REPLIES.

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE WORD "DELIGHTED."

(Vol. ii., pp. 113. 139.)

Although Mr. Hickson's notion of the meaning of delight, in the three passages of Shakspeare he has cited, is somewhat startling, it was not to be summarily rejected without due examination; and yet, from a tolerably extensive acquaintance with old English phraseology, I fear I cannot flatter him with the expectation of having it confirmed by instances from other writers.

I believe that lighted is rather an unusual form to express lightened, disencumbered, but that it was sometimes used is apparent; for in Hutton's Dictionary, 1583, we have "Allevo, to make light, to light."—"Allevatus, lifted up, lighted." And in the Cambridge Dictionary, 1594, "Allevatus, lifted up, lighted, raised, eased or recovered." The use of the prefix de in the common instance of depart for to part, divide, is noticed by Mr. Hickson; and demerits was used for merits by many of our old writers as well as Shakspeare. I find decompound for compound in Heylyn's Microcosmos, 1627, p. 249., thus:—"The English language is a decompound of Dutch, French, and Latin."

These instances may serve to show that it is not at all improbable Shakspeare may have used delighted for lighted==lightened==freed from incumbrance; and it must be confessed that the sense and spirit of the passage in Measure for Measure would be much improved by taking this view of it.

On the other hand, it certainly does appear that the poet uses the termination -ed for -ing, in the passages cited by Mr. Halliwell, where we have professed for professing, becomed for becoming, guiled for guiling, brooded for brooding, and deformed for deforming: it was not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that he had done so in these other instances, and that delighted stood for delighting, and not for delightful, as Mr. Halliwell implies. How far the grammatical usages of the poet's time may have authorised this has not yet been shown; but it appears also that the converse is the case, and that he has used the termination -ing for -ed; e.g. longing for longed, all-obeying for all-obeyed, discontenting for discontented, multiplying for multiplied, unrecalling, for unrecalled. Dr. Crombie (Etymology and Syntax of the English language, p. 150.) says:

"The participle in ed I consider to be perfectly analogous to the participle in ing, and used like it in either an active or passive sense, belonging, therefore, neither to the one voice nor the other exclusively."

Supposing for a moment that Shakspeare used delighted for delighting, the sense of the passages would, I presume, be in Measure for Measure, "the spirit affording delight;" in Othello, "if virtue want no beauty affording delight;" in Cymbeline, "the gifts delighting more from being delayed." Here we have a simple, and, in the last two instances, I think, a more satisfactory meaning than Mr. Hickson's sense of lightened, disencumbered, affords, even could it be more unquestionably established.

I have, however, met with a passage in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia (ed. 1598, p. 294.) which might lead to a different interpretation of delighted in these passages, and which would not, perhaps, be less startling than that of Mr. Hickson.

"All this night (in despite of darknesse) he held his eyes open; and in the morning, when the delight began to restore to each body his colour, then with curtains bar'd he himselfe from the enjoying of it; neither willing to feele the comfort of the day, nor the ease of the night."

Here, delight is apparently used for the return of light, and the prefix de is probably only intensive. Now, presuming that Shakspeare also used delighted for lighted, illuminated the passage in Measure for Measure would bear this interpretation: "the delighted spirit, i.e., the spirit restored to light," freed from "that dark house in which it long was pent." In Othello, "if virtue lack no delighted beauty," i.e. "want not the light of beauty, your son-in-law shows far more fair than black." Here the opposition between light and black is much in its favour. In Cymbeline, I must confess it is not quite so clear: "to make my gifts, by the dark uncertainty attendant upon delay, more lustrous (delighted), more radiant when given," is not more satisfactory than Mr. HICKSON'S interpretation of this passage. But is it necessary that delighted should have the same signification in all the three passages? I think not.

These are only suggestions, of course, but the passage from Sidney is certainly curious, and, from the correct and careful manner in which the book is printed, does not appear to be a corruption. I have not seen the earlier editions. I have only further to remark, that none of our old authorities favour DR. KENNEDY'S suggestion, "that the word represents the Latin participle delectus."

Since the above was written, Mr. HICKSON'S reply to MR. HALLIWELL has reached me, upon which I have only to observe that he will find to guile was used as a verb. Thus in Gower, Confessio Amantis, fo. 135. ed. 1532:

We most probably had the word from the old French Guiller=tromper, and the proverb is to the purpose:—

Horne Tooke's fanciful etymology cannot be sustained. MR. HICKSON'S explanation of "guiled shore," is, however, countenanced by the following passage in Tarquin and Lucrece:—

MR. HICKSON has, I think, conferred a singular favour in calling attention to these perplexing passages in our great poet and these remarks, like his own, are merely intended as hints which may serve to elicit the true interpretation.

S.W. SINGER.

Mickleham, August 20. 1850.

FAMILY OF LOVE.

I do not know whether the following Notes on "The Family of Love" will be deserving a place in the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES;" as I may possibly have been anticipated in much of what I send.

The Family of Love attracted notice as early as 1575, but not in such a manner as to call for direct coercion. An apology was published for them, from which it might be inferred that they possessed no distinct opinions, but merely bound themselves to a more exalted interpretation of Christian duties, on the principle of imitating the great love of God manifested in their creation and retention. This principle, unrestrained by any confession of faith or system of discipline, naturally attracted to it the loose and irregular spirits that were at that time so prevalent, and the sect became the receptacle for every variety of opinion and disorder, exposing itself to more particular notice from its contempt for outward observances, and its opposition to the civil government. The Evangelium Regni of Henry Nicholas, the acknowledged founder of the sect, is written in such a manner as to include all religious persuasions, and permits all parties to hold whatever sentiments they please, if they merely declare themselves members of the Family of Love.

"Omnes vos, O amatores veritatis! qui amabilem vitam charitatis diligitis vocatmini et invitamini." (cap. 41.) ... "Omnes peribunt, qui extra Christum extra communionem charitatis manent." (Ibid.)

A confutation of this sect was written in the year 1579; the privy council called upon the convocation of the year 1580 to notice it. We find the sect still described in the publications of 1641, and continuing under the same name with its preachers and congregations in 1645.

Bp. Cooper, in speaking of the sect in 1589 (Admonition, &c., p. 146.), terms them "that peevish faction of the 'Familie of Love,' which have been breeding in this realm the space of these thirty years."

Fuller (Ch. Hist., 17th cent., p. 610.) says that in his time "they had obtained the name of Ranters."

Leslie, in his Works (vol. ii. p. 609.), considers the sect "identical with that of the Quakers."

That this was not the case is evident, I conceive, from George Fox, the father of the Quakers, having severely chastised this "Family of Love," because they would take an oath, dance, sing, and be cheerful. See Sewel's History of the Quakers, iii. p. 88, 89, 344.

The founder of the sect, Henry Nicolai, was born at Munster, and commenced his career about 1546 in the Netherlands; thence he passed over to England, in the latter years of Edward VI.'s life, and joined the Dutch congregation. But his sect did not become visible till some time in the reign of Elizabeth.

In 1575 they presented a confession of their faith to parliament, along with a number of their books, and prayed toleration.

Nicolai, or Nicolas, their founder, published a number of tracts and letters in Dutch for the edification of his followers: and now I will propose a Query, in hopes that some of your correspondents will solve it. Is there extant any list of their writings as presented to parliament in 1575, and has their confession been published, and when? Perhaps the following works, none of which I am able to consult, would furnish the means of solving my Query, all of which treat of the subject:—

J. Hombeck's Summa Controversiarum. Godfr. Arnold's Kirchen- und Kitzer-historie. Ant. Wilh. Bohm's Englische Reformations-historie. Schroekh's Kirchengesch. seit der Reformation.

These sources would, I conceive, be useful to N.B., who inquires into their tenets and lives.

I find I have omitted to mention one of their assailants, "the last and most learned," Henry More, the English divine. See his Mystery of Godliness, book vi., chap. 12-18.

[Hebrew: SP'T]

The Family of Love.—In addition to the work of John Rogers, referred to by DR. RIMBAULT (Vol. ii., p. 49.), the two following treatises, which were also published in the year 1579, will present your readers with much curious information respecting the "Family of Love." The first is entitled,—

"A Confutation of certaine Articles delivered unto the Familye of Loue, with the exposition of Theophilus, a supposed elder in the sayd Familye, upon the same Articles, by William Wilkinson, Maister of Artes, and student of Divinitye, &c. &c. At London: Printed by John Daye, dwelling ouer Aldersgate, Au. 1579."

In the Epistle Dedicatorie, dated Cambridge, September 30, 1579, and addressed to Richard (Cox), Bishop of Ely, the author describes the new doctrine as,—

"The most pestiferous and deadly Heresie of all others, because there is not almost any one particular erroneous and schismaticall phantasie, whereof the Familie of Loue hath not borrowed one braunche or other thereof, to peece vnto themselves this their Religion."

A passage is then added which may serve in some measure as a reply to N.B. (Vol. ii., p. 89.) It seems to slow that, however vile might be the theology of this sect, their morals were not at least publicly offensive.

"The encrease of this Familie is great, and that dayly, because the withstanders are not many; the defenders are wily as serpentes, and would fayne in lyfe seeme innocent and vnblameable. In profession of the one they boast very much: of the other they walkyng very closely do iustifie themselues, because fewe haue to finde fault with them, yet haue they their lothsome spottes and ougly deformities, as in this booke to the diligent reader playnely may appeare."

The "lothsome spottes" here intended are the 13th and 14th articles of Wilkinson's indictment. They run as follows;—

(1.) "H.N. (i.e. Henry Nicholas) saith, It is lawfull for one of his Familie to dissemble," (i.e., to conceal his religion when questioned by the magistrate); and (2.) "H.N. maketh God the Author of sinne, and the sinner guiltless," (but no proof is alleged that this speculative impiety was carried out into actual life).

The title of the second treatise to which I alluded is—

"A Confutation of monstrous and horrible Heresies, taught by H.N., and embraced of a number who call themselves the Familie of Love, by I. Knewstub. Imprinted in London, at the Three Cranes in the Vinctree, by Thomas Dawson, for Richard Sergies. 1579."

He characterises the doctrine of the "Familists" as—

"A masse or packe of Poperie, Arianisme, Anabaptisme, and Libertinisme. Respecting their morals we are told, that although for their loosenesse of life, they are from the toppe to the toe nothing but blottes, yet bragge they of all perfection, euen vnto a verie deifying of themselues."

Some further light is thrown upon this point by a letter sent to Knewstub from a "godly learned man, W.C." He says,—

"Howsoeuer, they seduce some goodly and zealous men and women of honest and godly conuersation, placing them at the porch of their synagogue to make a shewe of holinesse, and to stand there as baites and stalles to deceiue others; yet, alas! who can without blushing vtter the shame that is committed in the inwarde roomes, and as it were in the heart of that synagogue of Satan."

Appended to Knewstub's book is a further—

"Confutation of the doctrine of Dauid George, and H.N., the father of the Familie of Loue, by M. Martyn Micronius, minister of the woorde in the Dutche Churche, at London."

It was originally written in Latin during the reign of Edward VI. The author charges the "Familists" with maintaining that—

"Idolatry, superstition, and outwarde vices are free and pure vnto them, which, vnder the pretence of a certaine fayth and inwarde puritie, boast that they knowe no sinne in the heart." (Fo. 87 b.)

Two features particularly distinguish them from other sectaries of the age: they professed obedience to the civil magistrate, whatever might be his religion; and they argued in favour of unlimited toleration both in regard to themselves and others.

C.H.

St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge.

TRANSLATION OF THE PHILOBIBLON.

L.S. (Vol. ii, p. 153.) inquires for a "translation of Robert de Bury's Philobiblon." An English version of this famous treatise by Richard, not Robert Aungerville (see, for the surname, Pits, p. 467.) de Bury, Bishop of Durham in 1333, was published by Mr. Rodd in the year 1832. The translator has not given his name, but he was Mr. John Bellingham Inglis, formerly a partner in the house of Inglis, Ellis, and Co. It is greatly to be desired that there should be a careful reprint of this most interesting work, and that the first edition of 1473 should be collated with MSS. The translation by Mr. Inglis might be revised, and made to accompany the Latin text. Let us hope, however, that his notes, if they be permitted again to appear, may be purified from scepticism and profaneness.

The claim of Holcot to be the author of this tract, should be well considered and decided upon; and the errors of the learned Fabricius (who had a manuscript copy in which the writer was styled "Muiegervile", instead of Aungerville), which have been repeated by Mansi, should be corrected. Dr. James, the first Bodleian librarian, fell into a strange mistake when he imagined that his inaccurate reprint at Oxford, in 1599, was the second edition of this treatise. It was in reality the fourth, having been preceded by the impressions, Colon. 1473; Spiræ, 1483; and Paris, 1500. So far as I remember, the editio princeps has not been specified by Gough. (Brit. Topog. ii. 121.)

R.G.

I find I can answer the Query of L.S. (Vol. ii., p. l53.), who asks, "Where can I procure a translation of Robert de Bury's Philobiblon?"

A translation was published by Mr. Rodd, in 1832, of which the following is the title:—

"Philobiblon: a Treatise on the Love of Books, by Richard de Bury, Bishop of Durham, written in MCCCXLIV; and translated from the first Edition, MCCCCLXXIII, with some Collations. London: Printed for Thomas Rodd, 2 Great Newport Street, Leicester Square, 1832."

This translation is a small 8vo. volume, of which there is a copy in the Douce collection in the Bodleian; at the beginning of which copy, on a fly-leaf, the words, "J.B. Inglis to his friend F. Douce, Esq.," are written; and opposite, on the inside of the cover, there is written in pencil, apparently in Douce's own hand, "I had read the MS. of this work before it was printed."

There appears to have existed some difference of opinion with respect to the authorship of the Philobiblon. Leland, in his Itinerary, ed. 8vo. Oxford 1744, vol. iii. pp. 77, 78, sub loc. Saresbyri, says,—

"Ex tabella in Sacello S. Mariæ. Orate pro anima Ricbardi Poure, quondam Sarum Episcopi." ...

"Qui quidem Richardus Episcopus postea translatus fuit ad Episcopatum Dunelmensem ... Incipit Prologus in Philobiblon Richardi Dunelmensis Episcopi, quem librum compilavit Robertus Holcot de Ord. Prædicatorum sub nomine dicti Episcopi."

Still, however, in the appendix to vol. iv. of the Itinerary, p. 164., it is said:—

"Richardus de Bury, alias Angravyle dictus, episc. Dunelm., scripsit Philobiblon."

Upon Leland's authority, the Bodleian catalogue ascribes the work in question to Robertus Holcot. Watt, however (Bibl. Brit.), seems to imagine R. de Bury and Holcot to be the same person. His words are (vol. i. c. 176 ):—"Bury, Richard. Dunelm., alias Robertus Holcot, Bishop of Durham, and Chancellor and Treasurer of England, in the reign of Edward III.;" and again, under Holcot's name, "Holcot, Robert, or Richard D. Bury."

The translator (J.B. Inglis) distinguishes in his Preface between these contemporary writers, and considers R. de Bury to be the undoubted author of this work passing under his name. In corroboration of his opinion, Mr. Inglis refers to the Biographical and Retrospective Miscellany; and, in order to prove that the work was finished in the author's lifetime, he produces the words:

"Quod opus (Philobiblon) Aucklandiæ in habitatione sua complevit, 24 die Januarii, anno a communis salutis origine 1344, ætatis suæ 58, et 11 suæ pontificatus."

and then adds:

"He died 14 April, 1345. Holcot died in 1349."

There appears to be some confusion about the editions, also, of the Philobiblon. There is an edition, 4to. Par., apud Gaspar. Philippum, 1500; also edit. secund. 4to. Oxoniæ, 1598; and it is printed in the Philolog. Epist. ex Bibl. Melch. Goldasti, ed. Lipsiæ, 1674. But prior to all these is the edition "printed at Cologne, 1473," from which the translation is made, and which is described by Watt as "the editio princeps, and a work of uncommon rarity."

Query. Why does the Oxford edition of 1598 call itself "editio secundo?" If the Paris edit. of 1500 so far differ from that of 1473 as to entitle it to be considered a different work, had the second MS. passed through Holcot's hands?

J. SANSOM.

The translation of Richard de Bury's Philobiblon, by Mr. Inglis, printed in 1832 for the late Mr. Rodd, is an unsatisfactory performance. The version is bald and spiritless, and some of the best passages of the original are rendered in language that does no justice to the author's meaning. His style is so peculiar, so allusive, and so full of metaphor and quotation, and the work is luminous with "the sparks of so many sciences," that a good translation is a desideratum.

I may inform your correspondent that one has lately been prepared and is announced for publication, with a memoir of the illustrious bishop. I may add that the Philobiblon has been six times printed: the last edition, if I remember rightly, was by Dr. James: but some old MS. copies of this remarkable treatise on the Love of Books exist, with some of which the text used by the translator should be collated. But, of the publication announced, it would not become me to say anything more, as the biographer is

Your faithful servant,

W.S.G.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

ETYMOLOGICAL QUERIES.

(Vol. ii., p. 153.)

The very satisfactory replies of Mr. WAY to some of the Queries of J. MN., given at p. 169-70., make us wish for more, which I trust we shall have, should he be supplied with the context in which the words occur; without which it is difficult to elucidate them fully. In the meantime, I venture a few suggestions on some of the remaining words.

"In the fever or the berebarde,"

"Berbi, O.F., chancre, dartre; a boil, bubo, or tetter, commonly attendant upon pestilent fever. 'Correpta fuit vehementissima febri. Subtus ejus axillis detectis quoque Bubonibus, magnam duritiem ac timorem præ se ferentibus.'"—Miraculi S. Francisci Solani, A.S., tom. v., Julii, p. 909.

(See Bullein's Dialogue bothe pleasant and pitiful, wherein is a goalie regimente against the Fever Pestilence, &c., 1578.)

"Deale," if an interjection (?), may possibly stand for "Deâ," or "Ouy Deâ, Yes, truly! verily!" &c. (See Cotgrave in v. Deâ.)

"Schunche away".—To shun or shunche is used for to shove, in Sussex. "I shunched him away."

"Wear no iron, nor haircloth, nor irspilles felles"—that is, no skins having hard or bristly hair like that of goats.

"HIRCIPILUS, Durorum pilorum homines sicut hirci."—Festus.

Here the context clearly leads to this interpretation.

Sabraz, or sabras, is a decoction or infusion. One of the numerous terms which the apothecaries adopted from the Arabic, in which shabra is a drink.

Sabe, in O.F.; saba, Ital., an inspissated juice or decoction.

"Sabaricio, a kind of strong drinke made of barley."

I doubt whether Ducange is right in explaining sabrierium in the following passage, by condimentum, Gallicè saupiquet. It most probably signified a beverage.

"In omnibus secundis feriis dent illis ova quatuor uniquique clerico pinguia, cum bono Sabrierio."

S.W. SINGER.

[We take this opportunity of correcting two errata in the Etymological Queries of our valued correspondent J. MN.

"Heteneste" should be "heteueste"—"Inclosed heteueste in a stone coffin or tomb:" and in a later Query "istiled" should be "istihed"—"Let their hesmel be istihed, al without broach."]

Replies to Minor Queries.

Lord Richard Christophilus.—CH. (Vol. ii., p. 130.) will probably find as much information as he requires, if he can consult a small volume in the British Museum (catalogued under the head of "Isuf, Bassa,") of which the title is—

"A True Relation of the Conversion and Baptism of Isuf, the Turkish Chaons, named Richard Christophilus, 8vo. Lond. 1684."

Also, in the Bodleian Catalogue, under the head of "Bassa (Isuf)," CH. may find—

"The History of Isuf Bassa, Capt.-General of the Ottoman Army at the Invasion of Candia. 8vo. Lond. 1684."

In reference to the former of these volumes, there is a note in the Fasti Oxonienses, ad ann. 1683, v. Thom. White, of which the following is a copy:—

"Quære, if Tho. White, Lecturer of S. Andrew's Holborn, published an Epistle to the Reader of 'A True Relation of the Conversion and Baptism of Isuf, the Turkish Chaons, named Richard Christophilus, in the presence of a full congregation, Jan. 30, 1658, in Covent Garden, where Mr. Martin is Preacher. Lond. 1658. 8vo.' Kenneth." (Athenæ Oxon. ed. Phil. Bliss, 1820, vol. iv. Fasti, coll. 392, 393.)

J. SANSOM.

Poker.—Among the muniments of the corporation of Bodmin is a certificate of the mayor and burgesses respecting the claims of the inhabitants of the town to take wood in Dunmere Wood, belonging to the Priory of Bodmin. The language of it seems to throw light on the origin of the word pocarius, or poker, which has been so often noticed and discussed. (Antè, Vol. i., pp. 185. 218. 236. 269. 281. 323. 369.) The passage also illustrates the Hook or Crook privilege, which has been already satisfactorily explained. The date is A.D. 1525:

"We say, and for truth testify that the wood called Dynmure Wood, was ever open and common to all burgesses and inhabitants of Bodmin till now of late, as well for all manner kind of their beasts to common therein, as to have their burden wood, to bear and carry away upon their backs, of lop, crop, hook, crook, and bag wood; ... always reserving to the Prior the stems of the trees for their fuel and building."

(See the Bodmin Register, collected by the Rev. John Wallis, of Bodmin, and printed at Bodmin, 1827-1838, p. 303.)

I presume that bag wood is such wood as can be cut with a hook or crook, and bunched. In another nearly contemporary petition (Ibid. p. 306.), the same identical privilege is described by the townsmen as a right to lop and crop with a hook and crook, and to carry away on their backs, and "none other ways." This explains the former passage, and shows that the wood was probably carried away on the back in a bag.

The woodward, who carried a bill for such purposes, would also carry a bag, or poke, and might therefore be very appropriately called a poker.

It will be seen in Halliwell's Dictionary, verb. "Bag" and "Bagging," and in the Hereford Glossary (London, 1839), verb. "Bag," that bagging is sometimes used to signify cutting; and, more particularly, cutting for burning.

I mention this, because it may be thought pertinent to the present inquiry; but as this use of the word has been plausibly supposed to be derived from the Welsh Bach, a hook, it seems to have nothing to do with a poke.

E. Smirke.

Querela Cantabrigiensis (Vol. ii., p. 168.).—J.M.B. inquires whether anything is known of the authorship of the Querela Cantabrigiensis? The tract in question appears to have been "written by Bruno Ryves," the author of Mercurius Rusticus, and some few other treatises, in connexion with which it is commonly bound. Ryves is described by Watt as "a loyal divine," who was "born in Dorsetshire," and "died 1677." His Querela was first printed at Oxford in 1646. There was a second edition in 1647.

In case J.M.B. do not himself intend to send out a new edition of this tract, it is to be hoped that his Query may induce some one else to do so. Indeed, a reprint of several similar pamphlets and short treatises, belonging to the same period, might be brought out with great advantage at this crisis. The series might begin with

"The Answere of the Vice-Chancellour, the Doctors, both the Proctors, and other the Heads of Houses in the Universitie of Oxford:

"(Agreeable, undoubtedly, to the joint and uniforme opinion of all the Deanes and Chapters, and all other the learned and obedient Cleargy in the Church of England:)

"To the humble Petition of the Ministers of the Church of England, desiring Reformation of certaine ceremonies and abuses of the Church. At Oxford: Printed by Joseph Barnes, and are to be sold in Paule's Church Yard, at the sign of the Crowne, by Simon Waterson, 1603."

J. Sansom.

"One Bell" (Vol ii., p. 166.)—In the sixth edition of the Book of the Church (I believe references are also given in all editions since the first), Southey gives us his authority for this, "Strype's Cranmer, p. 266. (edition of 1694.)" The passage occurs in book ii. chap. 26.: "The Duke of Somerset's death." I quote it from the reprint by the Ecclesiastical History Society (vol. ii. p. 345.):

"He (Somerset) is generally charged for the great spoil of churches and chapels; defacing ancient tombs and monuments, and pulling down the bells in parish churches, and ordering only one bell in a steeple, as sufficient to call the people together, which set the commonalty almost into a rebellion."

R.B.

August 12.

Fabulous Account of the Lion (Vol. ii., p. 142.).—Jarltzberg is right in supposing that this is given by Philippe de Thaun. It is, however, of older date. Turner (History of England during the Middle Ages, vol. iv. chap. iv. p. 209.) gives part of a Latin version of it from the "Physiologus" of a certain Theobald. The "Physiologus," which is in substance the same as the "Bestiary" of Philippe de Thaun, occurs, according to Mr. Turner's account of it, in MSS. of the eighth or ninth century. Anglo-Saxon versions of "The Whale and the Panther" are in the Codex Exoniensis. In the works of Hildebert, who died Abp. of Tours 1134, a poem called "Physiologus" is printed, which appears to be the same as that ascribed by Turner to Theobald. The fable and application of the Lion are the same as those given by Turner, with very trifling variations.

Among the poems ascribed to Abp. Hildebert is an "Epitaphum Magistri Theobaldi," who, I conjecture, is the same Theobald as the supposed author of the "Physiologus." It is rather long; but there is nothing to identify Theobaldus except the word "Dervensis." What place this indicates I know not.

In the Opera Hildeberti there occur some verses on the symbols of the Evangelists. I subjoin them: though it is perhaps hardly worth while to print any more on this subject.

ON THE SYMBOLS OF THE EVANGELISTS.

"Matthæum signat vir, bos Lucain, leo Marcum, Ales discipulum qui sine sorde fuit.

"Matthæo species humana datur, quia scripto Indicat et titulo quid Deus egit homo. Os vituli Lucam declarat, qui specialem Materiam sumpsit de cruce, Christe tuâ. Effigiat Marcum leo, cujus littera clamat Quantâ surrexit vi tua, Christi, caro. Discipulum signat species aquilina pudicum, Vox cujus nubes transit ad astra volans. Christus homo, Christus vitulus, Christus leo, Christus Est avis, in Christo cuncta notare potes. Est homo dum vivit, bos dum moritur, leo verò Quando resurgit, avis quando superna petit."

Hildeberti Opera, Paris, 1708, p. 1318.

B.F.

Pomfret on the Thames (Vol. ii., p. 56.).—In a former number N. required to be informed where the Pons fractus, or Pountfreyt super Thamis, was situate, from whence several documents were dated by Edward II. This question has puzzled many learned antiquaries, and I do not think has ever been properly resolved. Both Pons fractus and Pountfreyt occur in Rymer's Foedera, tomus iii., p. 904. Lond. 1706. If you will permit, I would hazard the conjecture that it was Kingston Bridge. Till within the last two centuries, the only bridges across the Thames were London and Kingston; and the latter in the thirteenth century appears to have been in a ruinous condition. And I find in Rot. Litterar. Clausar. anno 7 Hen. III. (A.D. 1223) memb. 4. p. 558. "de ponte de Kingeston," that Henry de St. Alban, and Matthew, son of Geoffry de Kingston, are directed to repair the bridge, date Wednesday, Aug. 9, 1223 and there is also a recurrence to the same subject, memb. 15. p. 579., dated on Tuesday, Dec. 12, 1223. I would therefore ask, with submission to those who may be better informed, whether the bridge, though ordered to be repaired by Henry III., may not have remained in such a dilapidated state in the time of Edw. II., that it may then have been styled "Pons fractus?"

¶.S.

Walrond Family (Vol. ii., p. 134.).—Among my very numerous Notes relating to the several families of this name, I find only the following which appears likely to be of any interest to your correspondent in connection with his Query.

"Mrs. Ureth, daughter of Lieut.-Col. Walrond, was married to James Huish, Esq. of Sidbury, co. Devon, on the 25th July, 1684."

But it is probable that in so numerous a family there was more than one colonel at that time. Your correspondent is, no doubt, aware that Burke's Landed Gentry states the names of the wife and children of Colonel Humphrey Walrond, and that the monument of Humphrey Walrond, Esq., who died in 1580, in the church of Ilminster, co. Somerset, exhibits his coat armour quartering Polton, Fissacre, and Speke, and impaling Popham and another coat, viz., Per fesse indented quarterly or and sable, in each quarter an annulet counterchanged. This coat of arms I shall be glad if your correspondent will enable me to assign to its proper family.

S.S.S.

Armenian Language (Vol. ii., p. 136.).—Jarltzberg may refer to two works printed at the press of the Mechitaristican Society at Venice; 1. Quadro della Storia Letteraria di Armenia, 1829; and 2. Quadro delle Opere di Vari Autori anticamente tradotte in Armeno, 1825. He may also, perhaps, be interested by another little work, printed at the same place, 1825, entitled, A brief Account of the Mechitaristican Society, founded on the Island of St. Lazaro, by Alexander Goode; in which work it is stated (p. 26.) that "by Lord Byron's assistance a grammar of the Armenian and English languages was composed by the Rev. Dr. Aucher;" and that "this reverend gentleman has likewise compiled, with John Brand, Esq., of the University of Cambridge, a dictionary of the Armenian and English languages."

All these works are in the writer's possession and shall be lent to Jarltzberg if he wishes to see them, and is not able to find them in any library near him.

M.D.

Genealogical Query (Vol. ii., p. 135)—Sir Philip Courtenay, first of Powderham Castle, fifth son of Hugh, the second of that name, Earl of Devon, by Margaret de Bohun, grand-daughter of King Edward I., married Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas Wake of Bisworth, co. Northampton, son of Hugh, younger son of Baldwin Lord Wake, and had issue three sons and two daughters, of which Margaret was married to Sir Robert Carey, of Cockington, Knt. See Cleaveland's History of the Family of Courtenay, pp. 265. 270.

S.S.S.

Richard Baxter's Descendants (Vol. ii, p. 89.).—Your correspondent W.H.B., who wishes for information respecting the descendants of the celebrated Richard Baxter, describes him to have been a Northamptonshire man; now this (supposing the Nonconformist divine of that name is meant) is a mistake, for he was, according to his own account, a Shropshire man. In a narrative of the most memorable passages of his life and times, by himself, and published soon after his death under the title of Reliquiæ Baxterianæ, 1696, he says,

"My father's name was Richard (the son of Richard) Baxter; his habitation and estate at a village called Eaton Constantine, a mile from the Wrekin Hill, and above half a mile from Severn River, and five miles from Shrewsbury in Shropshire. A village most pleasantly and healthfully situate. My mother's name was Beatrice, the daughter of Richard Adeney of Rowton, a village near High Encall, the Lord Newport's seat, in the same county. There I was born, A.D. 1615, on the 12th of November, being the Lord's Day, in the morning, at the time of divine worship, and baptized at High Encall the 19th day following: and there I lived from my parents with my grandfather till I was near ten years of age, and then was taken home."

He was married on Sept. 10, 1662, to a Miss Charlton. They had no children. The only descendant of Richard Baxter known to his biographers, was his nephew, William Baxter, a person of considerable attainments as a scholar and an antiquary. He was born in Shropshire in 1650. He published several works, and kept an academy for some years at Tottenham Cross, Middlesex, which he gave up on being chosen master of Mercer's School, London, where he continued for twenty years, and resigned a short time before his death, which took place in 1723.

Baxter makes mention, at the close of his own Life and Times, of one Richard Baxter, a Sabbatarian Anabaptist, and says of him, "that he was sent to gaol for refusing the oath of allegiance, and it went for current that it was I."

H.M. Bealby.

North Brixton.

Duresme and Dunelm (Vol. ii., p. 108.).—Three successive bishops, Morton, Cosin, and Crewe, took the signature of Duresme after their Christian names. Three successive bishops, Barrington, Van-Mildert, and the present occupant of the see, have taken the signature of Dunelm. I think, therefore, J.G.N. is mistaken in saying that the Bishops of Durham have assumed the French and Latin signatures alternately.

E.H.A.