Nov. 6. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



441 



giving a true account even of this very simple optical 

 phenomenon." 



Now, with the utmost deference to the Savilian 

 professor, and the equally learned and elegant 

 Whewell, I presume to add a few remarks to their 

 — as it appears to me — incomplete and unsatis- 

 factory explanation. Both these gentlemen, in- 

 deed, while assigning a correct cause to the phe- 

 nomenon, still seem to cling, in woi'ds at least, to 

 the Aristotelian idea of the circular nature and 

 tendency of the sun's light. They could not, in 

 fact, be unaware that the bright images are not 

 invariably round, but that, being produced by a 

 luminous body, the rays from which proceed in 

 straight lines, in all directions, and from every 

 point, and which, moreover, cross one another 

 beyond the apertures, they must necessarily resolve 

 themselves into a more or less exact (according to 

 the distance, size of aperture, &c.) and inverted 

 representation of the luminous body itself. Thus, 

 if the rays of the sun during a state of partial 

 eclipse be allowed to pass through variously 

 shaped apertures, the images are of a crescent 

 form, like that part of the sun remaining visible. 

 If the sun's light, however, be transmitted through 

 a circular hole before being allowed to pass through 

 the apertures, the images cease to represent the 

 sun's visible form, and become representations of 

 the apertures themselves. The general principle 

 may be easily brought to the test of experiment, by 

 cutting a small square aperture in apiece of paper, 

 and placing a lighted taper behind it, so as to 

 throw the shadow of the paper upon the wall of a 

 room. At a certain relative distance of these 

 objects, it will be found that the luminous spot in 

 the shadow of the paper ceases to be square, and 

 assumes the form of an inverted cone, which is in 

 fact the image of the flame of the candle, as may 

 easily be seen by blowing the latter, when a cor- 

 responding flickering will be perceived in the bright 

 image. 



I had intended to make some remarks upon the 

 other optical phenomenon which has puzzled your 

 correspondent, but must now defer them to a 

 future opportunity. William Bates. 



Birmingham. 



SCANDINAVIAN SKULL-CUPS. 



(Vol.iv., pp. 161.231.) 



I should be glad to be permitted again to revert 

 to this subject. It involves a question of some 

 importance, in a literary and ethological point of 

 view ; and is of especial interest to all those who, 

 being conscious of a certain sensation of pride in 

 persuading themselves that they come of the old 

 northern stock, whether Anglo-Saxon or Anglo- 

 Danish, would fain have their far-off" Scandinavian 

 progenitors appear on the page of history with no 



other stigma upon their names than such as may 

 attach to them by evidence of the most undeniable 

 character. With this feeling, however, your cor- 

 respondents W. B. R. and George Metiviek 

 have no sympathy. The latter, indeed, is quite 

 angry with Mr. J. A. Blackwell, with " one 

 Magnusen" (we shall next hear of one Dr. John- 

 son, of one Prof. Porson, of one Niebuhr), and 

 with " certain ironical dilettante of Cockneyland " 

 whom he does not otherwise specify, for daring to 

 controvert the assertion of Ole Worm, that the 

 Northmen were wont to use the skulls of their 

 enemies as drinking-cups. Whether or no such a 

 practice prevailed elsewhere, is not the subject of 

 disputation. I therefore pass over the long array 

 of authorities and examples adduced by your cor- 

 respondents in reference to other countries, and 

 proceed to notice only the direct testimony upon 

 which this " railing accusation " against the former 

 inhabitants of Scandinavia is attempted to be 

 iounded. This testimony is comprised in a single 

 couplet of the 25 th stanza of the " Krakumal, er 

 sumir kalla Loibrokarkviitu : " a wild rhapsodical 

 Skaldic lay, full of periphrasis, distorted metaphor, 

 and exaggerated expression; setting forth the 

 actions and death of the celebrated sea-king Rag- 

 nar Lodbrok, and presented to us as the compo- 

 sition of the hero himself: " verum non ipse, sed 

 Bragius, Boddii filius, verus est carminis autor" 

 (Thorlacius, Antiq. Boreal., sp. vii. p. 70.). Amid 

 the horrors of his Northumbrian dungeon, the 

 expiring chieftain is represented as exulting in the 

 encouraging reflection, that he will soon partici- 

 pate in the joys of Valhalla, when — 

 " Drekkum bjor at bragdi 

 Or bjugvidum hausa." 



The question is, how are these words, or, rather 

 the compound expression " bjugvidum," to be in- 

 terpreted ? Ole Worm {Dan. Literat. Antiq. : Hafn. 

 1636) translates the entire passage: "Bibemus 

 cerevisiam brevi ex concavis crateribus cranio- 

 rum," or, as Bartholin {Antiq. Dan., 1689) ren- 

 ders the latter portion of it, " ex concavis crani- 

 orum poculis." Southey adopts the same reading : 

 and James Johnstone (1782), with what Mrs. 

 Malaprop would call " a judicious use of epitaphs," 

 Englishes the couplet : 



" Soon from the foe's capacious skull 

 We'll drain the amber beverage." 



This is the traditionary account of the matter, 

 without a doubt : or, rather, it is the interpreta- 

 tion first given by Ole Worm ; sanctioned by 

 Bartholin; to a certain extent supported by the 

 laborious Dr. Grimm, in his Geschichte der Deut' 

 schen Sprache ; and by other writers taken up and 

 adopted. But is it the correct one ? Is it not 

 rather one of those long-received errors, upheld to 

 support the tottering base of some favourite theory, 

 which it is the peculiar province of " N. & Q." 



