14 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2'>daVI. 131.,JnLT3.'58. 



Fetcham in the County of Surrey, Esq.), to be receivers 

 and paymasters of the band of pensioners successively or 

 during the life of the survivor after their grandfather." 



The grandfather Smythe died between Decem- 

 ber 19, 17-20, when his will is dated, and January 

 13, 1720-1, when it was proved (P' S. xi.) ; and 

 under the head of December, 1720, the "chroni- 

 cle " attached to the Historical Register announces 



" James Moore and Arthur Moore, Junr., Esqrs. ap- 

 pointed to be Receivers-General and Paymasters of the 

 Gentlemen Pensioners." 



At that time, and long after I believe, these offi- 

 ces were sold for the benefit of the captain of the 

 pensioners, and all who held commissions were 

 protected from arrest. The Moores were wealthy 

 people; but the father, Arthur, had been for years 

 involved in litigation ; and in his will, dated No- 

 vember 6, 1729, and proved May 30, 1730, he 

 speaks of the prosecutions and persecutions which 

 he had suffered in the faithful discharge of his 

 duty to the public, and of a consequent possibility 

 that his personal estate may be insufficient to de- 

 fray his pecuniary bequests. Had the desire to 

 secure this office, jointly, any reference to the 

 protection they offered, or to the litigation which 

 might reach the sons in case of the father's death? 

 I merely ask the question that others may consi- 

 » der and perhaps answer : my purpose is to record 

 the fact. 



Another little incident in connexion with James 

 Moore may perhaps help to strengthen the con- 

 clusion, — about which indeed there can be no rea- 

 sonable doubt, — the date of the publication of The 

 Dunciad. Smythe, the grandfather, by his will, 

 directed his executors to invest his personal estate 

 in land, which he bequeathed to James Moore on 

 condition that he took the name of Smythe. It 

 was not, however, until the 2nd of George II. — 

 between June, 1728, and June, 1729 — that an 

 act was passed "to enable James Moore and his 

 issue to take the surname of Smythe, act^ording to 

 the will of Wm. Smythe, Esq." No wonder 

 therefore when The Dunciad was published in 



May, Pope "call'd the phantom M ■." The 



sting, however, was taken out of the satire by 

 Act of Parliament, passed probably the very 

 next month. Out then ca.ne the Key to the Dun- 

 ciad, which obligingly informed the curious that 

 M. or More was " James Moore SmythJ" This 

 appears to me good circumstantial evidence that 

 The Dunciad was published just before, and The 

 Key just after, June, 1728 ; the latter has 1728 in 

 the title-page. 



While I am writing on this subject, I subn.it 

 for consideration, that we are so much indebted 

 to " N. & Q." for information respecting The Dun- 

 ciad that we may reasonably hope for a little re- 

 specting the Key to the Dunciad. It has struck 

 me that this Key was another of Pope's mystifica- 

 tions, like the Barnevelt Key to the Lock, Curll 



was but the tool on this as on so many other occa- 

 sions. The Key was an impertinence for which 

 Pope was not responsible; and yet it enabled him 

 to give names, where only initials appeared in the 

 poem ; to say bitter things, truths or untruths, 

 which as a gentleman he dared not have hazarded; 

 and to make, with affected simplicity, statements 

 tending directly to prejudice those whom he con- 

 sidered his enemies. It would be idle to suppose 

 that Blackmore had anything to do with the work : 

 yet what motive had Curll for making him ridi- 

 culous by affixing his name to it ? Pope had. 



A. M. T. 



TOBACCO-SMOKING BEFORE THE BIRTH OF 

 MOHAMMED. 



(2"* S. V. 453.) 



This apocryphal assertion insinuated by EwIIa 

 Effendi, as quoted by J. P., was noticed by a 

 writer in the Quarterly Revieiv for 1828, vol. 

 xxxviii. p. 203., with the following observations : — 



"The translator conjectures upon this [the discovery 

 of a tobacco-pipe amongst the stones of a mausoleum a 

 thousand A'ears old] that smoking having at iirst been 

 prohibited to the Mohammedans as an innovation, and 

 contrary to the principle of their law, the pipe had pro- 

 bably been inserted in the wall by some lover of tobacco, in 

 order to furnish an argument for the antiquity of the cus- 

 tom, and therefore of its lawfulness. The probability of tliis 

 conjecture depends upon the circumstances of the alleged 

 discover}', and of these Ewlia has said nothing; the fact, 

 however, is worthy of notice, though, even if there were 

 no deception in it, it stands singly and unsupported." 



It is certain that the Turks were taught to 

 smoke tobacco by English traders, about the year 

 1605, — according to Sandys in IGIO; and they 

 were supplied with the British weed long before 

 they began to grow it. In the Athenaum (Aug. 

 I, 1857), I publisl'.ed an article entitled History 

 and Mystery of Tobacco, in which all the disputed 

 points relating to the history of the Herha rixosa 

 are examined at large. 



The Wahabytic prohibition of smoking noticed 

 by Mr. Buckton (uhi supra), as founded on the 

 text of the Koran, forbidding " wine — inebriating 

 liquors," is but one of the very many instances of 

 forced interpretations when men desire to make 

 out a case for or against. Excepting the .sym- 

 ptoms betrayed by the beginner, smoking tobacco 

 has just the reverse effect to inebriation. If 

 smoking promotes thirst in certain temperaments, 

 it actually tends to prevent intoxication by coun- 

 teracting the stimulus of " inebriating liquors." 

 Whilst to the mere amateur puffer of pipe or 

 cigar, smoking is often the handmaid of drunken- 

 ness — by promoting thirst — it is, on the other 

 hand, very difficult to intoxicate an inveterate 

 smoker. " He drinks you with facility your Dane 

 dead drunk," ?cc, Andrew Steinmetz. 



