490 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



['2°<i S. X. Dfx-. 22. '60. 



used of large cages in which falcons or other birds 

 were put to moult (see Bescherelle) ; whilst muer 

 still signifies to moult, so that it is evident mew 

 (niewe), mwe, and muer, have one common origin. 

 But muer (Ital. muvare) is plainly derived from 

 mutare, in the same way that puer, to stink, comes 

 from puTere, and suer, to sweat, from sunare — the 

 t and d being dropped. Whether, however, mews 

 were so called because horses were put into them 

 whilst changing their coats, or toj fatten (for miie 

 also means a dark place into which geese, &c., are 

 put to fatten), or again because horses are mewed 

 up in them, I leave to more competent judges to 

 determine. The idea of moulting was, no doubt, 

 the primary one. But may not moult itself also 

 come from mutare f The word was formerly writ- 

 ten mout and mowte (Halliwell) ; and though these 

 are generally referred to the German (sicli) mau- 

 sen (or mau^ern), which has the same meaning, 

 yet I think mutare is quite as good a derivation. 

 Very likely there is also a connexion between the 

 German and the Latin. That the Latin u was in 

 the cognate languages frequently changed into ou, 

 is well known. Compai'e the old French movlt = 

 beaucoup, tres, from mvltum, and the English 

 povlt (Fr. poulet) i^rova pvHus. 



Johnson derives moult from the Dutch verb muy- 

 ten, but I cannot find this word in a large Dutch 

 Dictionary in my possession bearing the date 

 1783, though there is the substantive muite=^ 

 bird-cage. 



Since writing the above I have discovered, 

 quite accidentally, that the derivation of mews has 

 already been treated of in "N. & Q." (2"« S. iv. 

 20.), where muette and mue are given as the origin 

 of the word : still, as the matter is not there dis- 

 cussed in detail, I think my remarks will not be 

 deemed superfluous. F. C. 



SIR KOBERT SIBBALD AND « EDINBURGH 

 REVIEW:" JEFFREY'S "ROXBURGH," ETC. ETC. 



The critic in the Edinburgh Revieio (October, 

 1860), referring to an observation of Dr. Samuel 

 Johnson, on the reconversion of Sibbald, says, 

 " it probably is, and we fear may continue to be, 

 the only fact known to the general reader relating 

 to the life of one who has many better claims to 

 be remembered." General readers seldom trouble 

 themselves about the biographies of antiquaries, 

 but those who take an interest in such matters 

 will not be displeased to be told, if they are not 

 already aware of the fact, that Sir Robert Sib- 

 bald's Autobiography (a quaint and amusing pro- 

 duction) was printed at Edinburgh in the Analecta 

 Scotica {2 vols. Svo., Stevenson), and in a separate 

 form, with some additional matter. 



In reviewing Jeffrey's History of Roxburgh- 

 shire, we are told that the county historian, in 



speaking of the Pictish Controversy, has followed 

 Chalmers, " and seems entirely to have ignored 

 Pinkerton's subsequent labours." If we are not 

 mistaken, Pinkerton's Early History of Scotland, 

 in which he demolishes, as Father Innes had done 

 before him. Hector Boethius and the early fabu- 

 lous writers, appeared many years before that 

 very valuable, but not in some respects satisfac- 

 tory, Scottish work entitled Caledonia. 



As one of the specimens of Mr. Jeffrey's perform- 

 ance, the reviewer extracts a passage which appears 

 a somewhat remarkable statement. William Kers- 

 well was the first sheriff of Roxburgh, and custo- 

 dier of Selkirk Forest, " appointed on the ground 

 of inheritance." He received the appointment as 

 husband of Isobel, Countess of Mar, widow of 

 Donald the twelfth earl. The lady claimed "these 

 offices as belonging hereditarily to the family of 

 her late husband." What claim a widow could 

 lawfully make to an heritable estate belonging to 

 her husband's family is difficult to imagine. But 

 it is afterwards asserted that these offices were as 

 part of her " heritage, to be held as by her ances- 

 tors." This is assuredly curious ; for although it 

 is intelligible enough if the offices belonged to 

 her own ancestors that her second husband might 

 be entitled to them jure uxoris, it is quite unin- 

 telligible how he could get them because they 

 belonged to " her (deceased) husband's family " 

 (p. 505.) 



At p. 522. reference is made to certain verses 

 written by " the ingenious and learned William 

 Mertou." Who was he ? There was a worthy 

 old Jacobite of the name of Meston, whose poet- 

 ical lucubrations are well known to collectors, and 

 are amusing enough in their way ; but we never 

 met, in our researches, any such person as Merton, 

 "late Professor of Philosophy in the Marischal 

 College of Aberdeen." 



Perhaps this is an error of the press, and we 

 are the more inclined to hold this opinion from 

 the evident mistakes which appear in many of the 

 extracts from the old records appearing in the 

 Review. 



Another strange error is the allegation that 

 Sympson's History of Galloway was i'or the first 

 time printed from the original MS., and appended 

 to the history of that portion of Scotland, in two 

 volumes printed in 12mo. 



Now there is hardly one historical or topogra- 

 phical student in Scotland who is ignorant that 

 Sympson's History was previously published from 

 the original MS. by Thomas Maitland, Esq., after- 

 wards a senator of the College of Justice, with a 

 preface and appendix, and that any Scottish book- 

 seller can furnish a copy of the beautifully printed 

 book at a moderate figure. J. M. 



