142 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[2=¢ §, No 7., Fen. 16, '56. 
Scottish common people had to say on the sub- 
ject, drawn from one of their chap books, written 
probably a hundred years ago, entitled, — 
“History of the Haveral [talkative] Wives, or the 
Folly of Witless women displayed, by Humphrey Clinker, 
the clashing [tattling] wives’ Clerk, being a Comical Con- 
ference between Maggy and Janet, his Twa Auld Aunties.” 
“ Mag. But, dear woman, what ana body is the deil, 
that ilka [every] body is sae fear’d for him? Is’t nahim 
they ca’ [call] auld [old] Nick? What for do they ca’ 
him auld Nick?” 
“ Jan, Deed [indeed] woman I dinna ken what like a 
body he is, but they say he is black, an they ca’ him auld 
Nick because he is older than Adam, and Adam was the 
first man in the world; an they say the deil will ne’er die, 
nor yet be sick, nor hae sair e’en [sore eyes].” 
In the subsequent part of the “ conference” the 
two old wives cannot at all satisfy themselves on 
the points in dispute, even including the different 
species of deils —‘ the black anes (ones) and 
white anes o’ them, humel’d (without horns) anes 
and horn’d anes ” — and we appear to be still in 
the same mortifying predicament. G.N. 
Reading in Darkness (1 S. xi. 125.) —In P. 
Nieuwland’s Letter-en Oudheidh. Verlustigingen 
(Literary and Antiquarian Recreations), vol. i. 
cap. Xv, sect. 2., we find some observations on 
seeing in the dark : 
“Some learned men,” he says, “have enjoyed the 
power of seeing by night; of the Scaligers it is well 
known that they had oculos cesios, cats’ eyes, extended 
to such a degree, as to enable them, for an hour, to see 
objects in the dark asif in twilight; this power, however, 
they retained no longer than till their twenty-third year, 
as both Julius Cesar and Joseph Scaliger relate of them- 
selves; the former in Comm. ad lib. i. de Hist. Anim., the 
latter in Vita Patris. Suetonius mentions the same fa- 
culty as enjoyed by Tiberius, c. 18., although possessed 
only at short intervals. See Plinius, 1. ii. c. 39., Hist. 
Wat. Asclepiodorus also, according toPhotius in Biblioth., 
1055, had the advantage of being able to distinguish 
persons, and even of reading in total darkness. Solinus, 
Polyhist., c. 15., affirms the same of the Albinos gene- 
rally; and the old physicians speak of certain morbid 
states, in which the patients can see everything by night 
and nothing by day. See Casaubon, ad lib. iii. Suetonii, 
p. 374., where he shows from Galen that seeing in the 
dark is more common than generally supposed, and 
asserts that he himself had often experienced it in his own 
youth, and even at the time of his writing, though then 
more than fifty.” 
So far Nieuwland : the possibility of reading in 
the dark appears nevertheless doubtful. It seems 
by no means compatible with the structure of the 
eye; and though some animals can see in the dark, 
they probably have no more than an indistinct 
vision, aided by the keenness of their other senses. 
From The Navorscher. J. Scorr. 
Norwich. 
Publication of Banns (24 §. i. 34.) — The fol- 
lowing is forwarded in corroboration of the editor's 
excellent remarks in reply to Vinror. In the 
earlier part of 1845, petitions to the House of 
Lords were presented by Earl Fortescue, from 
Dr. Carwithen and others in the diocese of 
Exeter, for a revision of the Liturgy. In the 
course of the debate which ensued, on Feb. 27, in 
that year, the Bishop of Exeter said, in reference 
to an instance “ triumphantly quoted,” viz. those 
of the Rubrics prefixed to the office for matri- 
mony, and subjoined to the Nicene Creed : 
“My Lords, the reverend petitioner and the noble 
earl tell us that the Marriage Act (26 Geo. II. c. 33.) 
made an alteration in the Rubric, and thus established a 
precedent, which they call on us to follow. My Lords, 
here again, with all respect for the noble earl, I must 
demur to his authority, I must deny his precedent. The 
Marriage Act made no alteration in the Rubric, it cau- 
tiously abstained from doing so. The clause had reference 
to the case of parishes in which there is no service in the 
morning, and in which, therefore, banns of matrimony 
could not be published in that part of the service which 
is prescribed in the Rubric. I will beg leave to read the 
clause ; it is worded thus [as already given by the editor, 
p. 34. supra]. Your Lordships will here perceive that 
the Marriage Act provides for the publication of banns in 
the evening service, where there is none in the morning. 
Is this a repeal of any Rubric? True it is that a change 
has been made in the Rubric, as it is now printed, in 
respect of the time of publishing banns of marriage, even 
in the morning service. But by whom, or by what 
authority, has this change been made? Not by the Mar- 
riage Act, my Lords, nor by any authority properly de- 
rived from it. For many years after the passing of that 
act, no such change was made. It was made (as I am 
assured by a learned friend, who has inquired minutely 
into it) since the commencement of the present century ; 
it was first made by the curators of the press at Oxford, 
without authority, I repeat, and I must think, very im- 
properly,” &c. — Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third 
Series, vol. xxviii. pp. 21—22. 
YB Ned. 
“ Marriages are made in Heaven” (1*S. xi. 
p. 486.) — (Normal) marriages being so innocent _ 
of all premeditation by mun, can only be ascribed 
to the will of “the angel” espoused, or to fate, 
in either case (for “ce qui femme veut, Dieu le 
veut”) to the will of heaven. After marriage, 
another sense may appear in the saying, viz. that 
expressed in the words of St. Francis de Salis: 
“ Marriage is a state of continual mortifica- 
tion ;” and hence a sacrament for human salva- 
tion. Again, in suggesting the meaning of this 
phrase, we are led to the well-known beautiful 
myth of Plato (Banquet, § 16., Bohn’s edit.) ; ac- 
cording to which, in a true marriage, the two 
counterparts have met by destiny, and form a 
perfect homo. The account in Genesis (chap. il., 
end), is not to a dissimilar effect. In this view, 
marriages are of those “whom God has joined” _ 
only (Mark x. 9.). In a literal sense, the phrase 
in question clearly expresses an impossibility ; 
since in heaven are no marriages (Matt. xxii. 30.), 
according to the usual interpretation; though 
some may take refuge in the beautiful evasion of 
Swedenborg — who says that, in the next world, 
the married couple will become one angel. 
