176
NOTES AND QUERIES. tn s. i. FEB. 26, 1010.
ARISTOTLE AND THE GOLDEN RULE (10 S.
xii. 510). As my query has not elicited
an answer, much to my surprise, may I give
the quotation in full, and ask my query in a
different way ?
Can any reader refer me to the original of the passage ? I saw it attributed to Aristotle some time ago in, I believe, an advertisement, but it may not be his. The passage is remarkable in its resemblance to the Golden Rule, and if it is by any pre- Christian writer, the author's name and the reference to it should be preserved in the columns of ' N. & Q.' The passage in its entirety is thus :
" Cleanse and purify thy heart, for it is the seat of all sin, not by worthless ceremonies, prayers, and meanings, but by stern resolve to sin no more,; to uphold right, and do right ; sacrifice thyself at the shrine of duty, forgiving injuries, and acting only towards others as thou wouldst have them behave towards thyself."
I confess it savours to me rather of the Fathers than Aristotle ; but I should like to trace it to its author. Lucis.
" oo " : HOW PRONOUNCED (11 S. i. 10,
58). I have to thank two correspondents
for their replies to my query concerning
the change from 6 to u (oo). My special
interest, however, is less in the change itself
than in the reasons for it, and why it occurred
when it did. Ample details about the change
itself, I know, are given in the books that
have been mentioned ; but if these explain
what caused the change to occur, I have
missed the explanation, and should like to
be referred to it. Why did 6 become it,
rather than another sound ? Why, indeed.
should there have been any change ? What
caused the vowel to be " moved up to the
high position n ? Is there any ascertain-
able reason why the change should have
taken place at the time stated ? It was
about such points as these that I desired,
and shall still be grateful for, information
Meantime, I am obliged to those who re
plied. I gather from MR. PLATT'S answer
that no European language except ours
uses the letters oo to represent the sound of u
Questions similar to the above might be
put about other vowel-changes, notably that
of ee into I. Here, again, the books describe
fully what happened ; PROF. SKEAT, for
example, tells us that at one time the sounc
of this vowel approximated to that ir
" name." But why did the change take thi
form, and why was its operation not more
general ? Why did sounds which were
already nearer to the goal not respond t(
the same influence ? What preventec
' name " and "blame"' from becoming
- nime" and " blime " ? if indeed they
lave been prevented, since at present from
ome lips we hear a sound not unlike this, Are we to recognize this as a further develop- ment of the same process which changed
e into I, in other words ?
Enlightenment on such points as these may be acceptable to other readers, as it certainly will be to STUDENT.
WILLIAM SHIPPEN, 1673-1743 (11 S. i. 50). The mother of William Shippen was a daughter of Richard Legh of Lyme. See Bean's ' Parliamentary Representation of the Six Northern Counties of England,' p. 385. W. SCOTT.
Stirling.
MARRIAGE CONTRACT c. 1540 (11 S. i. 66).- There are several cases of these marriage contracts in ' Depositions and other Ecclesi- astical Proceedings from the Courts of Dur- ham, from 1311 to the Reign of Elizabeth/ vol. xxi. of the publications of the Surtees Society. The process or ceremony referred to is " handfasting," or joining of hands in betrothal. In Jamieson's Scottish Dic- tionary the custom is defined, at some length, as a contract for a year. The cases heard at Durham relate chiefly to breaches of this contract, incontinent living, failure to complete by regular marriage, &c. Thus on 30 June, 1537, Richard Dunsf or the brought Sibella Birtefeld before the Court for refusal to fulfil her handfasting engagement. Robert Hagthorp deposed that he had brought the parties together and said to Sibella :
" Ye knowe well ynough you and Richard Dunsforthe have bene long to gethir in oon< howse, and,methinke, yt were best for you botl: if ye can fynde in your harteto marye to gither and Sir Richard the parishe preiste saieth ji wilnot axe you in the churche ooneles ye I handfast, wherefore, if ye can fynde in youi harte to take hym to your husbond, dryve no longer, and yf not, breke of bytymes."
Sibella did not answer, upon which Hag- thorp remonstrated again, and eventuallj she agreed to the handfasting. A witness was sent for, and upon his arrival Richard took Sibella by the hand, and said :
"'Here I, Richard, take you, Sybill, to my handfast wyfe, from this day forward, all other woman to "forsake, and the for to take. \vhi deathe us departe, and thereto I plight the r treuth.' And then they drewe hands, and i woman tooke hym by the hande, and saie< lieke wyes, ' Here I, Sibell, take the, Richaafl to my husbond from this day.' "
In another case, Elizabeth Frisell against Henry Smith, the handfasting took place
