the vulgar, especially when our table is calculated for a dif ferent climate, and where, as we have reason to believe, no such wild doings were ever suffered to prevail.

But to finish this affair, I have seen, by the favour of friend, since writing the above, some extracts from the last edition of Menagius's Origines de la Langue Françoise, which, as it had not been seen by me, so neither, as it appears, have either of these gentlemen consulted it. The first edition of the book was printed in 1650; this is that I use, and is particularly commended in the life of the author, prefixed to the Menagiana, as an impression remarkably correct. The author himself went on enlarging his work, and a new edition was printed two years after his death, viz. 1694: but since that, there is another edition of the Dictionnaire Etymologique, par M. Menage, printed anno 1750, with copious additions, by several men of learning. The extracts from this book, which are here subjoined, so far as relate immediately to the subject, may convince these gentlemen, that neither of their interpretations is so indubitably certain as they may perhaps imagine, and that upon the whole, the best way must be, to leave at last both theirs, and mine, and these fresh ones, to the opinion and judgment of the readers.

I. Brandon, c'est un mot ancien qui signifie tison, d'ou est dit le Dimanche des Brandons, Dominica in Brandonibus. C'est le premier Dimanche de Careme. De l'Allemand brand, qui signifie la meme chose. Menage. Here's an etymology; and we are told what brandon means; but it is not said, how it came to pass, that Le Dimanche des Brandons is named from it.

II. In the second extract it signifies a bonfire, but does not relate to the first Sunday in Lent, but to Midsummerday; this therefore is out of the question; but whereas there is mention made of Charles the VIII.th's dancing nine times round the bonfire, after he had kindled it, hence it seems easy to conceive, that brandons may signify a dance round a bonfire: but then this is not to the purpose.

III. "Brandon, marque de saisie, appellée autrement Pannonceau de brandeum. Jean la Coste, dans sa preface, sur le titre au code de pignoratitia actione, expliquant la livre 2de au code, du titre ut nemini liceat sine judicis auctori tate signa rebus imponere alienis: Hæc signa Franci vocant brandons, fiunt enim plerumque ex pannunculis, et inde panonçeaux. Brandeum, apud D. Gregorium, Épist. 30, lib. 3, et apud Sigebertum in Chronico, ubi de Leone Magno Romano pontifice, accipi reperio pro particula veli vel pallæ

altaris D. Petri. Ab hac voce deducta sine dubio, "vox Francica, quod pauci sciunt. V. H." This now is very express on my side of the question; but then on the other hand it must be confessed that the Latin form Dominica in Brandonibus, which we meet with in the first extract, does not so well agree with this etymology. It does not appear, though, what authority there is for that Latin name, nor, supposing it to be the French word brandon, from what sense of that word it takes its rise.

IV. The fourth is this; "Brandon, torche, et branche d'arbre, parceque des branches du tada ou sapin on faisoit des torches.... On a appellée le Dimanche des Brandons, le premier Dimanche de Careme. ... Ce nom vient de ce que par un reste d'idolatrie, quelques paysans mal instruits alloient ce jour-la avec de torches de paille ou de bois de sapin allumées, parcourir les arbres de leurs jardins et de leurs vergers, et les apostrophant les uns apres les autres, ils les menacoient de les coups par le pied, et de les bruler; s'ils ne portoient pas du fruit cette année-la. . . . On donne a Lyon le nom de brandons a des rameux verds que le peuple va querir tous les ans aux Fauxbourg de la Guillotiere, le premier Dimanche de Careme, et auxquels il attache des fruits, des gateaux, des oublies, et avec ces brandons il rentre dans la ville. C'est ce qui a fais donner a ce dimanche le nom de Dimanche de Brandons."

The occasions of the name here given, are different from any of the rest. The whole is submitted to the public by,

Sir,

1756, Jan.

Yours, &c.

SAMUEL PEGGE.

XXXII. On the Custom of Swearing in Discourse.
MR. URBAN,

THAT the vice of swearing in common discourse, is at this day but too frequent in this nation, will be allowed; but then, I think, it is chiefly found amongst the lower sort of people; and I remember an observation I have read somewhere "That it came in at the head, but is going out at the tail" I hope the observation is true, and that in time this horrible custom will totally vanish, both in head and

tail. However, this implies that at first it prevailed most amongst the nobility and gentry, and "To swear like a lord," and "To swear like an emperor," are expressions of the same denotement, and which, I dare say, have often sounded in your ears. It is astonishing with what facility our kings would formerly swear at every turn. The form used by Henry VIII. was By the mother of God," and accordingly Shakespeare, adhering to the history, introduces him saying,

66

And again,

"Now, by my holy dame."

"By God's blest mother."

And afterwards,

66

By holy Mary."

Shak. Hen. VIII. Act 3. Sc. 4.

The oath of the conqueror was "By the splendor of God," see Rapin, p. 165, 180. in Not. and that of Rufus, as we are told," By St. Luke's face," for so Rapin, I. p. 189. Whereupon the king told the monk, swearing by St. Luke's face, his usual oath, that he best deserved the abbey, and should have it for nothing." But I think there is a great mistake in this matter; for though the Roman church pretends to have the head of St. Luke, both at Prague and at Rome, (See Patrick's Devotions of the Romish Church, p. 14.) yet I think Rufus did not swear by the face of St. Luke, but by the face of Christ. In the monkish historian Eadmarus, this prince swears four times; 1st. Per sanctum vultum de Luca, p. 19. 2d. Per vultum dei, p. 30. 3d. Per vultum de Luca, p. 47. And lastly, Per vultum dei, again, p. 54. It appears to me that the king intended the same oath in all the four places, and that if he designed to swear by St. Luke's face, in those two instances where St. Luke is mentioned, he would have said per vultum Lucæ, and not per vultum de Luca, for per vultum de Luca, cannot signify St. Luke's face, that is, it is not equivalent to per vultum Luce, the Latin writers never using de by way of periphrasis for the genitive case. * And therefore I take the truth of the matter to be this, that whereas, in every case, the king

[* When lord Lyttleton's History of Henry II. was published, in which this oath received a different interpretation, Dr. Pegge retracted his opinion, and received a letter from his lordship, acknowledging the candour with which it was relinquished. E.]

intended to swear by God's face, or the face of Christ, he meant more especially to swear by some particular one painted by St. Luke, of whose works as a painter, the Ancients pretended, as I think the Romanists still do, to have many specimens. See Dr. Cave's Lives of the Apostles, p. 180. Thus the faces of Christ being various, first his real face; secondly, the veronica, or his face impressed upon the handkerchief, concerning which see Calmet's Dict. in voc. and thirdly, this painted by St. Luke; the king chose to swear by this last, and this last might very well be expressed by per sanctum vultum de Luca, that is, de Luca factum.The conclusion is, that the usual oath of king William Rufus, was not by St. Luke's face, but by the face of Christ, depicted by St. Luke, who is said to have been very skilful in that profession, is at this day the reputed patron of the painters, and concerning whom and his works, as an artist, much I presume may be seen in a tract of Greyer the Jesuit, (and something probably about his pourtraitures of Jesus Christ) but for my part, I have not the book by me.

1754, Sup.

I am, Sir,

Yours, &c.

PAUL GEMSEGE.

XXXIII. On the Origin of Tradesmen's Tokens.
MR. URBAN,

THE best account of the money, called Tradesmen's Tokens, which we have at present, I presume is to be drawn from the different pages of Mr. Leake's Historical Account of English Money, London, 1745. 8°. Mr. Thoresby's Musæum, p. 379, and Mr. Drake's Eboracum, in the appendix, p. cx. from whence it appears, that from and during the reign of queen Elizabeth to that of king Charles II. the tradesmen and victuallers in general, that is, all that pleased, coined small money or tokens for the benefit and convenience of trade. And for this there was in a manner a perfect necessity, since, at that time, there were but few brass halfpennies comed by authority, and no great quantity of farthings, which likewise were in bulk very small.

Now this small money, by which I mean halfpence and far things, were coined by the incorporations of cities and boroughs, by several of the companies there, and by the tradespeople and victuallers at pleasure, both in them, and

in country villages: it was struck for necessary change; the sorts were, as I said, halfpence and farthings; the figure was sometimes eight square, but mostly round; the devices very various; and the materials were lead, tin, copper, or brass. Every community, tradesman, or tradeswoman, that issued this useful kind of specie, was obliged to take it again when it was brought to them, and therefore in cities and larger towns, where many sorts of them were current, a tradesmen kept a sorting box, into the partitions of which, (which we may suppose were nearly as many as there were people there that coined) he put the money of the respective coiners, and at proper times, when he had a competent quantity of any one person's money, he sent it to him, and got it changed into silver. One of these sorting boxes I once saw, at the city of Rochester in Kent, with ten or a dozen partitions in it.

And in this manner they proceeded till the year 1672, when king Charles II. having struck a sufficient quantity of halfpence and farthings for the intention and exigencies of commerce, these Nummorum Famuli were superseded, and an end was put to these shifts and practices of the victuallers and shopkeepers, as being no longer either necessary or useful.

The inquiry then is, how this affair of coining was managed and conducted by the private tradesman. At the borough of Chesterfield, in Derbyshire, Mr. Edward Wood, and afterwards his son Richard Wood, who were both of them apothecaries, coined money amongst others; and on the death of the late Mr. Edward Wood, son of the said Richard, the dies and the press were found in the house, from whence we are enabled to comprehend the whole process, which may be presumed not to have been very intricate. These Woods coined only halfpennies, and there were two sets of dies, one for the father's, and the other for the son's money, who I suppose had a set of dies made for himself on his father's decease. They were apothecaries, as was mentioned above, and the device was accordingly, Apollo Opifer. These dies I have seen, and by the favour of the gentlemen concerned, to whom I am greatly obliged, one set has fallen into my possession. What I mean by a set is an obverse and reverse; these were cut upon two small pieces of steel, which were afterwards welded upon a large block of iron. The press consisted of four pieces of good oak, not less than four inches thick, and very strongly dove-tailed together. In the upper cross-piece was fastened an iron box with a female screw, through