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 Pudens; 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. one can see the frontispiece of the San Paolo. MR. NESBITT seems to rely for proof of Byzantine capacity for portrait painting at Charles the This brings me to speak of the little effigy of Bald's date on an instance to which he refers thus: which we have heard so much. P. Garrucci, in "Of this the effigy of Basil the Macedonian engraved suggesting that it represents Charles the Bald, calls......in Labarte's Hist. des Arts Industriels, album, it his discovery ("la mia scoperta "), and is far pl. lxxxv., in which there is obviously an attempt, from ascribing to it any similarity with Scar-probably not unsuccessful, at portraiture, is suffidovelli's drawing. MR. NESBITT, 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."+ Any cient 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 A great deal about chairs of the Augustan age, however, almost follow that it would not be a proof of exis brought together in Gell and in Dyer, also in J. Mann-cellent portrait painting if intended for Basil II.* hardt's Handbuch Römischer Privatleben, ed. 1876, i. 183, ii. 316; W. A. Becker, Gallus, Göll's ed., 1881, ii. 347, and It is a stiffly drawn figure with heavily outlined Charikles, also Göll'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 † 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 Memoir (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 the 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 (Iter. Ital., 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. †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 that it is beardless; but this alone would hardly be conclusive. I remember many years ago seeing it pointed out in Didron's Histoire de Dieu, that in the first nine centuries it might be reckoned almost the exception when our Lord was not represented beardless, and that this was frequently the case even with effigies of God the Father. Grimm, Die Sage vom Ursprung der Christusbilder, mentions one of the eighth century in particular, figured in Comte Bastard's Peintures et Ornemens des MSS. In his Etudes de Symbolique Chrétienne, p. 135, is a woodcut from the Missal 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 Bull. di Arch. Crist., 1880, p. 83, it is mentioned that M. de Laurière produced at the society's meeting a fragment of a sarcophagus from Arles, 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, pl. lxvii., 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 hang 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 this reason his challenge to me to explain the about it. But the main support of MR. NESBITT'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 no 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.† 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) pl. lix. of D'Agincourt's work cited above; it reproduces a page of a MS. with the four Evangelists, each on a different shaped throne or chair, showing a very indiscriminate use of each; (2) pl. 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 a wide seat, just such as MR. NESBITT describes as an imperial throne; (3) pl. lxxxiv. gives a mitred saint on a "throne" without sides; (4) pl. viii. of Passeri's appendix to Gori's Thes. Vet. Dip., ed. Flor., 1759, 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 baldachino. 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 same time, to show I have some of the candour for which MR. NESBITT 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. NESBITT has quoted, yet these are far from being of such merit that any one could mistake them for a production of the first century. In the beautiful collection of coloured plates by M. A. Racinet, entitled Le Costume Historique: Types du Vetement et de la Parure rapprochés de ceux de l'Habitation duns tous les Temps et tous les 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 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. NESBITT). If it were a principle that it must bear some religious symbol, why should not one have been put on? So far from this, there are preserved in the sacristy some little Christian images, of which MR. NESBITT 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 Dict. Hist. calls him "un des plus sçavans hommes que la France ait produits pour l'histoire surtout du Bas-Empire"), it is clear no such 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. 14 of the same plate in that of which the above are 1, 2, and 3, is perfectly like it, but without any Charles the Bald are, as he says, of Romano-Byzantine adornment. In the plate of crowns those he ascribes to type, and, like those in the two Bibles named above, not the simple fleur-de-lys-ed type of Scardovelli. others, cited by Comte A. Bastard in Etudes de SymSee the terms in which Philippe de Vitry and bolique Chrétienne, 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." R. H. BUSK. 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 (Traces of Hist. in Names of Places, p. 299, Lond., 1872) has:-"Trowbridge E., anciently Truthaburh, the faithful town. Ex. Trowbridge, Wilts." Camden mentions the last, and Gibson, in the insertion within brackets, examines the claims of the first and last (Brit., "Wilts," vol. i. col. 110, Lond., 1772):— TROWBRIDGE (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 "Upon a hill somewhat lower, on the same little river place. Straburg, Stavreton (Staverton), and Trole Were, stands Trubridge, in old time Truthabrig, that is, (Trowle) were all held by Brithric, who inherited a strong or true bridge. But for what reason it had this them from his father. Of these places the last two that the right name is Trolbridge, for besides the natural name does not appear. [It is much more probable are well known, Staverton being a small village about melting of into u, there is a tithing in the liberty and two miles from Trowbridge, and Trowle is a hamlet parish called Trol, and a large common near it of the close to the town. At the instigation of Matilda same name. Also in a manuscript history of Britain -who was said to have been a (which is a compendium of Geffrey of Monmouth) the woman scorned" place is written Trolbridge; when it is said to have been built by Molmutius.]." by Brithric in former years, when he visited Flanders-the estates of Brithric were forfeited 32, Ainger Road, N.W. S. H. ED. MARSHALL. In Leland's Itinerary the name is spelt Thorowbridge, or Throughbridge, which doubtless is the In Somerset, Wilts, and meaning of the name. 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 Drowbridge, 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 beY. A. K. ginning to end. VILLIERS OF BROOKSBY, BARONETS (4th S. xi. 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 Newhouse in Poslingford, co. Suffolk, Esq., by his wife Frances, daughter of Thomas Bedingfield, of Fleming's Hall, in Bedingfield, and of Darsham, 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, 1653, 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, my brother-in-law Sir Thos. Bedingfield." 2. Thos. Golding (son and heir of the above) in his will (P.C.C. Degg, 6) dated Oct. 5, 1699, proved Jan. 19, 1702, mentions, among others: "My son and heir George Golding, my dau. Amy Golding, my dau. Frances Golding, my dau. Hannah Sherwood, my granddau. Sarah Sherwood, and my sister Plume." Two of the witnesses are Edm. 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 Robert Plume, Frances Everard to Jeffrey Maltyward, and Mary Everard to Thomas Smith are corroborated by various parish registers and monumental inscrip tions. 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. R. J. W. DAVISON. 84, Norwich Street, Cambridge. SOUTHWARK FAIR (6th 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, .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. RENDLE. 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, be will readily obtain references to further sources of information from the very courteous attendants. See also Strutt's Sports and Pastimes, 1841 edit., 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. FORM - OF - In "A CHRISTIAN LITURGY, OR DIVINE WORSHIP," &c. (6th S. vii. 229). 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: THE SIN-EATER (6th S. vii. 25). I have just stumbled on the following passage in Leland's Collectanea, vol. i. p. lxxvi (ed. 1774), à propos of this matter: "Within the memories of our fathers in Shropshire in those villages adjoyning 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, when some of the Family came out and furnished him with a Cricket on which he sat facing the Door. Then they gave him a Groat which he put in his Pocket, a Crust of Bread which he eat, and a full Bowle 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 Observations, which I have seen, and is now remaining John Aubrey, Esq.; who made a collection of curious 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 (6th 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 born in 1750-1, was a distinguished Hebrew scholar, and, though only ministering in a small Presbyterian congregation in Carlisle, won by the power of his writing many leading men as friends, as Milner, Dean of Carlisle, Archdeacons Paley and Nares, Bishops Porteus and Horsley. They were desirous that he should take Anglican orders, but he declined, and became ultimately minister of Strathmiglo parish in Fife, where he died, aged eighty-four, in 1835 (see Drumlanrig and the Douglases, by Craufurd Tait Ramage, LL.D., pp. 231-2). JOHN PICKFORD, M.A. Newbourne Rectory, Woodbridge. JOHN KING, D.D., MASTER OF THE CHARTERHOUSE (6th S. vii. 55), matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford, July 4, 1678, as the son of Thomas King, gentleman, of Harwich, Essex. L. L. H. DUCKING A SCOLD (6th S. vii. 28).—Andrews, in his Punishments of the Olden Time, says, with regard to the ducking stool : "The latest recorded example of its use in England occurred in Leominster. In 1809 a woman, Jenny Pipes, alias Jane Corran, was paraded through the town on the ducking stool, and actually ducked in the water near Kenwater Bridge, by order of the magistrates. In 1817 a woman named Sarah Leeke was wheeled round the town in the chair, but not ducked, as the water was too low." STRIX. The following paragraph is taken from The Book of Days, vol. i. pp. 208, 209 :"One of the last instauces on record in which the ducking stool is mentioned as an instrument of justice is in the London Evening Post of April 27, 1745. Last week,' says the journal," a woman that keeps the Queen's Head alehouse at Kingston, in Surrey, was ordered by the court to be ducked for scolding, and was accordingly placed in the chair, and ducked in the river Thames, under Kingston Bridge, in the presence of 2,000 or 3,000 people."" G. FISHER. THIEVES' VINEGAR (6th S. vii. 68).— "The repute of this preparation as a prophylactic in contagious fevers is said to have arisen from the confession of four thieves, who, during the plague at Marseilles, plundered the dead bodies with perfect security, and, upon being arrested, stated, on condition of their lives being spared, that the use of aromatic vinegar had preserved them from the influence of contagion. It is on this account sometimes called, 'Le vinaigre des quatre voleurs.' "It was, however, long used before the plague of Marseilles, for it was the constant custom of Cardinal Wolsey to carry in his hand an orange deprived of its -contents, and filled with a sponge which had been soaked in vinegar impregnated with various spices, in order to preserve himself from infection when passing through the crowds which his splendour or office attracted. The first plague raged in 1649, whereas Wolsey died in 1531."-Pereira's Elements of Materia Medica, third -edit., vol. ii. p. 1997, 1849. J. B. Nearly seventy years ago I remember being taken into the court of the Old Bailey to hear trials. Before the prisoners were brought in from Newgate a pailful of vinegar was introduced, and a hot iron plunged into it. A powerful aroma diffused itself over the court. I was told it was to prevent the infection of gaol fever. J. CARRICK MOORE. the print of J. Kenrick (is it not Jarvis ?) referred JOHN KENRICK, Esq. (6th S. vii. 209).—I know to very well, and my brother, Mr. Jarvis Kenrick, of 5, New Inn, Strand, W.C., his heir, would no doubt give you every information about him. I think the original picture is at Bletchingly, where the Kenricks still reside. J. FRASER. STREET ARABS (6th S. vii. 67).-I do not think this epithet was in use before 1849. The word gamin is employed in the course of an admirable Coyne to accompany the picture of "The Potato pen-and-ink sketch, written by the late Sterling Can," in Gavarni in London (London, Bogue, Smith. 1849, royal 8vo. pp. 103-4), edited by Albert ALFRED WALLIS. 66 there may be some connexion between shag, an SKEG (6th S. vii. 68).—I cannot but think that English word, and skeg, the corresponding Scandinavian form. My Dictionary, s. v. shag, gives the various forms, and I find that the Danish skiæg means not only "beard," but "barb upon a vegetable substance," also an awn"; see Ferrall and Repp. Rietz says that the Swedish skägg is applied to a kind of grass, Nardus stricta, and to a kind of Usnea, no doubt from some idea of roughness. This being so, there is a probability that skeg, which is the nearest we can come to the Swed. skägg, had its name from some supposed roughness or shagginess. I may mention here a principle which I have nowhere seen laid down, though, as a rule of thumb, or first rough guide (to which there are not many exceptions), it is often valuable. It is, that English words beginning with sh are very likely to be of Anglo-Saxon origin, whilst those beginning with sk are almost invariably Scandinavian. Hence the difference between shriek and skreek, the latter of which has been modified into screech. I offer the above guess about skeg merely for what it is worth. Experience teaches daily greater caution and timidity; and, after many years of learning, I am at last finding out how much I have to unlearn. WALTER W. SKEAT. Skeg is a Northamptonshire provincialism for the wild plum known as bullace. T. C. A. TOMLINSON FAMILY (6th S. vii. 68).—Col. Tomlinson and Matthew are identical. G. W. T. will find a pedigree of these Tomlinsons in Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire. Matthew was the son of John Tomlinson, of York; he is buried in East Malling Church, Kent. The following inscription |