492
NOTES AND QUERIES. [11 s. i. JUNE is, 1910.
accept it : it would be presumption for an
Australian to question an American authority
on such a point.
I can vouch for the genuineness of my Boston Gazette. I have had it in my own possession for forty years, before which it was the property of an elder relative.
EDWABD STEVENS.
Melbourne.
HENRY BOYLE, 1826 (11 S. i. 290, 431), Guesses at authorship are generally danger- ous, and W. S. S.'s that Henry Boyle was related to the Boyles in Ayrshire is not an exception. Neither was he related to Boyle of the 'Court Guide,' about whom R. T. asked a question ante, p. 289.
I have had my copy of Boyle's ' Chrono- logy * many years, and found it frequently use- ful. Though the indebtedness is not acknow- ledged in the preface, the book was, I have no doubt, chiefly compiled from The Gentle- man's Magazine and ' The Annual Register.' I have a note that it is by W. H. Ireland, the Shakespeare forger, but I do not seem to have kept any memorandum of my authority. It is attributed to him in the British Museum Catalogue, but I may have myself given that information.
In ' The Law * Cyrus Jay (as to whom I wrote a note at 10 S. xii. 485) refers to Boyle's 'Chronology' "as a once well- known book.'* This was in 1868. Except for a short gap, Irving' s ' Annals of our Time J forms a continuation.
RALPH THOMAS.
ORGANISTS OF ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL AND WESTMINSTER ABBEY (11 S. i. 428). I would refer MR. L. H. CHAMBERS to 'Cathedral Organists,' by John E. West (Novello & Co., 1899), pp. 52-7, 112-18. The author of this work refers for fuller particulars as to organists of St. Paul's to ' The Organists and Composers of St. Paul's Cathedral,' by John S. Bumpus.
ALFRED B. BEAVEN.
Leamington.
[MR. J. E. MATTHEW also refers to West's book.]
CUCKOOS AND DUCKS TO CLEAR MUD AWAY (11 S. i. 208, 257, 316). The pro- verbial ducks, like so much else, are in Swift's ' Polite Conversation ' :
Lady Smart. Well ; but, Sir John, when may we hope to see you again in London ?
Sir John. Why, Madam, not till the Ducks have eat up the Dirt, as the Children say. Dialogue II., p. 233, ' Miscellanies,' vol. ix., 1751.
EDWARD BENSLY.
TERTULLIAN ON CHRISTIANS AND LIONS
(11 S. i. 428). It is not difficult to show
"the point in the second clause" quoted
in the query. As I have not a copy of
Thelwall's translation of the ' Apologetic us,'
I must make use of the original Latin. In
c. xxxvii. the author, describing the mar-
vellous progress of the Christian religion,
says :
" Hesterni sumus, et vestra omnia iraplevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum : sola vobis relinquimus tencpla."
These eloquent words were written about A.D. 200 or 202. In c. xl. Tertullian tells us that whenever a general or particular calamity occurred, the Christians were declared to be the cause of it :
"Si Tiberis ascendit ad moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva, si coelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim : Christianas ad leonem f Tantos ad unum ? "
" Tantos [Chris tianos] ad unum [lsonem]? n ' ' Are you going to send such a vast number of Christians to be devoured by one lion ? '-' The Abbe Gaume, whose edition of Ter- tullian' s ' Apologeticus J I make use of, says, in reference to the last three words quoted : " Quelle terrible et magnifique image ! n
JOHN T. CURRY.
" The Christians to the lion " would appear to have been the correct expression, not "to the lions,"- as is commonly reported in the pages of ecclesiastical historians. The words of Tertullian were probably spoken in an ironical sense. It would no doubt be a physical impossibility for the strongest lion to overcome some hundreds of Christians without a pause in the work of destruction. But beyond the mere irony, there is possibly an appeal to the religious sensibilities of his hearers. How foolish to imagine, he perhaps means, that the strongest thing on earth can destroy those protected by heaven.
W. SCOTT.
HAMPDEN AND SHIP MONEY (11 S. i. 426). In Thomson's '.Comprehensive History of England,* vol. ii. p. 440, John Hampdsn's objection to Charles I.'s demand for ship money is stated as follows :
'That he could be content to lend as well as others, but feared to draw upon himself the curse in Magna Charta, which should be read twice a year against those who infringe it."
Later, when he appeared before the Privy Council, it is said ' ' he refused to pay his money without warrant of Parliament."
Guizot in his ' History of the English Revolution ' says Hampden was only rated
