[1137] Gulielmus Malmsburiensis, Gesta Regum Anglorum, l. II. c. 135.
[1138] See edition of Fitzstephen’s work, edited by “An Antiquary” (S. Pegge), 1772, pp. 37-8, 67-8. Cf. H. Morley’s translation, prefixed to the edition of Stow’s Survey of London, 1890, pp. 26-7.
[1139] Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, loc. cit.
[1140] Tozer, op. cit. pp. 207, 236. For the question of horse-breeding generally, see Ridgeway, op. cit., especially pp. 358-60.
[1141] Ridgeway, op. cit. p. 502. Tozer, op. cit. pp. 42, 83.
[1142] Tozer, op. cit. p. 73. The iron shoes of mules were detachable (Catullus, Carm., XVII. ll. 25-6).
[1143] Ridgeway, op. cit. p. 502. J. Beckmann, History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, tr. W. Johnston, 4th edition, 1846, I. p. 444. See Pliny, Nat. Hist. l. XXXIII. c. 49.
[1144] Ridgeway, op. cit. p. 502.
[1145] Ibid. p. 503. Cf. Syer Cumming, in Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc., VI. p. 411.
[1146] R. Berenger, Hist. and Art of Horsemanship, 1771, p. 322. [I have not seen the original drawing by Father B. De Montfaucon, but have read his remarks on horseshoes, in L’Antiquité expliquée, tr. D. Humphreys, 1722, IV. pp. 50-1.] J. Beckmann, op. cit. I. pp. 451-2, gives several reasons against the genuineness of the Childeric shoe.