bumpkin, as well as that of an unpolished rudeness. Mr. Johnson, in his dictionary, I observe, deduces the word bumper from bump. But what if it should be a corruption of bumbard, or bombard, in Latin bombardus, a great gun; and from thence applied to a large flaggon, black jack, or a full glass? Thus the lord chamberlain says to the porters, who had been negligent in keeping out the mob, You are lazy knaves: And here ye lie baiting of bumbards, when Shakes. H. VIII. A. v. Sc. 3. Baiting of bumbards is a cant term for sotting and drinking, which Nash, in his Supplication to the Devil, p. 44. calls by a like metaphor, beer-baiting. So Shakespear again, "yond some black cloud, yond huge one, looks like a foul bumbard that would shed his liquor." Tempest, A. ii. Sc. 2. where Mr. Theobald rightly explains it a large ves sel for holding drink, as well as the piece of ordnance so called. P and B, as I said, being so similar, bumbard would easily be turned into bumper. However, Mr. Urban, I should prefer any one of these etymologies to that of au bon Pere, but which of the three to chuse I am uncertain, and therefore am very willing to leave it to Squire Jones to take which he likes best; and, if he approves of none of them, the liquor I hope, and the quantity, may still please. Yours, &c. 1759, June. PAUL GEMSEGE. L. On the Word Culprit. SIR EDW. COKE says, our books of reports and statutes in ancient time, were written in French, and observes the difference betwixt the writing and pronouncing that language; also, that the legal sense ought not to be changed. I believe there is not any word in any language more corrupted, or applied with greater impropriety, than the word Culprit. After indictment read against the prisoner at the bar, he is asked whether he is guilty or not guilty of the indictment; if he answers not guilty, the clerk of the arraignments replies culprit, which it is said is from cul prist, and culprist from culpabilis and presto, and signifies guilty already. What! are our laws so severe, or their procedure so preposterous as to declare a person guilty because he hath pleaded not guilty, and before the prosecutors are called on their recognizances to give evidence, and afterwards to ask him how he will be tried? Etymologies are a necessary part of grammar; by them we arrive at the primary signification of terms, but if far fetched they become ridiculous. How many, Dalton and Burn not excepted, have tortured themselves with the word culprit, a plain corruption from the French qu'il paroit? The officer of the court says to the prisoner, guilty or not guilty? If the prisoner says guilty, his confession is recorded; if he answers not guilty, the officer says culprit, whereas he ought to say qu'il paroit; i. e. make it appear, or let it appear if thou art not guilty. Culprit is evidently a corruption of qu'il paroit, which is pure French, and bids the prisoner plead for himself, and make his innocence ap→ pear. Culprit hath manifestly changed the legal sense or true reading, and a false one, which ought to be exploded, hath been admitted. Common reason, common humanity, and similarity of sound evince this. MR. URBAN, M. N. I have read in your last Magazine M. N.'s account of the term Culprit. I cannot help thinking that gentleman as much out in his conjecture, as Dalton, Burn, or those whom, he says, have tortured themselves about its etymology. I think its derivation very obvious: Cul prist taken by the tail or skirts from cul and prendre two French words, and might be a very just definition of a delinquent before he had been imprisoned: or perhaps it might signify one caught in the fact.-The term being I presume not applied to debtors. It perhaps came first in use before imprisonment was so much practised, or when all crimes or misdemeanors were immediately tried before judges appointed for the purpose, in all which senses the term is most proper and significant. Your constant reader, R. J. [Another correspondent has suggested, that the word might originally have been culp-prist, that is, taken (supposed or suspected) to be guilty, and in this sense it is an appellation extremely proper for a person who has been accused, and is about to put himself on his trial.] 1759, June and July. LI. Stone Coffin discovered at Litchfield. MR. URBAN, Litchfield, Jan. 15. ON the 10th of October last, as some workmen were removing the soil near the north door of the great cross isle of our cathedral church, at the depth of little more than three feet, they discovered a tombstone, of an uncommon size, being near fifteen inches thick, upon which is rudely engraved a Calvary cross, having a falchion on the dexter side, with its pummel erect. Upon displacing the stone, (though not exactly underneath it) a coffin, of a different kind of stone, with a lid cemented with mortar, was discoverable, and placed due east and west. Within the coffin were to be seen the remains of a human skeleton: the scull, the leg and thigh bones, and the vertebræ of the back were pretty entire, but the rest were mouldered into dust. The scull reclined towards the right shoulder, the arms were a-cross; but every part was disunited. As the basis of the cross (see the cut) is different from most I have seen, I should be glad to hear the sentiments of some of your correspondents upon that head, as well as to be informed, whether the falchion does not denote the deceased to have been a warrior. As our dean and chapter have lately removed a building which obstructed a near approach to the north side of the cathedral, and foreshortened the prospect; and are now levelling the ground, and laying it out in a more commodious manner, I am in hopes that something more of this sort may be discovered. If this should happen to be the case, you may expect to hear again from, Sir, Yours, &c. RICHARD GREEN. To Mr. Richard Green of Litchfield. SIR, ALTHOUGH I can say but little, I fear, to your satisfaction, on the points you propose for discussion, to wit, the figure of the cross upon that ancient tombstone, &c. yet I am always very desirous of giving you every testimony of my regard, and shall accordingly select some matters, relative to the discovery lately made at Litchfield, which I hope may not prove entirely disagreeable, and of which therefore I beg your acceptance. A question may be started, whether the tombstone, and the stone coffin, belong to one and the same person, since the coffin did not lie exactly under the stone; but I think we may acquiesce in the affirmative, as they are things perfectly consistent one with another, and that a small displacing of the tombstone might happen from various causes. The person interred, whoever he was, was strongly immured, or rather oppressed with stone, -Tenet hic immania Saxa, but I doubt this circumstance will not enable us to discover who he was; and, indeed, the coffin brings with. it so few data from the shades, that, in my opinion, nothing certain can be known, either as to the person, or the time of inter ment. It appears to me from the great number of stone coffins,* found in this kingdom, that formerly all persons of rank and dignity, of fortune and fashion, were buried in that manner. The Sarcophagus, which is a Greek word, but adopted by the Latins, and signifies a coffin or a grave, has its name from a certain property which the stone is said to have had, tershire. * At Chesterfield, and Dronfield, in Derbyshire; at Notgrove, in GlocesSee also Thornton's Antiq. of Nottinghamshire, p. 456. Camden's Britannia, p. 508, 588, 725. Dugdale's Monasticon, tom. ii. p. 124. Somner's appendix No. xxxviii. Weaver's funeral Mon. p. 262. Drake's Eboracum, P. 420, &c. of consuming the dead body in a few days; but without visiting the ancient Greeks and Romans, I shall shew, which is more to the purpose, that this was the custom amongst our Saxon ancestors; the number of the coffins found, is itself no inconsiderable proof of it; but there is a clear instance in Ven. Bede, who, speaking of Queen Edylthryd, or St. Awdry, that died of the pestilence in the year 669, says, she was buried, by her express command, by or near the other persons of the monastery, whereof she was abbess, according to the order of her death, and in a wooden coffin, et æque, ut ipsa jusserat, non alibi quam in medio eorum, juxta ordinem quo transierat, ligneo in locello sepulta.'t This implies, that otherwise, a person of her high birth, and great dignity, would have been buried in a coffin of stone. This inference is undoubtedly just, for it follows after, in the same author, that her sister Sexburg, who succeeded her as abbess, after she had lain in her grave 16 years, caused her bones to be taken up, put into a new coffin, and translated to a place in the church. Jussitque quosdam fratres quærere LAPIDEM, de quo LOCELLVM in hoc facere possent: qui ascensa navi, venerunt ad civitatulam quandam desolatam,-et mox invenerunt juxta muros civitatis LOCELLVM de MARMORE ALBO pulcherrime factum, operculo quoque similis LAPIDIS aptissime tectum,' &c. Let this then suffice for the antiquity of these stone coffins in this island. As to more modern times, the use of them continued it seems as late as the reign of Henry III. for William Furnival, who flourished at that time, was buried in a stone coffin, as we find in Dr. Thornton's Nottinghamshire, p. 456, and Sir William Dugdale's Monasticon, Tom. ii. p. 926. The metrical epitaph being misreported by both those authors, I shall here recite it, with the proper corrections. Me memorans psalle, simili curris quia calle, But, in some cases, the custom continued as long as Henry VIII.'s time, as appears from Brown Willis's Cathedrals, Vol. ii. p. 59. But how comes this coffin, you will ask, to be without the church, and on the north side of it? It is true that, according to our present usage, few people are buried in our ordinary *Pliny N. H. Lib, xxxvi, c, xvii. + Bede iv. c.xix. |