Antiquarian Correspondence.

Sin scire labores,
Quære, age: quærenti pagina nostra patet.

All communications must be accompanied by the name and address of the sender, not necessarily for publication.

“SWORD-SLIPPER.”

Sir,—In the registers of St. Nicholas’ Church (now the Cathedral) at Newcastle-on-Tyne, in 1576, I find mention made of “William Browne, Sword-Slipper;” as also of “Robert Peacock, Sword-Slipper;” and again in March, 1586, of “Robert Heslop, Sword-Slipper.” Brand, in his “History of Newcastle,” places the “sword-slippers” among the ancient but extinct Companies of that town. As I can find no other record of such a fraternity, may I venture to ask whether any of your readers can throw light upon its object and history.

Mus.

SOMERSET FOLK LORE.

Sir,—I cut the following paragraph the other day out of a local Calendar for 1882:—

“On the eve of Twelfth Day, in Somersetshire, at evening, the farmers, their friends, servants, &c., all assemble, and near six o’clock all walk together to a field where wheat is growing. Twelve small fires and one large one are lighted. The attendants, headed by the master of the family, pledge the company in old cider. A circle is formed round the large fire, when a general shout and hallooing takes place, which you hear answered from all the villages and fields near. This being finished, the company all return to the house, where the good wife and her maids are preparing supper. A large cake is always provided, with a hole in the middle. After supper the company all attend the head herdsman to the wainhouse. The man, at the head of his friends, fills a cup with ale, and stands opposite the first or finest oxen; he then pledges him in a curious toast, and the company follow his example with all the other oxen, addressing each by his name. This being over, the large cake is produced with much ceremony, and put on the horn of the first ox, through the hole in the cake; he is then tickled, to make him toss his head. If he throws the cake behind, it is the mistress’s perquisite; if before, the herdsman claims it. They then all return to the house, and spend the rest of the day in festivity.”

May I ask whether this custom is really still kept up, or whether it is among the old customs that have passed away?

Curiosus.

THE ISLAND OF THE SCOTS.

Quis Cladem illius Noctis, quis funera fando | Explicet.—Virg. Æneid. Lib. 2. |

| Series longissima Rerum | Per tot ducta Viros.—Ibid. Lib. I. |

London: Printed for Jonas Brown, at the Black Swan, 1714.

The tract itself is somewhat rare, but a reprint will be found in vol. iii. of the “Miscellanea Scotica:” Glasgow, 1818. Sufficiently copious extracts from it have been given by Professor Aytoun in the introductory remarks to his Lay. Here is Lord Macaulay’s opinion on the matter. In a note to the 13th chapter of his History he observes: “I have seldom made use of the ‘Memoirs of Dundee,’ printed in 1714, and never without some misgiving. The writer was certainly not, as he pretends, one of Dundee’s officers, but a stupid and ignorant Grub-street garreteer. He is utterly wrong both as to the place and as to the time of the most important of all the events which he relates, the battle of Killiecrankie. He says that it was fought on the banks of the Tummell, and on the 13th of June. It was fought on the banks of the Garry, and on the 27th of July. After giving such a specimen of inaccuracy as this, it would be idle to point out minor blunders.”

It is by no means unlikely, therefore, that the Island of the Scots is situated in one of the rivers of Utopia.

W. Wilson.

Berwick-on-Tweed, September 5.

PORTREEVE.

Sir,—“You may put up the shutters, Thomas, it’s all over now!” exclaimed the famous bootmaker to his shop-boy, on being solemnly informed by a youthful customer, in words of awful admonition, that he was under the painful necessity of withdrawing his custom. With similar solemnity Dr. Pring has informed us that “the character of Mr. Round’s papers is otherwise such as would deter me from giving any further time to their discussion,” and “must for the future preclude my bestowing any further notice on anything emanating from Mr. Round” (ante, p. 254-5). Fortunately, this awful blow has not proved so crushing as might have been feared. Indeed, though it is not for me to suggest that Dr. Pring may possibly be well advised in shrinking from further criticism of my papers, I may express my regret that he should have found no better plea for his withdrawal than that of “misrepresentation”—a serious charge, which I emphatically deny. It will be seen, on referring to Dr. Pring’s original paper (ante, iv. 264), that his argument runs thus:—

“That the distinction thus insisted upon is correct, and at once settles the true significance of the word port in Port-reeve, is placed beyond all question by passages still extant in the laws of Athelstan, which ordain that no man shall buy any property outside the port or gate” (the italics are his own), &c. &c.

It would indeed place the identity of port and gate “beyond all question” if such an expression as “the port or gate” occurred “in the laws of Athelstan.” But it does not. The expression is simply “that no man buy any property out of port” (Stubbs’ “Select Charters,” p. 65). Here it will be seen there is nothing whatever to prove the identity of “port” and “gate.” The words “or gate” are a deliberate addition, and as it is on them alone that Dr. Pring’s argument, as will be seen, is based, without them it falls to the ground. No reference to the views of Camden, Sharon Turner, or any other writer can justify the insertion into “the laws of Athelstan” of words which are not in them. In saying this much, I am guilty of no “misrepresentation.” I am simply stating facts and exposing misquotation.

May I, in addition, express my hope that Dr. Pring will devote the time saved from discussing my papers to the task, as I suggested, of converting Mr. Hall to his own porta derivation? And may I also assure him that the time which his solemn decision will save me shall be devoted on my part to the further prosecution of those researches which, however undeservedly, have attracted, strange as it may appear to him, the welcome appreciation of scholars?

J. H. Round.

Brighton.

WITCHCRAFT IN ROSS-SHIRE.

Sir,—No doubt most of your readers are familiar with the curious details concerning witch doctors and their doings in Mauritius, which were published in The Times in August last. The following interesting account of similar superstitions in the Highlands, by a correspondent of the Glasgow Herald, caused considerable sensation on its appearance, which would be about a week or two before the article in the former paper. Unquestionably, the belief in witchcraft is still deplorably widespread, the boasted “resources of civilisation” notwithstanding:—

“The belief in witchcraft, which has never become quite extinct in the more remote parts of the Highlands, has recently been revived in a certain parish on the west coast of Ross-shire. Considering the strong disposition that exists in the Highlands to set down to supernatural agency every trifling little incident that cannot be otherwise readily accounted for, it is not surprising that cases of supposed witchcraft should crop up from time to time. These cases have generally only a local interest, form the subject of conversation for a few days, and are then quite forgotten. Apart from the serious loss sustained by the parties concerned, the circumstances attending the present revival of the belief in occult powers of darkness are of such a nature as to have confirmed not a few in the belief in witchcraft who formerly were sceptical on the subject. Some time ago a party of gipsies, who had been encamped in the locality in question, took the liberty of grazing their horses on pasture belonging to a township of small tenants in the immediate neighbourhood of their camp. This unwarranted encroachment on their rights the tenants resented, and drove away the obnoxious intruders, bag and baggage, from the place. On taking their departure, some of the gipsies were heard to remark that the tenants might not be quite so conservative of their pasture, which, ere long, they would have no cattle to consume. At the time no notice was taken of this implied threat. Soon after, however, three valuable cows belonging to one of the tenants died one after the other in quick succession, suddenly, and under mysterious circumstances, while two of the other tenants lost a cow each under similar circumstances. The illness of which these animals died was of very short duration, and was unknown to the nosology of the local veterinarians, who were completely baffled, and such of the carcases as were examined presented no morbid appearance whatever, the various organs and tissues being, apparently, in a healthy condition. A respectable farmer, noted in the district for uprightness and integrity of character, and who is considered an authority in veterinary matters, had been called to see one of the animals shortly before it died, and, having carefully examined the beast, at once pronounced it to have been “witched,” as the symptoms were those of no known disease. On the strength of this statement on the part of one who is looked on as an authority in such matters, coupled with the ominous language made use of by the gipsies, a considerable section of the community unhesitatingly attribute the death of the cattle to the agency of witchcraft. As a charm against the evil influences at work, one of the tenants, acting on the advice of the initiated, had the door of his byre changed from one side of the house to the other, but with what result remains to be seen. Pending the efficacy of this charm, a young man has proceeded to the Western Isles, with the view of consulting a famous witch doctor, said to be in practice there. As an indication of the prevalence of the belief in witchcraft it may be stated that in the district in question there are two witch doctors residing within a distance of twenty miles of each other. One of these, who has been discredited for some time, on account of professional bungling, is generally regarded as an impostor, and has suffered in his practice accordingly. The other, who evidently has played his cards better, still retains the unbounded confidence of the credulous in these matters, and his services are much sought after in cases of suspected witchcraft. Sometimes the services of the witch doctor are anticipated by timorous people, who propitiate reputed witches by means of presents. While many believe that witchcraft is still as prevalent as ever, there are others who believe that, though it did undoubtedly exist at one time, there is no such thing now, and that witches are extinct. Others there are who believe that, though not nearly so prevalent as formerly, a veritable witch is still occasionally to be met with in the flesh. Probably this diversity of opinion on the subject may be taken as an indication that even in the Highlands belief in witchcraft is in process of dying out, though slowly.”

P. J. Mullin.

THE DE VERE MONUMENTS AT EARLS COLNE.

The following correspondence occurs in the Standard, Oct. 3:—

I.—Sir,—In the interests of archæology, and as a protest against the alienation of our Historic Monuments, I ask to be allowed to place before the public a statement in the hope that publicity may prove the means of causing to be restored to their proper resting-place in the Parish Church of Earls Colne, Essex, four effigies of that once all-powerful family—the De Veres, Earls of Oxford. I add a description of the monuments, taken from Murray’s Handbook of the Eastern Counties: “Three of the effigies are carved in alabaster and one in stone. They are supposed to commemorate Robert, the fifth Earl, who died in 1295; Thomas, the eighth earl, died 1371; Robert, the ninth earl, Marquess of Dublin and Duke of Ireland, died 1392; and his second wife, Lancerona Serjeaulx the joiner’s daughter (she wears the piked horn, or high head-dress, introduced by Anne of Bohemia, Queen of Richard the Second, to whom she had been Maid of Honour). This great Duke died at Louvain, and Richard the Second, by whom he had been banished, caused his body to be brought over, insisted that the coffin should be opened, so that he might once more see his favourite, and attended it himself in high procession to Earls Colne. John, the fourteenth earl, died 1426. At the dissolution of the Priory these effigies were removed to the Parish Church, where they remained undisturbed until a few years back, when for some reason (for which good cause should be shown) they were transferred to, and now help to decorate, the grounds of an adjacent landowner. Meetings of the Essex Archæological Society have been held in this parish. It would be interesting to learn whether any member was bold enough to enter a protest against this spoliation; it would be doubly so to know whether this transfer was done by power of a Faculty, the only legal mode of transfer.”

R. H. H.

2.—Sir,—With reference to a letter in the Standard of October 3, signed by R. H. H., I venture to think that the writer is not altogether correct in his facts, or, consequently, in his conclusions, concerning the effigies of the De Veres.

Twenty years ago I made measured drawings of these valuable memorials, and they were then adequately protected and properly cared for by the late Mr. Carwardine at Earls Colne Priory, a modern house occupying the site, or, at least, taking the place, of the ancient Priory. I believe I am right in saying that the Parish Church was not, and never has been, the resting-place of the De Vere Monuments, but that they originally stood in the Priory Church, where the De Veres were buried, and that they remained there after the Dissolution, and until they were removed for protection from the weather to the spot they now occupy by a former owner of the modern Priory. Had it not been for such timely care the Monuments would probably not have been in existence at all at the present day, for it is well known that, early in this century, the Church was not careful to extend any special protection to objects of this kind within or without its walls; they took their chance—usually a very rough one.

It is notorious, and a melancholy fact, that in our own day the recklessness and ignorance of church “restoration”—with its illegal, not to say wicked, destruction of monuments of all kinds—have not brought about much feeling of security with regard to those that remain within the walls of churches; and while it has been a question of protection rather than of “spoliation” at Earls Colne Priory, I for one am Philistine enough to be grateful to the Carwardine family for the respect they paid to the De Vere Monuments in their hour of need, and when we may assume the Church held out no helping hand.

It is no peculiar thing that monumental effigies should be in private hands—witness the examples in Furness Abbey, in the ruins of numerous Yorkshire abbeys, and elsewhere—and I would ask, Are there many instances of the care that has preserved for us, almost intact, effigies and “weepers” like those at Earls Colne?

A. H.

October 4.

ANCIENT AND MODERN BRITONS: A QUESTION FOR ANTIQUARIES.

Sir,—In the St. James’s Gazette of July 10, there is a review of a recently published book named “Ancient and Modern Britons.” Not having even seen the book, I can only say of it that, on the showing of its critic, the author’s opinions seem little to accord with mine. But let that pass; my present object is to ask you whether the reviewer has done well in writing the following sentences: “In Aberdeenshire there is a stone—the ‘Newton Stone’—on which there are two inscriptions; one in Ogham digits and another (according to the best authorities) in debased Roman minuscular letters. Lord Southesk has lately propounded a theory to the effect that these inscriptions ‘form a compound of Oriental and Western ideas, beliefs, and languages.’ This explanation probably amused the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, to whom it was originally submitted; but to the author of ‘Ancient and Modern Britons’ it seems a brilliant suggestion.”

Had the reviewer read the paper (extending over some twenty-five pages) which the society referred to has done me the honour to publish in its last volume of “Proceedings,” he could hardly have spoken of it so discourteously; he would have recognised in it, I venture to think, a result of careful study, far enough removed from wild and hasty theorising. Allow me the favour of sufficient space in your columns to explain and vindicate my position in this matter. First, as regards the Ogham Inscription. The attempts to read this have been few and unsatisfactory. My own reading—independently gained, and different from previous versions—being known to Professor Rhys, he has authorised me to say that he agrees with it as to every digit, except the three marked doubtful in my own diagram. This concurrence only applies to the literal arrangement (a matter of some difficulty), the question of interpretation being reserved; but it is nevertheless an important and much valued aid. Secondly: as regards the main inscription, it is going rather far to say that the “best authorities” pronounce it to be in “debased Roman minuscular letters,” considering the great differences of opinion as to its nature that continue to exist; some fifteen attempts at decipherment having been made, many of them by distinguished scholars still (or lately) living. The Latin version by Dr. Whitley Stokes is probably that referred to by the reviewer, being one of the latest. But there is nothing to show that it is, or ought to be, accepted as final. Besides other possible defects, it confessedly assigns no recognisable meaning to five of the letters. Moreover, it differs from any conceivable rendering of the Ogham legend. This is not fatal to it, but it gives the advantage to a rival version which reconciles the two inscriptions. It should also be noted that no perfectly accurate copy of either inscription has been hitherto published.

My own conclusions, after months passed in the comparison of alphabets and other study, were as follows: (1) That the characters are Greek, resembling those in the Irish-Latin MSS. of the fifth to the seventh century A.D., described by Mr. Westwood as “singular formed Irish-Greek letters, in which capitals and minuscules are strangely mingled together” (Pal. Sac. Pict.; see there Greek Pater Noster in Book of Armagh); also, in some cases, resembling the letters of the alphabet on the Kilmalkedar stone, in Ireland—characters described by Dr. Petrie as “Græco-Roman or Byzantine characters of the fourth or fifth century A.D.” (Ec. Arc. of Ir., p. 134). This assignment of the letters may be accepted without necessarily adopting my version of the inscription, as some of the characters severally resemble more than one letter. (2) That the first half of the inscription is Celtic, sepulchral, and nearly identical with the Ogham legend on the same stone. (3) That the second half (and therein lies the ridicule, if ridicule there be) is religious or mythological, and embodies sacred names belonging to the Mithraic worship. Mithraism, as developed under the Roman emperors, was eminently a compound creed—one which undoubtedly sought to unite “Oriental and Western ideas and beliefs” (to cite your reviewer’s quotation from “Ancient and Modern Britons”—ostensibly from me, but not so), though not, of course, aiming to unite “languages.” It is only as regards certain mythological names or titles that the Newton inscriptions are not (on my view of them) entirely Celtic. Mithraic remains have been largely found in England, especially in the north; there are apparent references to its mysteries in the poems of the Welsh bards; and in Scotland some of the, as yet unexplained, symbols on the sculptured stones appear to belong to the same system.

I claim no right to dogmatise on these subjects; but I do claim to have bestowed real work on them, and it is unseemly that the results of my labour should be ridiculed by one who has not taken the trouble to find out in what they consist. Is it more improbable that remains of Mithraism should exist in Scotland than in other parts of Britain accessible to Roman influences? The improbability lies the contrary way. Why should there be more folly in seeking for traces of Paganism than in seeking for traces of Christianity among the earlier antiquities of Britain? The reproach surely rests with those who in such cases formulate extreme opinions as to the universal presence or absence of one of these religious elements, and refuse to see anything that antagonises their enthusiasms or prejudices. In conclusion, allow me add that, even if they disapproved of my paper on the Newton Stone (which I have no reason to suppose), the Scottish Society of Antiquaries have not only printed it in full, with my own illustrative diagrams, but are now printing another paper of mine, of at least equal length, on the whole of the Ogham inscriptions of Scotland—one which I sincerely hope may prove not altogether unworthy of the honour thus conferred on it.

Southesk.

Kinnaird Castle, Brechin, N.B.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

The Editor declines to pledge himself for the safety or return of MSS. voluntarily tendered to him by strangers.