Графични страници
PDF файл

example of a sculptured "ancona," viz., that from San Girolamo in Fiesole, by A. Ferrucci.

C. A. C.

Authors Of Quotations Wanted.— "Laughing to scorn, with lips divine, the falsehood of extreme!." H. J.

"With pomp of waters unwithstood." In Wordsworth's sonnet entitled British Freedom the above words occur as a quotation. John Sterling.

"I am content to die, but, oh! not now." Miss A. A. Procter! B. P. W. French.


THE FESTIVAL OF THE POPE S CHAIR. (C,h S. vii. 47, 72, 90, 110, 151, 210, 249.) I am quite at a loss to know to what lines of my reply Mr. Nesbitt refers when he charges me with introducing " personalities"; it is a fault of which I had thought myself as incapable as of his other charge of " inaccuracy," and as I am certain I am of that of "misquoting." If I have said anything which can be deemed a "personality," I readily apologize for it. The "misquoting" and the "inaccuracy " I can disprove in a few lines. 1. The line which Mr. Nesbitt says I" misquoted from his Memoir " was not taken thence, but from his reply, and it will be found there word for word, ante, p. 110, 11. 6-3 from the bottom of col. 2. 2. The charge of inaccuracy seems to arise through Mr. Nesbitt's wishing what he said against "a living tradition" to be limited to the (as he calls them) "attached pieces" of the chair. But it was impossible to understand it so; no one could think of a separate tradition for these, as they had never been considered separately. Besides, anle, p. 151, he does not so limit it. He there calls it "the living tradition of Messrs. Brownlow and Northcote," and that their tradition alluded to the whole can be seen in their appendix, p. 396. Further, the Roman archaeologists certainly do treat the chair and the pieces as one whole. Garrucci'a words are, " Nulladimeno resta vero verissimo che con questa sedia di Carlo il Calvo assistono uniti gli avanzi della vera sedia gestatoria che tutta l'antichita senza interruzione alcuna ha riconosciuta e venerata per la Cattedra di S. Pietro." De Bossi also (quoted in Mr. Nesbitt's monograph, p. 20,1.11 from the bottom) speaks of " the interior parts of the chair adorned with ivory, and the exterior undecorated parts " ; and Padre Franco (Simon Pietro c Simon Mago, note 54) says, "D'entrambi queste parti si forma un tutto, una cattedra sola." It is incomprehensible, therefore, that Mr. Nesbitt can charge me with inaccuracy in saying that these archaeologists are of opinion that the remnants of the old chair had been incorporated or worked into the actual one. I may further remark here, in passing, that the

"suggestion" he claims credit for making (quoted: by Mr. Bandolph, ante, p. 251), he only seems to make for the sake of registering the counter argument.

If any personality has been brought into the controversy, it is in his expression {ante, p. 250,. 1. 11 from the bottom of col. 2) "than those to whom the subject is new," this being obviously but a polished way of saying " than a woman, who can have no opinion on such a matter"; for it is impossible Mr. Nesbitt should know whether the study of Byzantine art is " new " to me, and as a matter of fact, however imperfect, it is not much newer than a quarter of a century. But, of course, the professional is always intolerant of lay opinion; and yet the leisure with which the lay person can live among the productions of art so accessible in SouthernEurope affords many advantages which are denied to the professional, whose acquaintance with thesame is often based on a hurried* holiday tour,, undertaken with an overworked brain, perhaps even antecedently directed to follow up a theory preconceived from somebody else's writings.

The more any are conversant with an obscuresubject, the less inclined they must be to be positive about it. Mr. Maskell's candid remarks (ante, p. 162), and the changes I observed in someof the tickets on a recent visit (March 20) to South Kensington, are a proof of this; and I, of course, never pretended to dogmatize about the chair or its adornments. I have endeavoured that the observations the controversy has drawn from me should be as well supported as those of anybody else, and I only offer them for what they are worth to the consideration of others. Mr. Nesbitt's theory may to some extent be right, but the facts certainly admit of the other being, at least, worthy of consideration. I cannot either see that a person's private religious opinions need have anything to do with such a discussion.

Now, to sum up: all I have suggested is that the tradition, living and written, the fact of the chair's present existence and of its sumptuous surroundings, as well as the abstract probabilities of the case,t tend to support a hypothesis that a chair used by the apostle Petert was preserved

* On reading this over I perceive there might be a case in which this might be reckoned a " personality"; I desire, therefore, to say it is simply a general remark, that has been forced upon me in the course of frequent residences in the South.

f Mr. Nesbitt says it is futile to enter into the question of probabilities, but I think it will be allowed probability is a very important consideration in the case, because in the absence of any great improbability the fact of the chair's existence in such a site, without any record of its original construction, does make it " prove itself," like the well-known homely story of "the man. in the stocks."

£ With regard to the kinds of chairs that might have been in the house of Pudens, Mb. Nesbitt has no doubt much greater facility for classical reference than I. and used by his successors ; and that (if not quite like the famous knife which at one time had a new handle, and at another a new blade) it had, by the wear and the vicissitudes of ages, to pass through considerable repairs and changes. It is probably not untouched, like its fellow in the Catacombs (ante, p. 204), but as well preserved as a wooden object could well be under all the circumstances. I have already pointed out that one bit of the main carving, at least, is nearly identical in design with a bit which the British Museum ascribes to a date that might make it contemporary with a chair possessed by Fudens; and some of the rest might be supposed to have been the restoration of a later age trying to come near the original, where that was worn out or destroyed.

This brings me to speak of the little effigy of which we have heard so much. P. Garrucci, in suggesting that it represents Charles the Bald, calls it his discovery ("la mia scoperta"), and is far from ascribing to it any similarity with Scardovelli's drawing. Mr. Nksbitt, who has only seen the drawing, says he agrees with him; yet he cannot surely mean that he sees any resemblance between it and the portrait in the S. Paolo Bible ! * No one can examine the engraving and doubt that the draughtsman thought he was drawing an "Eternal Father" or "Salvator Mundi."t Any

A great deal about chairs of the Augustan age, however, is brought together in Oell and in Dyer, also in J. Mannhardt's Uandbuch Romischer Privatleben, ed. 1876, i. 183, ii. 316; W. A. Becker, Oallus, Goll'a ed., 1881. ii. 347, and Charities, also Glill's edition, in Calvary's " Philosophische Bibliothek," 1878, iii. 82, which is not by any means fatal to the form of the Vatican chair. Becker particularly mentions chairs adorned with ivory. See also note t p. 332.

* Scardovelli makes the right hand raised as if giving benediction (though the fingers are a little mutilated, the arm and part of the hand that remains have quite that attitude), and the left holding an orb. Now, Mr. Nesbitt, apparently describing this at p. 8 of Mimoir (but possibly inadvertently quoting Padre Garrucci's account of what he saw on the chair, and forgetting to refer to the engraving), says the right hand is holding a globe, and the left hand part of a sceptre. Perhaps it will be suggested that the engraver carelessly reversed the figure in reproducing, but, anyhow, he has given the raised arm tho conventional pose for benediction, not that of holding a sceptre. The holding a sceptre, however, could not appear to constitute an analogy with the frontispiece, for D'Agincourt (ed. 1823, vol. iii. p. 47) expressly says, in opposition to Mabillon (Her. Hal., 70, 2), that the figure in the frontispiece does not hold a sceptre, and that Mabillon mistook the border of the dress for one. De Rossi says the orb is in the left hand.

f The main reason, apparently, why it should not be one of these (for if the sceptre and fingers are knocked away, so might the nimbus also be, nor are instances wanting of the Divine Persons without nimbus) is thatit is beardless; but this alone would hardly be conclusive. I remember many years ago seeing it pointed out in Didron's Histoire de Dim, that in the first nine centuries it might be reckoned almost the exception when our

one can see the frontispiece of the San PaoloBible (" calqud sur l'original") in Seroux d'Agincourt's Hutoire de I'Art at the British Museum, and it is as unlike Scardovelli's as any two kingly effigies could be. Another portrait of the same monarch, which can also be easily seen there, is in Comte Auguste Bastard's folio reproduction of "la Bible de Charlemagne" (so called) from the Bibl. Nat., Paris. This is in feature, &c, very like the other, but equally unlike Scardovelli's. I am not saying that Padre Garrucci may not have " discovered" an effigy resembling these, on the actual chair; I only say that no one who has only seen the engravings can decide whether he has guessed well or not.

Mr. Nesbitt seems to rely for proof of Byzantine capacity for portrait painting at Charles the Bald's date on an instance to which he refers thus: "Of this the effigy of Basil the Macedonian engraved

in Labarte's Hist, des Arts Induslriels, album,

pi. lxxxv., in which there is obviously an attempt, probably not unsuccessful, at portraiture, is sufficient proof." A guess concerning one instance would seem to be no very sufficient proof of the capacity of an age; but unfortunately the Basil figured at the reference given is not Basil the Macedonian at all, but Basil II., who died nearly a century and a half later! Now, if he thought that from the character of Basil I. the portrait was "not unsuccessful" as representing him, it would almost follow that it would not be a proof of excellent portrait painting if intended for Basil II.* It is a stiffly drawn figure with heavily outlined

Lord was not represented beardless, and that this was frequently the case even with elEgiesof God the Father. Grimm, Die Sage vom Vrsprung der Christtubildtr, mentions one of the eighth century in particular, figured in Comte Bastard's Peintures it Ornemens des MSS. In his Etudes de Symbolique Chretienne, p. 135, is a woodcut from the Mistal of Worms of the tenth century, in which our Lord is figured very much as in Scardovelli's effigy, beardless and with the right hand raised to hold a long cross, with which He is transfixing Death. In the Hull, di Arch. Crist., 18S0, p. 83, it is mentioned that M. de Lauricre produced at the society's meeting a fragment of a sarcophagus from Aries, on which was represented our Lord beardless and enthroned; and most people who know anything of Rome will remember the double instance on the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus.

* His reference to a duplicate in D'Agincourt, pi. Ixvii., is equally unfortunate, as this plate in the British Museum edition (1864) represents an entirely different subject; but as he forgets to specify the date of his edition I suppose he quotes from a different one. A similar omission possibly accounts for his reference to Gori's Thes. Vet. Dip. again not agreeing with the British Museum copy. The plate to which he intends to refer, however, is not unknown to me, but I cannot consider the group of the forty saints a specimen of splendid art. In fact, though the careful observer may discover some power of expressing pathos and devotion, the draperies bang so awkwardly round their loins that any one coming upon it for the first time would take it for a gathering of satyrs.

features and nothing remarkably characteristic about it.

But the main support of Mb. Nesditt's argument against the authenticity of the chair is his <( endeavour to show that it is the throne of an ■emperor" (his words in Ap. iv.). He spends great part of seven folio pages on this endeavour, but all the time he is arguing against its having been ■constructed for an episcopal chair. Now, " this «o one, so far as I know, has ever suggested."* All that has been claimed for it is that it was a chair of a Roman house of the first century, or the remains of one repaired and reconstructed as time went by, in which case it is only probable that its form, if changed, should have tended rather to that ■of a throne than of a mere bishop's chair.t For

* I do not see, therefore, why this argument need have ■been introduced, but as it has, I cannot forbear remarking that I do not think his distinction can be maintained, and his reason for it seems weaker than the distinction itself, for the ample form of the early vestments required at least as much space as a kingly robe. To select only a few instances of those that occur to me, and only such as are easily verifiable in the London museums, see (1) pi. lix. of DAgincourt's work cited above; it reproduces a page of a MS. with the four Evangelists, each on a different ebaped throne or chair, showing a very indiscriminate use of each; (2) pi. lxiii., a Vatican Virgil, ascribed in the text to the twelfth century, but corrected in British Museum copy to fifth; in one page of this Virgil occupies « wide seat, just such as Mr. Nesbiti describes as an ■imperial throne; (3) pi. Ixxxiv. gives a mitred saint on a "throne " without sides; (4) pi. viii. of Passeri's appendix to Gori'B T/ia. Vet. Dip., ed. Flor., 1769, gives St. Lawrence seated on a " throne " without arms. It is clear, therefore, that thrones without sides were not considered to be confined to the use of emperors. On the other hand, there is one distinction which I am inclined to think is reserved for divine and imperial thrones, and this is when the seat is of concave outline, and still more when it ends with tall pillars supporting a baldachitio. ■Such a concave seat may be seen on a South Kensington ivory (381, '71), and such another with a baldachino is notably occupied by Charles the Bald in the San Paolo Bible frontispiece. Now why, if the Vatican chair was made for that monarch, should it not have been made of this shape? At the samo time, to show I have some of the ■candour for which Mr. Nesuitt does not give me credit, I will call his attention to an example of which I may fairly retort that he is *' evidently unaware" {ante, p. 250), and that is the splendid Book of Hours of Charles the Bald given by the Chapter of Metz to the Colbert Library in the Louvre; in this Charles happens to be represented on a square throne without baldachino, but then this was done at a time when he was only King of France and not Emperor; and further, the ivory plaques of the binding of the same volume are better examples of composition than any certainly contemporary work Mr. Nksbitt has quoted, yet these are far from being of such merit that any one could mistake them for a production of the first century.

f In the beautiful collection of coloured plates by M. A. Racinet, entitled Le Cotlunu Historique: Types -du Vetement el de la I'arure rapproches de ceiix de ■I'Habitation dans tous Its Temps el tons Its Pays, will be found some of both chairs and crowns which should be studied in connexion with this controversy. His example -of a marble curule chair found in the Forum and en

this reason his challenge to me to explain the absence of any religious symbols in the decoration appears idle. Surely his knowledge of Christian art will supply his memory with abundant proofs that this is not necessary. In fact, it may rather be considered contrary to its spirit to employ sacred symbols for mere decoration,* Some sacred representation, indeed, might have been set up on it for veneration, or as a token of its consecrated use, e. g., a "Salvator Mundi" where Scardovelli has figured one; but that it was not necessary would be patent, if there is none, from that very fact: for whatever anybody may be disposed to deny concerning it, it cannot be disputed that it has been retained in its present condition for a great many centuries (ever since 875, even according to Mr. Nksbitt). If it were a principle that it must bear some religious symbol, why should not one have been put on 1 So far from this, there ore preserved in the sacristy some little Christian images, of which Mr. Nksbitt is "evidently unaware," and which were actually at one time upon the chair; but were so little thought necessary to its use that on their becoming detached they were put by instead of being replaced. Under this aspect, again, therefore, it may be thought that it "proves itself."

I have treated the subject thus far argumentatively. Now, as a question of history, I think it can be shown conclusively that this chair or throne could not possibly have been made for the coronation of Charles the Bald. According to Duchesne, Charles went to Rome with the greatest despatch directly he found he could be certain of the Pope's support in assuming the empire, only occupying himself with putting his kingdom in a state of defence against his rival during his absence. He reached Rome on December 18 and was crowned on Christmas Day. If Duchesne is correct (and the Diet. Hist, calls him "un des plus scavans hommes que la France ait produits pour l'histoire surtout du Bas-Empire "), it is clear no euoh chair could have been made in the interval; much less was there time to send a portrait to Constantinople to be produced on it. If Charles had anything to do with it, it can only be supposed that he left orders (he quitted Rome again on January 5) for it to be made for the Pope; and this is not impossible, for he was under great obligations to him.

graved by Piranesi is in general form the same as the Vatican chair, though grander and more ornamental; it has no sides. Fig. 11 of the same plate in that of which the above are 1, 2, and 3, is perfectly like it, but without any adornment. In the plate of crowns those he ascribes to Charles the Bald are, as he says, of Romano-Byzantine type, and, like those in the two Bibles named above, not the simple fleurde-lysed type of Scardovelli.

• See the terms in which Philippe de Vitry and others, cited by Comte A. Bastard in Etudes de Symbolique Ckritunne, speak of making mythological decoration subserve Christian work.

It is quite as likely, however, that if it was constructed in this age at all, it was by order of the Popes themselves, e.g., by St. Leo IV., who built the walls of the Leonine city, and on the occasion of blessing them is recorded to have presented -various articles of church furniture to St. Peter's.

In either case it would be quite natural that what remnants there were of the old chair of Peter should be attached to the new one, to make of both, as P. Franco expresses it, "una cattedra sola." K. H. Busk.

Trowbridgb (6th S. vii. 9).—Although Trowbridge is not mentioned in Domesday there is a place quoted with which I think it must be identified. I refer to Straburg, a place now unknown by name and difficult of identification with any other place. Straburg, Stavreton (Staverton), and Trole (Trowle) were all held by Brithric, who inherited them from his father. Of these places the last two «re well known, Staverton being a small villageabout two miles from Trowbridge, and Trowle is a hamlet close to the town. At the instigation of Matilda —who was said to have been a " woman scorned" tiy Brithric in former years, when he visited Flanders—the estates of Brithric were forfeited and were conferred upon Humphrey de Bohune. Amongst these was the town of Trowbridge and the ploughlands of Staverton and Trole, the former comprising three and the latter one plougbland. It is probable that the town was known by both names, that of Straburg gradually giving way to the more favourite Trowbridge. Many ingenious guesses have been made as to the meaning of the latter place-name; but it seems to me that the simplest solution is the one most likely to be correct. At the present time we often call a street, road, or bridge by the name of the place it leads to; and why should this not have happened in the past I The bridge over the little Biss at Trowbridge, led almost directly from the foot of the castle hill to the hamlet of Trowle, and what more rational than that it should have been called Trole-bridge, and later Trowle-bridge, a name eventually identified with the town. Camden says the town was called Trutha-brig, or trusty-bridge, and Leland adopted the same idea and wrote Thorough or Through-bridge. ■ Gough and the author of Magna Britannia wrote Trol-bridge, and Geoffrey of Monmouth Trowle-bridge. There is a local tradition that the name of the town was changed from a former designation to Trow-bridge (true-bridge) during the wars of the Empress Maud, in consequence of the bridge affording means of escape to the empress in the disguise of n milkmaid when closely pressed by Stephen. There is another Trowbridge near to Crediton, in Devon, which anciently was also called Thoroughfcridge. S. H.

32, Ainger Boad, N.W.

Trowbridge is a place in reference to which it is requisite to obtain the name in its earliest ascertainable form, because of the guesses which have been hazarded respecting it. The notice in Cooke's Topograph. Libr., p. 156, Lond., s.a.," Wilts," is:— "It was originally called Trolbridge, and a tithing or liberty in the parish, and a large common near it, have the name of 'Trowle.' Leland, however, calls it 'Thorough Bridge.'" Flavell Edmunds (Trace* of Hist, in Names of Placet, p. 299, Lond., 1872) has:—"Trowbridge E., anciently Truthaburh, the faithful town. Ex. Trowbridge, Wilts." Camden mentions the last, and Gibson, in the in* sertion within brackets, examines the claims of the first and last (Brit., "Wilts," vol. i. col. 110, Lond., 1772):—

"Upon a hill somewhat lower, on the tame little river Were, stands Trubridge, in old time Truthabrig, that i>, a strong or true bridge. But for what reason it had this name does not appear. [It is much more probable that the right name is Trolbridge, for besides the natural melting of I into u, there is a tithing in the liberty and parish colled Trot, and a large common near it of the same name. Also in a manuscript history of Britain, (which is a compendium of Geffrey of Monmouth) the place is written Trolbridge; when it is said to have been built by Molmutius. ]."

Ed. Marshall.

In Leland's Itinerary the name is spelt Thorowbridge, or Throughbridge, which doubtless is the meaning of the name. In Somerset, Wilts, and Dorsetshire alike, the th is in most words pronounced hard, like d,—thus three would be dree, through, drew—so Thorowbridge would in local parlance be Drew- or Drawbridge, exactly as it is now pronounced by the poorer people in that locality. Leland is most valuable, as showing the extraordinary latitude in spelling proper names prevailing at the time he wrote. Worksop is spelt in nine or eleven different ways in one short account; of that town. It is a great pity that no one has yet undertaken to make an index to the Itinerary, as at present it is impossible to find anything unless all the volumes are hunted through from beginning to end. Y. A. K.


155, 220, 284, 414, 508). — That Mary, Lady Villiers,second wife and relict of Sir George Villiers of Brooksby and Goadby, co. Leicester, Bart., was daughter of Thomas Golding, of Newhou3e in Poslingford, co. Suffolk, Esq.,'by his wife Frances, daughter of Thomas Bedingfield, of Fleming's Hall, in Bedingfield, and of D.irshum, co. Suffolk, seems almost certain, from the following considerations:—

1. Thos. Golding, sen., in his will (P.C.C. Brent, 383), dated Sept. 1, 1652, proved May 24, 1G53, mentions, among others: " My dau. Frances Golding, my dau. Mary Golding, my son and heir Thos. Golding, my son-in-law Richard Everard, my grandchildren Frances and Mary Everard, uiy brother-in-law Sir Thos. Bedingfield."

2. Thos. Golding (son and heir of the above) in his will (P.O.C. Degg, 6) dated Oct. 5,1699, proved Jan. 19, 1702, mentions, among others: "My son and heir George Golding, my dau. Amy Golding, iny dau. Frances Golding, my dau. Hannah Sherwood, my granddau. Sarah Sherwood, and my sister Plume." Two of the witnesses are Edru. Draper and Jos. Sherwood.

3. Dame Mary Villiers, in her will (P.C.C. Pett, 197), dated Oct. 4, and proved Dec. 1, 1699, mentions: "My brother Thomas Golding, my nieces Mary, Frances, and Amy Golding, my nephew George Golding, my sister Plume, my niece Hannah Sherwood, my nephew Jeffrey Maltyward, and my niece his wife, my nephew John Smith, and my niece his wife, my nephew Joseph Sherwood, and Edmund Draper."

4. The marriages of Dorothy Golding to Richard Everard, Frances Golding to Kobert Plume, Frances Everard to Jeffrey Maltyward, and Mary Everard to Thomas Smith are corroborated by various parish registers and monumental inscriptions.

5. Mary, Lady Villiers, in her will bequeaths land in certain places to her nieces, while Thomas Golding, sen., bequeaths land in the same places to his daughter Mary.

These five considerations taken together are sufficient, I consider, to establish the identity of Mary, Lady Villiers, with Mary, daughter of Thos. Golding, sen. E. J. W. Davison.

84, Norwich Street, Cambridge.

Southwark Fair (6lh S. vii. 48).—Southwark Fair commenced probably 22 Edward IV., 1462, the City dignitaries opening it with much ceremony each year in September. Discontinued 1763, after many futile attempts "the High Constable with 100 petty constables went to Suffolk Place [Mint district], and pulled the booths down, so that Southwark Fair may now be considered as entirely abolished" (Annual Register, 1763). It was held on St. Margaret's Hill, i.e., the High Street from St. Margaret Church to St. George's Church, and in the byways, courts, and inns of the same. I have a collection of playbills and contemporary newspaper cuttings, illustrations, &c, on some seventy quarto pages; they were Fillinham's, with my additions. I am intending, if health holds, to use these and all I can get more for an extended account in a second volume of Old Southwark.

W. Eekdle.

In the Guildhall Library is a most interesting collection of scraps relating to London fairs; should this volume not contain what J. R. D. requires, he will readily obtain references to further Bources of information from the very courteous attendants. See also Strutt's Sports and Pastimes, 1841 edit.,

p. 247; Brand's Popular Antiquities, 1849 edit.,, vol. ii. p. 467; Daniel's Aferrie England; Frost's Old Showman and the Old London Fairs; Rendle's Old Southwark and its People. The fair is also alluded to by Evelyn and Pepys, and reference to Hogarth's view of the fair must not be omitted. George Potter,

Grove Road, Holloway, N.

This fair was established by the charter granted by King Edward IV. to the city of London on Nov. 9, 1462. It was appointed to be held on September 7, 8, and 9, and was attended by the usual Court of Piepowder for the hearing of pleas and the issue of process connected with matters arising in the fair. The site is indicated by the circumstance that when, in 1743, the fair was partially suppressed, and the stall-keepers in consequence discontinued their customary gratuity to the debtors in the Marshalsea, the latter threw over their prison walls a quantity of stones and rubbish, which lighted among the booths in the fair. On this occasion one life seems even to have been lost. Subsequently the site was removed to the Mint in Southwark, and the proceedings were finally suppressed in 1763. Julian Sharman.

"A Christian Liturgy, Or Form Of Divine Worship," &c. (6,b S. vii. 229). — In Halkett and Laing's Dictionary, vol. i. p. 380, the authorship of this book is ascribed to Overal, and a reference given to Lowndes's Brit. Lib., p. 418.

G. F. R. B.

Welsh Folk-lore : TnE Sin-eater (6"" S. vii. 25).—I have just stumbled on the following passage in Leland's Collectanea, vol. i. p. lxxvi(ed. 1774), a propos of this matter :—

"Within the memories of our fathers in Shropshire in thofe villages adjojning Wales, when a Person dyed, there was notice given to an old Sire (for so they call'd* him) who presently repair'd to the place where the deceased lay and stood before the Door of the House, whensome of the Family came out and famished him with a Cricket on which he sat facing the Door. Then they gave him a Groat which he put in bis Pocket, a Crust of Bread which he eat, and a full Bowie of Ale which he drank off at a draught. After this he got up from the Cricket and pronounced with a composed gesture, 'The ease and rest of the Soul departed, for which he would pawn his own Soul.' This I had from the ingenious John Aubrey, Esq.; who made a collection of curious Observations, which I have seen, and is now remaining in the Hands of Mr. Churchill the Bookseller."

I have since looked through Aubrey's Miscellanies, but find no mention of the subject. W. B. N.

Rev. W. Bennet: Rev. T. Fleming (6,h S. vii. 49).—I am rather inclined to believe that at the above reference the Rev. George (sic) Bennet may be meant, though not able to say for certain whether he was created an honorary D.D. of Harvard College, U.S.A., in 1802. He was bornin 1750-1, was a distinguished Hebrew scholar,.

« ПредишнаНапред »