RIU." Alas good Dukes for ought I know, I neuer did offend, It might be filled up, though only in the way of conjecture, as follows: Except unto my Prince I've been unloyall and no friend, &c. P. 47. Richard says, "Ha repent, not I, craue mercy they that list. My God, is none of mine. Then Richard be thus resolu'd, Soule for soule, and bodie for bodie," &c. This line, the editor observes, seems corrupt, and he proposes "To place thy soul in balance." A conjecture, however, which is too wide from the text to be received except under extreme necessity. The true reading, though we grant the metaphor to be harsh, we take to be, As in Macbeth, P. 48. To lace thy soul in valiance with their blood. Their silver skin laced with their golden blood. CAT." Out-liue you, Lord thats straunge. The editor here conjectures "flames," but it is a mistake of the printer in dividing the last word, which ought to be "No Catesbie, if a do it must be infamy." As Henry VI. iii. s. 1. or "infamous." "Look here, I throw my infamy on thee." P. 61. Quisquam regno gaudit, O fallax bonum." An imperfect sentence, that seems formed on Seneca. aulæ, quisquis attonitus stupet." "Bono fallacis P. 62. While heads of beasts come bellowing for revenge." Read "herds." See True Tragedy of Richard, p. 134, "As doth a lion midst a herd of neat." P. 63.-KING.-Did not yourselves in presence, see the bondes sealde and assignde. Lo.-What tho' my Lord, the vardits own the titles doth resign." This passage, as the editor truly observes, is unintelligible. As far as we can understand it, it seems as follows. Lord Stanley had left his son with Richard as a pledge for his loyalty, which pledge Richard had accepted. Stanley by joining Richmond had forfeited the pledge, and therefore Richard claims his right to take the son's life. KING.-Why, was he not left for's father's loyaltie? KING. Did not yourselves, in presence, see the bondes seal'd and assign'd? "What if the "varlet's son" should again sign the title or treaty, independently of his father." And so we propose to read. Immediately after this, (p. 64,) the King says, "His trecherous father hath neglect his word, and done imparshall past by dint of sword, therefore sirrha go fetch him." This passage also is properly said to be unintelligible. Richard said the bond was broken by Stanley; he will therefore sue for the fine, except Lovell hinders him;-will he have it so ?" Lovell says, "If he does true justice, else he answers no." Then follows Richard's speech, which we venture to take out of its old husk, and print in the following form. "His treacherous father hath neglect his word, And done a partial part by dint of sword." -he has acted partially or unjustly by joining Richmond. And thanke that God that still prouides for thee." The hairy knee of England is, of course, an absurdity, arising from some gross misprint. We think it not improbable that the original line was intended to stand as follows, “Then England kneele in praier upon thy knee." We give these our emendations with all becoming respect to our reader's judgment, and with a full knowledge of the difficulty attending the art of conjectural criticism, as we have previously mentioned. MR. URBAN, ON THE WARE CALLED SAMIAN. 1 AM induced again to trouble you with some further remarks on the Samian Ware, as there have appeared in your Magazine several notices respect ing it. In the first place I have to apologize to your correspondent E. B. P. for the trouble I caused him in searching so long in vain for the quotation from Pitiscus-which, however, now I have pointed out to him, he says is of “little authority," being nothing more than the words of the Lexicographer; but he must pardon me if I differ with him on that point, as I think it essential in our present inquiries. I perceive, however, in the Minor Correspondence of March, that the words "little authority" are explained as not having been intended to apply to the work as a whole, but merely to that particular statement as being of little antiquity. He further observes, that upon examining the specimen of the "Terra Samia sigillata" in his possession, and which was formerly used medicinally, it appears to him quite unfit for the potter's use, not possessing the requisite plastic properties of clay, This I admit, but at the same time I must beg leave to intimate, that the washing, burning, and doctoring this must have had in its preparation, would destroy the plastic properties of any clay; consequently this does not derogate from the quality of the Samian earth generally, or the adaptation of it to the purposes of the manufacture of earthenware. The Arezzo ware, spoken of by Fabroni, is altogether distinct from the Samian, both in colour and execution; the former being of a dark red, and the figures of more minute finish, probably tooled after they were moulded. The potters' names too are generally impressed outside the vase, and in most cases in two lines, while the sigla M.-M.S.F.-O.F. - &c. are altogether omitted. The pattern round the top of the Aretine vases is evidently the ovolo, or egg and arrow decoration, similar to that depicted on Greek vases (vide Hamilton), but unlike the border on the Samian, which is formed of festoons of drapery, with a cord and tassell pendent between each, appearing somewhat similar at the first glance, but the difference being easily detected upon close inspection. Isidore of Seville speaks of a red ware, as being the manufacture of Aretium, but does not identify it with the Samian; the passage runs thus: "Aretina vasa, ex Aretio municipio Italiæ, dicuntur ubi fiunt, sunt enim rubra. De quibus Sedulius Rubra quod appositum testa ministrat olus.' Samia vasa quidam putant ab oppido Samo Græciæ habere nomen, alii, dicunt cretam esse Italiæ, quæ non longe a Roma nascitur quæ Samia appellat." (Isidor, 20-4.) Here Isidore is doubtless speaking of two red wares, and even in his time (7th century) there appears to have been a difference of opinion as to the locality of the Samian ware; the quotation from Sedulius would not solely apply to the Arezzo ware, but to any dish of a red colour. Mr. Birch (March, p. 271) states, "I could never conceive, with the evidence of the actual discovery of the very kilns in England, and the general diffusion of this contested red pottery, that it was entirely an importation from Italy." It is true that kilns have been discovered in England, as I mentioned in my first communication on this subject, (April 1844,) where Mr. Artis also discovered the pottery in the kiln; but which was of a slate colour, socoloured, as that gentleman observed, by smothering the kiln at the time of baking it; the animals and ornaments depicted on them are of a very rude character, and altogether of a different class of art to the Samian. This in my opinion militates against the supposition that the red ware was manufactured here; for I cannot conceive that the two wares, so distinct in form and feature, fabric and design, could have been made in the same country at the same period. It cannot be supposed for a moment that pottery was not made in Britain during the occupation of it by the Romans, for I have urns in my possession of an era centuries antecedent to their arrival, simply. dried in the sun, and when the use of the lathe was unknown. I do not think it would be a correct inference, that merely because a kiln is discovered in England it follows that this particular kind of red pottery was manufactured in it, any more than we can conclude that because the English clay could be manufactured into the same consistency and colour, that it was necessarily so. I certainly am still of opinion (although willing to be convinced if proof is adduced to the contrary) that, from the circumstance of so many specimens being continually found wherever the Romans established their dwell ings, this is the identical Samian which Pliny says was much lauded for eating meals out of, and in the next sentence he says (evidently alluding to it) that it was transported over land and sea to all parts of the world, and the same as I have shown in my former communications so repeatedly mentioned by Latin authors, and also frequently alluded to as the "Lanx pampinata," "Filicata patera," "Patina hederata," "Discus corymbiatus," &c.; and I cannot help thinking, from the exact similarity in the colour, forms, and texture of the specimens discovered throughout Europe, that the manufacture was local and not general. era If these are not the Samian vessels, what are? Search the museums and collections of the Roman at home and abroad, can anything fitter or better adapted for the purposes of the table be found in them? We see vases of elegant form and extreme tenuity, having one side more elaborately finished than the other; these were designed for ornament, not for use. We also see amphora, and what have been termed mortaria, and numerous vessels of coarser material, of great thickness; these undoubtedly were intended for culinary purposes, more useful than ornamental. Again, we perceive this red ware in which the two qualities *It may not be generally known that some of these earthen vessels were of such magnitude as to have been of sufficient capacity to hold a man. Columella terms them ventrosas, or big-bellied. One of On a marble bas-relief from the Villa Althese formed the habitation of Diogenes. bani is represented the meeting of Alexander and Diogenes under the walls of Corinth, the latter is seen inside an earthen tun broken in several places, and mended with short pieces of wood or metal. A dog is seen on the vessel, the constant companion of poets and philosophers. before mentioned are combined, and although bearing upon it the beautiful relievo figures, elegance of design, and beauty of colour, yet still of sufficient thickness to bear the constant wear and tear to which it must have been subjected in being moved on and off the board. I am altogether much pleased that my paper has elicited from your correspondents a continuation of the subject; and am sure there can be but one motive in pursuing the inquiry, namely, of discovering its probable origin and locality, thereby endeavouring to settle this vexatia questio. We must at the same time beware of the censure contained in the proverb used on a somewhat similar occasion, "Figulus figulo invidet, faber fabro," thus translated: "The potter hates another of his trade, If by his hands a finer dish is made; The smith his brother smith with scorn does treat, If he his iron strikes with brisker heat." Yours, &c. W. CHAFFERS. MR. URBAN, I VENTURE to send you a note on the Jutes in Hampshire, founding my remarks on the following text, [Bed. Histor. Eccles. I. c. 15,] and on a similar passage in the Saxon Chronicle. "Then came men from the three powers of Germany, the Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes. From the Jutes are descended the men of Kent, the Wihtware,' that is, the tribe which now dwelleth in Wight Island, and that tribe in the province of the West Saxons which to this day is called Jutnacynu,' (the kindred of the Jutes,) seated over against the same Isle of Wight." It appears that these colonists were called Geatas, Jutas, lotas, Eotas, Itas, &c. as well as Wihtuare and Jutna cynu. [Turner, Anglo-Saxon History, I. 150.] We learn from Bede that the Hampshire Jutland was watered by the river" Homelea," (the Hamble or Southampton Water,) and that a place called "Ad lapidem " was within the limits of that district which is called Eota-land by King Alfred in his version of this part of Bede's History. (Bede, IV. 16. Palgrave's AngloSaxon Commonwealth, II. 262.) At a later period we are told that William the Conqueror laid waste and afforested a land, "Patria," that in the English tongue was called Itene, Ytene, Ithens, or Ychen. The various passages from our Chronicles will be found collected in Gough's Additions to Camden. It is allowed by every one that Itene was an ancient name of the New Forest. (See Marmion, introduction to Canto I.) But Itene [quasi Itnaland, the land of the Itas or Itnacynu,] is surely nothing more than the Eotaland of Alfred, the Jutnaland of the Saxon Chronicle, And I believe that Eotaland appears in Domesday disguised as the hundred of Egheite or Egheit, now Christchurch. Grant all this, and of course there can be no mystery as to the origin of the name of Itchen river. One of the channels of that stream is called Otterthat is Eota-bourne. Bede's Ad lapidem (called Aet-stan in the Saxon version) is, of course, Stoneham. The tract properly called Eota-land was, perhaps, originally bounded on the west by the Lymington river, extending from Whitley Ridge in the New Forest to the parish of Widley and the extra-parochial district called Wait-land End.* And this agrees well with Bede's description, for the part of Hampshire thus inclosed is balanced, as it were, upon the Hamble river and upon the mouth of the Southampton estuary. But I do not believe that the settlements of the Jutes were so confined; in Dorset I cannot overlook the hundreds of Whitway and Yetminster, and other places, and in all likelihood the descendants of the 'Wihtware" and "Jutnacynu" form a considerable element of the population of the whole line of coast from Wittering and Itchenor, in Selsey peninsula, to the Otter in Devonshire. " If your readers should be unwilling to accept the names of the places as tokens of a Jutic population, I refer them to a map of the county of Kent. They will there find a similar cluster of names, Chatham, Chetham, Chattesden, Chiddingstone, Gattesden, Ed Otherwise Waitlane-End, about nine miles from Portsmouth on the London road. After all, the word may be a corruption of Achtland, which signifies cultivated country. The place is situated at the edge of the Forest of Bere. denton (now Addington), Etwelle (now Ewell), Otham, Otringe, Otterham, Watringbury, Wachlingstone, Watland, Watling Street, Whitstaple, Ehtcham now Igtham, Eachend or Eching Street, and Yching Wood. I believe that all these localities are within the kingdom of Kent, and all remind me of the Jutes and their various designations. I observe many names in the ancient Northumbria, ex. gr. Jedburgh, Otterbourne, Widdrington, Haddington, Edinburgh, &c. The following are the names of battle-fields, Eadesbyrig, Aethandune, Heathfield, Ottanford, and Ytingaford. And it may be presumed that Adderbury, Heytesbury, Yatesbury, Whitbury, Wichbury, and so forth, are either fields or fortified places. In Hampshire and Dorsetshire places bearing such names as the above are not found in clusters at any considerable distance from the sea. Towards Sussex and Surrey the Jutes must have been closed in by a tribe once incidentally mentioned in English history under the name of the Meanvari. (Bede, IV. 13.) I hope to be able to ascertain the situation and ex tent of the district which they in habited. I think that I already know the origin of their name. Owing to their small numbers the Jutes in England soon became insignificant. Nevertheless I suspect that they were really at the head of the Saxon confederacy, and that the sons of Woden were their kinsmen and countrymen. Surely those princes were neither Saxons nor Angles. There is a passage in the laws of Edward the Confessor which speaks of the connection of the continental Jutes with the noble blood of the Angles or English. (Wilkins, 206.) It has been frequently cited. I do not mean to deny that the Jutes constituted a distinct tribe in the Cimbric Chersonnesus, but I do think it highly probable that the Aethlings Aeldormen of the other nations were Jutes also. Perhaps some other of your Correspondents will favour us with their sentiments on this obscure subject. Yours, &c. J. F. M. P. S. "Some of the battles mentioned by the ancient Welsh poets are those between Cerdic and the Britons; one of these is the battle of Llongborth. . . . . As Llongborth literally implies the haven of ships, and was some harbour on the southern coast, we may consider this poem as describing the conflict at Portsmouth when Porta landed." (Turner, I. 281.) This conjecture has been adopted by Sir F. Palgrave. It is, perhaps, worth while to notice that there is a place in Portsea called Landport. MR. URBAN, Albyn Shooting Grounds, Feb. 4. READING lately Mr. Hansard's Book of Archery, my attention was directed to his remarks on the marks at which Ulysses shot, as described by Pope in the following lines, xxi. 125. "A trench he opened; in a line he placed The level axes, and the points made fast." "None of the critics," says Mr. H., "notice that, when the marks are produced, they prove to be axes, not rings. The ordinary hatchet has no point whereIf the rings by it could be made fast. were poised upon the ends of the handles, while the iron heads rested upon the ground, a more clumsy and awkward contrivance can hardly be imagined. An equal number of pointed stakes would have done better. Homer, therefore, probably meant the battle or pole-axe, which has always a spear projecting from the head, and not unfrequently a ring at the extremity of the handle." The opinion of an accomplished bowman is always worthy of consideration in points of toxophilite dispute; but it would seem that in commenting on this subject Mr. Hansard has taken Pope for his text rather than Homer. The latter does not say anything about "points" being "made fast." Nor was there any need he should; they had nothing to do with the process. Homer simply tells us that Telemachus dug one long furrow for the whole axes, and, placing them in it, heaped the earth around them, sodding it in closely to keep them standing steady. And it is this operation which Pope somewhat summarily translates "made fast." Had the object been to insert pointed spears in the earth it is obvious that no ditch needed to be dug; the firm ground would have served the purpose better. To be anything like consistent with the |