370
NOTES AND QUERIES.
. XL MAY 9, i.
'THE GOOD DEVIL OF WOODSTOCK.'
(8 th S. iii. 168, 256.)
READERS of 'Woodstock' will remember the supernatural adventures which befell the Parliamentary Commissioners at the Manor House in 1649. In his original preface Scott recounts that
"it was afterwards discovered that the only
demon who wrought all these marvels was a dis- guised royalist a fellow called Trusty Joe, or some such name, formerly in the service of the keeper of the Park, but who engaged in that of the Com- missioners, on purpose to subject them to hig persecution."
He could not remember at the time where he had stumbled upon this discovery, but when he came to write his Introduction to 'Wood- stock ' for the collected edition of the novels the " Magnum," as he familiarly termed it- he managed to light upon it again in the 'Every-day Book' of William Hone. Hone professed to have derived his information from a correspondent signing himself 'fi^w- <iA.TaTos, who had unearthed the whole story in an old periodical, viz., the British Magazine for April, 1747. This downright explanation of the marvels in question was utilized by Scott in his novel, and its authenticity remained unquestioned until the publication of Mr. Andrew Lang's " Border Edition " a few years ago. There were several points in the British Magazine story which could not fail to rouse the suspicions of a less experienced critic than Mr. Lang, and he made no secret of his reluctance to " accept evidence against the Good Devil which certainly would not be heard in his favour." A brief review of the facts of the case will show that this scepticism of his is amply justified ; indeed, I cannot help feeling some doubt whether the veracious contributor to the British Magazine ever meant himself to _be taken seriously at all. At any rate the imposition, if intended to deceive, is of quite exceptional character, as being an attempt to palm off an explanation of supernatural phenomena rather than such phenomena themselves.
For the adventures in question the sources of information are four :
1. 'The Just Devil of Woodstock,' by Thomas Widdowes, minister of Woodstock "a diary," according to Wood's ' Athense,'
"which was exactly kept by the author for his own satisfaction, intending not to print it, but >r _ his death, the copy coming into the hands of another person, 'twas printed in Dec., 1660, and had the year 1649 put at the bottom of the title "
2. 'The Woodstock Scuffle,' London, 1649,
an account of the occurrences in verse.
3. Plot's 'Oxfordshire,' Oxford, 1677, chap- ter viii. This, writes Wood (' Life,' ed. Clark, i. 158), was "not from this printed copie [i.e., Widdowes's tract], which he never saw, as he himself hath told me, but from the relation of severall people that then [i.e., in 1649] lived."
4. A short letter from J. Lydal, dated 11 March, 1650, and printed in Aubrey's ' Miscellanies ' (p. 84, ed. 1857).
Nos. 1 and 2 are reprinted in an appendix to Scott's Introduction.
For the next hundred years the occurrences minutely described by Widdowes and Plot remained a mystery ; but at last, in the afore- said British Magazine (London, printed for C. Corbett, at Addison's Head, in Fleet Street, vol. ii. p. 156) for April, 1747, appeared The Genuine History of the Good Devil of Woodstock, famous in the World, in the year 1649, and never accounted for, or at all under- stood to this time.' The writer begins by explaining how he had become acquainted with this "genuine history."
" Some original papers having lately fallen into my hands, under the name of ' Authentic Memoirs of the Memorable Joseph Collins, of Oxford, commonly known by the name of Funny Joe,' and now intended for the press ; I was extreamly delighted to find in them a circumstantial and unquestionable account of the most famous of all invisible agents, so well known in the year 1649, under the name of the Good Devil of Woodstock,"
and so on. It seems that " Funny Joe," under he feigned name of Giles Sharp, managed to et the post of secretary or servant to the Commissioners, and with the help of one or two confederates and a smattering of che- mical knowledge brought about all the won- derful events which took place. Perhaps it is hardly necessary to go any further, or flog a dead horse. Fortunately for the contributor to the British Magazine, the 'New English Dictionary ' did not exist in 1747, or " Funny Joe " would have had but a short shrift. The fact is that in 1649 the adjective by which he was then "commonly known " was itself un- own ; the earliest quotation for it in the ' Dictionary ' is dated 1756 (the editor may
- ike to have this of nine years earlier) ; and
as to the noun " fun," it first appears about 1. 700 in the sense of a hoax or practical joke, and in our modern sense not till some thirty years later.
After this it is hardly surprising that neither Scott nor any one else has ever found any trace of the " memorable Joseph Collins " n the British Museum, and that he is equally unknown to Wood and all other Oxford
