2»'> S. V. 128., June 12. '58.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



483 



I think therefore that, in whatever edition or 

 copy Dr. Rimbault found the postscript, / am 

 justified in replying that he was not justified in 

 making the remark to which I have referred. 



P. H. F. 



AFRICAN CONFESSORS, WHOSE TONGUES WERE CUT 

 OUT BY ORDER OF HUNNERIC THE VANDAL. 



(2»'> S. V. 409.) 

 I am surprised that the attempted explanation 

 of this miracle should appear satisfactory to E. T., 

 and that he should conclude that there is no suf- 

 ficient reason to suppose the fact miraculous. 

 The infidel Gibbon could see no way of denying 

 or eluding the strong evidence for the miracle ; 

 and so contented himself at least, according to his 

 wont, with passing by with a sneer what he felt 

 unable to explain or refute. But now we are 

 called upon by Dean Milman and E. T. to accept 

 an explanation of a most startling miracle upon 

 mere physical and anatomical grounds. Evidence 

 is adduced to shovr,Jirst, that the tongue could 

 not be cut out by the roots, and secondly, that, 

 however deeply excised, the sufferer" would not 

 be deprived of the power of speech. But let us 

 attend to the testimony of the witnesses, and this 

 new theory will soon fall. Let us take this from 

 Gibbon himself. He quotes as follows from 

 iEneas of Gaza : — "I opened their mouth, and 

 saw that the whole tongue had been completely 

 torn away by the roots; an operation which the 

 physicians generally suppose to be mortal." Here 

 is evidence of more violence than mere excision of 

 part of the tongue ; which certainly would not 

 have generally proved mortal. The tyrant evi- 

 dently meant to deprive the confessors of speech. 

 If this had not been the usual effect, why did their 

 speaking after the loss of their tongues create so 

 much surprise ? In the passages quoted by E. T. 

 the sufferers are represented as speaking indis- 

 tinctly and thickly ; that speech in such cases is 

 retained only to a certain extent, which precludes 

 the articulation of some consonants; and evea 

 Sir Benjamin Brodie's evidence goes to show that 

 the effect of excision of the tongue renders the 

 speech more or less imperfect. But now if we 

 turn to the evidence for the miracle, we shall 

 find that Victor, the African Bishop, testifies to 

 the " clear and perfect language of Restitutus," 

 one of the sufferers lodged at the time in the 

 emperor's palace, and respected by the devout 

 empress. ^Eneas of Gaza again attests that he 

 heard them speak, and diligently inquired by 

 what means such an articulate voice could be 

 formed without any organ of speech. Procopius 

 moreover, to whom Gibbon refers, but whom he 

 does not quote, expressly says that he had seen 

 several of these holy confessors, and that they 

 spoke perfectly. But he also relates a more re- 



markable fact, that two of them, in punishment 

 of their falling into the grievous sin of fornica- 

 tion, lost the power of speech. This of itself is 

 decisive of its miraculous character ; it was given 

 these two first as a reward, but withdrawn after- 

 wards as a punishment, independently in either 

 case of natural causes. Nay more, the Count 

 Marcellinus, in his Chronicle, referred to by Gib- 

 bon, says that Hunneric had ordered the tongue 

 of a Catholic boy to be cut out, who had been 

 always dumb ; but that as soon as he had lost his 

 tongue, he spoke and glorified God. Surely all 

 these instances afford suflUcient evidence that the 

 power of speech in these confessors was miracu- 

 lous. This, however, it would never have been 

 accounted by witnesses so numerous and credit- 

 able, had the sufferers merely spoken thickly, 

 inarticulately, and imperfectly, which was the ut- 

 most they could have done, even according to 

 these modern attempts to bring their power of 

 speech within the domain of natural science. 



F. C. H. 



STAINS ON ENGRAVINGS. 



(2"^ S. V. 236.) 

 The old-fashioned method of using salt of 

 lemons, as described at p. 345., is perhaps the 

 most innocuous of chemical agents. Your readers 

 should, however, be cautioned in their use of 

 chlorine, as advised by your second correspondent 

 at the same page. I sent full instructions for this 

 latter process to the Art Journal, 1848; and in 

 the same useful work (vol. xiv. p. 332.) is an ad- 

 mirable and well-directed diatribe on the subject, 

 " intended as a caution to persons who, being pos- 

 sessors of valuable works, would themselves essay 

 their restoration," by the chloride or acid pro- 

 cesses. It is there affirmed that, in the prints 

 thus treated, the texture of the paper is found to 

 be destroyed ; and if a torn portion is examined 

 with a microscope, the edges appear short and less 

 tenacious than in paper not so treated — in fine, 

 that the damage so done is remediless. With all 

 deference, however, I venture to think this is not 

 quite so, for I have restored the colour of prints 

 by chlorine, and I trust preserved the texture of 

 the paper, by the following method : that is, by 

 an after-application of a wash or two of delicate 

 size, such as print colourers use to prepare their 

 prints (which are mostly on bibulous paper) to re- 

 ceive water-colours. After it has been dried and 

 hotpressed, I find it possesses as much tenacity as 

 ever, the size acting on the bleached paper ; if I 

 may so say, annealing it and knitting together the 

 fibre — in a similar way to that employed in the 

 paper manufacture, where the " pulp " (which, by 

 the bye, is generally, if not always, bleached with 

 chlorine,) is first made into blotting-paper, and 

 we all know its lack of tenacity till it is sized. 



