihows when the principal word was introduced nto our language ; and the reference may )e useful to the editors of the great Oxford
Dictionary. JOHN T. CURRY.
