Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 9.djvu/101

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

us. ix. JAN. si, 1914] NOTES AND QUERIES.

3IS. had been lent to the Society by a Mr. Whitelocke through the interposition of Mr. J. S. Burn.

Perhaps the diarist was inexact, for surely lie must have known that Lady Wright had a daughter by her first husband ! There can be no doubt of the fact, for, although John Farnham does not in his will (fo. 24 Spencer, P.C.C.) mention his daughter, his monument at Quorndon shows the child in effigy, and the inscription says that he

Descended of an ancient house ; with honour ledde

his life, Only with one daughter blest and with a vertuous


The arms on the monument have not all " perished." I saw the two remaining shields last autumn, but, being unprovided with the needful young eyes, flashlight, long ladder, and good nerve, I could only de- cipher them in part. The oval shield at the top of the monument seems to have a bend engrailed, impaling quite clearly Farn- ham of Quorndon. The former, perhaps, represents the arms attributed to Sir George Wright's family in the ' Visitations of Stafford' (Salt Soc.), p. 329, foot-note, " Per pale. . . .and. . . .a bend engrailed." The shield above Lady Wright's head has Quarterly, 1 and 4, party per pale indented ? <or and gu.?) ; 2, an eagle displayed ; 3, az. or sa.? on a chief three lozenges, or perhaps fleurs-de-lis ? A corresponding shield, which should be above Sir George's head, is lost.

The above quotation from Whitelocke clearly implies that Sir Robert Wright and Sir George were not related.

Sir George's son Thomas married at St. Peter-le-Poor, London, 17 June, 1629, Barbara, dau. and heiress of Francis Co- kayne (brother to Sir William Cokayne, Lord Mayor of London), and by her had two sons, both baptized at Richmond. Charles, the elder, became D.D., Rector of Rungton, Norfolk, and Professor of Arabic at Cambridge. There issued a grant of administration of the estate of Thomas Wright of Richmond, 28 Nov., 1668, to his son Charles. J. CHALLENOR SMITH.


[GENERAL TERRY also thanked for reply.]

GROOM OF THE STOLE (US. viii. 466, 515 ; ix. 32). If it can be shown that in English, during the seventeenth century and earlier, " stole " was a general term including the whole of the Royal outfit from the stole proper to the shirt, there may be something in the explanation given by Edw. Chamber- layne in 1684. 1 never confounded the

" stole " or " stoole " in the Stole Chamber, or camera privata, with the Coronation stole, but it seemed to me probable, as it still does, that the officer in question origin- ally attended to the former, and not to the latter. It is likely enough that, as time went on, the office became a sinecure, and the term by which it was distinguished received a new interpretation more in accordance with modern ideas. I expect soon to have something further to com- municate which may help to clear up the matter. J. T. F.

Winterton, Lines.

SWEDISH AMBASSADOR (11 S. ix. 51). Baron Gustaf Adam von Nolcken was Swedish Envoy to the Court of St. James from 1763 to 1793.

SWEDISH LEGATION IN LONDON. fL. L. K. also thanked for reply.]

SUNDIAL INSCRIPTION (11 S. ix. 48). I suggest : Itnue reditque viam constans quara suspicis umbra ;

Umbra fugax homines non reditura sumus.

This gives the double antithesis (1) of " itque reditque " and " non reditura," and (2) of " umbra constans " and " umbra fugax " ; the false quantity is also avoided in " viam." The first half of the first line is a reminiscence of JEn. vi. 122.


[S. S. ALLEN, B. B., PROF. BENSLY, DR. MA- ORATH, and PROF. MOORE SMITH also thanked for replies.]

DEFOE'S 'WEEKLY REVIEW' (11 S. viii. 448). If MR. F. CURRY'S suggestion one which, by the way, was made in 1912 by Prof. W. P. Trent in his article on Defoe in ' The Cambridge History of English Litera- ture ' is ever carried out, it will be neces- sary for the editor to examine carefully two volumes now in this country. One, owned by the Boston Athenaeum, is a copy of vol. vi., printed in Edinburgh. It lacks the title-page and (if my memory is good) two numbers, but is otherwise complete. This Edinburgh edition of vol. vi., the existence of which does not seem to be generally known, contains matter not in the London edition of the same volume, and otherwise differs from the London edition.

The second is a copy of vol. vii., owned by the American Antiquarian Society (Wor- cester, Mass.). This, unfortunately, is in- complete ; but the interesting feature about it is that some of the numbers were printed in Edinburgh, and some in London.