June 10. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



547 



as this on Nicolai. I also concur with Madame 

 de Stael in thinking the hook dull : " Non est 

 iocus esse malignum." It begins with an attempt 

 at grave burlesque, but speedily degenerates into 

 mere scolding. Take one example : 



" Es war sehr wahr, dass aus seinen (Nicolais) Han- 

 den alles beschmutzt und verdreht herausging ; aber 

 es war nicht wahr, das er beschmutzen und verdrehen 

 wollte. Es ward ihm nur so durcb die Eigenschaft 

 seiner Natur. Wer mochteein Stinkthier beschuldigen, 

 dass es bohafter Weise alles was es zu sich nehme, in 

 Gestank, — oder die Natter, das sie es in Gift ver wan- 

 die. Diese Thiere sind daran sehr unschuldig ; sie 

 folgen nur ibrer Natur. Eben so unser Held, der nun 

 einmal zum literarischen Stinkthier und der Natter 

 des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts bestimmt war, verbrei- 

 tete stank um sich, und spritze Gift, nicht aus Bosheit, 

 sondern lediglich durch seine Bestimmung getrieben." 

 — P. 78. 



The charge of defiling all he touched will be 

 appreciated by those who have read Sebaldus 

 Nothanker and Sempronius Gundibert, two of the 

 purest as well as of the cleverest novels of the last 

 century. H. B. C. 



U. U. Club. 



CRANMER*5 MARTYRDOM. 



(Vol. ix., p. 392.) 



The long-received account of a very striking 

 act in the martyrdom of Cranmer is declared to 

 involve an " impossibility." The question is an im- 

 portant one in various ways, for it involves moral 

 and religious, as well as literary and physiological, 

 considerations of deep interest ; but as I think the 

 pages of " N. & Q." not the most appropriate 

 vehicle for discussion on the former heads, I shall 

 pass them over at present with a mere expression 

 of regret that such a subject should have been so 

 mooted there. With reference, then, to the literary 

 evidence in favour of the fact, that the noble martyr 

 voluntarily put forth his hand into the hottest part 

 of the fire which was raging about him, and 

 burnt it first, the historians quoted are entirely 

 agreed, differing as they do only in such details as 

 might seem rather to imply independent testi- 

 mony than discrepant authority. But the action 

 is declared to be "utterly impossible, because," 

 &c. Why beg the question in this way ? " Be- 

 cause," says H. B. C, " the laws of physiology and 

 combustion show that he could not have gone 

 beyond the attempt;" adding, "If the hand were 

 chained over the fire, the shock would produce 

 death." Leaving the hypothetical reasoning in both 

 cases to go for what it is worth, it would surely 

 be easy to produce facts of almost every week from 

 the evidence given in coroners' inquests, in which 

 persons have had their limbs burnt off — to say 

 nothing of farther injury — without the shock 



"producing death." The only question then 

 which I think can fairly arise, is, whether a person 

 in Cranmer's position could voluntarily endure that 

 amount of mutilation by fire which many others 

 have accidentally suffered ? This may be matter 

 of opinion, but I have no doubt, and I suppose no 

 truly Christian philosopher will have any, that the 

 man who has faith to "give his body to be 

 burned," and to endure heroically such a form of 

 martyrdom, would be quite able to do what is at- 

 tributed to Cranmer, and to Hooper too, " high 

 medical authority " to the contrary notwithstand- 

 ing. I might, indeed, adduce what might be 

 called " high medical authority " for my view, i. e. 

 the historical evidence of the fact, but I think the 

 bandying of opinions on such a subject undesirable. 

 It would be more to the point, especially if there 

 really existed any ground for " historic doubt " on 

 the subject, or if there was any good reason for 

 creating one, to cite cotemporaneous evidence 

 against that usually received. With respect to 

 the heart of the martyr being " entire and uncon- 

 sumed among the ashes," I must be permitted to 

 say that, neither on physiological nor other 

 grounds, does even this alleged fact, taken in its 

 plain and obvious meaning, strike me as forming 

 one of the " impossibilities of history." J. H. 



Rotherfield. 



Your correspondent H. B. C. doubts the possi- 

 bility of the story about Cranmer's hand, and says 

 that " if a furnace were so constructed that a man 

 might hold his hand in the flame without burning 

 his body, the shock to the nervous system would 

 deprive him of all command over muscular action 

 before the skin could be entirely consumed. If the 

 hand were chained over the fire, the shock would 

 produce death." Now, this last assertion I doubt. 

 The following is an extract from the account of 

 Ravaillac's execution, given with wonderfully 

 minute details by an eye-witness, and published 

 in Cimber's Archives Curieux de VHistoire de 

 France, vol. xv. p. 103. : 



" On le couche sur 1'eschafFaut, on attache les chevaux 

 aux mains et aux pieds. Sa main droite percee d'un 

 cousteau fut bruslee a feu de'souphre. Ce miserable, 

 pour veoir comme ceste execrable main rotissoit, eut le 

 courage de hausser la teste et de la secouer pour abattre 

 une etincelle de feu qui se prenoit a sa barbe." 



So far was this from killing him that he was torn 

 with red-hot pincers, had melted lead, &c poured 

 into his wounds, and he was then " longuement 

 tire, retire, et promene de tous costez " by four 

 horses : 



" S'il y eut quelque pause, ce ne fut que pour donner 

 temps au bourreau de respirer, au patient de se sentir 

 mourir, aux theologiens de l'exhorter a dire la verite." 



And still : 



" Sa vie estoit forte et vigoureuse ; telle que retirant 



