. m. FEB. ii,
NOTES AND QUERIES.
Ill
FR. BADDELEY may be interested to know thai
ot only was the whole of the superincumbenl
arth carefully removed from the entire sur
ice of the church and its surroundings, on
he chance of finding such, but the catchpil
f the labrum and the well to the west oi
he building were cleared out with the same
bject. The absence, however, of such em-
Jems and of architectural remains is not
urprising, owing to the extensive and some-
imes complete clearance of building material
hich is characteristic of the place.
With regard to the possible occurrence of
>ricks stamped with crosses or anchors, doe
V!R. BADDELEY wish us to believe that the
Ionian brickmakers supplied a specially
stamped article for the erection of sacred
>uildings ; and does he think that Christian
mblems used in the decoration of a church
were so numerous as to be easily findable 1
Did MR. BADDELEY realize the smallness of
- he building, I doubt if he would bid me look
- or a crypt. W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE.
_ PETER SCHLEMIHL (9 th S. ii. 346). I ques- tion whether Webster's definition of this mysterious word as " a poor, silly, and unfor- tunate fellow" covers the whole ground. At least, such are not the exclusive usages to which it is put in Jewish households. A man may possess more than ordinary ability, have talents beyond the common run, yet, in spite of these, be a "Schlemeel" in the eyes of all his intimates. In fact, this is a common expression in daily use : " Isaac or Jacob is a very clever fellow, no doubt, but he is a great Schlemeel." Whenever a Jew is more or less of an eccentric character- perhaps bashful in company, or not a ladies' man, or something of a bookworm or a recluse his friends vote him a "Schlemeel." It is mostly assigned to men who want tact and the art of savoir-faire rattling good fellows, albeit incapable of bringing any enterprise, whether of commerce or of gallantry, to a successful issue. In short, any man of parts who disappoints his friends' expectations and his own is roundly dubbed, half jestingly, half contemptuously, a " Schle- meel."
I can only timidly submit a fantastic explanation of the genesis of "Schlemeel." To an orthodox Jew of the old school any question involving doubt of the existence of God would be repulsive; the questioner a declasse, hw when expanded becomes
?!? HP ?%&, " one who inquires about the
nature of God" in a carping spirit, and in
a community of Deists worthy of hatred and
contempt. Time would, of course, give a
broader significance to the special usage I
have ventured to suggest, and likewise soften
its original asperity. M. L. BRESLAR.
Percy House, South Hackney.
EATING OF SEALS (9 th S. i. 305 ; ii. 313, 397, 533). W. B. H., writing of the * Merry Wives of Windsor,' quotes as follows :
" This part of Falstaff is said to have been written originally under the name of Oldcastle ; some of that family then remaining, the queen was pleased to command him (Shakespear) to alter it ; upon which he made use of Falstaff."
There is not a scrap of evidence to support this idle tale of N. Rowe, published in 1709. On thecontrary, the folio wing facts sufficiently reveal its utter improbability. In 1598 ap- peared (without author's name) the first part of ' Henry IV.' at a time when that grand old Puritan Sir John Oldcastle was unpopular with the gilded butterflies of Elizabeth's Court, who professed in the character of Falstaff to recognize a satire on Oldcastle. In the second edition (published with Shake- speare's name), in the preface, he corrects this libellous report in these words : " Old- castle died a martyr, and this is not the man." Not till 1602 appeared the comedy, and Elizabeth died 24 March, 1603. Is it con- ceivable that Shakespeare, having gone out of his way to correct a false report in 1598, would, four years afterwards, have eaten his own words, and published in ridicule the name of a man he regarded as a hero and martyr? J. H. MITCHINER, F.R.A.S.
LOST REGISTER (9 th S. ii. 529). Two portions of the church registers of Aldeburgh, Suffolk, have been missing for many years. By the 'Parish Register Abstract,' 1831, the then existing registers commenced with marriages in 1691 (in lieu of 1538) and ended in 1782. The baptisms and burials dated from 1691 and terminated in 1786, after which time no register could be found. By this official report it would appear that the registers for nearly two hundred years are missing, out of wo hundred and ninety- three.
EVERARD HOME COLEMAN. 71, Brecknock Road.
The book had been lost at some unspecified ime before the Parliamentary Return of 1830-3. O. W. TANCOCK.
Little Waltham.
SOME ARTHURIAN PUZZLES (9 th S. ii. 226, 293). The word written by myself (from memory) in this query "Quenhyvar" should, [ find from subsequent reference to the ' My-
- rian Archaeology,' have been written " Gwen-
