UL 2, '98.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
275
is surely a better way than saying
- mly that he has a family, since that would
eave it doubtful whether he had a wife or not.
Your correspondent's note reminds me of a bitter saying I once heard from a woman. Defending an acquaintance of both of us from a charge she had brought against him of neglecting his wife, I said that he seemed, at any rate, very kind to his children. " Oh, yes," she replied, " but his wife is no relation, except through marriage." C. 0. B.
In reply to WIDOW, may I point out that, with us, a wife is not a subordinate member of the husband's household, on a level with the children? That was the case in the old Roman system of manus, which put the wife in loco filial familice; but a Briton speaks of his "wife and family," and regards her as an independent head of the latter jointly with himself. Does a citizen of any of the States speak of a lady " leaving a family " when she dies with a widower, but no children, sur- viving her? If not, why this ungallant lumping of wives, and not husbands, along with children, in the term "family"?
P. Q.
So far as family, i. e. race, is concerned, the wife is only a marriage connexion, and, if she leaves no issue, her name drops out of the pedigree. If, therefore, she has no family, in the sense of issue, the same condition of things applies to the husband. A. H.
The "British" fashion referred to would seem to be the more respectful to the wife, treating her as on a level with her husband. Family means primarily " dependents, in- feriors." But see 'H. E. D.' article on the word. Q. V.
PLACE-NAMES, TEMP. EDWARD I. AND RICHARD II. (9 th S. i. 107, 191). There is an error in my note at the last reference. Panes Thorp being conjoined with Hunkleby, it is probable that it is an insignificant hamlet now called Painsthorpe, close to Uncleby, rather than Pensthorpe, a lost village in Holderness. ISAAC TAYLOR.
If Haresternes be Holystone, why should not Christianakelda be Akeld, also in North- umberland? R. B.
SHAKSPEARE'S GRANDFATHER (8 th S. xii. 463; 9 th S. i. 41, 113, 213). MR. YEATMAN, replying to my letter defending Mr. Halliwell- Pnillippsfrom the charge of having suppressed a Shakespearean document, says that pro- bably that document was also known to myself, and that I also suppressed it !
It is not pleasant to be engaged in a corre-
spondence with one who will so write; but,
in further vindication of the memory of Mr.
Halliwell-Phillipps, I ask you to allow me
to lay before your readers two or three
remarks.
1. MR. YEATMAN in his first letter (9 th S. i. 41) said, without any qualification, "Mr. Phillipps suppresses the fact that Robert Arden was the son of Thomas." You allowed me to point out (9th S. i. 113) that, on the contrary, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps had an- nounced the fact fifty years ago, and had emphasized it in his publications up to the last edition of his ' Outlines.' MR. YEATMAN replies that I "did not deny" that Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps had omitted mention of the fact in his ' Calendar of the Corporation Records of Stratford.' I had not the slightest idea that MR. YEATMAN was referring to that volume. Had he mentioned the ' Calendar ' in his letter I should, of course, have pointed out that Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps does give that deed of 16 Henry VII. with considerable fulness, all the names of the parties to the deed being printed, including Robert and Thomas Arden. The residences and relation- ship could not be expected to be given in a ' Calendar ' containing some thousands of documents. Years before, in its proper place, Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps had drawn attention to the relationship. To speak of such brevity (or rather fulness) as "sup- pression " is ridiculous. I ask your readers who are interested in the question to look at the 'Calendar,' and judge for themselves. That document is No. 83, on p. 291.
2. I complained that MR. YEATMAN in his letter made various quotations due to Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's investigations without acknowledgment. MR. YEATMAN makes me allude to references in his book. I did not allude to his book, which I had never seen. He goes on to say that he gave " references to the original documents." If he had thus referred to the fountain-head it would not have precluded him from acknowledging Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's researches. But your readers may judge of MR. YEATMAN'S refer- ences to original documents from the following specimen. One of the best known of Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's discoveries is the 1594 entry in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, which gives the first definite record of Shakespeare's connexion with the stage. This celebrated entry is thus alluded to by MR. YEATMAN (p. 205) : " The document is probably little known; the author is indebted" bo a lady for the entry !
3. MR. YEATMAN in his first letter referred
