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.”