ii s. ix. MAR. 14, i9u.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
217
THE SECOND FOLIO OF THE SHAKESPEARE
PLAYS (11 S. viii. 141, 196, 232, 294, 317;
ix. 11,73, 114, 172). SIB EDWIN DURNING-
LAWRENCE says that the
" argument that the use of a as a privative is not good Latin is disproved by the fact that ' amens ' is an excellent classical word."
Any tyro in Latin knows that a in " amens " is the preposition, and is a long vowel, while a privative is short. It is well for SIB EDWIN DUBNING-LAWBENCE that Martial is deceased, for this extraordinary confusion would have supplied the epigrammatist with material for a stinging couplet. S.
The fact that the porcupine has a hog's head and cloven feet does not by any means make it a " hanged-hog." It simply goes to show that the artist (erring in the com- pany of most of the heraldic painters of the day) did not know how to draw a porcupine correctly. I am acquainted with a number of heraldic representations of porcupines of the period, and find the beast drawn in- differently snouted or blunt - nosed, pawed or cloven-footed. Sometimes it wears a chain and collar, sometimes a rope with a ring. Surely the artists of the first half of the sixteenth century were not " in the secret " ! D. L. GALBREATH.
Montreux.
In that part of his latest communication alluded to by SIR EDWIN DURNING - LAW- RENCE as " answering " me, I find nothing of the nature of an answer, unless it be the statement that " it was at first intended to bring out the translation of Du Bartas in Sidney's name." Will SIR EDWIN kindly say whether this is, or is not, a denial that Sir Philip Sidney commenced a translation, and that Sylvester was referring to that fact in his pyramid- shaped statement about Sidney, headed by a pheon under which he placed Sidney's crest ?
As to the point he raises about the " hanged-hog," I have before me as I write < 1 ) a copy of the first edition of the ' Arca- dia ' that of 1590 ; (2) Sylvester's transla- tion of Du Bartas in 1605; and (3) the 1623 edition of the ' Arcadia ' ; and can assure other readers of ' N. & Q.' that there is nothing in the different representations of Sidney's crest to warrant the inference drawn.
It is true that in the 1623 ' Arcadia ' a cord and what might be called a slip-knot appear instead of the collar and chain to be seen on the porcupine, which is one of the two supporters of the coat of arms on the
title-page of the earliest or 1590 edition.
But in the crest over the coat of arms in
the 1590 edition the collar and chain are
on so small a scale that any one copying
them might easily arrive at the representa-
tion of the crest given in 1623, so far as
they are concerned. And as to the feet of
the porcupine, they appear to me to be
practically the same in the crest of the 1590
' Arcadia,' in Sylvester's rendering of the
crest in 1605, and in the crest of the 1623
' Arcadia.'
By the way, when in 1627 a sixth book was added to the ' Arcadia,' the writer, R. B., contributed a Preface in which occurs the statement : "I have added a limme to Apelles Picture." See Beling's address ' To the Reader ' on p. 485.
J. DENHAM PARSONS.
" A FACT IS A LIE AND A HALF " (11 S. ix.
170). This seems to me to indicate a reversal of the process of suppressio veri. If a fact consisted of three points, a state- ment containing only two of the points, the other being deliberately suppressed, might convey an absolutely untrue impression, and therefore be a lie. If, however, the sup- pressed point was added to the statement containing the other two points, the real fact would be made manifest. J. F.
St. Raphael.
"STARTUPS END "(US. ix. 151). I fear I cannot help MR. W. B. GERISH to the origin of this name. But the word " startups " was once used for boots of some kind. I have a note under date 1607 (reference un- fortunately lost) as follows : " His holy day roabes went on, his startups new blackt, his cap faire brusht."
RICHARD H. THORNTON.
SAFFRON WALDEN (US. ix. 87, 177). I shall be obliged if MR. TOM JONES will give me his authority for the date of the introduc- tion of saffron into Cambridgeshire, which is just what I want to know. I gather from Morant and many later writers (also from Camden) that there is nothing more definite known than that it is said to have been introduced at about that time. Canon Ellacombe says the original ^authority is unknown. C. C. B.
CLEMENTINA JOHANNES SOBIESKI DOUG- LASS (11 S. viii. 232). See 8 S. xi. 66, 110, 157. JOHN B. WAINE WRIGHT.
[We regret that at p. 191 the above references were inserted under the name of the wrong Clementina.]
