Skip to main content

Full text of "The English historical review"

See other formats

si ji* 

S! IWiiilillililll! ; 

iillililjiili i:!l;!;;i;ii 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 

^^ >^.- 







Amkiucan Editok, JUSTIN WINSOR, LL.D., Librarian of Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetta. 












Babylonia undek the Gkeeks and Romans. By John E. Gil- 
more . 1 

The Church of the Resurrection, or op the Holy Sepulchre. 

By the Rev. J. B. Macpherson 417, GGI) 

The Conversion of Wessex. By the Bee. T. S. Holmes . . 487 • 
The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions. By William, 

Boos 209 

Gerbert, Pope Silvester II. By Bolancl Allen .... 025 
The Introduction of Knight Service into England. By 

J. H. Bound. Part III 11 

Villainage in England. By F. Seebohvi 444 

Henry II and the Criminous Clerks. By Professor F. W. Mait- 

land, LL.D 224 

English Popular Preaching in the Fourteenth Century. 

By Miss Toulmin Smith 25 

The Siege op Belgrade by Muhammad II, 1456. By B. Nisbet 

Bain 235 

The Visit of Philip II, 1554. By Major Martin A. S. Hume . -8^ 2.-^3 
A^EGAL View op Cranmer's Execution. By Alfred Bailey . 4(56 
V/The Royal Navy under James I. By M. Oppenheim . . 4?4~».^ 

Elizabeth Claypole. By B. W. Bamsey 37 

Pepys and the Popish Plot. By /. B. Tanner .... 281 
Clerical Preferment under the Duke op Newcastle. By 

Miss Mary Bateson 685 

Last Words on Hodson op Hodson's Horse. By T. B. E. 

Holmes 48 

Ferdinand Gregorovius. By Sigmund Milnz .... 697 
Edward Augustus Freeman. By The Bight Hon. James Bryce, 

D.C.L., M.P 497 

Notes and Documents 80, 291, 510, 705 

Reviews op Books 117, 322, 537, 743 

Correspondence 400 

List of Historical Books recently published 193, 403, 611, 818 
Contents of Periodical Publications . . 202, 411, 619, 824 


The English 

Historical Review 


Babylonia under the Greeks and 

WHILE much attention has been devoted in the last forty 
years to the earher history of the countries adjoining the 
Tigris and Euphrates, their condition under Makedonian, Parthian, 
and Sassanian rule has been little attended to. Native records for 
this period are scanty, and our chief sources of information are 
classic writers who deal chiefly with the relations of the countries 
to the west, and in a lesser degree — and scarcely at all before the 
time of the later Persian or Sassanian monarchy — the works of 
Arab and Persian writers who collected the native traditions after the 
establishment of Mahometanism. Yet the period referred to is in- 
teresting as having witnessed the dying out of the cuneiform writing 
and the language for which it was used, as well as of the ancient 
religion of Assyria and Babylon, and the rise in the same district 
of the Talmudic development of Judaism, and of several curious 
semi-Christian sects. The information which the classical and later 
oriental historians furnish respecting the Parthian and Sassanian 
dynasties is exhaustively set forth in Canon Eawlinson's' Sixth and 
Seventh Monarchies,' but these works contain little respecting the 
internal history of the empire, and especially Babylonia. The 
most important sources of information still remaining to be used, 
when some scholar possessing the requisite knowledge undertakes 
the task, seem to be the scanty records of this period known to 



exist in the ancient Babylonian language and writing, the latest of 
which are doubtfully assigned to the beginning of the second century 
of our era, the incidental notices in the Talmud, and (especially for 
religious matters) the sacred writings of some of the local sects 
which grew up in this period, and the abundant Christian Syriac 
literature which flourished from the third to the thirteenth centuries 
of our era, and of which much is still unpublished. 

We know pretty well the circumstances attending the fall of 
Egyptian paganism, and the adoption of a new mode of writing the 
Egyptian language. In Babylonia also the final disuse of the old 
writing was probably connected with religious change, but we know 
far less about it. The Achaemenidae from the time of Dareios I seem 
to have generally looked on the Babylonian religion with disfavour, but 
at the same time they made no attempt to suppress it. The partial 
destruction of the temple of Bel at Babylon by Xerxes^ was rather 
a punishment for rebellion than an act of religious hostility ; the 
other sanctuaries do not seem to have been molested, and the 
priests continued to possess the estates which had been granted by 
* Assyrian kings.' ^ The Babylonian language is one of the three 
employed in the official inscriptions of the Achaemenidae, and many 
documents in it of this period are extant. Yet Aramaic, the language 
of commerce and diplomacy through Western Asia, would seem as 
early as the time of Kyros to have been the vernacular of the mass 
of the people in Babylonia, since it was this dialect and not that of 
the cuneiform inscriptions and literature which the Jews brought 
back to Palestine after the captivity. The Achaemenidae, unlike their 
successors, seem to have left no permanent impression of either 
their religion or language in Babylon. When Alexander took posses- 
sion of the city, it was the Chaldaeans, the priests of the old national 
religion, whom he favoured. Bagophanes, indeed, the Persian prefect, 
and the * Magi' — probably the royal chaplains — whose presence was 
required by the frequent residence of the Persian court, joined in 
outwardly welcoming the conqueror,^ but of Magi at Babylon we 
hear no more till a much later period,'* while Alexander at once 
took steps for the restoration of the temple of Bel. The continued 
use of the Babylonian language and the cuneiform character under 
his immediate successors is attested by numerous documents dated 
in the reigns of Philip ill and Alexander IV, and the regency of 
Antigon os. 

Seleuko s (from whose recovery of Babylonia in b.c. 312, some 
years before his assumption of the regal £itle, dates the era of 
the Seleukidae) adopted the policy of depressing native in favour 

• Kteaias, Pers. 52 (21) ; Aelian, V. H. xiv. 3 ; Arrian, Exp. Alex. iii. p. 195. 
^ Arrian, vii. p. 480. '•' Ibid. iii. 195 ; Curtius, v. p. 1. 

* In Appian , Syr. 125, we are evidently to understand Chaldaeans. Such mistakes 
Bre common in classical writers. 


of Makedonian interests, and accordingly founded Seleukeia on 
the Tigris as a rival capital, which was to be purely Greek,-' the 
opposition of the native priesthood being, if we may believe Appianus,® 
overcome by a miracle. Many other Makedonian colonies were 
founded in the same neighbourhood, and down to the close of the 
dynasty of the Arsakidae continued an important element in the 
country. Still it is remarkable how little we really know of these 
cities. Seleukeia was under the Parthians the largest city in their 
empire, and the rival of Antioch and Alexandria in wealth and popu- 
lation. In the first century a.d. its plehes urbanae numbered 600,000,^ 
and in a.d. 164, when taken by the generals of Varus, its population 
was still half a million. It possessed a constitution of a Greek 
republican type, with a senate of 300 and a popular assembly.® 
Under the Seleukidae it was controlled by an officer styled iiri.aTdTTjs 
or president.^ Under the Parthians, though liable to be entered by 
the king's general at his pleasure,^" its independence was probably 
much more real than that of a libera civitas under the Eomans. 
The population included a large ' Syrian ' " and Jewish element, 
but the government seems to have been exclusively in the hands of 
the Greek citizens, and the temples were dedicated to Greek gods.'^ 
Though Ktesiphon, the Parthian capital, was but three miles distant 
across the Tigris,'^ Seleukeia more than once revolted, holding out on 
one occasion for six or seven years.'"* This last revolt, and another 
about B.C. 42, seem to be commemorated by autonomous coins of 
the city. The great mass of Parthian tetradrachmas and copper 
coins, though bearing the king's head and name, was probably 
struck by some of the Greek cities in Babylonia, especially Seleukeia, 
and present legible Greek inscriptions down to the overthrow of the 
Parthian empire.^"^ 

The other most important Makedonian colonies in Babylonia 
were Artemita and Gharax Spasini, near the mouth of the Euphrates. 
The latter, originally founded by Alexander, was restored by Anti- 
ochos I, and again by an Arab king Pasiones or Spasinus,'^ who 
probably introduced a barbarian element. Under the Parthians it 
was not a free city, but the capital of a vassal kingdom, whose rulers 
from their names ''^ were evidently non-Greek. Some of the coins too 
bear Aramaic (?) inscriptions. Yet of all these cities scarcely any 
remains are known, except a few coins. The ruins of Seleukeia are 

* Plin. H. N. vi. 28. * Syr. 125-6. ' Plin. vi. 26. 

8 Tacitus, Ann. vi. 42 ; comp. Plutarch, Crass, p. 1029. 
» Polyb. V. 48. '" Plutarch, loc. cit. 

' ' This term evidently included the native Babylonian inhabitants, an additional 
proof of how far Aramaic had become their vernacular. 

'2 Capitolinus, Verus, Ammianus, xxiii. 6, p. 270. '^ Plin. vi. 26. 

'* A.D. 40-47, Tacitus, Ann. xi. 9. '* Gardner, Parthian Coinage, pass. 

'« Plin. vi. 27. 
" For Artabazus, see Lucian, Ma&ro6, 16. ForAbennerigessee Josephus, 4. /. xx.2. 



said to have been employed in the construction of Bagdad, bat it is 
hard to believe that excavations properly conducted on the site 
would not lead to important discoveries. The literary remains of 
the Babylonian Greeks are also few and unimportant. Diogenes of 
Seleukeia, who lived about the time of the Parthian conquest, is 
mentioned as a Stoic or Epikurean philosopher, and some fragments 
of his works are extant.'* Herodikos, a ' Babylonian ' grammarian 
repeatedly quoted by Athenaeus, is the author of some epigrams. 
Agatliokles 6 Ba^uXcovtos is quoted as an historian, and Seleukos of 
Seleukeia, who is styled by Strabo '^ a Chaldaean, as an author of 
geographical or astronomical works.^° Berosus, the most famous 
Greek writer whom Babylonia produced, was not of Greek race. 
* Zachalias Babylonius,'^' who dedicated his work to ' King Mithri- 
dates,' was from his name probably a Jew. Charax produced two 
geographers of some note — Dionysios, who lived not long before 
Pliny,^- and Isidoros, who is frequently qaoted, and whose 'Zrad/juol 
YlapOtKol is still extant. Dorotheus 6 XaX^alos is referred to by 
the Pseudo-Plutarch De Flwviis, as a writer Trspt Xidcov. Lastly 
Apollodoros o ' h^pTSfisirr^s is mentioned by Strabo ^^ and Athenaeus^* 
as an author of * Parthika.' ^^ 

Antiochos I, son of Seleukos (b.c. 293-263), who ruled Baby- 
lon for several years before his father's death,^^ unlike him, adopted 
the policy of conciliating the native priesthood. His restoration 
of the temple at Hierapolis is related by the author of the 
treatise De Dea Syra (17-24), and a small terra-cotta cylinder, 
found by Eassam at Babylon a few years ago, interesting as the 
latest royal document in cuneiform writing known to exist, and 
remarkable for the archaistic type of the characters (reminding us 
of some of the affectations of the contemporary Alexandrians), tells 
of the restoration of the temples of Babylon and Borsippa by King 
Anti-'ku-us in the forty-third year of the Seleukidean era, and 
prays to Nebo for the prosperity of the king, his son Silukku, and 
his queen Astartaniku (Stratonike).^^ 

His interest in the affairs of his Babylonian subjects took 
another form, which for us is of much greater importance, for it 

'" strabo, xvi. 1, p. 345 ; Athenaeus, Iv. IGS, &c. ; Diogenes Laertius, vi. p. 157 ; 
Cicero, De Div. ii. pp. 43, &c. 

'» xvi. 1, p. 357. -» Strabo, i. 1, p. 8, ii. 5, xvi. 1, p. 337. ^' Plin. xxxvii. p. 668. 

« Ibid. vi. 27. « ii. 5, p. 187. -< xv. 682. 

" Since this article was written, I have noticed that Schottus, in his edition of the 
Bibliotheca of Photios, quotes on codex 94 (the epitome of a lost romance of 
lamblichos, called Babyloniaka) a scholium repertum in antiquis Graecis codicibics, 
to the effect that lamblichos was a Syrian, ncm de illis advenis Graecis sed de ipsis 
Syriae indigenis, who, having become the slave of a certain Babylonian, was (in 
addition to Syriae) instructed in the ' Babylonian ' language, and having been taken 
prisoner on the capture of Babylon, became acquainted with Greek and wrote his 
romance, the scene of which is laid in Babylonia under King Garmos. 

*' Appian, Syr. 126. -' Budge, Babylonian Life and History, p. 94. 


was under his auspices that Berosus, a Babylonian priest, compiled 
the work in three books known as ' Chaldaika,' the fragments of 
which furnish us with almost the only trustworthy Greek account 
of Assyro-Babylonian history. That the Babylonian language and 
religion continued in use after the time of Antiochos I is shown 
not only by allusions in classical authors, but by the existence of a 
number of documents relating, more especially, to the property of 
the priests at Erech. The fact that many of them are mortgages 
of temple lands and dues may perhaps suggest that the prosperity 
of the temple establishments was declining. 

Under Antiochos III (b.c. 222-187) Babylonia, with the rest of 
the eastern provinces of the empire, passed for a short time into 
the hands of Molon, the rebel satrap of Media (b.c. 222-220) .^8 
Ktesiphon, the future capital of the Parthian and Sassanian kings, 
appears to be first mentioned in connexion with the war between 
Molon and his opponents.^^ On the suppression of the revolt the 
people of the Greek city of Seleukeia were punished with the 
utmost severity for the part they had taken in it. Towards the 
close of Antiochos's reign, his financial troubles induced him to 
make an attempt to plunder a wealthy temple of Bel, in Elymais. 
The inhabitants resisted him, and he was slain in the conflict which 
ensued.^° His son, Antiochos IV, Epiphanes (b.c. 176-164), made 
a similar attempt to plunder the still more celebrated sanctuary at 
Susa, where a cultus was maintained, formed by a combination of 
the worship of the Zoroastrian deity Anahita, whose image had 
been set up there in the time of Artaxerxes II, with that of Nanaia, 
or Ishtar, who seems to have been the patron goddess of the city in 
the time of the Assyrian empire. This attempt seems to have 
been nearly as disastrous to its author as that made by his father. ^^ 
Outrages of this class, to which the less easily defended temples of 
Babylonia itself were probably even more subject, must have 
alienated the affections of the native population from the Seleu- 
kidae, and shortly after Babylonia was the seat of a revolt under 
Timarchos, whom ^^ Antiochos had made satrap of the province. 
He struck coins, which still exist, bearing the legend BASlAEllS 
MEEAAoT TIMAPXoT ; but having made himself unpopular, was 
slain by Demetrios, the new king of Syria, in b.c. 162, who was 
honoured by the Babylonians (we are perhaps to understand 
Seleukeians) with the title of Soter.^^ Demetrios I reigned till 
B.C. 150, and to his reign or to that of Demetrios II, Nikator, belong 
the latest Babylonian documents dated in the reign of a Syrian 
king. The Parthians under Mithridates I (b.c. 174-136) had made 

*« Polyb. V. 40 sq. " Hid. v. 45. 

^ Strabo, xvi. 1, p. 346 ; Diodoros, xxix. p. 123 ; Justin, xxxii. 2. 
»' 1 Maccab. vi. 1 ; Polyb. xxxi. 11 ; Appian, Syr. 131. *^ Ibid. 117. 

" Ibid. 118.' 


themselves masters of all the provinces and vassal states of Syria 
east of Babylonia, Elymais being the last subdued,^* but the weak 
authority of Orosius^^ is not sufficient to justify the assumption 
that Babylonia was conquered by them before the time of Demetrios 
II. He was completely defeated by them and taken prisoner in 
B.C. 138, and that on this occasion Babylonia fell into their hands 
seems certain from the fact that the Syrians had to reconquer it 
in their next Parthian expedition, that of Antiochos Sidetes (b.c. 
129) ^ against Phraates II, after the failure of which Babylonia 
was finally lost to the Seleukidae. That the Parthian king, at 
least before the Syrian invasion, treated his Babylonian and Greek 
subjects with some harshness, may be inferred from Justin, xxxvi. 
1, xlii. 1, and Diodoros, xxxiv. 19.^^ The government of the west- 
ern provinces of the Parthian empire was entrusted by Phraates to 
an Hyrkanian Greek, named Himeros or Euemerus, who, on his 
master's death in battle in e.g. 124, seized the sovereignty of 
Babylon, assuming, as we learn from his coins, the titles of a 
Parthian king, and treated his subjects with the greatest cruelty, 
destroying many of the temples and public buildings of Babylon, 
and banishing some of the citizens to Media.^® His coins are dated 
Ann. Seleuk. 189 (b.c. 124) ; and to this very year belongs a Baby- 
lonian contract tablet in the British Museum, dated * 125th year 
[of the Arsakidae] which is the 189th year, Arsaka king.' There 
are other documents bearing dates which fall in the long reign of 
Mithridates II (b.c. 124-89), in several of which the same double 
reckoning occurs, by which we are enabled to fix the commence- 
ment of the Parthian power to b.c. 249-248. One document, 
dated about b.c. 103, relating to temple first-fruits, is interesting 
as containing the name of a Greek Eraklide (Herakleides). Some- 
what later is an important chronological record — a table of cycles 
of eighteen years from the nineteenth year of Dareios II to the 
213th of the Seleukidean era, b.c. 99. It was probably drawn up 
for astronomical purposes. There are few cuneiform documents 
of later date, the latest being a contract assigned by Professor 
Sayce to the reign of Pakorus II, a.d. 78. 

Side by side with the Babylonians there existed a large Greek 
or Makedonian population occupying the cities founded by Alexander 
and his successors, speaking their own language, and worshipping 
the Olympian gods. They represented the ruling race under the 
Seleukidae, but under the Arsakidae a new element was added, the 
Parthian courtiers and nobles with their dependents, who seem to 
have been chiefly confined to the two cities of Ktesiphon and 

^* Justin, xxxvi. 1, xli. 6. ^^ v. 5. ^ Justin, xxxviii. 10 

" Compare Bawlinson, Sixth Oriental Monarchy, p. 110. 

3» Poseidonios, fr. 21 ; Diodoros, xxxiv. 21, p. 211 ; Justin, xli. 1 ; Bawlinson, Sixth 
Oriental Monarchy, p. 108 ; Gardner, Parthian Coins. 


Vologesocerta, the latter probably not founded till the first century of 
our era. The native language of the Parthians appears to have 
been a Turanian dialect, which however does not seem to have been 
used in writing, while their rehgion was, at least in name, Zoro- 
astrianism, borrowed from their Aryan neighbours and former 
rulers. The Jewish populations, who, with their own rehgion, were 
also an important factor in all the cities, Babylonian, Greek, and 
Parthian alike, seem, as in modern Eussia, to have occupied 
whole towns by themselves, and in the second century a.d., when 
the Parthian power was decHning, they estabhshed what almost 
amounted to an impermm in imperio in Babylonia. 

In Assyria, under the dynasty of Sargon (b.c. 721-606), 
Aramaic, the language of northern Syria, was so extensively used 
for commercial purposes that it was found expedient to place 
dockets written in it on contract tablets of which the body was in 
Assyrian. That it was generally understood by the higher classes 
is evident from 2 Kings xviii. 26 ; indeed, it appears to have occu- 
pied a position like French in modern Europe, as a sort of inter- 
national language. Its introduction into Babylonia as a commercial 
language was probably somewhat later, but its use must have been 
greatly stimulated by the forced immigration of Aramaic-speaking 
races. Under the Achaemenidae, though it was not allowed a place 
in the royal inscriptions, its practical importance was such that 
it was the language employed in official correspondence in the 
western half of the empire,^^ and was used for the inscriptions on 
the standard weights and the coins struck by the satraps even in 
Greek-speaking districts. In Babylonia it had already acquired so 
firm a footing before the time of Kyros that the Jewish exiles there 
adopted it as their vernacular instead of either their own Hebrew 
or the local Babylonian. This curious circumstance may perhaps be 
explained by the fact that they had already some knowledge of it in 
their own country,^" and that for purposes of commercial intercourse 
it was as serviceable as Babylonian, while it was free from the cum- 
brous writing of the latter. To the Jews of the Achaemenid period are 
due the earliest literary specimens of Aramaic (Ezra, Daniel, Tobit). 

Under the Makedonian kings Greek became the court and official 
language,^^ but alike in Makedonian colonies such as Seleukeia 
and in the ancient cities, Aramaic seems to have become by this 
time the vernacular of the whole non-Greek population.''^ 

* Ezra iv. 7. *" 2 Kings xviii. 

" There is, however, at least one instance of the use of Babylonian in a public 
record of this period— the cylinder of Antiochos I, already referred to. 

*^ The evidence of this may be summed up thus : 1. The occasional use of 
Aramaic even under the native Assyrian and Babylonian rulers. 2. The fact that it 
was Aramaic which the Jews adopted as their vernacular when resident in Babylonia. 

3. The use of Syrian as the general designation of the native population of Seleukeia. 

4. The use of Aramaic in literary works compiled in Babylonia at this period. 


Under the earlier Parthian kings (though even they are said to 
have had ' Syriac ' translations made of ancient records relating to 
their dominions'*^) Greek continued the language of the court/' and 
down to at least the time of Mithridates IV (a.d. 112), to judge from 
coins and from the inscription of Gotarzes (a.d. 42), it continued 
to be used for public purjioses ; but the Greek legends on coins 
other than those probably struck by Greek cities become unin- 
telligible, and are at last replaced by Aramaic. 

Under the tolerant rule of the Arsakidae, whose own religion 
was, as we have seen, nominally Zoroastrianism of a corrupt kind,'*'' 
the old Babylonian religion, though not specially favoured, was 
apparently exempt from persecution, the instances of oppres- 
sion referred to by Diodoros '^^ and Strabo *'' being exceptional. 
Strabo ^^ in the time of Augustus, and Pliny ^^ near the end of the 
first century a.d., attest the existence of flourishing priestly colleges 
at Sippara, Orchoe (or Erech), and Borsippa, and Pliny expressly 
states that the temple of Bel at Babylon was in existence in his 
time, though the city had decayed. These writers also bear witness 
to the astronomical learning of the priesthood, Strabo mentioning 
several Babylonians (Kiden, Naburianus, and Sudinus) who had 
written on this subject apparently in their native tongue.*" We 
have independent evidence as to the condition of Erech at this 
period in the extensive remains of buildings, and the numerous 
coffins found there along with Parthian coins.** The old Babylonian 
probably continued (like Latin in the middle ages) the language 
of religion, science, and law. To carry out the temple ritual in its 
completeness, the priesthood must have had some knowledge of it, 
and also for the comprehension of the astronomical records, which 
were still understood in the time of Claudius Ptolemaeus, about 
A.D. 150. Few legal documents of this late date are indeed known, 
but they have not been specially sought for, and the statement of 
Pliny,*^ ' Niiper et in Euphrate iiascens circa Babylonem papyruin 
inteUectum est eundem usum habere chartae. Et tamen adhuc malunt 

Besides Jewish literature we know of the Syrian translations composed for the earlier 
Parthian kings, and the ' Nabathean Agriculture,' and other works probably composed 
in Aramaic during the later years of their rule (compare Josephus, B. J. Proem. § 1, 2)- 
5. The adoption of Aramaic inscriptions on the Parthian coins when the mint officer 
ceased to understand Greek. 6. The enormous Aramaic element in the Persian inscrip- 
tions and literature of the time of the Sassanidae present from the commencement of 
their imperial rule, due probably to the admixture of the vernacular of the seat of 
their government with that of their native province. 

" Moses of Chorene, i. 7-8. ** Plutarch, Crassus, p. 1030. 

<* An edition of the sacred books of Zoroastrianism is ascribed to them in the 

^« xxxiv. 21. *' xvi. 1, p. 346. <« lb. p. 337. « H. N. vi. 26. 

** The few literary Babylonian documents later than the time of the Achaemenidae 
are chiefly astronomical. 

*' Loftus, Chaldaea and Siisiana, p. 201 cl seq. *- xiii. 11. 


Parthi vestibiis literas intexere,' may throw some light on their dis- 
appearance. At the same time the general adoption of papyrus, 
a material for which cuneiform writing is most unsuitable, must 
have contributed to the substitution of the more flowing scripts of 
Aramaic origin. The knowledge of the cuneiform writing having 
been specially preserved by the Babylonian priesthood, there can 
be little doubt that its final disuse coincided with the suppression of 
their colleges and the religion they practised. When this took place 
is not directly stated by any ancient writer ; but we can have little 
doubt that it was at the time of the transfer of the empire from the 
Arsakidae to the Persian Sassanidae under Artaxerxes IV, in a.d. 
226. The latter dynast}" certainly adopted a policy of intolerance 
towards non-Persian religions and customs. It is only in the case 
of Armenia that we have direct evidence of the suppression of non- 
Zoroastrian rites by Artaxerxes,^^ but his policy elsewhere was no 
doubt the same, and his accession was for non-Zoroastrian rites 
in his empire what the edict of Theodosius was for non-Christian 
ones in the dominions of Eome. The latest detailed accounts of 
Babylonia under the Parthians refer to both native and Greek 
religious rites as flourishing there, and to Seleukeia as retaining its 
Greek character,^'' while the first similar account given by a classical 
author after the establishment of the Sassanian dynasty refers to 
no religion as existing there save Zoroastrianism, which under 
neither the Achaemenidae nor the Arsakidae had obtained any 
firm footing in the country. Seleukeia appears no longer as a free 
Greek city, but has become a mere suburb of Ktesiphon, ajid its 
name has been replaced by that of Koche.-^^ Both the Greek and 
Babylonian idolatries in the Persian empire fell, so far as we know, 
without a struggle, but the latter had considerable influence on the 
various sects, Manichean and Mazdakite, which arose under the 
successors of Artaxerxes. The Manicheans, in addition to various 
doctrines borrowed from Zoroastrianism and Christianity, are de- 
scribed by Epiphanios ^^ as ^XtoV rs as^ovrss koI as\r]vr]v, aarpois 

" Moses of Chorene, ii. 74. 

** The very latest allusions to the old rites as still existing in Babylon seem to be 
the mention of the worship of Bel and Nebo at Babel and Borsippa in an early Talmudic 
tract, perhaps of the second century (see Kawlinson, Herodotus, i. p. 664), and the 
description of the worship of Tammuz at Babylon in the ' Book of Nabathean Agricul- 
ture,' published by Chwolson, the Aramaic original of which probably belonged to the 
time of the latest Parthian kings. Claudian [De Laud. Stilich. 1. 60-64) is not to be 
taken seriously. 

" Ammianus, xxiv. pp. 297, 299 ; Kufus Festus, p. 413. That it was not deserted in 
the time of Julian, as some might hastily conclude from the words of Ammianus 
(xxiv. p. 297), cwitate^n desertam collustrans, is evident from S. Gregoriua, In Julianum, 
ii. p. 88. Ammianus is merely alluding to the flight of the inhabitants on the approach 
of the Romans. The foundation of ' Antioch on the Tigris ' by Chosroes I in a.d. 540 
(Rawlinson, Seventh Monarchy, p. 395) might seem contrary to the usual policy of the 
Sassanidae, but Chosroes was in many respects the most tolerant king of this dynasty. 

*' Anakeph. ii. 2. 


re Kol hvvd[x£(TL kol Batfioo-tv sv'Xp^svoL, which might be taken for a 
summary of the Babylonian rehgion, while to the modern Mendaites 
or Sabians of the neighbourhood of Bagdad similar doctrines are 
attributed. In Assyria, which belonged to the Eoman empire, the 
old Assyro-Babylonian rites seem to have continued in a more or 
less corrupt form as late as the sixth century ; ^"^ but Babylon had 
been the chief seat of priestly learning, and it may be doubted how 
far the northern priesthood preserved the knowledge of the ancient 
language. The source of the very accurate information respecting 
the Assyro-Babylonian mythology given by Damaskios, who resided 
at the Persian court about a.d. 530, is uncertain. The notices in 
the Byzantine lexicographers are probably taken from earlier Greek 
writers now lost. John E. Gilmore. 

*' Ammianus, xxiii. p. 258 ; James of Sarug quoted in Lenormant, Hist. Anc. v. p. 70. 

1892 11 

The Introduction of Knight Service 
into England 

V. The Normal Knight's Fee. 

MUCH labour has been vainly spent on attempts to determine the 
true area of a knight's fee. The general impression appears 
to be that it contained five hides. Mr. Pearson, we have seen, based 
on that assumption his estimate of 6,400 fees, and other writers 
have treated the fee as the recognised equivalent of five hides. 
The point is of importance, because if we found that the recognised 
area of a knight's fee was five hides, it would give us a link between 
the under-tenant {miles) and the Anglo-Saxon thegn. But, as Dr. 
Stubbs has recognised, the assumption cannot be maintained ; no 
fixed number of hides constituted a knight's fee. 

The circumstance of a fee, in many cases, consisting of five 
hides, is merely, I think, due to the existence of five-hide estates, 
survivals from the previous regime. We have an excellent instance 
of such fees in a very remarkable document, which has hitherto, it 
would seem, remained unnoticed. This is a transcript, in Heming's 
* Cartulary, ' of a hidated survey of the Gloucestershire manors belong- 
ing to the see of Worcester. I believe it to be earlier than Domesday 
itself, in which case, of course, it would possess a unique interest. 
Here are the entries, side by side, relating to the great episcopal 
manor of Westbury (on Trym), Gloucestershire. 

Cabtulaby 1 Domesday 

Ad uuesthiriam ' pertinent 1 hide. 
XXXV hidas in dominie habe^ ^ 
episcopus, et milites sui habent xv 

Huesberie. Ibi fuerunt et sunt 
1 bidae. . . . De hac terra hujus 
Manerii tenet Turstinus filius Eolf 

hidas. In icenaiune v hidas, In v hidas in Austrecliue et Gislebertus 
com^na v hidas, In biscopes stoke fiKus Tnrold iii hidas et dimidiam 
Y hidas. jn Contone, et Constantinus v hidas 

jn Icetune. . . . De eadem terra 
hujus Manerii tenet Osbemus 
Gifard v hidas et nullum servitium 
facit. . . . Quod homines tenent 
[valet] ix hbras. 
Written in Anglo-Saxon characters. 


The three five-hide holdings, we find, figure in both alike, but 
Gilbert fitz Thorold's holding of three hides and a half appears in 
addition in Domesday. The inference, surely, would seem to be 
that Gilbert was enfeoffed between the date of the survey recorded 
in the Cartulary and the date of the Domesday survey. If so, the 
former survey is, as I have suggested, the earlier ; and in that 
survey we have the three tenants of five-hide holdings described eo 
nomine as the bishop's milites. 

In the cartae of 1166 we have fees of 5 hides,^ of 4,^ of 6,'* of 10,' of 
2|,^ and even of 2 ; ^ also of 5 carueates,® of 11,^ and of 14.'° 
Cartularies, however, are richer in evidence of this discrepancy. 
Thus the six fees of St. Albans contained 40 hides (an average of 
6| hides each), the figures being 5^, 7, 8^, 6, 5^, T^." So too in the 
Abingdon Cartulary (ii. 3) we find four fees containing 19 hides, 
three containing 14, a half-fee 4, a fee and a half 13, one fee, 10, 
5, 9. On the other hand, if we take 20 librates as the amount 
of the fee — which it was already, as Dr. Stubbs observes, in the days 
of the Conqueror — the cartae confirm that conclusion. '^ We must 
therefore conclude that the knight's fee, held by an under-tenant, 
consisted normally of an estate worth 20Z. a year, and was not based 
on the ' five hides ' of the Anglo-Saxon system. 

VI. The Early Evidence. 

We will now work upwards from the cartae to the Conquest. 

Allusions to early enfeoffment are scattered through the cartae 
themselves. Henry fitz Ceroid begins his return : Isti sunt milites 
Eudonis Dapifcri, and Eudo, we know, 'came in with the Conqueror.' 
We learn from another return (Lib. Rub. p. 397) that Henry I had 
given William de Albini, Pinccrna, de feodo quod fuit Corbuchun xv 
milites feffatos. Now this refers to Robertus Jilius Corbntion, a Domes- 
day tenant in Norfolk. The Tcsia, again, comes to our help. Thus 
we learn from Domesday that Osbern the priest alias Osbern the 
sheriff (of Lincolnshire) was William de Perci's tenant at Wickenby, 
CO. Lincoln, but the Testa entry (p. 338a) proves that William had 
enfeoffed him in that holding by the service of one knight.'^ So 
too Count Alan (of Brittany) had enfeoffed his tenant Landri at' 
Welton in the same county for the service of half a knight {ib. 338/>), 
and we find his son, Alan fitz Landri, tenant there to Count Stephen, 

^ Lib. Bub. pp. 188, 214, 237, 238, 292. 

« pp. 211, 214. * pp. 214, 292. * p. 292. » pp. 200, 210. 

' p. 210. » pp. 390, 444. » p. 429. '» pp. 431-2. 

" M. Paris, Additamenta, p. 436. ^his list, which seems scarcely known, is very 
valuable for its early date, being, I think, about contemporaneous with the cartae of 

'- L. R. pp. 229, 245, 356. 

'* Et pi-edictus Willelmus dedit predictas ires carucatas terre Osherto vicecomiti 
pro servicio U7iius militis. 


a generation later than Domesday, in the Lmdsey survey. The 
barony of By well in Northumberland, we read in the Testa (p. 392a), 
had been held by the service of five knights ''* since the days of 
William Eufus, who had granted it on that tenure.'-^ After this 
we are not surprised to learn that the barony of Morpeth had been 
held ' from the Conquest ' by the service of four knights, a.nd that 
of Mitford as long by the service of five (ih. p. 392/;), or that those 
of Calverdon, Morewic, and Diveleston had all been similarly held 
by military service ' from the Conquest.' In Herefordshire, again, 
John de Monmouth is returned as holding feoda xv militum a con- 
questii Anglie.^*^ So too Eobert Foliot claims in his caj'ta (1166) 
that his predecessors had been enfeoffed ' since the conquest of 
England ; ' ^'' and William de Colecherche, that his little fief was de 
antiquo teiiemento a Conquestu Angliae (p. 400) ; Humphrey de 
Bohun enumerates the fees quihiis aviis suns feffatiis fidt in primo 
feffamento quod in Anglia habidt (p. 243), and refers to his grand- 
father's subsequent enfeoffments in the days of William Eufus 
(p. 244) , while Alexander de Alno similarly speaks of subinfeudation 
tempore Willelmi Regis (p. 230). To take one more instance from 
the cartae, an abbot sets forth his servicium due to Henry, sicuti 
debuit antiquitus regibus predecessoribns ejus (p. 224). This brings 
us to the instructive case of Eamsey Abbey. 

Dr. Stubbs refers to a document of the reign of William Eufus 
as ' proof that the lands of the house had not yet been divided into 
knights' fees.' '* But he does not mention the striking fact that the 
special knight service for which the abbot was to be liable is 
distinctly stated to have been that for which his ' predecessors ' had 
been liable.'^ As this charter is assigned to 1091-1100, the mention 
of ' predecessors ' would seem to carry back this knight service very 
far indeed. And we have happily another connecting link which 
carries downwards the history of this knight service, as the above- 
named charter carries it upwards. This is the entry in the 
pipe-roll of 1129-30 :— 

Abbas de Ramesia reddit compotum de xlviij li. xj s. et yj d. pro 
superplus milifcum qui requirebantur de Abbatia (p. 47). 
Further, we have a notable communication to the abbot from 
bishop Nigel of Ely, which must refer to the scutage of 1156 or 
to that of 1159 (probably the former) : — 

Sciatis quod ubi Ricardus clericus ^ ' reddidit compotum de scutagio 

'* Together with castle-guard of thirty knights at Newcastle. 

»* Post tempus domini Regis Willelmi Ruffi, qui eos feoff avit. '* Testa, p. 69. 

" Post Conqziestum Angliae {Liber Rubeus, p. 332). 
'* Const. Hist. i. 263. 

'» Et deinceps tres [milites] mihi habeat sicut antecessores sui faciebant in septen- 
trionali parte fluminis Tamesie (1091-1100). Ramsey Cartulary, i. 234. 
•^ Could this have been Bichard fitz Nigel himself ? 


militum vestrorum ad Scaccarium ego testificatus sum vos non debere 
regi plusquam quatuor milites, et per tantum quieti estis et in rotulo 

Lastly, we have the return in the Black Book (1166) : — 

Homines faciunt iiii milites in communi in servitium domini regis, ita 
quod tota terra abbatiae communicata est cum eis perhidas adpraedictum 
servitium faciendum. 

We have then, in this case, a chain of evidence which should 
prove of considerable value for the study of this difficult problem. 
The phenomenon, however, for which we have to account is 
the appearance from the earliest period to which our information 
extends, of certain quotas of knight service, clearly arbitrary in 
amount, as due from those bishops and abbots who held by military 
service. When and how were these quotas fixed ? The answer is 
given by Matthew Paris — one of the last quarters in which one 
would think of looking — where we read that, in 1070, the Conqueror 

episcopatus quoque et abbatias omnes quae baronias tenebant, et 
eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerant, sub servitute 
statuit militari, inrotulans episcopatus et abbatias pro voluntate sua quot 
milites sibi et successoribus suis hostihtatis tempore voluit a singulis 
exbiberi {Historia Anglorum, i. 13). 

This passage (which perhaps represents the St. Albans tradition) 
is dismissed by Dr. Stubbs as being probably ' a mistaken account 
of the effects of the Domesday survey.' ^^ 

But the Abingdon Chronicle, quite independently, gives the 
same explanation, and traces the quota of knights to the action 
taken by the crown : — 

Quum jam regis edicto in annalibus annotarentur quot de episcopiis, 
quotve de abbatiis ad publicam rem tuendam milites (si forte bine quid 
causae propellendae contingeret) exigerentur, &c.^^ 

Moreover, the Ely Chronicle bears the same witness, telling us 
that William Eufus, at the commencement of his reign, 

debitum servitium quod pater suus imposuerat ab ecclesiis violenter 


It also tells us that, when undertaking his campaign against 
Malcohn (1072), the Conqueror 

jusserat tam abbatibus quam episcopis totius Angliae debita militiae 
obsequia transmitti ; ^^ 

*' Ramsey Cartulary, i. 255. Compare with this expression in rotulo scripti, the 
Conqueror's command (infra), that the number of knights in annalibus anno- 

" Const. Hist. i. 357. Gneist writes that Matthew's statement ' is for good reasons 
called in question by Stubbs ' (C. H. i. 255, note). 

*• Cartulary of Abingdon, ii. 3. 

« Eistoria Elienaia (ed. 1848), p. 276. ^' lb. p. 274 


' and it also describes how he fixed the quota of knights due by an 
arbitrary act of will.^*^ The chronicler, like Matthew Paris, lays stress 
upon the facts that (1) the burden was a wholly new one ; (2) its 
incidence was determined by the royal will alone .^^ 

Here, perhaps, we have the clue to the (rare) clerical exemptions 
from the burden of military tenure, such as the see of Eochester 
and the abbeys of Gloucester and of Battle. ^^ 

The beginnings of subinfeudation consequent on the Conqueror's 
action are distinctly described in the cases of Abingdon and Ely, 
and alluded to in those of Peterborough ^^ and Evesham. At the 
first of these, Athelelm 

prime quidem stipendiariis in lioc utebatur. At his sopitis incursibus 
. . . abbas mansiones possessionum ecclesiae pertinentibus inde dele- 
gavit, edicto cuique tenore parendi de suae portionis mansione.^'' 

At Ely, the abbot 

habuit ex consuetudine, secundum jussum regis, praetaxatum militiae 
numerum infra aulam ecclesiae, victum cotidie de manu celerarii 
capientem atque stipendia, quod intollerabiliter et supra modum potuit 
vexare locum. . . . Ex hoc compulsus quasdam terras sanctae ^Edeldredae 
invasoribus in feudum permisit tenere . . . ut in omni expeditione regi 
observarent, [etj ecclesia perpetim iafatigata permaneret.**^ 

As Lanfranc had done at Canterbury, as Symeon at Ely, as 
Walter at Evesham, as Athelelm at Abingdon, so also, we cannot 
doubt, did Wulfstan at Worcester. The carta of his successor 
(1166) distinctly implies that before his death he had carved some 
thirty-seven fees out of the episcopal fief. Precisely as at Ely, he 
found this plan less intolerable than the standing entertainment of 
a roistering troop of knights.^^ 

The influence of nepotism on subinfeudation, in the case of 
ecclesiastical fiefs, is too important to be passed over. On every 
side we find the efforts of prelates and abbots thus to provide for 
their relatives opposed and denounced by the bodies over which 

** Praecepit illi \i.e. abbati] ex nutu regis custodiavi xlmilitum habere in insulam. 
lb. p. 275. This is the very servitium debitum that appears under Henry II. 

■■" Compare for the initiative of the crown, the Domesday phrase, miles jussu 
regis, and the statement that Lanfranc replaced the drengs of his see by knights at 
the royal command {Bex jyraecepit). 

-' Madox writes (Baronia Anglica, p. 114) bitterly and unjustly : ' In process of 
time, several of the religious found out another piece of art. They insisted that they 
held all their land and tenements in frankalmoigne, and not by knight-service.' In 
the cases he quotes, ' this allegation ' was perfectly correct, and was recognised as such 
by the judges. 

»' Turoldus vere sexaginta et duo hidas terrae de terra ecclesiae Burgi dedit stipen- 
diariis militibus (John of Peterborough, ed. Giles). 

^" Cart. Abingdon, ii. 3. 

'' Liber El. p. 276. 

*^ Qui stipendiis annuls quotidianisqua cibis immane quantum populabaiituf 
^ '. - Will. Malmesb. Gesta Pontificum). 



they ruled. The archbishop of York in his carta explains the 
excessive number of his knights : Antecessores enim nostri, non pro 
necessitate servitii, quod debent, sed quia cognatis et servientibus suis 
providere volebant, plures quam debebant Regi feodaverunt. The 
abbot of Ely, we are told by his panegyrist, enfeoffed knights by 
compulsion, non ex industria aut favore divitum vel propinquorum 
affectn.^ Abbot Athelelm of Abingdon, says his champion, en- 
feoffed knights of necessity ; ^ but a less friendly chronicler asserts 
that, like Thorold of Peterborough, he brought over from Normandy 
his kinsmen, and quartered them on the abbey lands.-^^ Abbot 
Walter of Evesham and his successor persisted in enfeoffing knights 
contradicente capitido.^'^ 

So, during a vacancy at Abbotsbury under Henry I, cum Rogerus 
Episcopu^ habuit custodiam Abbatiae, duas hidas, ad maritandam quan- 
dam neptem suam, dedit N. de M., contradicente conventu Ecclesiae.^'^ 
Henry of Winchester has left us a similar record of the action of his 
predecessors at Glastonbury.^* His narrative is specially valuable 
for the light it throws on the power of subsequent revocation, 
perhaps in cases where the corporate body had protested at the 
time against the grant. Of this we have a striking instance in 
the grants of Abbot iEthelwig of Evesham, almost all of which, we 
read, were revoked by his successor.^^ Parallel rather to the cases 
of Middleton and Abbotsbury {vide cartas) would be the action of 
William Eufus during the Canterbury vacancy."*" 

" Liber Eliensis, p. 275. ^' Cat-t. Abingdon, ii. 3, 

^^ lb. p. 233 : misit . . . in Normanniam j^o cognatis suis, quibtis multas posses- 
sioncs ecclcsiae dedit ct feoffavit, ita ut in uno anno Ixx de possessionibus ecclesiae cis 

^^ Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxiv. f. 8, Bandulfus frater ahbatis Walterii Jiabet in Withe- 
lega Hi hidas de dominio, etc. etc. . . . dono Walterii Abbatis contradicente capittilo. 
This was the Bannuljum {sic) fratrem ejusdem Waltcri abbatis, . . . qui cum fratre 
stio tenebat illud placitum [temp. Will. 7], whom the bishop of Worcester's knights 
challenged to trial by battle (Heming's Chart. Wig. ed. Hearne, p. 82). His holding 
was represented in 1166 by the fees of Eandulf de Kinwarton and Kandulf de Coughton. 
Other cases of contested enfeoffment by Abbots Walter and Kobert are those of Hugh 
Travers and Hugh de Bretfertun. 

*' See the carta of 1106, which explains how this holding became half a fee. 

'" Miles guidam, Odo nomine, dono piraedecessoris mei Sifridi abbatis, ob graciam 
cujusdam consobrinae suae, guam idem Odo conjugcm duxerat . . . tria maneria de 
dotninio sibi astrinxerat . . . invitis fratribus. Alius guidam . . . dono abbatis . 
tamen absque fratrum co7isens2i mancrium possidebat {Domerham, p. 306). 

*' De his tcrris guas, ut diximus, suo tempore acquisivit, guibusdam bonis Jiomi- 
nibu£ pro magna necessitate ct horuyre ecclesiae dedit, ct inde Deo et sibi fideliter 
qvamdiu vixit serviebant {Chrmiicon Evesh. p. 96). His successor, Walter (1077- 
1086), incited by his own young relatives, noZm^ homagiuma pluribus bonis hominibus 
guos jyiaedecessor suus Jiabuerat suscipere eo quod terras omnium, si posset, decrevit 
auferre {ib. p. 97). In the result, dicitur qvcd fere omnes milites hujus abbatiae Jiae 
reditavit (ib. p. 98). 

** He begged Anselm that terras ecclesiae quas ipse rex, deficncto Lanfranco, suis 
dederat pro statuto servicio, illis ipsis haereditario iure tenendas, causa sui amoris 
condonaret (Eadmer). 


It was to guard against the nepotism of the heads of monastic 
houses that such a clause as this was occasionally inserted : — 

Terras censuales non in feudum donet ; nee faciat milites nisi in 
sacra veste Christi."*' 

And by their conduct in this matter, abbots, in the Norman period, 
were largely judged. But this has been a slight digression. 

Now that I have shown that in monastic chronicles we have the 
complement and corroboration of the words of Matthew Paris, I 
propose to quote as a climax to my argument the writ printed below. 
Startling as it may read, for its early date, to the holders of the ac- 
cepted view, the vigour of its language convinced me, when I found 
it, that in it King William speaks ; nor was there anything to be 
gained by forging a document which admits, by placing on record, 
the abbey's full liability.''^ 

W. Rex Anglor[um] Athew' abbati de Euesh[am] sal[u]tem. Precipio 
tibi quod submoneas omnes illos qui sub ballia et i[us]titia tua s[uii]t 
quatin[us] omnes milites quos mihi debent p[ar]atos h[abe]ant ante me ad 
octavas pentecostes ap[ud] clarendun[am]. Tu etiamillo die ad me venias 
et illos quinque milites quos de abb[at]ia tua mihi debes tec[um] paratos 
adducas. Teste Eudone dapif[er]o Ap[ud] Wintoniam.^** 

Being addressed to ^thelwig, the writ, of course, must be pre- 
vious to his death in 1077, but I think that we can date it, perhaps, 
with precision, and that it belongs to the year 1072. In that 
year, says the Ely chronicler, the Conqueror, projecting his invasion 
of Scotland, j^sserai tarn ahhatihus quam episcoins totins Angliae debita 
militiae ohsequia transmitti, a phrase which applies exactly to the 
writ before us. In that year, moreover, the movements of William 
fit in fairly with the date for which the feudal levy was here 
summoned. We know that he visited Normandy in the spring 
and invaded Scotland in the summer, and he might well summon 
his baronage to meet him on 3 June, on his way from Normandy 
to Scotland, at so convenient a point as Clarendon. The writ, 
again, being witnessed at Winchester, may well have been issued 
by the king on his way out or back. 

The direction to the abbot to summon similarly all those beneath 
his sway who owed military service is probably explained by the 
special position he occupied as ' chief ruler ' of several counties at 
the time.^"* We find him again, two years later (1074), acting as a 

*' Foundation charter of Alcester Priory. 

** Three other documents are found on the same folio. Of these the first is ad- 
dressed to Lanfranc, Odo of Bayeux, Bishop Wulfstan, and Urse d'Abetot, and wit- 
nessed by Bishop Geoffrey (of Coutances) and (like our writ) by Eudo Dapifer, being 
also witnessed, like it, at Winchester. It is noteworthy that it grants ^thelwig the 
hundred of Fishborough in potestate et justitia stm. 

« Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxiv. f. 15 [18]. 

** Bex commisit ei curant istarum partium terrae . . . ita ut omnium hujus patriae 
eonsilia atque judicia fere in eo penderent {Hist. Evesham). 



military commander. On that occasion the line of the Severn was 
guarded against the rebel advance by Bishop Wulfstan, cum magna 
militari manu, et Aegelwius Eoveshamnensis abbas cum suis, ascitis 
sibi in adjutorium Ursone vicecomite Wigorniae et Waltero de Laceio 
cum copiis suis, et cetera midtitudine plehis.*^ The number of knights 
which constituted the servitium dehitum of Evesham was five then as 
it was afterwards, and this number, as we now know, had been 
fixed pro voluntate sua, in 1070, by the Conqueror. 

We find allusions to two occasions on which the feudal host was 
summoned, as above, by the Conqueror, and by his sons and 
successors. William Eufus exacted the full sei-vitium dehitum. to 
repress the revolt at the commencement of his reign. ''^ Henry I 
called out the host to meet the invasion of his brother Robert.''^ 
In both these instances reference is made to the questions of 
* service due ' that would naturally arise,"** and that would keep 
the quotas of knight service well to the front. That these quotas 
however, as I said (vol. vi. p. 439), were matter of memory rather 
than of record, is shown by a pair of early disputes."*^ 

Let us pass, at this point, to the great Survey, I urged in the 
earlier portion of this paper that the argument from the silence of 
Domesday is of no value. Even independently of direct allusions, 
whether to the case of individual holders, or to whole groups such 
as the milites of Lanfranc, it can be shown conclusively that the 
normal formulae cover unquestionable military tenure, tenure by 
knight service.^" 

An excellent instance is afforded in the case of Abingdon 
Abbey (fol. 258&-2596), because the formulae are quite normal, 
and make * no record of any new duties or services of any kind.' ■'' 
Yet we are able to identify the tenants named in Domesday, right 
and left, with the foreign knights enfeoffed by Athelelm to hold by 

*^ Florence of Worcester. 

** Cernens itaque rex grande sibi periculum imminere, dehitum servitium . 
exigit {Liber Eliensis, p. 276). 

■" Eex Henricus contra fratrcm suum Robertum, Normanniae comitem, super se in 
Anglia cum exercitu venientem, totius regni sui expeditionem dirigit (Cart. Abingdon, 
ii. 128). 

*^ In the former case, between the crown and its t /nant ; in the latter, between the 
tenant and his under-tenant. / 

*' Idem [Qodcelinus de Biveria] dicebat se non dcbere faccre servitium, nisi duorum 
militum, pro feudo quern tenehat de ecclesia, et abbas et szoi dicebant eum debere ser- 
vitium trium militum {Cart. Abingdon, ii. 129). Cum a quodam duos milites ad ser- 
vicium regis exigerem {tantum enim inde deberi ab olim a commilitonibus didiceram) 
ipse toto conatu obstitit, tmius dumtaxat se militis servicio obnoxium obtestans. — Henry 
abbot of Glastonbury {Dmnerham, p. 318). 

5» Thus undermining Mr. Freeman's argument : ' We hear of nothing in Domesday 
which can be called knight service or military tenure in the later sense ; the old obli- 
gations would remain ; the primeval duty of military service, due, not to a lord as 
lord, but to the state and to th ng as its head, went on,' &c. {Norm. Conq. v. 371). 

*' Norm. Conq. v. 865. 


military tenure,-^^ owing service for their fees * to a lord as lord.' 
There are some specially convincing cases, such as those of Hubert, 
who held five hides in a hamlet of Cumnor,'^^ and whose fee is not 
only entered in the list of knights/^ but is recorded to have been 
given him before Domesday, for military service.^-^ Another case is 
that of William camerarius, who held Lea by the service of one 
knight ; ^'^ so too with the bishop of Worcester's manor of Westbury- 
on-Trym, where the homines of Domesday appear as milites in a 
rather earlier survey/^ 

Again, take the case of Peterborough. The Northamptonshire 
possessions of that house are divided by Domesday (fol. 221) into 
two sections, of which the latter is headed Term hominiim ejnsdem 
ecclesiae, and represents the subinfeudated portion, just as the 
preceding section contains the dominium of the fief.'^* Here Terra 
hominum ejnsdem corresponds with the heading Terra militum ejus 
prefixed to the knights of the archbishop of Canterbury (fol. 4). 
The Peterborough homines are frequently spoken of as milites (fol. 
2216, passim), and even where we only find such formulae as 
AnscJiitillus tenet de abhate we are able to identify the tenant as 
Anschetil de St. Medard, one of the foreign knights enfeoffed by 
Abbot Thorold.^9 

Further, if we turn to the fief held by the abbey in Lincolnshire 
(fols. 345?>, 346), we find, thrice, mention of Radulfus homo Abbatis, 
whom collation with the list in Hugo Candidus enables us to identify 
with Radulfus de Nevilla, enfeoffed to hold of the abbot by the 
service of three knights. And this conclusion is confirmed by the 
cldmores (fol. 3766), in which we read tenebat Radulfus de Nevilla 
de abbati Turoldo, an entry annihilating the old assertion that the 
great name of Neville is nowhere found in Domesday.''" 

But it is not only on church fiefs that the Domesday under- 
tenant proves to be a feudal miles. At Swaifham (Cambr.) we read in 
Domesday (fol. 196) tenet Hugo de Walterio [fiifard'].'^^ Yet in the 
earlier record of a placitum on the rights of Ely, we find this tenant 
occurring as Hugo de bolebec miles Walteri Gijfard, while in 1166 

*'■* Cartulary of Abingdon, ii. 3-7. 

M In Winteham tenet Hiobertits de Abbate v hidas dc terra villanorum (i. 586). 

*■* Hubertus I militcni'pro v hidis in Witham (p. 4). 

*' In Wichiliavi de terra villanorum curiae Cumenorc obscqui solitortim, illo 
abbate cuidam tniliti nomine Hubcrto v hidarum portio disiributa est (p. 7). 

*" See Cart. Ab. ii. 138. Cf. Domesday, i. 586. : Willehmis tenet dc abbate Leie. 

»' See p. 11. 

*" This distinction, ' will be found, is preserved in Henry's Charter (1101) : ncc 

. aliquid accipiam [ de dominico ecclesiae vel [2] de hominibiis ejus. 

^' See the valuable \ of Peterborough knights and fees printed in Sparke's edi- 
tion of Hugo Candidus (iiv oriae Anglicanae Scriptores, &c. [1723], p. 55). 

•» See my note on ' the'v villes in Domesday ' (Academy, xxxvii. 373). 

»' In the transcript of \ original returns it is : habet hugo de bolebech . . . de 
waltcro giffard. 

c 2 


his descendant and namesake is returned as the chief tenant on the 
Giffard fief. The same placitum suppHes other illustrations of the 
fact.^^ The cases taken from the Percy fief and from the honour 
of Brittany afford further confirmation, if needed, of the conclusions 
1 draw.^^ 

VII. The Worcester Relief (1095). 

It was urged in the earlier part of this paper that Eanulf Flam- 
bard had been assigned a quite unwarrantable share in the develop- 
ment of feudalism in England. But so little is actually known of 
what his measures were that they have hitherto largely remained 
matter of inference and conjecture. It may be well, therefore, to 
call attention to a record which shows him actually at work, and 
which illustrates the character of his exactions by a singularly per- 
fect example. 

The remarkable document that I am about to discuss is printed in 
Heming's ' Cartulary ' (i. 79-80).^'' It is therefore most singular that 
it should be unknown to Mr. Freeman — to whom it would have been 
invaluable for his account of Eanulf's doings — as it occurs in the 
midst of a group of documents which he had specially studied for 
his excursus on 'the condition of Worcestershire under William.' ^* 
It is a writ of William Eufus, addressed to the tenants of the see of 
Worcester on the death of Bishop Wulfstan, directing them to pay 
a ' relief,' in consequence of that death, and specifying the quota 
due from each of the tenants named. The date is fortunately 
beyond question ; for the writ must have been issued very shortly 
after the death of Wulfstan (18 Jan. 1095), and in any case 
before the death of Bishop Robert of Hereford (26 June 1095), who 
is one of the tenants addressed in it. As the record is not long, 
and practically, as we have seen, unknown, one need not hesitate 
to reprint it. 

W. Eex Anglorum omnibus Francis et Anglis qui francas terras tenant 
de episcopatu de Wireceastra, Salutem. Sciatis quia, mortuo episcopo, 
honor in manum meam rediit. Nunc volo, ut de terris vestris tale releva- 
men mihi detis, sicut per barones meos disposui. Hugo de Laci xx libras. 
Walterus Punher xx libras. Gislebertus filius turoldi c solidos. Eodbertus 
episcopus X libras. Abbas de euesliam xxx libras. Walterus de Gloecestra 
XX Hbras. Eoger filius durandi [quietus per breve regis] ''^ x libras. Wine- 
bald de balaon x libras. Drogo filius Pontii x libras. Eodbert filius 
sckilin c solidos. Eodbert stirmannus Ix solidos. Willelmus de begebiri 
xl solidos. Eicardus & Franca c solidos. Angotus xx solidos. Beraldus 
XX solidos. Willelmus de Wic xx solidos. Eodbertus fiHus nigelH c 
solidos. Alricus archidiaconus c solidos. Ordricus dapifer ^^ xl Hbras. 

'^ Inquisitio EUensis (0. 2. 1), f. 210, et seq. " ggg p_ ^2. 

"' Hemingi Chartularium (ed. Hearne), 1723. «= Norman Conquest, vol. v. 

•" Interlineation. " Dapifer to Bishop Wulfstan. 



Ordricus blaca ^* c solidos. Colemannus ^^ xl solidos. Warinus xxx solidos. 
Balduuinus xl solidos. Suegen filius Azor xx solidos. Aluredus xxx solidos. 
Siuuardus xl solidos. Saulfus xv libras. Algarus xl solidos. Chippingus 
XX solidos. 

Testibus Eanulfo capellano & Eudone dapifero & Ursone de abetot. 
Et qui hoc facere noluerit, Urso & bernardus sasiant et terras et pecunias 
in manu mea. 

The points on which this document throws fresh light are these. 
First, and above all, the exaction of reliefs by William Eufus and 
his minister, which formed so bitter a grievance at the time, and 
to which, consequently. Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman have devoted 
special attention. On this we have here evidence which is at pre- 
sent unique. It must therefore be studied in some detail. 

Broadly speaking we now learn how ' the analogy of lay fiefs 
was applied to the churches with as much minuteness as pos- 
sible.' ^^ One of the respects in which the church fiefs differed 
from those of the lay barons was that on the one hand they escaped 
such claims as reliefs, wardships, and * marriage,' while on the 
other, their tenants, of course, also escaped payment of such ' aids ' 
as those adfilium. militem faciendum or adfiliam maritandam. In this 
there was a fair ' give and take.' But Eanulf must have argued 
that bishops and abbots who took reliefs from their tenants ought, 
in like manner, to pay reliefs to the crown > This they obviously 
would not do ; and, indeed, even had they been willing, it would 
have savoured too strongly of simony. And so he adopted, as our 
record shows, the unwarrantable device of extorting the relief from 
the under-tenants direct. This was not an enforcement, but a 
breach, of feudal principles ; for an under-tenant was, obviously, 
only liable to relief on his succession to his own fee. 

It would be easy to assume that this was the abuse renounced 
by Henry I.'^^ But distinguo. The above abuse was quite distinct 
from the practice of annexing to the revenues of the crown, during 
a vacancy, the temporalities. This, which was undoubtedly re- 
nounced by Henry, and as undoubtedly resorted to by himself and 

*' He witnessed, as 'Ordric Niger,' the conventio between Bishop Wulfstan and 
Abbot Walter of Evesham, and was perhaps Bishop Wulfstan's reeve (Heming, p. 420). 

** Probably Bishop Wulfstan's chancellor. 

■" Although, from his ignorance of this document, Dr. Stubbs was not aware of 
Eanulf 's modus operandi, its evidence affords a fresh illustration of his unfailing in- 
sight, and of his perfect grasp of the problem even in the absence of proof. ' The 
analogy,' he writes, ' of lay fiefs was applied to the churches with as much minuteness 
as possible. . . . Eanulf Flambard saw no other difference between an ecclesiastical 
and a lay fief than the superior facilities which the first gave for extortion. . . The 
church was open to these claims because she furnished no opportunity for reliefs, ward- 
ships, marriage, escheats, or forfeiture ' {Const. Hist. pp. 298-300). 

" Nee mortuo archiepiscopo, sive episcopo, sive abbate, aliquid accipiam de do- 
minico ecclesiae vel de hominibus ejus donee successor in earn ingrediatur. 




by his successors afterwards, was, however distasteful to the church,^^ 
a logical deduction from feudal principles, and did not actually 
wrong any individual. It could thus be retained when the crown 
abandoned such unjust exactions as the Worcester relief, and it 
afforded an excellent substitute for wardship, though practically 
mischievous in the impulse it gave to the prolongation of vacancies. 

There are many other points suggested by the record I am 
discussing, but they can only be touched on briefly. It gives us a 
singularly early use of the remarkable term 'honour,' here em- 
ployed in its simplest and strictly accurate sense ; the same term 
was similarly employed, we have seen, in the case of Abingdon 
(1097), where we also find the fief described as reverting to the 
crown vacante sedeP It further alludes to a special assessment by 
* barons ' deputed for the purpose ; it affords a noteworthy formula 
for distraint in case of non-payment ; and it gives us, within barely 
nine years of the great survey itself, a list of the tenants of the fee, 
which should prove of peculiar value. 

If the sums entered be added up, their total will amount to 
exactly 250Z. It is tempting to connect this figure with a servitium 
debitum {teste episcopo) of 50 fees at the ' ancient relief ' of 5Z. a 
fee ; but we are only justified in treating it as one of those round 
sums that we find exacted for relief under Henry II, especially as 
its items cannot be connected with the actual knights' fees. The 
appended analysis will show the relation (where ascertainable) of 
sums paid to hides held. 

Domesday, 1086 

The Relief, 1095 

Roger de Laci . . 
"Walter Ponther . 
Gilbert fitz Thorold 
Bishop of Hereford 
Abbot of Evesham 
Walter fitz Roger 
Durand the sheriff 







Hugh de Laci .... 
Walter Punher . . . 
Gilbert fitz Thorold . . 
Bishop Robert [of Hereford] 
Abbot of Evesham . . 
Walter de Gloucester . 
Roger fitz Durand . . 
Winebald de Balaon 
Drogo fitz Ponz . . . 
Robert fitz Schilin . . 
Robert Stirman . . . 
Anschitil de Colesbourne 
Roger de Compton . . 
















'^ There is a very important allusion to it, as introduced under Eufus, in the 
Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 42 : Eo tempore [1097] infanda tisurpata est in Anglia con- 
suetudo, ut si qua prelatorum persona ecclesiarutn vita decederet viox Jionor ecclesias- 
ticus fisco deputaretur regis. 

" Compare the words of the chronicle on the king claiming to be heir of each 
man, lay or clerk, with the expression ho7ior in manum meam rediit. 




Domesday, 1086 {continued) 

h V 
Eudo 13 


1 2 

iElfric the archdeacon . , 4 
Orderic "1 ^ - 

Orderic / 



The Relief, 1095 (continued) 

£ s 

Eudo 3 

William de Begebiri . . 2 

Richard & Franca ... 50 

Angot 10 

Berald i o 

WilHam de Wick .... 10 

Robert fitz Nigel .... 50 

^Ifric the archdeacon . . 5 

Orderic the Dapifer ... 40 

Orderic Black 5 

Coleman 2 

Warine 1 10 

Baldwin 2 

Swegen fitz Azoc ... 10 

Alfred 1 10 

Siward 2 

Sawulf 15 

^Igar 2 

Cheping 10 


The comparisoTi of these two lists suggests some interesting 
conclusions. Roger de Laci, forfeited early in the reign for treason, 
had been succeeded by his brother Hugh. ' Punher ' supplies us 
with the transitional form from the ' Ponther ' of Domesday to the 
* Puher ' of the reign of Henry I. The identity of the names is 
thus established. Walter fitz Roger has already assumed his family 
surname as Walter de Gloucester, and his uncle Durand has now 
been succeeded by a son Roger, whose existence was unknown to 
genealogists. The pedigree of the family in the Norman period 
has been well traced by Mr. A. S. Ellis in his paper on the Glou- 
cestershire Domesday tenants, but he was of opinion that Walter 
de Gloucester was the immediate successor in the shrievalty of 
his uncle Durand, who died without issue. This list, on the 
contrary, suggests that the immediate successor of Durand was 
his son Roger, and that if, like his father, he held the shrievalty, 
this might account for the interlineation remitting, in his case, the 
sum due. In this Roger we clearly have that * Roger de Gloucester ' 
who was slain in Normandy in 1106, and whom, without the 
evidence afforded by this list, it was not possible to identify.^"* 

The chief difficulty that this list presents is its omission of the 
principal tenant of the see, Urse d'Abetot. One can only assign 
it to the fact of his official position as sheriff enabling him to 

'* Rogerium de Olocestra, probatum militem, in ohsessione Falesiae arcuhalistae 
jactu in capite percussum (William of Malmesbury, ii. 475). 


secure exemption for himself, and perhaps even for his brother, 
Eobert * Diepensator.' Their exemption, however accounted, for, 
involved an arbitrary assessment of all the remaining tenants, 
irrespective of the character or of the extent of their tenure. With 
these remarks I must leave a document, which is free from ana- 
chronism or inconsistency, and as trustworthy, I think, as it is 

It is my hope that this paper may increase the interest in the 
forthcoming edition of the Liber Ruheus under the care of Mr. 
Hubert Hall, and that it may lead to a reconsideration of the 
problems presented by the feudal system as it meets us in England. 
Nor can I close without reminding the reader that if my researches 
have compelled me to differ from an authority so supreme as Dr. 
Stubbs, this in no way impugns the soundness of his judgment on the 
data hitherto known. The original sources have remained so strangely 
neglected, that it was not in the power of any writer covering so 
wide a field to master the facts and figures which I have now 
endeavoured to set forth, and on which alone it is possible to form 
a conclusion beyond dispute.^* J. H. Bound. 

'* Since this article was in type, I have noted an incidental allusion which clinches 
my argument as to the levy of 5 Hen. II being made for the Toulouse expedition, in 
spite of Swereford's assertion to the contrary [supra vol. vi. pp. 626, 636). Giraldus 
Cambrensis (iii. 357), refers to Bishop Henry of Winchester assembling all the priests 
of his diocese tanguam ad auxilium postulandum [dederat enim paulo ante quingentas 
viarcas regi Henrico ad expeditionem Tholosanam). The sum here given ^is that 
which he paid in 1159, as my table shows {supra, vol. vi. p. 635). Its destination is 
thus established, as also, it may be noted, the means by which he was expected to 
recoup himself. 

1892 25 

English Popular Preaching in the 
Fourteenth Centitry 

THE Friars Minor, or, as men called them, the Grey Friars, 
came to England in 1224, missionaries to the poor of the 
town populations ; they came among them as the poor to the poor, 
rich only in sympathy and in the Word of God ; barefoot, and 
begging their daily bread, they did no more than build mud or 
wooden huts to shelter their small companies in the midst of the 
poor and squalid surroundings among which lay their work. If 
a piece of ground was given to them, they dug a ditch round it, 
with a wooden fence instead of a wall, built their cottages and cells 
in which to labour and to pray, and a small poor church, without 
painting or ornament, in which to preach. Penurious in their 
cheerful self-renunciation, they devoted themselves to the ignorant 
and needy, labouring also among the outcast lepers. But they 
were not allowed to acquire or retain books and learning. St. 
Francis feared that the scholastic learning and legal theological 
subtleties of his day might draw his followers from their path. He 
shunned it all. It was not mental discipline that he cared for, but 
discipline of the heart and character. And the English Minorites, 
we are told, were the strictest adherents to his rules. 

Yet preaching and teaching, which were a chief part of their 
duty, and in their hands acquired a distinctive character, must 
before long have required some relaxation of the prohibition of 

The necessities of the class for whom they laboured (says Mr. Brewer) 
brought out in the Franciscan a style of living and preaching suitable to 
his auditory ; he had to speak to the hearts of men and women who were 
not learned ; he had to study those hearts and what was in them before 
he could hope to address them with success. His poverty enabled him to 
accomplish the first and most difficult portion of his task by throwing 
him upon the help and sympathy of those for whom he laboured. The 
necessity of alms from day to day, the stringent rule imposed by his 
founder, forced him from a life of mere study or contemplation into a life 
of activity. . . . Preaching must become the great object of his life, quite 
(ds much as poverty ; but it was a new style of instruction, very different 



from that which had hitherto prevailed . . . suited to an audience con- 
sisting as much of women as of men, appeahng more directly to the 
feelings, more popular and more dramatic.^ 

Clearly, then, the order, which was joined by men of all ranks and 
of all degrees of learning, could not afford to neglect study, and 
their rank and file must be assisted to procure a good foundation 
on which the enthusiasm for humanity might work upwards. 

Accordingly, before many summers had passed, Brother Agnellus, 
the first provincial in England (died 1232), had built a school at 
Oxford, where Bishop Grostete, Adam de Marisco (himself in the 
order), and others lectured with much success ; and within twenty 
or thirty years there were thirty lecturers established by the 
Minorites at different places in England. The friars made great 
progress with their sermons and moralities ; they became so famous 
for their studies that the French sent for two brethren, Philip and 
Adam, to read lectures at Lyons ; and we know that Brothers 
Bartholomew and John, Englishmen, the former of whom also 
attained fame as a lecturer on the Scriptures in Paris, were sent in 
1231 to assist in establishing and teaching holy theology in the 
new province of the order in Saxony. * The gift of wisdom,' says 
the Minorite chronicler, Eccleston, with delight, ' so overflowed in 

Contrary to the practice of St. Francis, Grostete urged the 
friars to the study of theology, not to ' walk to their shame in the 
darkness of ignorance.' The wise and experienced Adam de Marisco 
interceded that a promising student might have books. And these 
studies of the closet were tempered and vivified by their practical 
labours among the people ; ' the early scholars of the order alter- 
nated study with preaching.' 

The necessities of their daily work thus brought them a liberty 
of discussion, their training a freedom and vigour of mind, which 
gave a new impulse to the mental history of the middle ages. In 
their search for ideas and images suited to convey the truths of 
Scripture and to impress the moral dicta home upon their hearers 
by familiar comparisons, they seized upon the natural facts round 
about them, ransacked old and foreign writers for the marvels of 
nature recorded, and applied these to their teaching, in a manner 
which may now often seem to us fanciful, but which must have 
greatly spread general knowledge in those days of little reading but 
much listening. 

The first observations and experiments in natural science bj' 
Eoger Bacon who died in 1294, the great father of natural philosophy, 
as Mr. Brewer calls him, were probably made under the influence of 
this motive — he too a minorite, though soon so far outstripping his 

' Momimenta Franciscana, vol. i. pref. p. xxxv (EoUs Series). 


contemporaries in mental freedom and power that even his own 
order persecuted him. 

But there was a large field of work within safe limits, and the 
popular preacher, who had to come and go, labouring among the 
craftsmen and the villans in this town or in that, could not always 
spare time, rarely had the books or means, to search out original 
matter for himself. He must more often than not have relied 
not only upon recollections of the lecturers or readers he had heard 
expound the Bible, but upon books which were compiled, some by 
eminent friars themselves, for the express purpose of helping 
preachers. The illustrative matter found in these may come under 
three heads — exempla, or stories and anecdotes, fables, and tlie j>ro- 
perties of tilings. 

From ancient times it had been usual to introduce stories, 
or exempla, into sermons by way of illustration of religious truth 
and precept, just as we find too in early ages the clergy en- 
couraging the dramatic personation of characters in the Bible in 
order to fix the attention of the people. The stories were anec- 
dotes drawn from personal knowledge ; or example might be taken 
from any tradition or tale, historic, ecclesiastic, or legendary, 
because, as Pope Gregory sensibly pointed out, non nunquam mentes 
avdientium plus exempla fidelium quam docentium verba convertunt. 
By a common process in word-history, from meaning the heart of 
a story exemplnm grew to mean the story itself, and was thus com- 
monly used by medieval preachers and writers. But the traces 
of these are lost or rare till the twelfth century, whether it were that 
the custom went out of use, or more probably that collections of 
popular sermons have not been preserved. There exist several collec- 
tions of English homilies and sermons of this and previous periods,^ 
but their style is ecclesiastical and that of the schools, very different 
from the more lively manner of the friars. Certain it is, however, 
that the friars saw the great value of story or fable for the almost 
colloquial persuasiveness of their preaching, although they were not 
the first to revive the practice. Guibert de Nogent at the beginning of 
the twelfth century, in his book ' How a Sermon ought to be made,' 
compares the story to the colours which adorn a picture ; and Alain 
de Lille towards the end of the same century, in his treatise on the 
* Art of Preaching,' enjoins the tale at the end of a sermon. The 
French prelate Jacques de Vitry was celebrated for the great number 
and variety of the stories or exempla which he introduced into his 
sermons for the people, probably preached between 1210 and 1228 ; ^ 

- For example Old English homilies, published by the ^Ifric and Early English 
Text Societies ; also some Old Kentish sermons in the issue 49 of the E.E.T.S. 

' He was ordained priest in 1210, made bishop of Acre in 1217, and bishop of 
Tusculum and cardinal in 1228. Professor P. Meyer thinks these were preached 
before 1217, while Lecoy de la Marche {La Chaire Franqaise, 1868, p. 276) indicates 
a possibly later date. 


the collection contained in his * Sermones Vulgares ' is a perfect 
storehouse of tales, much used by succeeding preachers and com- 
pilers, which having long served to instruct and delight, and lead 
the way to better things, fell at last into oblivion, and has only 
recently been brought to the light of day."* Etienne de Bourbon, a 
Dominican of Lyons, not long after (died 1261), in his * Treatise of 
divers Matters for Preaching,' included again more exempla among 
the necessary equipment of the preacher, compiling a large collec- 
tion for general use. 

In England, too, contemporary with Jacques de Vitry, a Kentish 
man, Odo of Cheriton, near Folkestone, who had studied in Paris, 
was preaching before the friars arrived, employing fables * to point 
amoral.' His collection (in Latin), which was taken from a version 
of Phaedrus, was well known both in this country and abroad. 
Evidence has recently been found indicating that there was also 
another collection of fables, in English, current in this country, 
which is now lost, but from which Marie de France translated her 
fables into French verse twenty or thirty years before Odo's time. 
So that there were exempla, or stories and anecdotes, and fables 
properly so called, the possible non-Christian origin of which did 
not at all trouble the preacher. Towards the latter part of the 
thirteenth century, some fifty or sixty years after the friars came 
hither, the general of the Dominicans, Etienne de Besan9on, com- 
piled an alphabetical collection of exempla, 'Alphabetum Exem- 
plorum,' a convincing proof of the extent to which the fashion 
already reached. 

One of the reasons that induced Jacques de Vitry, bishop of 
Acre, to write his history of Jerusalem, as he tells us in the 
prologue,*^ besides describing cities and places mentioned in the 
Scriptures which would be useful for the better understanding of 
these, was to furnish material for preachers by giving particulars 
of the * properties ' of countries, diversas etiam terrae proprietates et 

* The Exempla, or Illustrative Stories from the ' Sermones Vulgares ' of Jacques de 
Vitry, edited by Professor T. F. Crane, of Cornell University, for the Folklore Society 
(London, 1890). This volume is the first attempt to put these once famous stories into 
print, although Th. Wright, without knowing Jacques de Vitry, printed some of them 
in his Latin Stories. It is a curious thing that the exempla of Jacques de Vitry were 
quite unknown in modern times till K. Godeke in 1861, and Lecoy de la Marche in 
1868, brought them to the notice of scholars. Professor Crane gives the text of 314 
stories, with a short analysis in English of each, and notes containing valuable 
references to other versions of the same tales. In an interesting and learned intro- 
duction, besides some account of the bishop and his writings, he sketches the 
history of the exempla in sermons, devoting especial attention to the use made of 
them after the time of Jacques, and giving such an account of the numerous collec- 
tions and medieval literature connected with the subject in England and on the 
continent, anonymous or by acknowledged writers, down to the fifteenth century, as is 
not to be found elsewhere. For the history of preaching even in England the volume 
will be indispensable. 

* Hist. Orientalis, lib. i., in Bongars' Gesta Dei, 1611, torn, i. pt. 2. 


varias, ad maiorem praedicandi copiam adjungendo. This book, 
according to M. Barroux, was written between 1219 and 1223.'^ 
The books that were as valuable to our friars as any, which threw 
open to them selections from travellers and natural philosophers 
of the past, were the treatises on the ' Moralised Properties of Things.' 
One of these, in seven books, was composed between 1281 and 1291, 
under the title *A sevenfold Treatise of the Moralities of the 
heavenly bodies, of the elements, of animals, fish, trees or plants, 
herbs, and precious stones,' ^ which sufficiently shows the intent of 
the anonymous author. Much more important, however, was the 
great work of that English Bartholomew the Minorite often errone- 
ously called Bartholomew Glanvill.^ He, quite early in the years of 
his order, must have recognised the needs of his brethren. Something 
else besides fable and fiction must be had ; they must go back to the 
old idea that nature provides continual moral teaching for man. 
Before 1260 he composed 'De Proprietatibus Eerum,' in nineteen 
books, a vast collection, methodised, of the facts of natural history 
and the sciences known at that day, the fruit of much labour and 
reading of many authors, such as Aristotle, Plato, Pliny, Dioscorides, 
Galien, St. Basil, Beda, Alfred, Isidorus, the ' Physiologus,' Avicenna, 
Ovid, Virgil, and others, a list of whom he gives to the number of 
a hundred and five. How Bartholomew, being a Franciscan, ever 
obtained so many books, and the permission to use them, while his 
..contemporary and fellow friar Eoger Bacon, in his single-hearted 
search after truth in nature, was long denied necessary books and 
materials, is hardly to be explained except on the supposition that the 
responsible position of Bartholomew gave him authority, and at the 
same time did not tempt him beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. It 
was a great thing to open up and spread the older learning, and show 
what store was here for the teacher of religion and morals. On these 
lines men might go further. He hopes 'that the symple, that may not 
for endlesse many bokys soke and fynde all the proprytees of thynges 
of the whiche holy wrytte makyth mencyon & mynde, may here 
fynde somwhat that he desyreth,' ^ to enable him to understand the 
enigmas of Scripture, handed down by the Holy Spirit under the 
symbols and figures of things natural and artificial. He protests that 
it is all taken from others — saints, doctors, philosophers — nothing 
is of his own. * Albeit the things I have extracted are simple and 
unpolished, yet I have judged them of value to me, a plain man, 
and to my fellows.' The nineteen books range over all physical 
knowledge. Beginning with God and the angels, they include man, 
his soul, composition, body, ages, and diseases ; the world, firmament 

* See Professor Crane's Exempla, Introd. p. xxxvi. 
' See M. L. Delisle in Histoire LitUraire, xxx. 334-336. 
« See Diet, of Nat. Biogr. xxi. 409. 
^ Trevisa's translation, last chapter. 


and elements ; air, heat, and waters ; chronology and geography ; 
birds, beasts, and fishes ; stones and metals, herbs and plants ; 
colom's, measures, and music. His work (written in Latin) attained 
wide recognition, was bought by the Paris students, copied at 
Oxford, and translated into several languages, and, keeping its 
reputation for several centuries, was printed from John of Tre visa's 
English translation, made in 1398, by Wynkyn de Worde in 1495. 
Finally this was taken as the foundation of a new edition by Stephen 
Batman in 1582. 

Here, then, was help for the wandering preacher. And there is 
no doubt it was used with much effect during long years of unre- 
corded effort. What sort of man the popular preacher was, and 
how he used the means at his command in the early years of the 
fourteenth century, we are now for the first time able to learn 
through the good offices of our neighbours across the Channel, who, 
mindful of their ancient share in our language and literature, have 
recently placed another name, hitherto unknown, on the roll of 
English writers of that j)eriod.'° As the review i^o mania and the 
publications of the French Society of Old Texts are not read in this 
country as much as might be wished, some account of the writings 
of Nicholas Bozon, Friar Minor, may not be unwelcome. 

It is tantalising that nothing is known of Bozon beyond what 
the two chief manuscripts which contain his writings disclose. No 
trace of his family has as yet been found. He wrote in the corrupt 
French which was spoken and written in England about the close 
of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century, and of 
two or three personal incidents related by him one, touching a 
bishop of Lincoln who died in 1320, helps to indicate the time when 
he penned his 'Contes' as within some twenty years after that date. 
We may also conjecture that he knew the north of England well, 
from his mention of the rivers Trent and Derwent, and of Scotch 
sheep which he had seen. This good friar also cultivated the art of 
poetry, fifteen pieces — and there may be others— being attributed 
to him with certainty, of which the greater part are found in one of 
the manuscripts (Cheltenham) containing the * Contes.' 

M. Paul Meyer, who has restored Bozon to the light of day, 
comparing the poems in this manuscript with others of which he 
had taken note, identifies several, some already in print, the author - 
ship of which was previously unknown or wrongly attributed. 
Among these may particularly be mentioned one on the ' Goodness 
of Women,' in which Bozon tries to make amends for his rough treat- 
ment of the sex in other pieces. A curious allegorical poem, ' Le 
Char d'Orgueil,' satirising fashionable folhes and vices — a sort of 

" Les Contes ynoralis^ de Nicole Bozon, frire mineiir, recently ssued by the 
Societe des Anciens Textes Fraa9ais. (Paris : F. Didot.) 


* Sinner's Manual ' — is perhaps the longest, running to five hundred 
lines, and seems to have been the most widely known. All the 
poems are — unless we except the lines in which woman is compared 
to a magpie — on moral or religious subjects, such as the ' Passion,' 
treated in an interesting allegory, which is modelled on the lines of 
the medieval romance of chivalry ; a prayer to the Virgin ; a 

* tretis ' against ' denaturesce,' by which are meant unnatural 

quarrels among kindred, and so on. Finally, we have seven short 

sermons in verse on various moral subjects, the last of which winds 

up thus : — 

Pryez Deu pur Bosoun 

Ke vous fet ceo sermoun. Amen. 

The full text of Bozon's collected poems has yet to be printed ; it 
were, perhaps, premature to expect this to be done while there is 
the hope of what further search may reveal. Meanwhile that on the 
' Passion ' will be found printed at the end of Langtoft's ' Chronicle,' 
edited by the late Thomas Wright for the Eolls Series. ' De la Bonte 
des Femmes ' and ' La Vie de Ste. Agnes ' are given in the introduction 
to 'Les Contes Moralises,' which comprises a chapter on the author's 
poetry ; and further description and extracts may be sought in the 
pages of Romania.^^ 

We have somewhat wandered from the ' Contes,' because the 
poems give essential aid in figuring to ourselves the man whose 
traits the former reveal. The object of his metajjliorae, as the old 
rubric calls them, he states at the beginning. ' In this little book 
may be found many fine examples from various subjects, whereby 
one may learn how to avoid sin, to embrace goodness, and above 
all to praise the Lord who shows us how to live well by the nature 
of unreasoning creatures.' Our friar lays down what may be called 
a series of sketches of sermons, the notions of which might be 
expanded, as no doubt he practically experienced, into discourses ac- 
cording to the need of the moment. ^^ Taking a sentence of Scripture "] T 
— sometimes more than one — he begins, not with that as text, but 
with some passage of fact drawn from Bartholomew or other writer ; 
he then shows how this is parallel to the Scripture teaching he 
wishes to convey, and winds up with a fable or an ' example ' to j 
catch his hearers' fancy, in which he as often as not again brings 1 
in. a Scripture text or two. The following specimen will show his ^ 

The good clerk BasU tells us that * some beasts are ordained by, 
God himself to labour and are not good to eat, as the horse and the 
ass ; others are given for food and are of no use for labour, aa 
sheep, pigs, fowls, and geese ; ' others are only of use to guard and\ 

" Romania, xiii. 497, article by M. P. Meyer. 

" The petit Ivveret is indexed in one of the manuscripts as exempla bona et 
narraciones utiles pro semtonibus. 


clean the house, as dogs and cats. So it is in every household : 
some men are good for one occupation, others for another ; and they 
ought not to reprove one another, for, says St. Paul, ' in one body 
are many members, and every one is worthy for his office.' And 
several further passages are cited from Corinthians and Exodus. 
Then follows this 

Fabula ad idem. — The peacock complained to Destiny that he was too 
unhappy, for he could not sing like the nightingale. Destiny responded, 
' Thou bast so lovely a neck, a long tail which hangs on the ground ; thy 
feathers are so tinted, some purple, others blue, some blood-red, others 
golden. Wherefore art tlioa grieved ? Be contented with what thou 
hast.' And Paul says, ' Worthily walk in the vocation to which you have 
been called ' (§ 18). 

Bozon deals with the moral aspects of all sorts of affairs in 
everyday life. His pious exhortations are few ; he not merely 
enforces religious duties, as payment of alms, shrift and contrition, 
resignation, &c., but maxims of proverbial philosophy, such as that 
the poor and the rich cannot live together. He takes up his parable 
against certain ills, as * against the proud,' ' against the passionate,' 
against the oppression of the poor by the great lords. He shows 
the dangers of this world, the evils of a flattering tongue. The strong 
bonds of human interest attract him ; he wages war against sloth 
and licentiousness, and above all against covetousness. One finds 
no lofty thoughts, no rays of high spiritual vision in his pages, but 
honest homely truths, not seldom pointed with a shaft of ridicule 
or scorn which must have told home. Take the following, by which 
it appears that the Sunday question is older than is commonly 
supposed : — 

There is a sea fish called koytar, which is happy and joyous as long 
as it remains in salt water. But let it put its head ap and the falling 
rain-water touch it, lo ! it turns on its stomach and pretends to be 
dying till it be restored by the nature of the salt water. So it is with 
many : the bitterness of this world, with labour and sorrow, pleases them 
all the week ; but when they come to Sunday, and the Word of God 
begins to fall on them like dew, by their stomach they excuse themselves : 
the day is far gone and they must go to dinner. 

He then relates the fable of the cock who finds a golden ring, 
instead of the pearl on a dunghill, and complains that it is not 
a grain of corn ; ' thus many are more grieved by a short sermon 
than by six week-days of labour and bodily affliction ' (§ 26). 

The light which Bozon incidentally throws upon the social 
life of his time, and some of the opinions then current, is full of 
interest. Evidently a man of experience among various orders of 
society, his sympathies are manifestly on the side of the poor as 
against their oppression and robbery by rich masters and lords, 


while many of his stories are pointed against the great and i^owerful. 
This characteristic in itself would be a commonplace, a feature 
belonging to most teachers and preachers. We find him, however, 
distributing his blame or admonitions to all classes ; if on the one 
hand he declared that great men ought, like the gentle harrier, to 
be courteous to the lowly and peaceful (§ 34), on the other he urged 
the performance of services due to the lord. It is plain that he did 
not consider that ' the bad serfs, who will not do what they ought 
to do,' were deserving of sympathy or encouragement : if their 
work was too heavy it was their own fault, not that of the lord 
■(§ 130). No change of system was suggested ; the cry for more 
liberty was not yet strong among this class, and did not find voice 
in Bozon. Great lords, according to him, often promise largely 
but give little ; they prefer fools and flatterers to wise and true 
men as their companions. Many of them rely on their good birth, 
but their actions do not accord with it ; they are like bad mustard 
which passes under the name of fine mustard (§§ 16, 72, 102). Poor 
men of low lineage are taking their place ; these go to court and to 
school, and by hard work they attain courteousness (§ 16). Yet he 
does not seem to approve of this ambition of the poor man to better 
himself, comparing those who seek to rise higher than their estate 
to a worm with wings, or to the rat who wished to marry the sun's 
daughter (§ 75). Herein he differs much from the reformers and 
preachers of the second half of his century, who, themselves 
taught by the people's discontent, strove to help them upward. 

The machinery of law was familiar among the people, and our 
friar shows us what were some of the abuses. A purse of gold is 
like the magnet attracting iron ; it draws the laws and decretals, 
lawyers and jurors following towards the false side(§§ 2, 32). Jurors, 
he says, both in lay and ecclesiastic courts, destroy truth and justice 
by their double-dealing and want of moral courage. * A dozen are 
Bworn in, and the greater part knows the truth ; yet one alone, by 
fear, constraint, or favour, may draw them over to the false side, 
80 unstable are their hearts,' and he goes on to compare them to 
dogs of the chase led off on a false scent (§ 52). If it is wished to 
try a plaint against a bailiff or a servant of the manorial lord, the 
truth cannot be got at owing to the collusion of his friends (§ 55). 
The bailiff or steward might have friends ; his duty is to look after 
the poor folk under him, and if he did this truly he would defend the 
poor fellows when the lord came graspingly among them. But many 
side with their lords and lay on still harder punishments than they 
do (§ 5). 

A significant indication of the common want of independence 
and courage is given in one of the sections (121), which is illustrated 
by the fable of ' Who will bell the cat ? ' (here named ' Sire Badde.') 



Prelates are afraid to say the truth when great men threaten, and 
not only prelates but men in general ; wrongs that are done in the 
country or in religious houses by superiors may be known and spoken 
of, and men promise to have them remedied, but when the right 
occasion arrives no one dare say a word. Comparing this with 
the two sections last mentioned, we get some evidence as to the 
position of the bailiff or steward in the feudal manor. Placed m 
the interest of the lord (lay or ecclesiastic) over the labouring class, 
he became a sort of go-between ; he ought to prevent the lord 
taking more than his just share of their livelihood. On the other 
hand he had to reckon accounts with a master who was eager to 
get all the profit possible from his land ; but the temptation was 
sometimes too great for his integrity. If he wished to cheat his 
master he favoured those under his control, who then took his 
part, and would not tell against him in the day of trouble with 
his lord, or when the usual periodical inquiries were made on the 
leet days. If he wished to ingratiate himself with his master, he 
was unduly strict and oppressive to the labourers. 

If the lord bids slay 
The steward bids flay, 

according to the proverb quoted by the friar. In either case he 
took care to make friends of one or the other while looking after 
himself. Bozon thus corroborates the evidence of the statutes of 
Henry III and of Walter de Henley that these officers were fre- 
quently dishonest. 

Out of the 145 titles or subject sections in the book no less 
than about eighty-five owe their suggestion to passages or notions 
drawn from Bartholomew's work, as has been found by careful com- 
parison with certain of his chapters. The exempla and the fables 
so freely employed by Friar Nicholas are due to various sources, 
not always determinable even where the resemblance is close, but 
many may be attributed to Jacques de Vitry, Odo de Cheriton, the 
bestiaries and other collections, including that used by Marie de 
France. One or two derive their origin from the legend of Barlaam 
and Josaphat. Some few, hke the allegory of the Devil as a hunter 
with Seven Dogs, are here found in their earliest form : one is a 
story taken from Beda, another an incident from Matthew Paris ; 
while there are several, such as the anecdote of the man with a 
doltish son, Hichebon, the story of the three rascals, Groket, Hoket, 
and Loket, and that of the miserly proctor of the Templars in 
the Court of Arches, which seem to be narrated out of Bozon's own 
hearsay. Several beautiful stories which had wide currency in the 
middle ages are naturally utilised ; among these are the allegory of 
the i)elican, the monk and the singing bird, and the child offering 
his bread to the statue of the infant Jesus. The accompaniment 


of the text by notes, rich in comparisons, will greatly assist those 
who like to pursue these old folk-tales further. 

Bozon wrote at a time when French — French, that is, grown 
up on English soil since the Conquest, viz. during 250 years — had 
long been in use as the literary language, and as a man of letters 
he too employed it. It would be an interesting inquiry whether 
he really preached in it. To the people of better class it would 
be the more familiar tongue, and probably also among the towns- 
folk of most degrees ; but English was the language of the common 
people. Our friar himself appealed to them by many an English- 
proverb and phrase, a sure test ; and in several of his stories he 
wakens up home feeling by giving his characters names in English. 
The seven dogs or vices bear English names. William Worldlyshame 
and Maude Muchmisadventure are other instances. We have the 
testimony of the * Cursor Mundi,' that long biblical poem forty or 
fifty years earlier than Bozon, that the common people spoke 
English, not French, when it was written, and it would almost 
seem by the protest — 

Seldom was for ani chance 

Englis tong preched in France — {Gottingen version) 

that preaching in French was per contra usual in England. The 
lines may bear quoting once more :— 

pis ilka boke it es translate 

Into Inglis tong to rede ... 

For |)e commun at understand. 

Frankis rimes here I redd 

Comunlik in ilka sted. 

Mast es it wrought for frankis man ; 

Quat is for him na frankis can ? 

Of Ingland the nacion 

Es Inglis man ))ar in commun ; 

pe speche J^at man wit mast may spede 

Mast par-wit to speke war nede. 

Selden was for ani chance 

Praised Inglis tong in France . . . 

To laud and Inglis man I spell, 

pat understandes j^at I tell.'^ 

John of Lindberg, or whoever was the author of the 'Cursor,' 
addressed the public of the north, where we may suppose our friar 
was also known. A little later than Bozon came the chronicler Ealph 
Higden, who laments the place given to French among the country 
people. The truth seems to lie, as M. Meyer points out, in this, 
that Bozon * addressed himself to the middle class, to the men who 

" Cotton version, 11. 232-250. The Gottingen and Cambridge versions have 
' preched ' for ' praised ; ' laud ' should be ' lewd.' (Published by Early Engl. Text 

D 2 


knew English from birth, since the author often cites proverbs or 
phrases in that tongue, but who had learnt French more or less, 
and considered that language as more noble and ranking imme- 
diately after Latin.' The point is of much interest, both as regards 
the social life of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and the 
study of the forms taken by Anglo-French during its three hundred 
years' hold upon this realm. 

On this latter subject we must not dwell. How the English made 
a joke of mixing up the conjugations, and so formed the habit of 
using them wrongly; how the inflexions of other words were confused, 
how Bozon preserved a better syntax than many — for these and 
much more we must refer to the interesting and lucid introduction 
which ushers our friar into modern society. To the philologist his 
poetry is as welcome as his prose ; for our present purpose it is 
something to know that ' there is not in all Anglo-Norman literature 
another work which can give us so complete a notion of what 
popular preaching was in England at the beginning of the four- 
teenth century.' Belonging by his tongue, his sympathies, and his 
labours to the body of the people of middle rank, he throws a wel- 
come gleam of light on the modes of life and means of reform 
current under the second and third Edwards, and furnishes a not 
inconsiderable supplement to our knowledge of the lesser Francis- 
cans in England. 

Lucy Toulmin Smith. 

1892 37 

Elizabeth Claypole 

IN the library of the South Kensington Museum a set of volumes^ 
may be consulted which contain photographs of most of the 
portraits exhibited at the National Portrait Exhibitions of 1866, 
1867, and 1868. ' Any one who turns over these photographs can 
hardly fail to have his attention attracted by a beautiful face, 
instinct with hfe and charm, which comes as a welcome relief 
amongst many portraits, harsh in themselves or dimly and imper- 
fectly reproduced owing to the age or bad condition of the original 
pictures. It is that of Elizabeth Claypole, daughter of Oliver 
Cromwell, a figure standing in a pathetic side-light of history, with 
the one prominent fact of her death always linked with that of her 
father. We know less of Mrs. Claypole than we could have wished, 
but there is enough to be gleaned concerning her to give us a very 
distinct portrait of a charming and womanly character, nor is the 
study without interest in estimating the influences at work in the 
Protector's household and court. 

Born at Huntingdon in the summer of 1629, and brought up 
first at St. Ives, afterwards at Ely, we know nothing of Elizabeth 
Claypole until her marriage. We can only fill up for ourselves the 
picture of a childhood during nearly eight years of which she con- 
tinued the youngest of a family of six ; of a girlhood spent at Ely, 
probably in the old house which may still be seen by the curious, 
marked chiefly by the death of her eldest brother, Robert, at school, 
and of the second, Oliver, at Newport Pagnell, in the early days of 
the Civil War,' and otherwise uneventful enough, despite the 
stirrings in the world outside, to leave her natural light -heartedness 
and gaiety unimpaired. 

She was under seventeen when her marriage to John Claypole 
took place ^ — the first marriage in the family, though her elder sister 
Bridget's was soon to follow, and we may suppose — for we are still 
very much in the dark — that the early years of her married life 

' He died of small-pox in March 1643-4. Parliameiit Scout, March 15-22, 
E. 38, 18. 

* They were married at Holy Trinity Church, Ely, 13 Jan. 1645-6. The entry 
* John Claypole, gent., and Elizabeth Cromwell, nupt.' may still be seen in the parish 


were passed, to some extent at any rate, with her husband's family 
in the comitry seclusion of Norborough. 

Norborough lies a little to the north of Peterborough, on the 
borders of Lincolnshire, and some thirty miles or more from Ely. 
As you enter the village from the west, there are still to be seen, 
now forming part of a modern house and outbuildings, a few 
remains of the ancient manorhouse of the Claypoles. Built by 
Geoffrey de la Mare in 1340, it had passed to the Claypoles two 
centuries later, and, at the time of Elizabeth's marriage, was the 
seat of her husband's father, John Claypole the elder, who was 
there bringing up a numerous family of sons and daughters.^ 

There are indications, however, that even from the first much 
of Mrs. Claypole's married life was spent with her own family, and 
a year or two later, when they had approached nearer to * that 
fierce light which beats upon a throne,' we can see that she and 
her husband were constantly members of the Cromwell household. 

The two letters, in which Oliver has left on record his anxiety 
for his daughter's spiritual welfare, have been often quoted, and 
need only be referred to here. In the first, written to Bridget 
Ireton a few months after her marriage in the autumn of 1646, he 
' trusts in mercy she is exercised with some perplexed thoughts ' 
and ' sees her own vanity and carnal mind.' In the second, written 
from Edinburgh in April 1651, to his wife at the Cockpit, he bids 
her ' mind poor Betty of the Lord's great mercy,' and desires her 
' to take heed of a departing heart and of being cozened with 
worldly vanities and worldly company, tchich I douht she is too 
subject to. ^ * 

* John Claypole was the eldest son. By a deed dated 9 March, 1645-6, his father 
settled certain of his manors and lands on trusts for Elizabeth's jointure and for the 
children of the marriage. The parties to this deed other than the father and son and 
Elizabeth herself were ' Oliver Cromwell of Ely, in the county of Cambridge, Esq., 
Benjamin Norton of Ely aforesaid, Esq., and Walter Wells of Ely aforesaid, Dr. of 
phisick.' Cromwell gave his daughter 1,250L 

* Mention should perhaps be made here of two letters quoted in William Dickin- 
son's History of Newark and supposed by him to have been wi'itten about this time 
by Cromwell to Mrs. Claypole from Edinburgh. They relate to some commissions sent 
by him for friends in Lincolnshire apparently obtained by her influence, and her 
' cousin Natt ' or ' Nathan ' is particularly named. With the letters is printed a com- 
mission of lieutenancy ' in Eobert Swallow's troop of horse in the regiment whereof 
Commissary General John Cleipole is Colonel,' dated 20 July 1651, and addressed to 
Nathaniel Dickinson, a member of a family of Dickinson settled at Claypole in 
Lincolnshire, who appears to have married a sister of John Claypole, and one of 
the daughters of the elder Claypole of Norborough. The letters are not, however, 
recognised by Carlyle, and from internal evidence are of more than doubtful authen- 
ticity. They were reprinted in Notes and Queries for 1869, where there is some_corre- 
spondence about them from which it seems that the originals had disappeared. 
Members of the Dickinson family long preserved an ancient drinking-cup with a cover 
supposed to have belonged to Cromwell or his daughter, and ' some specimens of men's 
apparel in curious needlework said to have been presented by the Lady Cleipole to her 
sister-in-law as a marriage present for her husband.' As, however, the eldest son of 
Nathaniel was born five years before Elizabeth's marriage, the history of the latter 
articles would appear doubtful. 


The Cromwells had moved to London probably about a year 
after Elizabeth's marriage. The year 1650 saw them resident at 
the Cockpit, while four years later, in the April following Oliver's 
installation as Lord Protector, they moved to Whitehall. 

Of the court of the Protector, as the circle which gathered 
round Cromwell there during the years of the protectorate may be 
called, Elizabeth Claypole was without doubt the greatest orna- 
ment, and with the beginning of this period our heroine's figure 
emerges distinctly into view. Barely five-and-twenty, we see in the 
portrait attributed to Eobert Walker, of which mention has already 
been made, and which was probably painted a few years previously, 
a charming face in which graceful affability is mingled with high 
spirit, while the large dark eyes looking out from under deHcately 
arched eyebrows are full of expression and tenderness. The rich 
elegance of her dress hardly accords with Puritan strictness, while 
it is interesting to notice that she wears suspended below her lace 
ruff a small miniature of her father. 

It was she who in a great measure did the honours of White- 
hall, * acting the part of a princess very naturally, obhging all 
persons with her civility, and frequently interceding for the un- 
happy.' ^ We see her good-humouredly acquiescing in Whitelocke's 
high opinion of his own importance,^ procuring for Harrington the 
restoration of the proof sheets of his ' Oceana,' ^ writing letters to 
Paris to Sir John Southcote of Mistham, a royalist gentleman of 
her acquaintance, asking him to buy her two damask beds, one 
with gold, the other with silver fringes, and also very many yards 
of the richest gold and silver stuffs for her own wearing, and, later 
on, going to her father * in a huf ' and obtaining the release of the 
same Sir John Southcote when he had been apprehended by Crom- 
well's orders while on his way to visit his lady-love, and had written 
to his friend, ' Lady Elizabeth Cleopol,' to help him in his dilemma.* 
Wingfield Claypole, her young brother-in-law, relies on her ' power- 
ful intercession ' with her brother Henry to excuse a prolonged 
absence from his duties, while Carrington, allowing for the ex- 
travagant eulogies which characterise his history of the Protector, 
gives us a charming picture of her generosity and kindliness.^ 

* Toland, Life of Harrington. " Whitelocke, p. 551. 

' See the charming story in Toland's Life of Harrington, which has been often 

^ Hist. MSS. Commission. Appendix to 2nd Keport, p. 147. 

' ' A worthy daughter of so famous a father, whom Heaven too soon snatched away 
both from the virtuous and from the miserable, and whose soul did admirably corre- 
spond with her fortune and the majesty of her comportment. How many of the 
royalist prisoner<^ got she not freed ? How many did she not save from death whom 
the laws had condemned ? How many persecuted Christians hath she not snatcht out 
of the hands of the tormentors, quite contrary unto that Herodias, who could do any- 
thing with her father. She employed her prayers even with tears to spare such men 
whose ill fortune had designed them to suffer ; when as this grand hero being trans- 


Lord and Lady Claypole, for so they were now styled, had their 
suite of apartments at Whitehall and also at Hampton Court. At 
the latter place there were three rooms set apart by Lady Claypole 
for nurseries, one at the end of the passage leading to the tennis 
court, another, ' hung round with striped stuft",' formerly part of the 
armoury, the third, a room which had been occupied by the late arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. This last room had among other articles of 
furniture * one large looking glass in an ebony frame with a string 
of silk and gold.' We read also of tapestry hangings ' of Artimesia 
and Orlando,' Persian and Turkey carpets, couches, elbow chairs, 
cushions, and stools of ' skj'-coloured taffety embroidered with silk 
and gold after the Indian fashion and cased with blue baize,' 
others of ' sad-coloured cloth embroidered with silk in beagles and 
flowers and cased with sad-coloured baize, suitable to the bed that 
layd in the Cyprus chest in the lower wardrobe.' 

They had now three children, two boys, Cromwell and Henry, 
and a girl apparently named Martha, for whom as the children of 
his favourite daughter the Protector cherished a special affection. 
Andrew Marvell in his ' poem on the death of his late Highness ' 
gives us a graceful picture of Oliver, his daughter, and her little 

As with riper years her virtue grew, 
And every minute adds a lustre new ; 
When with meridian height her beauty sliined, 
And thorough that sparkled her fairer mind, 
When she with smiles serene, in words discreet, 
His hidden soule at every turne could meet ; 
Then might y' ha' daily his affection spy'd, 
DoubUng that knot which destiny had ty'd ; 
While they by sense not knowing comprehend 
How on each other both their fates depend. 
With her each day the pleasing hoin^es he shares, 
And at her aspect calms his growing cares. 
Or mth a grandsire's joy her children sees 
Hanging about her neck or at his knees. 

Suddenly placed in so prominent a jDosition, it was not to be 
expected that either Lady Claypole or her sisters should escape 
unfavourable criticism, and the comparative triviality of the 
allegations and satires directed against them says much for their 
tact, amiability, and discretion. Butler has a fling at ' her Grace 

ported as it were, and even ravished to see his own image so lively described in those 
lovely and charming features of that winning sex, could refuse her nothing ; insomuch 
that when his clemency and justice did balance the pardon of a poor criminal, this 
most chai-ming advocate knew so skilfully to disarm him that, his sword falling out of 
his hand, his arms only served to lift her up from those knees on which she had cast 
herself, to wipe off her tears and to embrace her.' Cariington, Hist, of Oliver Lord 
ProUctor, 1659, p. 263. 


Maid Marian Claypole,' ^° and Mrs. Hutchinson in the bitterness of 
her soul classes them together as ' insolent fools.' An allusion to 
Elizabeth, evidently by a satirical hand, as ' a great lover of plays 
and piety,' while tending to confirm, as we shall see, the facts 
recorded of her later life, may serve to indicate that the vanities 
of which her father had warned her in earlier days, had not lost 
their sway over her. 

We see, too, that she was not without other faults. Perhaps a 
critic who found in the beautiful face, in spite of ' a great deal of 
what is lovable . . . withal a certain shallow expression of self- 
will ''^ was not altogether wrong. The story of the provocation 
caused by her undisguised contempt for the wives of the major- 
generals, lends colour to the suggestion.^^ 

The position in which they found themselves, and the court 
which was paid to them, were indeed calculated to impress 
Cromwell's daughters with a sense of their own importance. ' When 
my Lord Protector's coach came into the park,' we read in a 
private newsletter of May 1654, ' with Colonel Ingleby, and my 
Lord's daughters only (three of them all in green-a), the coaches and 
horses flocked about them like some miracle. But they galloped 
(after the mode court pace now, and which they all use wherever 
they go) round and round the park, and all that great multitude 
hunted them, and caught them still at the turn like a hare, and 
then made a lane with all reverent haste for them, and so after 
them again, that I never saw the like in my life.' There was, we 
learn from another source, ' a constant expense allowed in tirewomen, 
perfumers, and the like arts of gallantry, with each their maid and 
servant to attend them, and by their array and deportment their 
quality might have been guessed at.''^ Whitelocke has told us how 
the Swedish ambassador. Sir Peter Coyet, in the August of 1656, 
after dining in his company at the country house of Sir George Ays- 
cough, one of the great seamen of the time, ' in his return home . . . 
went into Hampton Court to take his leave of the Lady Elizabeth 
Claypoole and her sisters, where he was received with much state.' 

In the autumn of 1655 Lady Claypole had been dangerously 
ill. We hear of it first in September,'" and on 4 Dec. William 
Malyn, Cromwell's secretary, and Dr. Slane both reported to Henry 
Cromwell her continued ilhiess.'^ On the 7th we find Mary Crom- 
well apologising to Henry for her long silence and adding : * You 
cannot but hear of my sister's illness, which has indeed been the 
only cause of it.' '« On the 10th Dr. Slane writes : ' Dr. Goddard 

'" A Ballad upon the Parliament which deliberated about making Oliver King. 
" AthencBum, 18 Aug. 1866. '- Clarendon State Papers, iii. 327. 

'» Court and Kitchen of Elizabeth Cromivell. 

•< ' My Lady Elizabeth very ill,' Dr. Slane to Henry Cromwell, 28 Sept. 1655- 
Lansdowne MSS. Brit. Museum, 823, 226. 

'* Lansdowne MSS. 822, 231, and 823, 236. '« Thurloe, iv. 293. 


and I have sate up again day and night. I never saw two parents 
so affected (or more) than my Lord Protector and her Highness. 
Truly my lady hath given a sweet testimony in this sickness. The 
Lord continue his love further.' '' Next day Fleetwood, writing 
from Wallingford House where he and his family were then resid- 
ing, has a similar report : * The illness of my sister Claypoole is so 
very great that both their highnesses are under a great trial. You 
know the dearness they have unto her, and though we know not 
how the Lord will deal with her, yet her recovery is much doubted. 
This afternoon hath given very great cause of fear.' ^^ 

These days, however, seem to have marked the crisis of her 
illness. On 28 Dec. Lockyer, one of the chaplains at Whitehall, 
writes to Henry Cromwell : * Our family is all well. My Lady 
Claypool drawing to health, but her child last born is dead.' ^^ 
By 19 Feb. Dr. Slane is able to report that ' my Lady Elizabeth is 
very well again.' ^° 

About this time we find her giving audience to Sir John Rey- 
nolds, who had come over from Ireland upon business from the 
Lord Deputy, Henry Cromwell, to the Protector, and from a letter 
which he wrote to Henry on 26 Feb. we learn that suffering, as is 
so often the case, had been the means of leading her into higher 
regions of thought and desire. 

The Lady Elizabeth still complains of your forgetfulness, notwith- 
standing her late sickness, although I assured her Excellency that publicly 
and privately your Excellency did cause frequent prayers to be made for 
her recovery. Indeed, she desires more your Excellency's value than 
ever, having seen much of God in this late visitation, whereby so much 
more religion shines with her wonted virtue and nobleness as good men 
much rejoice, believing his Highness hath comfort in all his children 
upon the best account.^' 

Elizabeth's youngest child Oliver was born in the end of June 
1657. ' Another brave boy,' writes Fleetwood.^ In the autumn 
of this year the long engagement of Frances and Mr. Rich was 
terminated by their marriage at Whitehall on 11 Nov., and on the 
19th of the same month Mary CromweU was married to Lord 
Fauconberg. In the great festivities which attended these events 
we do not find mention of Lady Claypole's name except that her 
wedding gift to Frances consisted of * two sconces of lOOZ. apiece,' 
and probably the delicacy of her health prevented her taking the 
leading part which would otherwise have naturally fallen to her. 

That her health was gradually failing, and that each successive 
illness stole something from the bloom and freshness of her beauty, 
and left her frame weaker and less capable of resistance, we may 
gather, I think, from a comparison of her portraits. Samuel Cooper's 

" Lansdmvne MSS. 823, 234. '» lb. 821, 226. '» lb. 822, 193. 

•-» lb. 823, 228. -' lb. 823, 74. « lb. 821, 321. 


miniature, dated as early as 1653, has with its sweet thoughtfulness 
a matronly air which suggests a more advanced age than the date 
would give us. The silver medal by Simon, engraved by Vertue, 
forms a link between this and the Walker portrait, having a look 
of each, and the face seen in profile is handsome with a mature 
dignity. The portrait attributed to Sir Peter Lely, if indeed it 
represents Lady Claypole, shows us an older and plainer face, 
changed much more than the mere lapse of three or four years 
would warrant us in expecting. 

John Claypole writing to Henry Cromwell at the end of April 
1658 says : ' My wife and myself have strong resolutions to wayte 
upon you and my ladye this summer if their highnesses will give 
leave.' ^ The projected journey, however, never took place. Perhaps 
there had been a fond hope that the change might restore her to 
perfect health. But it soon became evident that the idea must be 
abandoned. On 2 June Eichard Cromwell writes to Henry from 
Whitehall : ' My sister Elizabeth is yet under heavy afflictings. The 
Lord sanctifie it to her and us all.' ^^ On the 12th she was sufficiently 
rallied to write to her brother Henry's wife the only letter of hers 
which has been preserved, in which she excuses herself for not 
writing more frequently by saying * in earnist I have bin so extreme 
sickly of late that it has made mee unfitt for anything.' Slingsby 
and Hewet's plot had been newly discovered, and the leaders had 
suffered on Tower Hill four days previously. She speaks with 
thankfulness of her father's deliverance and dwells on the magnitude 
of the danger.-'^ 

Much has been made of her having pleaded ineffectually with 
her father for Dr. Hewet's life, and of the effect on her health of 
his refusal. It is natural to suppose that she did plead for a 
remission of the sentence of death. Dr. Hewet had long been a 
prominent character in London, where he had been allowed, despite 
the general prohibition against ministers of the church of England, 
to preach to large congregations at St. Gregory's church, close to 
St. Paul's. Noble has it that Lady Claypole herself was privately 
amongst his hearers, but he seems to derive this from Clarendon, 
and Clarendon's statement refers to Mary rather than to Elizabeth. 
If there is any truth in the report that Mary and Frances were 
privately married by him according to the rites of the church of 
England, after the official ceremony by Cromwell's chaplains, this 
would add another reason for the interest felt by them in his fate. 

The accounts which go on to depict Elizabeth as reproaching 
her father bitterly for this and many other of his actions, and 
alarming him by cries of * blood ' and ' vengeance,' need not detain 
us long. That some such report obtained currency appears from 

■■^3 Thurlqe, vii. 94. "* Lansdcnvne MSS. 821, 141. 

" See the letter in Thurloe, vii. 171. 


a private newsletter of the time preserved amongst the Trentham 
MSS. But if we read Clarendon's version of the story carefully 
we see on what vague surmises and generalities it rests. In truth 
Lady Claypole had other sorrows which touched her more nearly 
than Dr. Hewet's death could be expected to do. On 16 June, 
little Oliver, her youngest boy, a year old, died, and Fleetwood 
foresaw too surely the effect of this grief on her weak frame. 

Henceforward the record is a sad one of sickness in its varying 
moods, with occasional gleams of hope recurring only to be quenched 
again. On the 19th Frances tells her brother Henry they ' hope 
she is in the mending hand,' and that they are much occupied with 
her ' going into the country to-moro.' ^"^ But on the 13th of the 
following month we hear from a private . newsletter that ' my lord 
watched with her himself all Saturday night, and it is thought she 
hath bespoken a place in another world.' It was to Hampton 
Court she had been moved, and there all the hot dry month of July 
she lay tortured by severe pain. Writers differ as to the exact 
nature of her malady, but all agree that it was of the most pain- 
ful internal character. Fleetwood says the physicians ordered her 
the Tunbridge waters, but it was believed they did not rightly 
understand how to deal with the case. As the month wore on, the 
Protector laid aside all public business and gave up his whole time 
to w^atching by the bedside of his favourite child. The council of 
state held its meetings at Hampton Court instead of Whitehall, but 
even then he had no heart to attend them. On the 30th of the 
month he felt obliged to receive the Dutch ambassador, who had 
been waiting some days for an audience, and who had heard from 
Andrew Marvell, as soon as he arrived in the Thames, how ' the 
Lord Protector and the whole court was in great sadness for 
the mortal distemper of the Lady Claypole,' but ' by reason of his 
highness' indisposition,' the ambassador wisely ' did not think fit 
to trouble him with a large discourse.' -^ Andrew Marvell' s pathetic 
lines, too long to quote here at length, but which as the record of 
an eyewitness are as true as they are touchmg, tell with what 
tender anguish Cromwell hung over his dying child. 

She, lest be grieve, hides what she can her pains, 

And he, to lessen hers, his sorrow feigns ; 

Yet both perceiv'd, yet both concealed their skills, 

And so, diminishing, increas'd their ills, 

That whether by each other's griefs they fell, 

Or on their own redoubled, none can tell. 

Sympathy with the suiferer was widespread, for EUzabeth had 
endeared herself to all. General Monk writing from Dalkeith 
congratulates Thurloe on hearing that she is a little better. Mr. 

26 Lansdawne MSS. 823, 124. ""' Thurloe, viL 299. 


Downing, the English Eesident in Holland, writes that he and 
his wife are ' most exceedingly afflicted ' at the sad news. In one 
of these July days, George Fox, in the quaint words of the historian 
of the Quakers, * visited her with ' a long and characteristic letter 
designed to administer comfort to her spirit. We may listen to a 
few sentences from it even now, in spite of their mysticism. 

Friend, be still and cool in thy own mind and spirit from thy own 
thoughts, and then thou wilt feel the principle of God to turn thy 
mind to the Lord God, from whom life comes, whereby thou may'st 
receive his strength and power to allay all blustering storms and 
tempests. That is it which works up into patience, into innocency, 
into soberness, into stillness, into stayedness, into quietness up to 
God with his power. . . . Therefore, keep in the fear of the Lord 
God : that is the word of the Lord God unto thee : for all these 
things happen unto thee for thy good, and for the good of those con- 
cerned for thee, to make you know yourselves and your own weakness, 
and that ye may know the Lord's strength and power, and may trust in 
him. . . . Therefore, all keep low in his fear, that thereby ye may 
receive the secrets of God and his wisdom, and may know the shadow of 
the Almighty and sit imder it in all tempests, storms, and heats. . . . 
Looking down at sin and corruption and distraction, ye are swallowed 
up in it ; but looking at the Light which discovers them, ye will see over 
them ; that will give victory, and ye will find grace and strength. 

* This paper being read to the aforesaid lady, it staid her mind 
somewhat, but she liv'd not long after.' ^^ At the end of July she 
lay very near to death, her physicians having abandoned all hope. 
Then, after a week of sleepless anxiety, and when her last hour was 
looked for by all, ' it pleased the Lord beyond all expectation . . . 
to give hir a composure of spirits by sleepe.' Fleetwood wrote off 
the glad news to Henry Cromwell with the hope that now the crisis 
of the disorder was past. But it was only the brief rallying that 
often comes before the end. She survived a few days longer, and 
died at three o'clock on the morning of 6 August. 

This day [we read in ' Mercurius Politicus '] it pleased God to put a 
period to the life of the most illustrious lady, the Lady Elizabeth, second 
daughter of his Highness the Lord Protector, to the great grief of her lord 
and husband, their Highnesses, the whole court, and of all that have had the 
honour to be witnesses of her virtue, being a lady of an excellent spirit 
and judgment, and of a most noble disposition, eminent in all princely 
qualities; which, being conjoined with the sincere resentments of true 
religion and piety, had deservedly placed her nigh the heart of her 
parents, her husband, and other near relations, and procured her an 
honourable mention in the mouths both of friends and enemies, as was 
observed in her lifetime, and hath already been abundantly testified since 
the time of her death. 

" Sewel, Hist, of the Quakers (ed. 1725), p. 175. 


She dyed [says Carrington] an Amazonian-like death, despising the 
pomps of the earth, and without any grief, save to leave an afflicted father 
perplext at her so sudden being taken away ; she dyed with those good 
lessons in her mouth which she had practised whilst she lived.^^ 

The story of her funeral reads like a page out of an old romance. 
In the early evening of 10 Aug. the body was borne along the 
water-gallery of the palace to the landing stage where a barge was 
prepared to receive it. A flotilla of boats had assembled, ' filled 
with persons of honor and quality,' for all the guests had been 
bidden to come by water. Then in silent state the procession 
passed down the river in the deepening twilight of the August 
evening. It was eleven o'clock when they reached Westminster stairs. 
Thence, ' the corps was carried to the Painted Chamber, which was 
nobly adorned with mourning, and a stately herse prepared there 
whereon to place it.' Here it rested for an hour. At midnight the 
last procession was formed and took its way to the abbey, where in 
Henry VII's chapel the funeral rites were completed. Eichard 
Cromwell, Fleetwood, Fauconberg, and more distant relatives were 
present, but Elizabeth's mother and sisters were too much overcome 
with grief and with anxiety at the serious illness of the Protector 
himself to quit Hampton Court, and her aunt, Mrs. Wilkins, acted as 
chief mourner. 

A special vault had been prepared, and when at the restoration 
the bodies of those who had been interred in the abbey during the 
Protectorate were violently torn from their resting-place, Elizabeth 
Claypole was the only member of the Cromwell family whose 
remains were left undisturbed. The place of her burial was for a 
long time lost sight of. No monument marks it, but of late years 
a brief inscription has been cut on one of the diamond- shaped tiles 
in the pavement of Henry VII's chapel, close to the sumptuous tomb 
of that monarch, to indicate the position of the vault. 

How the Lord Protector felt his daughter's death all historians 
tell us. * It is one thing to have the greatest bough lopt off,' 
Eichard wrote a fortnight later, ' but when the axe is laid to the 
root then there is no hope remaining; such was our real fear.' ^° It 
was on 6 Aug. that Lady Claypole breathed her last. On 3 Sept., 
within a month of that fatal day, Oliver Cromwell lay dead at 

Of Elizabeth Claypole's children little is known. From an 
inscription in Norborough church it would seem that her daughter 
Martha died young in 1663. Cromwell, her eldest son, lived to 
manhood, but his memory is only preserved to us by his will, which 

■-» We may add Whitelocke's testimony. ' She was a lady of excellent parts, dear 
to her parents, and civil to all persons, and courteous and friendly to all gentlemen of 
her acquaintance.' 

»" Lansdowne MSS. 821, 151. 


is that of a simple country gentleman. Amongst other legacies he 
bequeaths to his cousin Elizabeth Eussell a pearl necklace with 
miniatures of his mother and grandmother, and he desires to be 
buried at Norborough near the grave of his grandmother the Lady 
Protectress, who had found a home in the last years of her life in 
the old manorhouse of the Claypoles.^' E. W. Ramsey. 

" Negative evidence as to the early deaths of Ehzabeth's children may be gathered 
from the bill of complaint filed in chancery bj' John Claypole'a second wife Blanch on 
his death in 1(588, and the answers thereto. In these, Bridget, the only surviving 
child of the second marriage, is described as the ' sole daughter and heire at the comon 
law of the said John Claypoole.' Cromwell Claypole's will has no mention of brothers 
or sisters. 


Las^ Words on Hodson of 
HodsoJts Horse 

I AM compelled, much against my inclination, to return, — once 
more, and only once, — to the subject of Hodson. Much against 
my inclination ; for I have little time to spare, and other work to 
do. Unfortunately the controversy cannot be considered as finally 
closed. It is true that Mr. Bosworth Smith, in the appendix to the 
sixth edition of the ' Life of Lord Lawrence,' brought forward a 
mass of first-hand evidence, which more than one of his critics 
pronounced unanswerable, and which, for four years, Mr. George 
Hodson did not attempt to answer. Towards the end of 1889, 
however, after the appearance of my * Four Famous Soldiers,' Mr. 
Hodson published a cheap edition of his biography of his brother, 
in which he did attempt to answer some of my statements, and 
adduced some fresh testimony in support of what he said. It is my 
< duty to show that his attempt is a failure, or, if I cannot do so, to 
apologise to him for any misstatements which I may have made. 
I must apologise for not having noticed his book before : but the 
pressure of other work, which could not be postponed, and the 
necessity of procuring information from India, have caused delay.' 
Ab certain statements of mine, which Mr. Hodson has passed over 
or only slightly noticed, have been challenged by the Saturday Review 
(8 June 1889) and by the Athenmim (31 Aug. and 21 Sept. 1889), 
I shall, on those particular points, reply to them. 

And there is another article, the work of a learned and high- 
minded man, to which I must also refer. A life of Hodson, by the 
late Dr. H. E. Luard, has recently appeared in vol. xxvii. of the 
'Dictionary of National Biography.' Dr. Luard was Hodson's 
brother-in-law ; and he declines to accept any of the charges made 
against him as proved. The article is necessarily brief, and leaves 
some of the charges unnoticed : but, as I shall show, it contains 
several serious misstatements, and its general tone is thoroughly 
misleading. I confess that, when I saw those misstatements, I was 
surprised ; for the whole of the evidence which I am now about 
to publish was submitted by me last February, through the medium 
of the editor of the ' Dictionary of National Biography,' to the writer 
' This article was practically finished last February. 


of the article. Still prestige has great weight. By readers who 
are unacquainted with the facts, the verdict of the great Dictionary 
would naturally be accepted as final : but I believe that, if its editor 
does me the honour of reading this paper, he will deem it necessary 
to reconsider that verdict. 

Mr. Hodson refuses to believe that I have not been actuated by 
malevolence towards his brother. It is at least unlikely that I 
should entertain such a feeling towards a man whom I never saw, 
and who died before I was three years old. When I began, in 1880, 
to write my ' History of the Indian Mutiny,' I had just read Mr. 
Hodson's book and was brimful of enthusiasm for his brother. 
Gradually, however, I was forced to the conclusion that my origi- 
nal estimate was wrong ; and reluctantly I amended what I had 
written. Assuming that my narrative of Hodson's life is accurate 
in its details, I confidently assert that it could not have been 
written in a fairer or less hostile spirit. But this is a merely per- 
sonal matter. If the facts which I related were untrue, it would 
avail nothing for me to assert that I had no malevolent intention. 
If they are true, I need not take the trouble to vindicate my 

To begin with, I am obliged to say that I regard the mere 
testimony of Hodson himself, on all matters connected with the 
charges that have been brought against him, as absolutely worthless. 
I make this statement deliberately because I can prove that he was 
several times guilty of falsehood. For instance, Mr. Hodson 
(p. xxiv) tells us that his brother complained ' that he had not had 
the opportunity of producing his accounts ' for inspection by the 
court of inquiry before which he was summoned to appear at 
Peshawur in 1854. But General Eeynell Taylor ^ testifies that he 
had the opportunity. General Crawford Chamberlain, the sole 
surviving member of the court, writes : * He had repeated oppor- 
tunities, and he over and over again thanked the court for its 
latitude and attention ! He once asked for and got fourteen days' 
law to make up his accounts, and when he produced his account 
current, Turner saw in five minutes that items had been wrongly 
debited and credited to square up.'^ General Godby, who was 
examined by the court, has also testified to the care with which it 
examined the accounts."* Again, writing on 30 Sept. 1857 to 
General Wilson, Hodson says : * To the best of my memory and 
belief, I have neither acted without orders, nor protected any one 
without permission.'-'' But, as I have already shown {Athemeum, 21 
Sept. 1889) and shall show again in this paper, Sir Donald Stewart 

"^ Life by E. Gambier Parry, p. 215. 

* Four Famous Soldiers, p. 192, note. 

* Manuscript memorandum by General C. Chamberlain. 
5 Hodson of Hodson's Horse, p. xxxiii. 



and the late Mr. C. B. Saunders both saw an unauthorised 
guarantee of safety, attested by Hodson's signature, which he had 
given to the queen of Delhi before the royal family left the palace ; 
and it was afterwards discovered by Mr. Saunders*^ that he had 
given similar guarantees to some of the greatest criminals in Delhi. 
Another instance is related by General Crawford Chamberlain.' 

The Chief Commissioner [he says] had called for a return of all 
men discharged from the Guides, and the reasons thereof, since Hodson 
assumed command. He prepared it himself and despatched it. It was 
returned for the Adjutant's signature. He refused to sign it as incorrect, 
but ultimately did so. After Hodson's explanations, the Court called up 
Lieutenant and Adjutant Turner. He pleaded entire irresponsibility for 
papers prepared under his commanding officer's personal supervision, and 
declared that all he had to do was to obey his orders, to sign all papers 
brought to him for the purpose. Hodson denied this statement absolutely. 
Lieutenant Turner insisted on its truth, and, leisurely searching first in 
one trouser pocket, and then in another fruitlessly, twisted his pouch-belt 
round, and, taking from it a note, handed it to Colonel Craigie. Hodson 
was obliged to admit the authenticity of the letter. 

Finally, the court of inquiry record * that from the commence- 
ment of their sittings some months ago, up to this day, Lieutenant 
Hodson's statements have abounded in subterfuge, and they cannot 
too strongly condemn the same.'^ 


The Athenmim (31 Aug. 1889) says that I have * no real evidence 
to support ' the following statement, relating to Hodson's second 
tour with Sir H. Lawrence in Cashmere : ' Lawrence asked him 
for an account of the moneys which he had disbursed. This account 
was not forthcoming; and though Lawrence again and again 
pressed him to render it, he remained to the last unable or 
unwilling to do so.' ^ The evidence for this statement is contained 
in pp. 509, 522 of the appendix to the ' Life of Lord Lawrence.' 

' Of my own personal knowledge ' [writes Sir Neville Chamberlain] 
' I am only able to state that Sir Henry Lawrence was most indignant 
with Hodson for the manner in which he kept, or rather failed to keep, 
the accounts connected with his visit to Cashmere. ... I was at Lahore 
when they returned, and Sir H. Lawrence often made these accounts the 
subject of bitter reproach against Hodson, because he could not get him 
to render them.' 

* He could never ' [writes Mr. Bosworth Smith] ' be induced to render 
this account, though he was written to repeatedly by both Sir Henry and 
Sir John Lawrence on the subject. I know, on the authority of Dr. 

" Life of Lord Laivrence (Sixth Edition), ii. 156. This is the edition to which I 
shall refer throughout this paper. 

' lb. p. 513. » lb. p. 515. 

" Four Famous Soldiers, p. 181. 


Hathaway, who accompanied Sir Henry Lawrence to Cashmere, of Dr. 
Farquhar, surgeon to the Guides . . . and of Sir Neville Chamberlain 
. . . that Sir Henry Lawrence was most indignant, and did lose from 
this time his belief in Hodson's pecuniary probity.' 

This evidence, I submit, is suflficiently real. Unless Mr. Hodson 
can prove that Hodson did at last render his accounts, and that 
Sir Henry Lawrence did, at the eleventh hour, regain his lost belief 
in Hodson's pecuniary probity, it is conclusive. The Athenmun 
(21 Sept. 1889), indeed, says that * there is direct evidence that he 
(Lawrence) did not consider Hodson's conduct dishonest. The 
direct evidence is that Sir Henry subsequently recommended 
Hodson's appointment to the Guides, and that after the trip to 
Cashmere he employed him to build the Lawrence asylum.' The 
reviewer does not know his facts. Hodson was appointed to 
the command of the Guides in 1852 ; and for at least two years 
afterwards Lawrence tried in vain to induce him to render the 
Cashmere accounts.'" It is clear, therefore, that when he recom- 
mended him for the appointment, he hoped that he would render 
them and vindicate his honesty. Moreover, he employed him to 
build the asylum in 1847, that is to say before, not after, the trip to 
Cashmere, which took place in 1850. The reviewer is thinking of 
another trip to Cashmere in 1846.^' 


Of all the questions connected with Hodson's career the most 
complicated is that relating to the court of inquiry which investi- 
gated certain charges brought against him as commandant of the 
Guides. The reasons which led the commander-in-chief to order 
this inquiry are fully described on pp. 188-9 of ' Four Famous 
Soldiers,' and are also noticed in a letter ^^ written by the sole 
surviving member of the Court. After showing how Hodson made 
himself unpopular in the regiment, my account proceeds : — 

As time passed, the oflScers and many of the men who remained 
came to suspect him of misappropriating public monies which passed 
through his hands. These suspicions were soon confirmed. An officer, 
returning after leave of absence, asked for his pay, which had fallen into 
arrear. Hodson coolly replied that he had spent it. Naturally indignant, 
the officer threatened to expose him unless he refunded the money within 
twenty-four hours. Driven to his wits' ends, Hodson sent to Peshawur, 
and asked the banker of a native regiment to lend him the required 
amount.^3 The banker refused to do so unless Hodson found a surety ; 

"• Life of Lord Lawrence, i. 373, ii. 509. 

" See Eev. G. Hodson's Hodson of Hodson's Horse, pp. 25, 29, 83. 
"^ Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 511. 

^' Stated on the authority of the officer himself. See also Life of Lord Lavyrtncit 
ii. 517. 

B 2 


whereupon an oflScer called Bisharut Ali, belonging to the same regiment, 
generously offered to undertake the responsibility. Thus Hodson was 
saved from immediate exposure. At length, however, he received an 
order from the Punjaub Government to furnish a return of all the men 
whom he had discharged from the regiment, and to state the reasons 
which had led him to discharge them. He drew out the required docu- 
ment in his own handwriting, forwarded it to the Government, and then 
left Murdan on leave. During his absence, the document was sent back 
to the officer who was temporarily commanding the regiment, with a 
request that the Adjutant's signature should be affixed to it. The 
Adjutant refused to affix his signature, on the ground that certain 
statements in the document were untrue. ^^ The result was that, towards 
the end of the year, Hodson was summoned, by order of the Commander- 
in-Chief, to appear before a Court of Enquiry at Murdan. ... A short 
time before the enquiry began, Hodson went to the quarters of one of his 
subalterns, and asked him in whose favour he intended to give evidence. 
The subaltern replied that he hoped he should not be called upon to give 
evidence at all ; but that, if he were, he should simply give truthful 
answers to such questions as might be put to him. ' Oh yes ! ' rejoined 
Hodson, ' of course we must all tell the truth ; but there are different 
ways of doing it. At all events, if I find myself falling, I shall drag you 
with me ; sp I give you warning. '^^ 

The heads of charges inquired into by the court were (1) mis- 
understanding between Lieutenant Hodson and Lieutenant Turner ; 
(2) complaint of Nujjuf Ali, moonshee ; (3) complaint of Khalikdad 
Khan of foul language ; (4) complaint of Koorhan Ali, jemadar, of 
abusive language ; (5) claim of Azeem Ali for camel hire ; (6) claim 
of a Bunya, Sowars, &c. &c. ; (7) confusion in accounts and 
records. ^"^ 

The court was composed of officers of various regiments quite 
unconnected with the Guides. General Crawford Chamberlain, 
the sole surviving member, has described his colleagues indi- 
vidually.^^ They were, as he testifies, ' specially selected so as to 
give Hodson an impartial and patient hearing.' ' I can answer for 
it,' he continues, ' that no officer was ever subject to a less biassed 
or prejudiced court than he was, for he came before it with the 
fullest sympathy of all of us, and received every consideration 
throughout, even friendly advice when essential to him.' And, in 
a letter to me, he writes : ' When the court of inquiry was ordered, 
and my name published as junior member, both Hodson and his 
wife rode up to my house to offer their perfect satisfaction at my 

' * stated on the authority of a letter in my possession from the officer who asked 
the adjutant for his signature. See also a letter from Gen. Chamberlain, published 
in Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 513. 

'* Stated on the authority of the subaltern himself. 

'" Paper received by Mr. Bosworth Smith from the Government of India {Life of 
Lord Lawrence, ii. 512, note). '' lb. p. 512. 


The court sat for several weeks, minutely investigated Hodson's 
account-books, and cross-examined a number of witnesses. After 
sending in its report of the proceedings, it was ordered by the 
Government of India to record a verdict upon each heading of the 
inquiry.^^ The verdict was unfavourable to Hodson; and Lord 
Dalhousie, in a minute dated 15 Sept. 1855, expressed his full 
concurrence in it.^^ In the previous month Major Eeynell Taylor, 
who had succeeded Hodson in the command of the Guides, had 
been ordered, as he himself says, ' to examine and report upon the 
state of the regimental accounts.' In this examination he was 
assisted by Hodson himself, and by no one else ; ^" and the conclusion 
at which he arrived was that the accounts showed * numerous 
irregularities, but no actual improprieties in the management.' ^^ 

Mr. Hodson's contention is that his brother ' appealed against 
the verdict of the court of inquiry on the ground that it had been 
given on ex parte evidence, and that he had not had the opportunity 
of producing his accounts ; ' that Eeynell Taylor, * after a patient 
and minute investigation, drew up a report completely vindicating 
Lieutenant Hodson on all the charges ; ' and that Taylor's report 
was adopted by the Government of India (apparently in 1858) as 
satisfactory.^^ He also tells us, on the authority of the Rev. C. 
Sloggett, that Colonel Keith Young, who had been one of the 
members of the court of inquiry, after reading a statement which 
Hodson ' had drawn up, embodying Major Taylor's report,' was 
' much impressed by it,' and ' became one of Hodson's warmest 
friends.' ^^ Finally he adduces the testimony of the late Lord 
Napier of Magdala. I quote the passages that appear to strengthen 
Hodson's case. A letter dated March 1856 contains these words : 
* On reading a copy of the proceedings (of the court) I j)erceived 
at once that the whole case lay in the correctness of his regimental 
accounts,' and ' the result of Major Taylor's laborious and patient 
investigation of Lieutenant Hodson's regimental accounts has fully 
justified, but has not at all added to, the confidence that I have 

'« lb. pp. 512-14. '" lb. pp. 515-16. 

-" He was nominally assisted by Lieutenant (now Major-General) Godby also, but 
only nominally, as the following extract from a manuscript memorandum by General 
Chamberlain proves: — Question (by Gen. Chamberlain). — 'Did you see the result of 
such inquiries ? ' Answer (by Gen. Godby). — ' As the C. 0. was satisfied, I did not look 
into it much, but I saw Taylor's remarks ; and, as he as C. 0. was satisfied, I agreed.' 
Q. — ' Did you see the accounts when cleared up ? ' A. — ' No. That is, I did not examine 
them, but I saw them.' In another place General Godby writes : ' After it was over, Taylor 
said he was satisfied, and asked me what I thought. Now, I, although there, did not look 
into the accounts myself, and, as Taylor was satisfied as C. 0., I agreed, looking upon 
it as a part of the overhaul of regimental accounts by one oflScer making over charge to 

"' Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 517 (Letter from Eeynell Taylor) ; Life of Reynell 
Taylor, p. 217. 

'*- Hodson of Hodson's Horse, pp. xxiv, xxvi. ^ Jb. pp. xxvi-xxvii. 


throughout maintained in the honour and uprightness of his 
conduct.' In a second letter (undated) Lord Napier says : * When 
it is remembered that on his being suspended, notice was given to 
every complainant to come forward against him, any one who knows 
the material contained in the Guides knows that there were men 
who might have had enmity to gratify, or hope of positive advantage 
in bringing accusations before the court of inquiry.' And, in a 
letter dated 2 July 1889, he attempts to show that the money 
which Hodson took from the regimental chest of the Guides was 
taken solely to defray the cost of a fortified cantonment which he 
was building at Kote Murdan : * Hodson informed me that he 
advanced money from the regimental chest. There was difficulty 
and delay in getting the money from the civil department, and 
the pay of the Guides became overdue, there being no money in the 
regimental chest. Those hostile to your brother immediately 
assumed a defalcation.' ^^ 

Now Mr. Hodson's version of the facts, which I have given in 
his own words, contains at least two very gross misstatements, — 
misstatements which he persists in making, or else with unpardon- 
able carelessness allows to remain uncorrected, although since 1883, 
when they were first made, they have been flatly contradicted by 
the testimony of Eeynell Taylor himself ! His way of putting the 
case would create the impression that his brother formally appealed 
against the finding of the court of inquiry : that Taylor was 
directed to revise that finding; and that he reversed it by a 
favourable verdict of his own. But this impression would be 
absolutely erroneous. First of all, Hodson did 7iot appeal against 
the verdict of the court. One proof of this is that that verdict was 
not made public until 15 Sept. 1855,^5 and that Taylor had bo^un 
his inquiry, or had undertaken it, in the preceding month.^^ Wfiat 
Hodson did was to assert that he could * render account of the 
regimental, chest if government would arrange for its hearing ; ' ^^ 
and, according to his own account, he had been doing this for 
months before August 1855, — that is to say for months before the 
verdict of the court was made known.^® Moreover, to any one who 
knows anything of affairs the notion that a subordinate government, 
— the government of the Punjaub, — would direct a single regimen- 
tal officer to revise the finding of a court of inquiry already endorsed 
by a supreme government, is simply ludicrous. If Mr. Hodson 
disputes this, Taylor's own words shall refute him. Not only 
was Taylor necessarily ignorant of the (then unpublished) verdict 
of the court : he had not even seen the court's proceedings. In 

^* lb., pp. 126, Ixiv-lxvi. " Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 616. 

*• Hodson of Hodson's Horse, pp. 128-9. 

2' Life of Reynell Taylor, p. 215 ^' See Hodson of Hodson's Horse, p. 129. 


a letter to Mr. Bosworth Smith ^^ he speaks of 'a voluntary 
committee ' of himself, Lieutenant Godby, and Hodson.^" * I did 
not,' he writes, ' see or go through the evidence laid before the 
court of inquiry. I did not, to the best of my recollection, see 
the court's report ... 7 had no power to revise any finding of 
theirs. I was merely ordered to examine and report on the state 
of the regimental accounts.' Yet Mr. Hodson speaks of Taylor's 
report as ' completely vindicating Lieutenant Hodson on all the 
charges ' ! He will not believe his own witness. He entirely 
ignores, or rather he implicitly denies, the fact which the foregoing 
extract clearly proves, that Taylor's inquiry had nothing to do with 
anything except accounts,^^ and left the adverse verdict of the court 
on the remaining counts completely intact. 

The issue then is narrowed to this : Was Taylor's favourable 
verdict regarding the accounts justified by the facts ? Now it was 
absolutely impossible for Taj^lor or for any one else to come to any 
satisfactory conclusion about the accounts by examining the account- 
books alone. For part of the evidence that had been recorded 
before the court related to the accounts ; and of this evidence 
Taylor, on his own showing, saw nothing. There was, for instance, 
as I shall presently show, a false entry in one of the account-books, 
relating to a pecuniary claim which had been established against 
Hodson before the court. I shall also show that, if Hodson was 
able to make Taylor believe that * there were no actual improprieties 
in the management ' of his accounts, it was partly because he had 
privately borrowed large sums to make up the deficiency in the 
regimental treasure chest which his own malversation had caused. 
In a word, although, as Taylor has told us, he had nothing to 
do with any of the charges brought before the court, the question of 
the correctness of the accounts was inextricably bound up with the 
evidence relating to the pecuniary claims that had been established 
against Hodson ; and of that evidence Taylor says that he knew 

First of all, it is important to state what the finding of the court 
on this matter really was. It did not commit itself, in so many 
words, to the judgment that Hodson was guilty of fraud. * The 

■■" Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 517. 

'" ' I understood,' writes General Godby, who held temporary command of the 
Guides before Taylor succeeded to the post of commandant, ' I understood that Taylor, 
in taking command, thought it his duty to make himself acquainted with everything 
connected with the regiment, and amongst other things with the accounts, which was 
only what is expected from every one succeeding to a command. Whether he first got 
the sanction (this is not the same as an order) of the Punjab government or not, I 
don't know ; but he got Hodson to come to Murdan with his accounts, and prompted 
by the noble idea of doing his utmost to exculpate Hodson, he set to work, as I thought, 
for his own satisfaction as commanding the regiment.' 

'' See also an extract from a letter of General R. Taylor to Mr. Bosworth Smith 
[Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 511, note). 


court,' writes General Chamberlain to me, * was very guarded in its 
language.' * I don't suppose,' writes the same authority, * that 
Lord D. nor Sir J. L. did actually consider " peculation" proved 
direct and absolute, — but next door to it.' The court stated that 
the system for which Hodson was responsible was * calculated to 
screen peculation and fraud ; ' and it stated that, from the com- 
mencement of its sittings, his statements had * abounded in subter- 
fuge,' which it ' could not too strongly condemn.' ^^ 

But, although the court expressed itself so guardedly, there still 
remains evidence of an instance in which it was proved that Hodson 
had defrauded one of his native officers. ' Amongst the many 
complaints,' writes General Chamberlain,''^ ' there was one by a 
duffadar of the Guides to the effect that he had not received payment 
for a horse upon the terms agreed. I do not remember whether 
there had been a change of horses between Hodson and the duffadar, 
but anyhow there was a monetary transaction, and when the 
account-book came to be examined, it was found that the item had 
been tampered with. Now E. Taylor may have seen many erasures 
and alterations in the account-books, and this item amongst them, 
but unless he had knowledge of attendant circumstances, he kneir little. 
. . . Hodson^s explanation was unsatisfactory, and the court con- 
sidered the claim established.' There were various other claims 
against him, which, in order to prevent their being investigated by 
the court, he settled by privately borrowing money.''* ' When they 
came up for hearing,' says General Chamberlain in another letter, 
* a verdict was entered, " Settled out of court." ' It is needless to 
say that Hodson would not have borrowed money privately to satisfy 
claims if he had spent the money that would have otherwise gone 
to satisfy them on the public service. Then there is General 
Chamberlain's statement that, after he had been allowed a 
fortnight's grace to make up his accounts, a cursory examination 
showed that 'items had been wrongly debited and credited to 
square up.' Moreover, it has since been conclusively proved that 
he was guilty of another act of malversation which did not come 
under the notice of the court at all. I have already related 
that, some time before Hodson was summoned to appear before 
the court of inquiry, one of his subalterns, returning to Murdan 
after leave of absence, asked him for his pay ; that Hodson replied 
that he had spent it ; and that the subaltern threatened to expose 
him unless he refunded the money within twenty-four hours. I 
repeat that my authority for this statement is the subaltern him- 

^ Lord Dalhousie's Minute of 15 Sept. 1855 {Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 515). 

^ Four Famous Soldiers, p. 192, note. 

^* Letter to me from General Chamberlain, and Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 517. 
' They were all,' writes General Chamberlain, ' official claims, which ought to have 
been settled up by drawing the money from the regimental chest.' 


self, now Major-General C. J. Godby.^^ I have also related that, on 
being threatened with exposure, Hodson sent to Peshawur, and ob- 
tained the money (4001. or 5001.) through the generous intervention 
of one Bisharut Ali, from the banker of a native regiment. My au- 
thorities for this statement are Major-General Godby and General C. 
Chamberlain, who at that time commanded the native regiment in 
question, and to whom the application for the loan was made. He 
sanctioned the loan in order to oblige Hodson : but not until 1883, 
— when he learned the truth from General Godby, — had he any 
idea what it was for."' So far the facts are indisputable ; and Mr. 
Hodson has not disputed them. Indeed it is significant that he 
has never attempted to defend his brother from this charge at all. 
But he may conceivably suggest that Hodson had spent Godby's 
pay on public requirements ! Unfortunately this suggestion would 
be inadmissible ; for otherwise what should Hodson have had to 
fear from exposure ? As General Chamberlain writes, ' If legiti- 
mately spent for other recoverable items, why was a loan asked for ? ' 
But more than this. The money was lent to Hodson lyrivately, and 
stood against him as a private account when Taylor was investigat- 
ing the Guides' accounts." Yet, to quote General Chamberlain, * he 
paid the amount to Godby as being balance of his pay and of his 
monies lying in the chest to his credit.' * Did Hodson,' says the 
same authority, ' ever tell Taylor that he had smuggled the sum of 
5,000 rupees into the Treasury ? And if so, or if not, how could 
his accounts be right when he had 5,000 rupees more than he ought 
to have had ? ' Or, as Mr. Bosworth Smith ^^ pertinently asks, 

"What avails it to say that the regimental chest contained at that 
time what it ought, and that the accounts submitted to Taylor were correct, 
when it is admitted that Hodson had been driven to borrow large sums, 
right and left, to make up the deficiencies ? If a banker who is hard 
pressed appropriates the securities committed to him, on the chance of 
some day being able to make them good, every one knows what to caU 

Another fact, which has never been made public, is very signi- 
ficant. One day, while the court was at lunch. General (then 
Major) Chamberlain found Hodson talking to one of the witnesses, 
and remonstrated with him for doing so. The witness complained 
that Hodson had been trying to intimidate him ; and he was 
accordingly placed under protection by the court.^^ 

^'^ See also Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 517. 

^* Letter to me from General Chamberlain, and Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 513. 

'' Letter to me from General C. Chamberlain, and his printed letter to Mr. Bos- 
worth Smith (Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 613). '^ lb. ii. 517. 

89 Manuscript memorandum and letter from General C. Chamberlain. General 
Godby stated last year (1890) that he remembered General Chamberlain's having 
mentioned this episode to him at the time ; and it was, of course, chronicled in the 
record of the court's proceedings. 


I have proved that Hodson committed an act of malversation, 
that a pecuniary claim against him was established in spite of his 
denial, and that he was obliged to borrow money to settle various 
other claims, and thus prevent their coming under the notice of the 
court. I have also proved that, by borrowing this money, he 
convicted himself of further malversation. It follows that the 
report of Eeynell Taylor, who knew nothing of these things, 
cannot be regarded as an exculpation of Hodson. But setting 
aside these proofs, let me ask any unbiassed reader this ques- 
tion. Which is more likely to have been correct — the unani- 
mous verdict of an impartial court, based upon the cross- 
examination of witnesses and the investigation of documents, and 
endorsed by the commander-in-chief. Sir John Lawrence, and 
Lord Dalhousie, or the verdict of an individual who, by his own 
showing, never saw the evidence laid before the court, who examined 
no witnesses,^" and was assisted in his inquiry by the defendant ? 
Surely it is more probable that of the two the court was right. 

I have said enough to prove my case : but I had better perhaps 
leave none of Mr. Hodson's pleas unanswered. Again and again 
he tells us that Lord Napier considered Taylor's report as a 
triumphant exculpation of Hodson. Well, I have proved that, for 
reasons of which Lord Napier could not have been aware, Taylor's 
report cannot, even on the question of accounts, be considered as 
an exculpation of Hodson ; and I shall presently prove that a still 
higher authority than Lord Napier was dissatisfied with it. How 
then are we to account for Lord Napier's having b^en deceived ? 
Setting aside the fact, well known to all his surviving comrades, 
that Lord Napier was a man who believed in a friend, once made, 
through thick and thin, the explanation is simply that he did not 
know all the circumstances of the case. What right have you, I 
may be asked, to say this ? Has not Lord Napier written, ' On 
reading a copy of the proceedings, I perceived at once that the 
whole case lay in the correctness of his regimental accounts ' ? 
Yes, Hodson, as General Chamberlain has told me, made a copy of 
the proceedings. But it is difficult to believe that, if he had shown 
the whole to Napier, Napier would have committed himself to the 
astounding assertion that ' the whole case lay in the correctness of his 
regimental accounts.' Did Hodson show him the item, which he 
had tampered with, relating to the exchange of horses with a 
duffadar of the regiment ? Did he tell him that he had tried to in- 
timidate one of his subalterns before, and one of the witnesses during, 
the inquiry ? Did he reveal the ' subterfuges ' in which his own 
' statements had abounded ' ? But, assuming that Lord Napier 
did see the whole of the court's proceedings, what then ? The con- 

<" ' No witnesses were called, that I ever remember,' writes General Godby, ' except 
occasionally a moonshee, or native accountant, to explain or compare papers.' 


elusion is simply that he was not an impartial judge. The opinion 
of a private individual who disputes the summing-up of a judge and 
the verdict of a jury does not generally carry much weight. Why 
then should Lord Napier's belief in his friend's innocence set aside 
the deliberate judgment of the court, of the commander-in-chief, of 
the Government of the Punjaub, and of the Government of India ? 
Again, what of those matters which did not come under the notice 
of the court ? Did Hodson allow Napier to know that he had been 
obliged to borrow largely in order to settle various claims, for fear 
they should come before the court ? Did he allow him to know 
that he had been obliged to borrow 400Z. or 600L in order to refund 
Godby his pay, which he had spent ? 

In a passage which I have extracted from one of his letters Lord 
Napier says that 'on his (Hodson's) being suspended, notice was 
given to every complainant to come forward against him,' &o. By 
whom? And on what authority does Lord Napier make this 
statement ? On what authority, — except that of Hodson himself ? 
Assuredly no such notice was given by the court. * I do not re- 
member it,' writes General Chamberlain to me, * and was staggered 
when I first read Lord Napier's letter.' Nor by Lieutenant Godby, 
who, on Hodson's being suspended, took temporary command of 
the Guides. 

As commanding the Guides at the time, [he writes,] I was not aware 
of any notice having been given to complainants to come forward against 
Hodson. Certainly no7ie was sent from the Eegimental Office. But it's 
more than probable that the party whose accusations were the subject 
of enquiry had invited the discharged men who had claims for arrears 
of pay to come forward and lay their demands before the Court ; but of 
this I had no knowledge. 

Certainly there was no reason why those discharged men should 
not come forward and claim their due. I have shown that Hodson 
tacitly admitted the justice of various claims by borrowing money 
to satisfy them, and thus keep them out of court. Let it be remem- 
bered also that every plaint that was laid before the court was 
rigidly scrutinised. Yet General Chamberlain writes to me, * I do 
not remember one single plaint being disproved.' And, he asks, 
why should men have accused Hodson falsely, when they knew that 
if detected they would be punished, and that ' if he cleared himself 
and returned to power stronger than ever, they would have to pay 
for their sins ' ? Did Lord Napier mean that the court could not 
discern between false accusations and true ? His plea is simply un- 
meaning unless it means that not the court only, but also Sir John 
Lawrence, the commander-in-chief, and Lord Dalhousie were either 
incompetent or unjust ! 

Lord Napier's other statement that ' Hodaon informed me that 


he advanced money from the regimental chest,' to defray the 
expenses of building the fortified cantonment at Kote Murdan, is 
equally unavailing. ' I believe,' writes General Chamberlain, 
' advances were made for the public works at Murdan : but had 
Hodson been able to show what had been so spent, the court could 
have accepted his accounts. This he could not do.' Even if he 
had been able to do so, the proof which I have given of his having 
committed malversation would remain unshaken. 

Again, Mr. Hodson tells us that the Government of India 
adopted Taylor's report as satisfactory. Perhaps : but the follow- 
ing extract from a letter, written by General Sir H. Daly, K.C.B., 
tells a different tale : — 

I was appointed to the Guides on or about 7 May 1857. A few days 
after I had been in command, I received a file of papers (Reynell Taylor's 
report), with a minute from Lord Canning expressing dissatisfaction, and 
directing explanations on many points of Taylor's writing. This was 
sent to me by the Brigadier (Sir N. Chamberlain) under the authority of 
Sir John Lawrence. The papers I never read, but within an hour of 
their receipt wrote to Sir N. Chamberlain and Sir John Lawrence, statmg 
my inability to do what was required. I took the file with me to Delhi, 
placing it in the secret drawer of a small desk, known only to the Adjutant 
and myself. After I was wounded at Delhi, the command of the Guides 
fell temporarily to Hodson. On the day of the storm, 14 September, I 
resumed command. After the fall of Delhi I was called upon to restore 
the file ; the desk was searched ; the file was missing. Hodson was 
asked ; he replied that he knew nothing of the records during his tenure 
at Delhi. A few months elapsed, and the siege of Lucknow was in hand. 
I was with Sir W. Mansfield and Hodson, and in command of the Horse. 
He was brought in mortally wounded to Banks's House, where I was, and 
he died that night. I was at once asked by Sir W. Mansfield to take 
command of Hodson's Horse. I stipulated for freedom in connection with 
Hodson's afi^airs and his ' commission of adjustment.' This was accepted 
by the Commander-in-Chief, and I took command ; but on the day I did 
so, remembering the missing file from the desk at Delhi, and having strong 
grounds for thinking Hodson knew, I went to an independent friend, 
whose tent was near, and begged him to come with me to Hodson's tent 
before the assembling of the 'commission of adjustment.' In Hodson's 
trunk the file was found. I forwarded this to the Government officer, 
still living, through whom I received it, describing the discovery, and 
suggested that Sir J. Lawrence's sanction be asked to leave the matter in 
silence. Sir J. Lawrence acceded to this suggestion, and so the matter 
remained till 1860, when, str ng by the remarks in Hodson's reminiscences, 
Sir John spoke to me about blishing the statement I have now made, 
the particulars of which are known to several still Hving.**^ 

Now observe what Lord Napier says : * If Sir Henry Daly's 
memory is accurate, and your brother at the time he was asked the 

*' Life of Lord Laivrence, ii. 524. 


question denied all knowledge of these papers, I firmly believe that 
he spoke the truth, and that had he lived he could have explained 
satisfactorily how they came into his possession.' ''^ Lord Napier 
was indeed a staunch friend ! 

To refute Mr. Hodson is also to refute Dr. Luard, who appeals 
to Mr. Hodson's book as his authority. Speaking of the court of 
inquiry, Dr. Luard says : ' Against their decision he appealed, and 
a second inquiry was ordered, and entrusted to Major Eeynell 
Taylor, who reported on 13 Feb. 1856. This report fully cleared 
him of the imputations cast upon him. . . . But the second report 
was not communicated to the commander-in-chief, was laid quietly 
aside in some office, and no more notice taken of it.' ■^^ These few 
words contain no less than three grave errors. First, as I have 
already proved, Hodson never appealed against th verdict of the 
court of inquiry. Secondly, Taylor's report only touched one of 
' the imputations cast upon him,' and did not succeed in clearing 
him of that. Thirdly, it is not true that ' no more notice was taken 
of ' Taylor's report. On the contrary, that report, as I have shown 
on the evidence of Sir Henry Daly, was read by Lord Canning : he 
wrote a minute expressing dissatisfaction with it ; and both minute 
and report were abstracted by Hodson from Daly's desk, and found 
in Hodson's trunk after his death. (See extract, already quoted, 
from Sir Henry Daly's letter to Mr. Bosworth Smith.) 

To sum up. It is proved that Hodson committed malversation ; 
that he committed what was virtually a fraud upon one of his 
native officers ; that he was driven to borrow money in order to 
satisfy various claims and thus prevent their coming under the 
notice of the court of inquiry ; that the opinion of the court was 
' unfavourable to him in every way ; ' that their verdict, confirmed 
by the commander-in-chief, by the Government of the Punjaub, and 
by the Government of India, was never appealed against, and never 
reversed ; that they found that the system of accounts for which 
Hodson was responsible was ' calculated to screen peculation and 
fraud ; ' that the accounts which Hodson could not, although he 
was allowed all the time that he asked for, explain to the court, 
he did explain to the satisfaction of Eeynell Taylor ; but that 
Eeynell Taylor's report did not satisfy Lord Canning : finally, that, 
as Eeynell Taylor examined no witnesses, never saw any record of 
the court's proceedings, and knew nothing of the circumstances 
regarding at least two important points, his report, whatever may 
have been its value in other respects, fails to clear Hodson of dis- 
honourable conduct. 

" Hodson of Hodson's Horse, pp. Ixvi-Ixvii. 
" Dictionary of National Biography, xxvii. 75. 



I now come to the notorious case of Bisharut Ali. The story, based 
upon information suppKed to me by General Crawford Chamberlain, 
who learned the facts direct from eye-witnesses, is told in detail on 
pp. 203-5 of my * Four Famous Soldiers.' I reproduce it here. 

During the earlier days of the siege, it chanced that a native, named 
Shahaboodeen, came to Hodson's tent, and informed him that one Bisharut 
Ali, an oflQcer of the 1st Punjaub Irregular Cavalry, had mutiaied, and 
was living at his village, withui a few miles of Delhi. The man added 
that Bisharut All's relatives were mutiaeers. Hodson at once recognised 
the name. Bisharut Ali was the same man who, some years before at 
Peshawur, when he had been in sore distress, had stood his security to 
enable him to borrow a sum of money from the banker of the 1st Irregular 
Cavalry. Shahaboodeen, too, had known Bisharut Ali before. He had 
formerly been a trooper in the regiment to which Bisharut Ali belonged, 
but had been dismissed from the service for an assault on one of his 
comrades ; and his conviction had been founded, mainly, on evidence 
furnished by Bisharut Ali. He was a man of infamous character ; and it 
was to revenge himself on Bisharut Ali for having borne witness against 
him that he now turned informer. The story which he told to Hodson 
was a deliberate invention. As a matter of fact, Bisharut Ali was a brave 
and honourable man : he had been sent by his commanding officer, Major 
Crawford Chamberlain, to his village, on sick leave ; and some of his 
relations, who were represented by Shahaboodeen as m itineers, had never, 
for a single hour, been in the Government employ. BVt Hodson was in 
no mood to ask himself whether the unsupported staitement of an ex- 
convict deserved to be regarded as evidence. It was enough for him that 
a nest of mutineers were said to be lurking within his reach. Takuig 
with him a few of his horsemen, he rode off to the village ; sought out 
Bisharut Ah's house ; and, after a fierce struggle with the inmates, in 
which much blood was shed on both sides, established his footing within. 
Eeturning to his camp, whither Bisharut Ali had gone, he met him, and 
charged him with being a mutineer. Bisharut Ali indignantly denied the 
charge, and demanded that he should be taken to the British camp at 
Delhi, and there formally tried. Common justice required that Hodson 
should grant the request. And it might, surely, have been expected that 
a motive more powerful than the sense of justice would impel him to give 
every chance of proving his innocence to the man who had helped him in 
his hour of need. But the desire to destroy a supposed rebel was upper- 
most in his heart ; and justice and gratitude, if they pleaded at all, pleaded 
in vain. A hasty trial was held ; and Bisharut Ah was declared guilty. 
Kaising his carbine to his shoulder, Hodson deliberately aimed at his 
benefactor, and fired. The shot did not kill Bisharut Ali ; and, looking 
Hodson full in the face, he shouted, ' Had I suspected such treachery, I 
would have fought it out instead of being shot like a dog.' The troopers 
fired, at Hodson's command. Bisharut Ali was slain ; his nephew, a child 
of twelve years, was slain, clinging to the knees of another uncle ; his 
innocent relatives were slain ; and Hodson, having taken possession of 


his horses, his ponies, and some of his personal property, rode off to 
another village, to hunt down more mutineers. 

Mr. Hodson pleads, in reply (pp. Ixvii-lxviii) , that, as General 
Chamberlain's information ' must have come from natives, and 
presumably friends of the rebels, it may be considered as carrying 
about as much weight as the accounts of Mr. Balfour's " atrocities," 
to which we are all accustomed, gathered from eye-witnesses on the 
spob where evictions have taken place, by sympathising visitors.' 
Observe that, by using the word ' rebels,' Mr. Hodson begs the 
whole question. He goes on to say that * it is impossible that 
General Chamberlain can know what evidence Hodson had of the 
man's guilt,' and that * no one at the time doubted Bisharut All's 
guilt.' Major-General Mitford, Hodson's stepson, adds that 
Eessaldar Hookum Singh, of Hodson's Horse, told him 'that he 
was present with the detachment when Bisharut Ali was executed, 
and that he and all those with him were thoroughly satisfied that 
Bisharut Ali was a rebel and thoroughly deserved death.' Further- 
more, Major-General Mitford tells us ''* that one Eessaldar Zari 
Singh has stated ' that he lived in the same village as Bisharut Ali 
and was there when the man was shot. Zari Singh was only a 
boy at the time, but distinctly recollects the circumstances, and 
has often heard them discussed since ; but neither then nor subse- 
quently did he hear any doubt cast on the justice of the punish- 
ment. Every one was convinced that Bisharut Ali was a rebel and 
a fomenter of rebellion.' 

I shall presently show that the testimony adduced by Major- 
General Mitford is absolutely worthless. Meanwhile I have to deal 
with Mr. Hodson. Nearly seven years ago, when Mr. Hodson 
first disputed the truth of the story of Bisharut Ali, General Craw- 
ford Chamberlain offered, through the columns of the Daily News 
(19 Jan. 1884) to furnish him with full details : but Mr. Hodson 
did not accept this offer ! General Chamberlain shall now speak 
for himself. I quote from a memoir dated 19 Feb. 1884. After 
relating how he first heard, at Mooltan in 1857, of Bisharut Ali's 
execution, how staunch Bisharut's regiment had proved during the 
most trying months of the mutiny, and how he told the news of his 
execution to his brother-in-law Burkut Ali, General Chamberlain 
proceeds : — 

His— Burkut Ali's — first remark, after hearing of his brother-in- 
law's death, was, ' You will see that it is Shahaboodeen and Hodson 
Sahib who have done this. Hodson Sahib has done it to wipe out his 
debt,'*^ and my relatives and friends are those who have suffered. But, 

** Athenmum, 31 Aug. 1889. 

*^ When I first read this remark of Burkut Ali's I was exceedingly puzzled. It was 
true, of course, that Hodson could have had no interested motive for sparing his surety ; 
for if he proved insolvent and his surety died, not he, but his creditor would suffer. 


whatever calamity has befallen them, I will be faithful to you and to the 
State, come what may.' 

General Chamberlain then relates how he tried in vain to obtain 
from the Government of the Punjaub an account of the circum- 
stances of Bisharut Ali's execution. 

The first piece of information was gathered late in the year (1857) 
from an officer passing through Mooltan on his way to England. He 
told me that the European officers knew nothing about Bisharut Ali, 
but Hodson had said he knew all about him, and that he was a rebel ; 
so he was shot. I had no reason to suppose that his trial and exe- 
cution had been irregular, and I don't remember hearing any details. 
To the best of my recollection, it was only about this same time that 
Burkut Ali came to know more about it, and then not only were his 
convictions realised in respect of the losses that had befallen his rela- 
tives, but he learnt that his own brother, Surufraz Ali, had been 
executed as a mutineer, and a nephew, a lad of some twelve or fourteen 
years, had been shot also. ... In the following November I took leave 
to visit Delhi, then a centre of interest. Accompanied by Burkut Ali, 
I purposely took the route through Hurreeana, in order to visit Khur- 
khonda (Bisharut Ali's village), being anxious to gather there on the spot 
all the information I could. Hindoos and Mahomedans unanimously 
asserted that Bisharut Ali had never been away from the village since 
his arrival ; that neither he nor any one else there had been in rebellion ; 
and on the sudden and unexpected arrival of ihe troops, he had at 
once sent out milk and fruit to the camp, and gon<) himself by one way 
while Hodson and a party had entered the village by another, led, as 
they subsequently came to know, by one Shahaboodeen, a native of the 

This man had formerly served in my regiment, but had forfeited the 
service consequent upon a sentence of imprisonment (hard labour for two 
years) for violence to a superior officer. The principal witness against 
him had been the Eessaldar, Bisharut Ali, with whom he had been in 
deep enmity ever since his release from jail, and upon whom he took the 
opportunity of the times to have his revenge. With this object in view 
he laid false information before the authorities at Delhi, and, bringing 
Hodson to the spot, succeeded in carrying out his design to his heart's 

To return to the villagers' story. A party under Hodson's leadership 
was taken to a cluster of houses occupied by Bisharut Ali, his relations, 
and friends, where they demanded admittance. As is well known, the 
natives of India (and throughout the East) are scrupulously averse to 
admitting any one into their houses, on account of their women. They 

He had got his loan ; and that was all he wanted. But neither could he have had any 
motive for killing his surety, as such ! I asked General Chamberlain to explain. ' I 
used the word " security," ' he writes, ' but in fact B. A. arranged the loans with my 
banker.' He goes on to speak of ' monies lent to Bisharut Ali and by him lent to 
Hodson ; ' and in another letter he mentions the loan of 5,000 rupees, ' which Bisharut 
Ali negotiated and lent Hodson.' But of course I do not wish to be understood as en- 
dorsing what Burkut Ali said. 


not unnaturally objected to having their houses entered by troops, and 
resisted when forcible entrance was attempted. Fighting ensued ; lives 
were lost ; and prisoners made. On Hodson's return to camp, Bisharut 
Ali was made prisoner : he asserted- his innocence, and asked to be taken 
to Delhi to be tried, but without avail : he was sentenced to be shot, and, 
according to the testimony of the eye-witnesses, Hodson, on seeing some 
hesitation on the part of the firing party, fired at Bisharut Ah himself. 
The latter did not fall at once, but said, ' If I had expected this treachery, 
I would have fought it out instead of being killed like a dog.' His throat 
was cut as he lay on the ground. 

With respect to Burkut All's brother, Surufraz Ali, the villagers 
asserted that they made the most strenuous efforts to save his life. He 
had never been in Government employ, and had passed his life as the 
family land-agent. . . . His denial of rebellion and assertion of inno- 
cence were quite unavaihng, and on the statement of Shahaboodeen 
that he was Kote Duffadar (Pay Sergeant) of a regiment of Oudli Irregular 
Cavalry, he was sentenced to death and executed. His nephew, a lad of 
some twelve or fourteen years of age, loho ra7i and clung to him, hoping 
thus to shield him and save his life, was shot on him. This last circum- 
stance was stoutly maintained ! . . . This is a summary of the villagers' 
story ; and, happily for myself, it does not rest solely upon my memory : 
two living witnesses can corroborate it. 

Ere leaving Khurkhonda, I saw the lands and houses which had been 
confiscated consequent upon Hodson's operations, for I felt sure the 
Government of India would entertain an apphcation for their release. I 
am glad to say that, on the Chief Commissioner's recommendation, Bisharut 
All's lands were released at once in Burkut All's favour. ... I also ordered 
a monument to be placed over my friend's grave, for I could not but think 
that his death was not only undeserved, but as mercilessly carried out 
as it was barbarously planned. 

On my return to my regiment, I wrote officially to the officer then 
commanding the Guides, requesting him to procure me the fullest in- 
formation from native officers and men who had been employed under 
Hodson in this affair. After a long interval, receiving no reply, I wrote 
to him again. He sent a laconic answer, regretting that he had failed to 
elicit any information : but in pencil below his signature were a few lines 
to the effect that no one would open his mouth on the subject. 

Five years later, in the commencement of 1864, an opportunity 
suddenly presented itself for learning more of the matter of which I write. 
As I had to pass through Murdan, in Eusufzaie (the Guides' head- quarters) 
on my way from the camp at Umbeyla to Delhi, I asked the officer then 
in charge of Murdan if he would allow a certain native officer to accompany 
me some way towards Nowshera, as I was quite alone. He did so. After 
riding some distance, chatting upon general subjects, I suddenly pulled 

up, and said : * Now we are quite alone in this plain. God is above. 

I want you to tell me about Bisharut All's case. I tried to get information 
from your commanding officer officially, but failed because none of you 
would speak. You were there. Tell me all.' He was loth to speak. 
He said, ' Don't ask me. It is too dreadful to think about. You know 
Bisharut Ali was my great friend. I felt dreadfully pained at his terrible 



position and fate. I was afraid of his seeing me or of Hodson Sahib's 
doing so, for fear he should make use of me ; so I hid myself. No one 
can speak of that day,' — or words to that effect. Pressed for time, we 
parted ; and I carried away the firm conviction that his expressions and 
the extreme reticence of the men of the Guides fully confirmed the story 
I had heard from the villagers. 

In 1882 I came to learn, for the first time, the names of two British 
officers who had been with Hodson on the occasion, and at once wrote. 
Their replies did not enlighten me much. Both were engaged in the 
village with Hodson. Neither remember whether Bisharut Ali surrendered 
or was captured : but both speak decidedly as to his having made no 
resistance to the troops. One was especially struck by his brave bearing 
when a prisoner. One says that a sort of trial was held by Hodson ; the 
other calls it a ' drumhead court-martial.' Neither was present at it or 
at the execution. Both considered he ' had failed in his duty as an officer 
and soldier ; ' and the general opinion was that the sentence and execution 
were just. 

This is all the evidence I have ever been able to gather on the subject. 
The fact that those officers were engaged with Hodson in the village 
leaves intact the statement about Bisharut Ali going to the camp, and 
sending milk and fruit ; for they were with the party which went in by 
one way whilst he went out by another. As regards the fighting, there 
is the villagers' statement that Shahaboodeen led the troops to the house 
in which the officers say, ' rebels had taken refuge.' Kebels they were no 
doubt believed to be ; but 07ily because Shahaboodeen said so. They were 
not so in fact ; and they never would have fought but for the reason 
already explained. They were where every man has a right to be, viz. in 
their own houses. 

I now come to the main point, viz. Bisharut Ali's attitude. Was he 
a rebel ? And how did he fail in his duty as an officer and a soldier ? 

As a man of much local authority and position, he could no doubt, if 
so willed, have caused serious trouble : for the furlough men of the 
Irregular Cavalry were at their homes throughout Hurreeana. Khur- 
khonda, a large village, contained many of them ; but, so far as I heard, 
none suffered, on that eventful day, except Bisharut Ali, his relations 
and friends ! This in no way proves that he or they were rebels ; but it 
establishes the fact that they were made the victims of a deep scheme. I 
am sure that all the officers and men of the expedition fully believed that 
they were going to meet mutineers in open rebellion, and therefore guilty 
in their eyes, when they started from Delhi. There has never been any 
question as to the troops being opposed on arrival at Khurkhonda ; and 
the officers state that Bisharut Ali made no resistance. Whence, then, 
comes proof of his rebellion ? The utmost that has been advanced against 
him is that, as an officer of position and authority in the service of the 
Government, he did not do as he was bound to do, viz., give aid against 
the rebels. Why did he not do so ? First, because they were not rebels. 
Secondly, because they were his own relatives and friends, who were 
defending their houses. In fact, the whole of the (so-called) evidence 
against him is of a negative character throughout. He did nothing. 

Having known him intimately for eight years, I am able to speak of 


him as a brave, quiet, determined man, who, if a rebel, would have been 
a dangerous one, instead of remaining, as he did, unsuspiciously in his 
village, within striking distance from Delhi. Would not the conduct of 
a rebel at heart have been the very opposite of this ? Would he not have 
fought for his life ? One of the officers was especially struck by his 
brave bearing when a prisoner. Does not this speak more for his 
innocence than for his guilt ? Does it not confirm my estimate of his 
character, as also my conclusions in respect of what he would have done 
as a rebel? An innocent mind can meet death more calmly than a 
;guilty one. Moreover, the accusation of treachery, which he is asserted 
to have made when wounded, seems to me in favour of his innocence. 

And now as regards the trial. It will be seen that Hodson held it. I 
must here recall the fact that Burkut Ah, on hearing of Bisharut All's 
■death, at once predicted that Hodson had done it ' to wipe out the debt.' 
I now explain what he meant. Hodson was well known to Bisharut Ali, 
who was with me morning and evening as native adjutant, and who for 
years was my constant companion, being the best company in a native I 
had known. My friends were his friends. One day when Hodson sent 
me an urgent application for a large sum of money on loan, 4,000 or 5,000 
rupees (400Z. or 500Z.) I declined to give my banker any verbal endorse- 
ment, lest I should be held responsible ; but Bisharut Ali arranged it at 
once, and, as I afterwards learnt, stood security. Subsequently, when 
Hodson was very hard pressed for cash, to settle urgent claims against him 
(during the sittings of a Court of Enquiry to investigate certain matters 
connected with his command of the Guides), Bisharut Ali again stood his 
friend with my banker ; and a considerable sum was due to the latter 
from Hodson, when the latter was killed at Lucknow. ... I am fully 
certain that the officers generally believed in the justice of Bisharut All's 
sentence, because Hodson told them he knew him well. Yes, well indeed ! 
And I of course feel that no one there knew the relation in which Bisharut 
Ali stood to the so-called rebels. . . . Had there been a regular trial, 
Bisharut All's life would not have been taken then and there ; nor would 
such a miscarriage of justice have occurred as the death of Surrufraz Ah, 
the family accountant. It ought to have been impossible, in face of the 
villagers' endeavours to save his life. Even now one wishes one could 
discredit the story of his death, still more so that of the iad who was 
killed with him ; but no room is left for so doing, for Burkut Ali found 
the painful blanks in his family circle. ... I have made every endeavour 
since 1857 to ascertain the true story. What has been obtained subsequent 
to the villagers' account has confirmed rather than shaken the latter. 
But if any officer who was actually present at the execution will now affirm 
that Hodson did not fire at Bisharut Ali, and that his throat was not cut, 
I will gladly accept his assurance. C. Chambjjklain. 

I will now expose the worthlessness of the evidence ailduced by 
Major- General Mitford. The following correspondence, which was 
published in the Army and Navy Gazette of 6 and 12 July, and of 
2, 9, and 23 August 1890, proves that no Hookum Sini^^b can be 
discovered or can be shown to have ever existed ' who was present 
with the detachment when Bisharut Ali was executed.' 

F 2 



To the Editor of the ' Army and Navy Gazette.' 

Sir, — May I ask you to publish this letter, to which I invite the 
attention of Major-Gen. E. C. W. Eeveley Mitford ? A review of my 
' Four Famous Soldiers,' which appeared in the Athenceum of 31 Aug. 1889, 
contained the following statement : — ' Gen. Mitford informs us, that 
Ressaldar Hookum Singh, of Hodson's Horse, " told me, some four years 
ago, that he was present with the detachment when Bisharut Ali was 
executed, and that he and all those with him were thoroughly satisfied 
that Bisharut AH was a rebel and thoroughly deserved death." ' 

After reading the review, Gen. Crawford Chamberlain, from whose 
investigations I had derived my knowledge of the circumstances of 
Bisharut Ah's execution, communicated with Col. Morris, commanding 
1st Bengal Cavalry. There was, as Gen. Chamberlain was aware, a 
Hookum Singh belonging to the 1st Irregular Cavalry, who was attached 
to the Intelligence Department, under Major Hodson, at Delhi ; but, as 
Col. Morris ascertained from an examination of the regimental records, 
he died at Jullundhur on 18 Oct. 1858. This man, then, was not Gen. 
Mitford's informant. Col. Morris subsequently wrote to Col. Eobertson, 
commanding 9th Bengal Lancers (late 1st Eegt. Hodson's Horse), and 
to Col. Strong, commanding 10th Benga^ Lancers (late 2nd Eegt. 
Hodson's Horse). He asked each of these officers whether (1) there 
was in his regiment, at the time of the Indian Mutiny, a man called 
Hookum Singh, and whether he was present at the siege of Delhi ; 
(2) whether the said Hookum Singh was present at the execution of 
Bisharut Ali at Khurkonda ; (3) whether the same Hookum Singh 
was in the regiment four years before (i.e., in 1885) ; (4) if so, what 
was his rank at the time ; and (5) where he was then (November 1889) 
living. Col. Eobertson replied that there was, in January 1858, a ressaldar 
named Hookum Singh in the 1st Eegt. Hodson's Horse, who was not 
present at the siege of Delhi, and retired on pension on 10 Feb. 1887^ 
This Hookum Singh did not enlist until after the siege of Delhi. In 
February last he was living at Philloke, in the district of Gujranwala. 
Col. Morris wrote to the Deputy-Commissioner of the district ; and 
Hookum Singh, having been personally interrogated by the Extra- 
Assistant- Commissioner, stated that he did not accompany the detachment 
of his regiment which visited Khurkonda, and that he was therefore not 
present at the execution of Bisharut Ali. Col. Strong replied that at 
the time of the Mutiny there was in the 2nd Eegt. Hodson's Horse a 
man named Hookum Singh ; that he was then a sowar, 36 years old ; 
that he was not present at the execution of Bisharut Ali, and did not 
remember having gone to Khurkonda ; and that he was pensioned in 
1876 as a sowar. Neither Col. Eobertson nor Col. Strong mentioned any 
other Hookum Singh. I have seen the original letters of Cols, Morris, 
Eobertson, and Strong, regarding Eessaldar Hookum Singh and the 
pensioned sowar Hookum Singh, as well as the official docket of the 
Extra- Assistant-Commissioner of Gujranwala. The result of the searching 
enquiries which I have described is that no Hookum Singh can be dis- 


covered, or can be shown to have ever existed, who was ' present with the 
detachment when Bisharut Ali was executed.' But Gen. Mitford will 
•doubtless explain. — I am, &c., T. R. E. Holmes. 

10 Eldon Road, W., 17 June. 

To the Editor of tJie ' Army and Navy Gazette.' 

Sir,— My attention having been called to a letter in your issue of the 5th 
inst., headed ' Bisharut Ali,' I beg to state in reply that the * Hookum Singh ' 
referred to was a Ressaldar in the 9th Bengal Cavalry, formerly the 1st 
Regt. of Hodson's Horse. — I am, &c., 

R. C. W. Reveley Mitfobd, Major-Gen. 

Wellington Club, Grosvenor Place, S.W., 11 July. 

To the Editor of the ' Army and Navy Gazette.' 

Sir, — In the brief letter regarding Bisharut Ali which appeared in 
your issue of 12 July, Gen. Mitford stated that the Hookum Singh who 
told him ' that he was present with the detachment when Bisharut Ali 
was executed, and that he and all those with him were thoroughly 
satisfied that Bisharut Ali was a rebel and thoroughly deserved death,' 
was a ressaldar of the 9th Bengal Lancers (late 1st Regt. Hodson's Horse). 
A reference to my letter which appeared in your issue of 5 July will show 
that, according to the testimony of Col. Robertson, the commanding officer 
of his regiment, this ressaldar did not even enlist until after the execution of 
Bisharut Ali, and that, having been personally interrogated by the Extra- 
Assistant-Commissioner of Gujranwala, he himself stated that he did not 
accompany the detachment of his regiment which visited Khurkonda, and 
that he was therefore not present at the execution of Bisharut Ah. It 
follows that the information which Gen. Mitford communicated to the 
gentleman who reviewed my 'Four Famous Soldiers ' in the AthencBum 
was absolutely incorrect. That information was calculated to throw 
discredit on my account of Bisharut Ali's execution. It is to be regretted 
that Gen. Mitford did not think it necessary to test it by applying to Col. 
Robertson ; and it is still more to be regretted that, after I had proved it 
to be incorrect, he did not think it necessary to apologise for having 
allowed it to be published.— I am, &c., T. R. E. Holmes. 

10 Eldon Road, W., 31 July. 

To the Editor of the ' Army and Navy Gazette.' 

Sir, — I had not intended to pay any further attention to Mr. Holmes, 
but I must thank him for his letter in your issue of the 2nd inst. This 
production commences with a misquotation and continues in a strain of 
ill-disguised impertinence which only serves to accentuate the malevolence 
he has shown throughout his unjust, unmanly, and utterly uncalled-for 
attack on the memory of a most gallant officei? and true gentleman, who 
•crowned a most brilhant career with a soldier's death. — I am, &c., 

R. C. W. Reveley Mitford. 


To the Editor of the * Army and Navy Gazette.' 

Sir, — I am compelled, much against my inclination, to trouble you 
with another letter. It is a pity that Gen. Mitford has resorted to 
personalities, for they tend to obscure the question at issue. An officer 
of his standing ought not to need to be told that irrelevant abuse is a 
poor substitute for argument. The question is simply this, — I allege against 
Gen. Mitford that he made to the gentleman who reviewed my ' Four 
Famous Soldiers' in the Athenceum a statement calculated to throw 
discredit upon an important passage in the book ; that the information 
upon which that statement was based was wholly incorrect ; and that 
Gen. Mitford has neither said a word to show that it was true, nor 
apologised for having allowed it to be published. Here are the facts : 
Gen. Mitford told my reviewer that Eessaldar Hookum Singh, of Hodson's 
Horse, had told him ' some four years ago that he was present with the 
detachment when Bisharut Ali was executed, and that he and all those 
with him were thoroughly satisfied that Bisharut Ali was a rebel, and 
thoroughly deserved death.' I proved, in my letter of 5 July, upon the 
evidence of Cols. Eobertson and Strong, commanding respectively 9th' 
and 10th Bengal Lancers (late 1st and 2nd Kegts. Hodson's Horse), that 
no Hookum Singh could be discovered, or could be shown to have ever 
existed, who ' was present with the detachmimt when Bisharut Ali was 
executed.' I asked Gen. Mitford to explain, me was bound to do one 
of two things : either to show that Cols. Kt^bertson and Strong were 
mistaken, or to admit that he had himself committed a gross blunder, and 
to apologise. He did neither. He merely stated that the Hookum Singh 
referred to was a ressaldar of the 9th Bengal Lancers. But, according tO' 
the testimony of the colonel of that regiment, the only Ressaldar Hookum 
Singh who, up to the period of which Gen. Mitford spoke, had ever belonged 
to it, did not even enter the service until after the execution of Bisharut 
Ali ; and, as I showed in my letter of 5 July, the said ressaldar has 
informed the Extra-Assistant-Commissioner of Gujranwala that he was 
not present at the execution of Bisharut Ali. 

In his last letter. Gen. Mitford said that I had begun my letter of the 
previous Saturday -svith ' a misquotation.' As a matter of fact, I began 
by remarking that Gen. Mitford, in his letter dated 11 July, had stated 
that the Hookum Singh who told him ' that he was present with the 
detachment when Bisharut Ali was executed, and that he and all those 
with him were thoroughly satisfied that Bisharut Ali was a rebel and 
thoroughly deserved death,' was a ressaldar of the 9th Bengal Lancers. 
Gen. Mitford's actual words were, to the best of my recollection, that 
' the|Hookum Singh referred to was a ressaldar of the 9th Bengal Lancers,* 
&c. Now, if * the Hookum Singh referred to ' was not the Hookum Singh 
who, as Gen. Mitford says, gave him information about the execution of 
Bisharut Ali, will Gen. Mitford be good enough to say who he was ? No 
other Hookum Singh was in question. To avoid a tedious and needless 
circumlocution, I used an expression which, to any one but Gen. Mitford, 
must have been perfectly clear. He cannot deny that in substance it was 
accurate. Why, then, does he waste time by cavilling at its form ? 

I now ask Gen. Mitford this final question. Does he, or does he not,. 


admit that the evidence of Cols. Eobertson and Strong and of Kessaldar 
Hookum Singh, as recorded by the Extra- Assistant- Commissioner of 
Gujranwala, is correct — in other words, that no Hookum Singh was 
present at the execution of Bisharut AH ? If he does not, how does he 
propose to invahdate their testimony ? If he does, why has he shrunk — 
he who is so indignant at what he thinks ' unmanly ' — from admitting 
that he was in error, and apologising ? — I am, &c., 

T. K. E. Holmes. 
Crianlarich Hotel, Perthshire, 20 Aug. 

To this last letter Major-General Mitford has made no reply. 
That being the case, he will not be surprised that I am sceptical 
about Zari Singh. Assuming, however, that Zari Singh has been 
correctly reported, I may say this much. First of all, as he was 
by his own admission a boy at the time of Bisharut Ali's execution, 
his testimony cannot outweigh the unanimous testimony of the 
Hindoos and Mahometans from whom General Chamberlain derived 
his information. Secondly, he has tried to prove too much. For 
if, as he said, Bisharut Ali ' kept ostensibly on good terms with the 
authorities and hoodwinked them,' how was it that he was charged 
by Hodson with not communicating with the authorities ? ^'^ 

But I must repeat that, as I have demolished the alleged state- 
ment of Hookum Singh, I should require very strong evidence be- 
fore I could accept the alleged statement of Zari Singh. 

It is hardly necessary to notice Mr. Hodson's plea that, ' even 
if on j)rivate grounds, in remembrance of past obligations, he might 
have been inclined to spare him, public considerations required 
sharp and speedy justice. The very existence of our Empire was 
trembling in the balance.' Mr. Hodson cannot mean seriously to 
argue that, if Hodson had granted Bisharut Ali's request to be 
taken to Delhi for trial, the existence of the Empire would have 
been imperilled. 

His attempt to discredit my narrative by appealing to Sir H. 
Norman's * History of the Siege of Delhi ' is equally futile. ' At 
Kohtuck,' says Sir Henry, ' Hodson managed to surprise and nearly 
to destroy a party of mutineers, irregular cavalry, sowars of dif- 
ferent regiments, including Eessaldar Bisharut Ali, who was taken 
and shot.' Now Bisharut Ali was not killed at Kohtuck at all, but 
at Khurkondah, — his own village. Moreover, Sir H. Norman was 
not present at the execution : his narrative was a contemporary 
one (it was written in 1857), and only alluded to the affau* of 
Bisharut AH in the briefest way ; and he therefore could only have 
derived his information on this particular point, directly or indi- 
rectly, from Hodson's official report, or from his oral testimony. 
Mr. Hodson goes on to say that his brother mentions ' that one of 
the men killed was a brute of the 14th Irregular Cavalry, who com- 

*• Manuscript memorandum by General C. Chamberlain.) 


mitted such butchery at Jhansi ; ' and he remarks, ' There certainly 
is a strong presumption against the innocence of a man found in 
such company.' Now reference to Mr. Hodson's book (pp. 201-4) 
will show that Bisharut Ali was not in the ' brute's ' company at 
all ! Bisharut Ali was killed at Khurkondah on 15 August. The 

* brute ' was killed at Khotuh, sixteen miles off, three days later. 
What, then, becomes of Mr. Hodson's ' strong presumption ' ? 


* We are asked,' says the Saturday Revieiver, ' to believe that 
Hodson was a plunderer.' 

The published evidence in support of the charge that Hodson 
was a plunderer is as follows : — (1) the statement of General 
Pelham Burn, who saw Hodson's boxes of loot, when Hodson ac- 
companied him from Futtehgurh to take part in the siege of 
Lucknow ; ^^ (2) the statement of General Sir H. Daly, K.C.B., 
whose duty it was, after Hodson's death, to open his trunks before 
the committee of adjustment examined them, and who saw in those 
trunks what he himself described as ' loads of loot ; ' *^ (3) the state- 
ment of General Sir Neville Chamberlain, G.C.B., that ' in my 
opinion and in the general opinion of those I \Ws then associated with, 
both he and his men were considered to have been prominent in loot- 
ing ; ' and that ' in Major Hodson's camp was to be seen a miscellaneous 
collection of animals and conveyances of various kinds, and these 
could not have been brought together without his knowledge and 
sanction ; ' ^^ (4) the statement of Captain Light, who served at 
the siege of Delhi, that Hodson was * the most notorious looter 
in the whole army ; ' *" (5) the remark, oft repeated, of General 
Archdale Wilson, who commanded the Delhi Field Force — * Poor 
Hodson, he must be killed in looting some day ; ' ^' (6) the state- 
ment of a general officer to Mr. Bosworth Smith, that he ' saw 
Hodson on his way to the storm,' — of the Begum Kothee at 
Lucknow, — * to which his duty did not call him.' '^^ * Behind him,' 
continued this eye-witness, * came an orderly with a large haver- 
sack, which could be wanted only for purposes of plunder. He was 
killed forcing open the door to what was then believed to be the 
treasure room. Every one in camp knew that Hodson had gone 
to plunder ; ' ^^ (7) the statement of Major W. Forbes, who writes, 

* Hodson was a mauvais sujet ; but Mr. Bosworth Smith is mistaken 
in supposing that he was killed in the act of looting. If he had 
lived three minutes longer, however, he certainly would have died 

" Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 518. 

« lb. « lb. p. 523. *« lb. p. 519. *' lb. 

*' The fact that ' his duty did not call him ' to the Begum Kothee is corroborated 
by Sir Henry Norman, Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 529. ** lb. p. 520. 


in the act. This I know on authority which cannot be disputed ; ' '^^ 
<8) a statement made to me by a general officer who served on 
Sir Gohn Campbell's staff, — which, however, is of course not sus- 
ceptible of proof,— that it was well known in camp that Hodson had 
a list of all the places at Delhi and Lucknow where valuable plunder 
was to be got ; (9) the statement of General Sir H. Norman, 
G.C.B., that Hodson, who, as his brother has admitted, was, at 
the outset of the mutiny, deeply in debt, did, in an underhand way, 
remit in January 1858 several thousand pounds to Calcutta. 

' The facts of the remittance ' [writes Sir Henry] ' were as follows. 
Hodson' s regiment, like most others at the time, was largely in arrears of 
pay, and, soon after it reached the Headquarters' camp at Futtehghur, in 
January 1858, Hodson came to me as Adjutant-General, and, having 
represented to me that his men were in distress for want of funds, asked 
for authority to draw a sum of money on account from the regimental 
■chest. The amount he asked for was large, but I satisfied myself that it was 
within the sum then actually due to the regiment, so I issued authority 
for it to be paid. Upon the officer in charge of the military chest sub- 
mitting to me his next weekly statement of cash in hand, I was surprised 
to find that his balance had only been slightly reduced during the week 
notwithstanding the large advance authorised for Hodson's Horse. The 
officer in charge explained to me that Hodson had taken the advance 
mainly, if not altogether, in bills, which to the best of my recollection, 
were drawn on the Treasury at Calcutta. I was somewhat alarmed at 
hearing this, and at once instituted a private inquiry, which resulted in 
my ascertaining that, although the money had been taken by Hodson in 
bills, the men had received their payment in rupees. The conclusion I 
then formed was that Hodson had a large sum of money in his possession 
at the time he asked for an advance, that this money was his own property, 
and that he took advantage of this opportunity for remitting his money 
to a place of security. As the men had received their money, there was, 
of course, no fraud on them or on the public, and I had no reason for 
taking proceedings against Hodson ; but the occurrence made a strong 
impression on my mind, and led me to believe that there was truth in the 
common belief in camp that Hodson had freely availed himself of the 
many opportunities for plundering which must have presented themselves 
to him. . . . the largeness of the amount quite startled me. It was 
certainly several thousand pounds.' ''•' 

Mr. Hodson's comment on Mr. Bosworth Smith's original 
summary of this last piece of evidence is worth quoting. 

' I was able ' [he says] (pp. Ixi-lxii) to trace back this story to its 
origin. The only foundation for this fresh calumny is that when Hodson 
applied to the paymaster. Captain Tombs, for two months' pay for his 
regiment, R. 60,000, which was sanctioned by Gen. Mansfield, the 
chief of the staff, he asked to have it in the form of bills on Calcutta, as 
these were in great request at that time with the up-country bankers 

** Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 520-21. " lb. p. 527. 


from whom he drew money for his men. That they were duly paid 
all allow.' 

Yes, of course they were duly paid. But what has that got 
to do with the matter 9 Is Mr. Hodson unable to understand 
Sir H. Norman's letter? If not, why does he ignore the all- 
important fact that, * although the money had been taken by 
Hodson in bills, the men had received their payment in rupees ; ' and 
that, as the paymaster's cash balance 'had been only slightly 
reduced during the week,' notwithstanding the large advance 
authorised for Hodson's Horse, those 60,000 rupees must have been 
paid by Hodson out of money in his oicn possession. As the men 
received their payment, there and then, in rupees, Mr. Hodson's 
contention about the ' up-country bankers ' falls flat. I need hardly 
say that Hodson would not, unless he had been insane, have 
resorted to so roundabout a way of obtaining the cash which he 
was authorised to draw direct from the military chest. Mr. Hodson 
first published this comment in a letter to the editors of the 
National Review (Nov. 1884) i^/or<? the appearance of Sir H. Norman's 
letter. He has read that letter since. Ltoes he believe it ? If so, 
why does he reprint a comment whicn can serve no purpose 
except that of misleading his readers ? \ 

I am confident that every candid reader will admit that the 
nine items of evidence which I have stated, taken together, are 
strong enough to condemn a man in a criminal prosecution. 
Dr. Luard's reply to this overwhelming consensus of testimony is 
simply, ' that all his property (save horses) was sold at his death for 
170Z.' *^ I must take leave to say that this is no reply at all. The fact 
that the personal effects which an officer who died on active service 
had in his possession at the time of his death were sold for so much,, 
in no way proves that he was not worth so much more, in hard cash, 
in securities or what not. Mr. Hodson admits (p. xxxvii), that, during 
the mutiny, his brother made * a very large profit ' by the sale of 
prize cattle. Let us admit that this was an honourable transaction. 
How was Dr. Luard to know that Hodson did not make ' a very 
large profit ' in more questionable ways ? Anyhow there is Sir 
Henry Norman's damnatory letter. Either it is true or it is not. 
If it is true, as coming from Sir Henry it must be, then Hodson, 
who is admitted to have been heavily in debt in 1857, must have 
had in his possession at least 60,000 rupees in January 1858. 
Mr. Hodson's reply is (1) that Sir Thomas Seaton, who was prize- 
agent at Delhi, told him that Hodson was not a plunderer, and (2) 
that Hodson died a poor man. Seaton was, next to Lord Napier 
of Magdala, Hodson's best friend. His negative statement avails 
nothing against the numerous positive statements which I have 

*• Dictionary of National Biography, xxvii. 76. 


quoted. Undoubtedly he could have spoken as to the amount of 
plunder which Hodson handed over to him : but it was not in his 
power to eay that Hodson kept back nothing from him. The 
statement that * he died quite a poor man ' is a loose one ; and it is 
obviously impossible for an outsider to test it : but it cannot avail 
against the damning statements which I have quoted, especially 
those of Sir Henry Norman and Sir Neville Chamberlain. Were 
such statements, in such number, and on such authority, ever yet 
made against an innocent man ? 


* Last ' [says the Saturday Bevietver] ' comes the story that Hodson 
spared the King's life for a bribe. For proof of this we have, first, Mr. 
Holmes's conviction, based on such evidence as we have examined already, 
that Hodson was not the man to spare the King unless he had been bribed ; 
then the word of a distinguished anonymous officer, who will reveal 
himself, if required, and who had the story from the Queen. It is rather 
difficult to keep one's temper at the sight of such "evidence "as this. 
The distinguished officer can only answer for what the queen told him. 
She is the authority and the only one for the charge against Hodson. 
We are expected to believe that an English officer who was so believed 
in as Hodson was, was a bribe-taker on the mere unsupported word of 
an angry native woman. Such allegations are the merest trash. 

If the reviewer cannot keep his temper at the sight of the 
fragment of evidence which he has distorted, what must have been 
the effect upon his temper of the mass of evidence which he has 
suppressed ? Here is the real evidence for my * trash.' (1) The 
* distinguished officer ' is General Sir Donald Stewart, G.C.B., late 
commander-in-chief in India. He saw with his own eyes the 
unauthorised guarantee, which Hodson gave to the queen, and which 
he attested with his signature. He states, — and it is of the utmost 
importance to mark this, — that the guarantee had been given before 
the royal family left the palace of Delhi ; that is to say, before 
Hodson asked General Wilson for permission to promise the king 
his life. The late Mr. C. B. Saunders, who succeeded Hervey 
Greathed at Delhi, and knew Hodson well, also saw the guarantee. 
Neither he nor Sir Donald had the faintest doubt of the genuineness 
of the signature. (2) Hodson did undoubtedly give guarantees for 
their lives to some of the greatest criminals in Delhi ; and in a 
letter to General Wilson, printed on p. xxxiii of Mr. Hodson's book, 
he denied that he had done so. Sir John Lawrence was asked 
by Saunders whether these guarantees should be respected or not. 
He replied : * As regards Hodson's guarantees, I think they must be 
respected, no matter binder ivhat influence they were given. He was 
allowed great power by the commander-in-chief and his successors, 
and if he abused it, this is between him and his conscience.^ ^'' (3) The 
*' Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 166. The italics ara mine. 


fact of Hodson's having given his unauthorised guarantee of the 
king's life explains the otherwise unaccountable persistency with 
which, on 21 Sept. 1857, he importuned General Wilson to allow 
him to promise the king his life. This importunity is attested by 
Sir Donald (then Captain) Stewart and by Colonel (then Lieutenant) 
J. E. TurnbuU. Both were present when Hodson asked "Wilson for 
permission to go and capture the king; and both have described 
the interview to me.^* Sir Donald could not understand Hodson's 
persistency at the time : but afterwards, when he saw the guarantee, 
all became clear. Hodson was obliged to urge Wilson to let him 
jyromise the king his life, because he was conscious of having already 
promised it himself. It is true that he alleged, as his reason for 
making this request, that he could not otherwise induce the king to 
surrender. But he did not think it necessary to make any such 
request in the case of the princes. (4) I have proved that Hodson 
did give the king a guarantee of his life before the royal family 
left the palace of Delhi ; and I have also proved that he was not 
authorised to give that guarantee. , I would not insult the 
intelligence of readers by demonstrating* the obvious fact that he 
did not give it out of charity. But, as\neither Mr. Hodson nor 
the Saturday Revieiver can see this, I am compelled to explain. By 
availing himself of the opportunity which his position as head of 
the Intelligence Department afforded him for communicating with 
the rebels to give an unauthorised guarantee of safety to the king, 
Hodson committed a gross breach of trust. I suppose that neither 
Mr. Hodson nor the Saturday Reviewer will have the hardihood to 
deny that, if it had been discovered, he would have been liable to 
be brought before a court-martial. Is it credible that he would 
have run such a risk without securing a quid pro quo ? 


On p. 209 of my book, describing the capture of the king and 
queen of Delhi by Hodson, I wrote, * The queen had with her about 
seven thousand rupees ; and this sum Hodson appropriated.' 
Commenting on this, my reviewer in the Athenceum (21 Sept. 1889) 
writes, ' It is true that he took that sum, but he handed it over to 
the prize-agent ; ' and Mr. Hodson (p. lix) says, ' the money, what- 
ever it was, was handed over to the prize-agent.' No proof is 
offered of this statement ; and I am obliged to say plainly that I do 
not believe it. I do not believe it, partly because, in the face of the 
overwhelming proof which I have adduced of Hodson's looting, it is 
incredible. The prize-agent was Sir Thomas Seaton. Is Mr. 
Hodson prepared to prove that Sir Thomas stated that Hodson 
handed over to him the money which he took from the queen ? If 

** See Four Famous Soldiers, p. 208, note. 


Sir Thomas did say so, I think it would be generally considered 
that he committed a breach of duty in accepting the money. 
I do not profess to have any special knowledge of international 
law : but I have not been able to discover in any treatise on the 
subject that money found on the person of an individual in the 
position of the queen of Delhi, and intended merely for personal 
expenses, comes under the head of booty of war.-^^ But tell the sur- 
viving officers who served in the siege of Delhi that Hodson handed 
over this money to the prize- agent, and they will laugh in your face. 
There is one other remark of Mr. Hodson's to which I must 
call attention. 'I have,' he writes (p. Ixxi), 'read carefully Mr. 
Smith's reply to my vindication, with the letters of his correspon- 
dents, and I see no reason for retracting or modifying anything 
that I have written. . . . Mr. Smith has proved that those who 
bore enmity against Hodson and tried to injure him when alive do 
so still.' Consider what this means. Mr. Hodson is aglow with 
indignation against those whom he regards as the calumniators of 
his brother. But here he shows himself to be a calumniator on a 
magnificent scale, — a calumniator of men against whose honour no 
one had ever before breathed a syllable. If these words of his are 
to be taken seriously, they can only mean that he regards these 
men as liars, — liars who have lied deliberately in order to blast the 
reputation of a dead comrade. As I have already written,^'' * Mr. 
Bosworth Smith's appendix is based upon first-hand information 
from honourable, impartial, and able men, who had seen with 
their own eyes, heard with their own ears, or learned from the 
study of original papers or the cross-examination of eye-witnesses 
the facts for which they vouched.' Some of them have, of their 
own personal knowledge, made, both to Mr. Bosworth Smith and 
to me, statements, most damaging to Hodson's rej^utation, which it 
is impossible to explain away, impossible to refute, except on the 
absurd hypothesis that they are deliberate falsehoods. Let Mr. 
Hodson show the courage of his opinions, and name any one of Mr. 
Bosworth Smith's correspondents who ever showed enmity to his 
brother, or ever tried to injure him when alive .^^ 

»» In the Manual of Military Law (pp. 312-13 [ed. 1887]) I find the following 
definition : ' The property of the enemy, whether public or private, found on the field 
of battle, in a camp taken by assault, or a town delivered up to pillage, forms spoils 
of war under the name of booty.' The money taken by Hodson comes under none of 
these heads. 

'" Four Famous Soldiers, p. 226. 

" Dr. Luard, in his bibliographical note, asserts that I 'give implicit credit to 
whatever Hodson's enemies said of him, while neglecting the testimony of such friends 
as Lord Napier of Magdala.' This assertion is partly untrue and wholly misleading. 
So far from neglecting the testimony of Hodson's friends, I gave prominence to the 
testimony which Sir Henry Lawrence and Sir Thomas Seaton bore in his favour. The 
testimony of Lord Napier I was obliged to neglect, because it was overborne by that of 
others who had personal knowledge of the facts. Moreover, his testinony did not 


Nay more, if Mr. Hodson only knew it, he has branded Eeynell 
Taylor himself, whom he claims for his brother's champion, as a 
liar ! for he persists in asserting that Hodson * appealed against 
the verdict of the court of enquiry,' that Taylor was ordered by the 
government of the Punjaub to hear his appeal, and that ' he drew 
up a report completely vindicating Hodson on all the charges ; ' and 
he asserts this in the face of Taylor's own statement that he and his 
assessor only acted as ' a voluntary committee,' ^^ that he 'had no 
power to revise any finding of the court,' and that he * was merely 
ordered to examine and report on the state of the regimental 

Mr. Hodson has no scruple about printing his vindication 
exactly as he printed it in 1883, although divers statements in it are 
demolished by the testimony of eye-witnesses or of actors in the 
events to which it alludes : he persists in saying (p. xxxviii) that he 
has the authority of Sir Donald Stewart for making a certain state- 
ment in behalf of his brother, although, as he must have read on 
p. 226 of my ' Four Famous Soldiers,' I have in my possession a 
letter from Sir Donald, in which he writes, ' You are welcome to 
say that Mr. Hodson had no authority io quote me at all in his 
introductory remarks.' 

As Mr. Hodson still insists that his brother was the victim of a 

* cHque,' let me refer my readers to the ' Life of Lord Lawrence '^^ 
for a long list of the distinguished men who composed that ' clique.' 

* Mr, Holmes,' complains Mr. Hodson (p. Ixx), * follows Mr. Smith 
in quietly assuming that his view of Hodson's character was shared 
by all those who knew him in India, and Anglo-Indians generally.' I 
have not written a word which could give Mr. Hodson the right to 
say this : but, if he will substitute ' proving ' for * assuming ' and 

* nearly all ' for ' all,' I shall be willing to accept his words. 

* Personally,' writes Sir Charles Aitchison to Mr. Bos worth 
Smith,**^ ' I never knew Hodson. But among the many I have known 
who knew him intimately, there is but one opinion about him, — 
a splendid leader of irregular horse, but a most unscrupulous man. 
Your estimate of him is admitted by almost every one to be correct.' 

touch the majority of the charges brought against Hodson. The persons upon whose 
testimony I made statements adverse to Hodson were as follows : Lord Dalhousie, 
the late Sir Herbert Edwardes, Sir Donald Stewart, Sir Henry Norman, Sir Henry 
Daly, Sir Neville Chamberlain, General Crawford Chamberlain, General Pelham Burn, 
General C. J. Godby, Captain Light, Dr. Hathaway, Dr. Farquhar, the late Sir 
Archdale Wilson, the late Sir George Lawrence, and the late Mr. C. B. Saunders. 
Readers will have judged for themselves whether I am right in believing the statements 
of these honourable gentlemen. To call them enemies of Hodson is a calumny. In 
a letter which I have just received, General Chamberlain says, ' I never sought to dis- 
credit Hodson, but I certainly hold it to be wrong to refuse to assist in getting facts 

«* Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 517. 

" lb. ii. 604. •* lb. ii. 504, note. 


'All of the mutiny men,' writes Mr. A. Lawrence, Commissioner 
of Allahabad, * are with you, except a few personal friends.' 
' The common opinion,' writes Sir Neville Chamberlain,''^ * held in 
the Punjaub was that he was not clean-handed. . . I know of no 
other instance in which suspicion of the kind was attached to any 
other officer in the Punjaub. If this judgment was the outcome of 
malevolence, jealousy or prejudice, or any unworthy motive, why did 
the imputation prevail only against Hodson ? I believe that every 
one who has served in India will admit that an imputation of the 
kind is never lightly propagated.' Even General Eeynell Taylor 
writes, regarding the slaughter of the princes of Delhi, ' I have 
never admitted that their death was necessitated by the danger of 
rescue. I have never had any other idea than that Hodson, in his 
extra energy, looked to the campaign to repair his fortunes, and 
that he carried it on in ways that other men would not think of 
or join in.'^^ 

One word more. The readers of the * Dictionary of National 
Biography ' have a right to expect that every precaution shall be 
taken to ensure its trustworthiness. If the character of Major 
Hodson deserved to be vindicated in its pages, would it not have 
been more satisfactory to his friends if the vindication had been 
the work of some writer whose impartiality was above temptation 
and above suspicion ? That Dr. Luard believed every word that 
he wrote, his high character is a sufficient guarantee. But, if he 
•could have brought himself to write impartially of his own brother- 
in-law, against whom the gravest charges had been deliberately 
made, from their own knowledge, by men of unquestioned honour, 
he would have been more or less than man. 

And now I have done. Let me ask the reader to note that, 
according to the Saturday Review, which has recently (30 Nov. 
1890) informed us that it is ' especially jealous of its historical 
accuracy,' the evidence against Hodson is ' from first to last pure 
assertion.' I have established that much of that evidence is strong 
enough to secure a legal verdict, and that the weakest parts of it are 
strong enough to secure a verdict in the court of history. 

T. R. E. Holmes. 

«» Life of Lord Lawrence, ii. 622. «■ lb. p. 507, note. 

80 Jan. 

Notes a7id Docitme7its 


FiNLAY ^ makes the following statement : * At the beginning of the 
eighth century we find the native Greeks called Helladikoi by 
Byzantine writers in order to distinguish them from the ancient 
Hellenes and from the Eomaioi or Greeks of the Eoman empire. 
The word was a contemptuous name for them as mere provin- 

The statement is repeated,^ and subsequent writers have ac- 
cepted it on Finlay's authority. Elsewher"^ I have casually touched 
on this point and shown that Finlay made a wrong inference ; but 
the matter is so constantly turning up in books which deal with 
medieval Greece that it seems well to write about it expressly. 

Finlay had got hold of an interesting fact, but he got hold of it 
by the wrong end. The name which was borne by the Greeks of 
old, and which is now borne by the Greeks of the modern kingdom 
— Hellenes — had ceased, in the days of which Finlay speaks, to 
mark any national distinction. It had come to mean pagans, as 
opposed to Christians ; it was no longer opposed to barbarians or 
non-Greeks. This fact is familiar to everybody who has any 
acquaintance with the history of medieval Europe. But, it may 
be asked, by what name then were the Greeks, that is to say the 
posterity of the old Hellenes, or at least the people who lived 
between Tempe and Taenarum, called? Finlay says they were 
called Helladikoi, and, he adds, the name was contemptuous. He 
was mistaken. They were not called Helladikoi, and there is no 
reason to suppose that the name was contemptuous. 

Helladikoi meant the inhabitants of the theme Hellas, which was 

only a small part of Hellas, either modern or ancient. It did not 

include the Peloponnesus, which constituted another theme ; the 

Peloponnesians were not Helladikoi. Nor did it include the western 

parts of Greece north of the isthmus which formed the theme of 

Nicopolis. . The passages in Theophanes ^ do not give the slightest 

ground for supposing either that the word had a wider signification 

' Historu of Greece, I 405. ^ P. 409. 

* Chronograph a,, i. 405, and p. 474, ed. De Boor. 


than the theme of Hellas, or that there was anything contemptuoua 
about it. Helladikoi, formed on the analogy of Armeniakoi and 
Anatolikoi, had a purely administrative, and not a national meaning. 
The folk of the theme of Hellas could not be called Hellenes, because 
that famous name had acquired a theological meaning ; so they 
were most fitly called Helladikoi, and thus brought into line with 
their fellow subjects of the Anatolic and Armeniac themes. There 
is no ground for fancying that 'EXkaBiKol, as far as lay in the 
name, carried any notion of contempt. 

But by what name, it may still be asked, were the * Greeks ' 
distinguished, if the Helladikoi were only a part of them ? The 
answer is, they were not distinguished by any name ; and that 
is the point which Finlay missed. The people of the three themes, 
Hellas, Peloponnesus, and Nicopolis, were all Romaioi; but were 
not linked together by any narrower name, which could serve to 
mark them out as a sort of national unity, distinct from the other 
Greek- speaking subjects of the empire. This important historical 
fact has been in some measure obscured by the misinterpretation of 
' Helladikoi.' J. B. Bury. 


Sanders ^ says that the council of Trent deliberated about excom- 
municating Elizabeth, and were only prevented from doing so by 
the representations of the emperor Ferdinand. The first of the 
following documents will show that some one of the English exiles — 
probably Sanders himself — urged the council to take that step, and 
did his best to overcome any scruples that might be felt about the 
wisdom of such a course. The document is not dated, but it speaks 
of excommunication by a general council, not by the pope, and it 
refers to the repressive legislation of the English parliament of 1562, 
and to the improbability of the parliament being summoned again 
in consequence of any action taken by the council. Further, the 
reference to the refusal of Elizabeth to admit a papal nuncio is to 
the year 1561. We may, therefore, date the document as written 
early in 1563, before the release from the Tower of the imprisoned 
bishops in September 1563. It will be seen that the fanaticism of 
the writer cannot entirely blind his judgment, that he is unable to 
point out any advantages which might be expected from the sentence 
of excommunication, and that his attempts to prove that it would 
not do much harm to the English Eomanists are singularly incon- 

What the council of Trent declined to do was done by Pope 
Pius v., and his bull Regnans in excelsis only succeeded in exposing 

' De Schismate Anglicano, iii. 361. 


the English Komanists to persecution without shaking EHzabeth's 
throne. The prospects of any result following on the excom- 
munication were smaller in 1570 than they were in 1563. The 
papal power was asserted at the expense of the English Romanists, 
who were left to expiate the folly of the pope. The great majority 
of them remained true to their allegiance to the queen ; but when 
they were examined about their opinions it was difficult for them to 
reconcile their practical duty as Englishmen with their theoretical 
duty to the head of the church. They were liable to be hanged if 
they denied that Elizabeth was rightful queen of England ; they 
were excommunicated if they recognised her as such. Such a state 
of things was intolerable, and Gregory XIII in April 1580 gave 
Campion a rescript explaining that the bull was * always binding on 
the queen and on heretics, but not on catholics while things remain 
as at present, but only when public execution of the bull shall be 
possible.' The second document, printed below, shows the d'fficul- 
ties entertained in England about the legality and meaiiiiig of the 
bull ; and the third document shows the meaning of Gregory XIII's 
rescript, which was probably under consideration at the time when 
the document was written. They are without date or address, but 
probably are a statement of the difficulties of the English Romanists, 
made to Cardinal Morone, together with his answer in 1579. They 
show that the object of the papal court was to allow the English 
Romanists to obtain all the advantages of seeming to be loyal to 
Elizabeth while at the same time they were to put her to death 
if possible, and to rise against her if there were a reasonable chance 
of success. It is small wonder that the English government waged 
war against those who were charged with the dissemination of such 
teaching ; but religion was so inextricably confused with politics 
that it was impossible to ward off treason without incurring the 
odium of religious persecution. It is only by following the ques- 
tion into details that we can understand the false position in which 
the policy of the papacy placed the English Romanists, and made 
it impossible for them to give adequate guarantees for loyalty. 

M. Petribukg. 

1. Bemedii per le cose d' Inghilterra.^ 

Esse satis causae cur Anglici concilio oecumenico declarari debeant 
absoluti ab Elisabetbae obedientia ; et cur ipsa debeat excommunicari. 

1. Primum quia inobediens ipsa est Deo et Sedi Apostolicae ; debet 
autem quisquam in eo genere puniri in quo deliquit ; justum igitur est ut 
subditi quoque ipsius ipsi non obediant. Praeterea cum se a communione 
fidelium sponte sua separaverit, justum est ut per sententiam concilii 
generalis excommunicata publicetur. 

2. Dum fit quod justum est in honorem Dei numquam id potest 

* Public Record Office, Roman Transcripts. Archivio Vatican©. 


ecclesiae aut ejus membris obesse, quia si ex malo Deus elicit aliquando 
bonum, multo magis ex bono eliciet majus bonum. 

8. Magis credendum est Deum ad iracundiam provocari dum tanta 
Elizabethae impietas impune toleratur quam ob ejus penam irasci velle. 
Nam quae cnmina Deus manifesta esse patitur, argumento certissimo est 
quod eadem vellet manifeste in hoc seculo puniri. 

4. In delictis manifestis puniendis si aliqua dilatio adhibenda esset, 
ilia deberet adhiberi gratia Catholicorum, non contra eos. Nunc autem 
vincti pro Christo petunt, si tantum fieri non potest quantum per brachii 
secularis invocationem deberet, saltern ut id quam primum fiat quod 
potest, id est, ut subditi absolvantur et regina excommunicetur. 

6. Si dicatur penam ipsius differri ne saeviat contra Catholicos, primum 
ipsi renuntiant huic suo favori, deinde nullum esse favorem putant, quia 
nihil potest acerbius eis evenire quam nunc evenit. Nam si mors judicatur 
inter omnia mala maxime terribilis, quo saepius repetitur eo terribilior 
videri debet. Nunc autem in carcere quotidie morantur et mortificantur 
tota die. Praeterea sciendum est sevire Elizabetham in Catholicos usque 
ad mortem non posse, quia publice in parlamento statutum est ut nemo 
propter fidei professionem ultra perpetui carceris vinculum puniretur ; 
nee unquam auditum est in illo regno ut contra statuta parlamenti ulla 
pena unquam infligeretur ; nee Henricus Octavus potuit episcopum Kof- 
fensem aut Thomam Morum occidere nisi penam mortis in parlamento 
lege sanciendam curasset, quae pena nunc aboHta est non modo sub 
Maria sed iterum sub Elizabeta, et pro morte pena perpetui carceris sub- 
stituta est. Cum igitur in carcere omnes includuntur, quae pena Catholicis 
ulterius timenda sit non video. Nee enim mutari lex potest nisi convocato 
ex omnibus regni partibus parlamento ; nee ob eum finem convocandum 
putatur cum in priore parlamento regina cum vellet obtinere non potuerat 
ut pena mortis ob fidei negotium inferretur. Quod igitur ordinari potest 
et solet evenire, hoc spectandum est, neque credendum quod Elizabetae 
excommunicatio Catholicorum vitae oberit. Postremo, si Elizabeta ty- 
rannice in eos contra legum statuta saevire vellet (quod neque ipsi vincti 
metuunt neque sine suo periculo facere possit), sed si vellet, cum hoc non 
modo preter intentionem summi Pontificis verum etiam preter communem 
rerum ordinem eventurum esset, non est omittenda justa pena ob nescio 
quem extraordinarium timorem. Hie autem omitti neque hoc debet, si 
tale aliquid invitis omnibus fieret, magnam utilitatem toti ecclesiae pau- 
corum pro Christo morientium sanguinem allaturum sine dubio esse. 
Non enim episcopi quos Henricus vivos reliquit tantum commodi ecclesiae 
pepererunt quantum ii quos occidit. Illi magna ex parte sub Henrico 
naturaliter postea mortui sunt : hi vivunt in eternum per martyrii gloriam. 
Itaque si mors aliquorum, quae praecaveri a prudentibus viris verisimiHter 
non potest, post istam excommunicationem consequeretur, audacter 
dicerem Deum hoc voluisse atque adeo ut ita fieret providisse. 

6. Quod si dicatur nullum apparere hujus excommunicationis fructum, 
respondeo multiplicem fructum videri consecuturum. Primum enim, non 
est sine fructu quod inobedientia Elizabetae puniatur. Secundum, eo 
facilius adducentur nobiles ut ipsam e regno ejiciant. Tertio, revelabit ea 
res quorumdam principum Christianorum aut obedientiam in revocandis 
ab Anglia legatis aut malitiam in relinquendis ibidem. Semper autem 



interfuit ecclesiae filios obedientes ab inobedientibus dignoscere. Quarto, 
sine omni controversia ipse rumor advenientis apostolici nuntii multum 
commovit populum fidelem in Anglia, eaque causa erat cur non sit ausa 
Eegina ilium in regnum admittere. Quod si tantum operata est prima 
pontificis citatio, quanto plus prevalebit juditium et sententia generalis 
concilii ? Quinto, cum excommunicatio paratam secum trabat execu- 
tionem, idque non modo in animam sed aliquando etiam in corpus, quis 
novit in quem carnis interitum Elizabeta tradetur ? Certe quidem experiri 
nibil oberit, ut sic vel spiritus in ilia die sit salvus, qui precipuus est 
hujus medicinae finis, vel eo mitius in futurum puniatur qvio breviore 
tempore in peccatis hie vivat. Nam omnino credere debemus amaram 
banc excommunicationis medicinam divinitus institutam aliquo fructu 
nunquam carere. Denique, nisi aliquid jam tandem contra Elizabetam 
decernatur, neque vinctis episcopis et presbiteris, neque exulibus clericis^ 
neque fideli populo, neque vicinis gentibus, neque toti ecclesiae in quam 
quotidie peccat, neque ipsi Deo quem blaspheme conculcat, videtur satis- 
fieri posse. Quod ad Deum attinet, non dubitamus vindicem eum prope- 
diem futurum ; optamus autem pro officio nostro erga sedem tipostoli- 
cam ut ilia in hoc pio ministerio Deo coadjutricem se ostendat. 

2. Ad consolationem et instntctionem quonmdam Catlwlicorum 
in angustiis constitutorum quaestiones aliquot. 

Quaestio prima. An bulla Pii V" emissa contra Elizabethan! prae- 
tensam Angliae Keginam habuerit et habeat suum vigorem et robur,. 
quibusdam movet difficultatem, quod non fuerit hie more aliarum in 
Campo Florae et alibi promulgata. 

Q. 2""^*. An Catholici in Anglia non possint tuta conscientia praedictae 
bullae contradicere, vel quod revera non fuerit a Pio V* eo transmissa et 
in executione posita, sed per privatum aliquem eo transportata, vel quod 
Catholicis in Anglia non constet de mente Pontificis, quoniam per 
privatum nobilem fuerit valvis affixa. Et utrum Catholicis non debeat 
sufficere quod pro hac bulla quidem Catholici mortem passi sunt crudeKs- 

Q. 3"^. An hujus bullae vigore subditi non modo sint a juramento et 
obedientia illi debita liberati, verum etiam in conscientia teneantur illam 
habere illegitimam omni jure Eegni privatam et tyrannam, ut qui earn 
talem in conscientia non habeat de bulla sufficienter instructus non possit 

Q. 4*^ An stante bulla in vigore Catholici possint Elizabethae obedire 
in civihbus et cooperari in Eegni administratione in iis quae justa sunt. 

Q. 6**. An ad banc obedientiam praestandam possint praestare Eliza- 
bethae juramentum : an possint Elizabetham vocare Angliae reginam et 
in suis instrumentis eosdem dare titulos regni quos ante bullae emissionem 

Q. 7"^* {sic\. Cum Elizabetha in forma titulorum adjungat in fine ' et 
caetera,' quo intelligatur esse ecclesiae supremum caput, quoniam eo 
excepto onmes alii tituli expresse nominantur, an Cathohci hoc inteUi- 
gentes possunt salva fidei professione etiam illam particulam ' et caetera * 


Q. 8^''''. An Catliolici, stante bulla in vigore, possunt arma pro ejus 
defensione sumere contra ejus adversarios, qui praetendunt et regnum ab 
ejus tyrannide liberare et Catholicorum religionem restituere. 

Q. 9*. An Catholici non teneantur in conscientia virtute bullae contra 
€ani arma sumere, Eegno deturbare, vel occidere data opportunitate et 
victoriae consequendae probabilitate. 

Q. lO™*^. An privatus, stante bulla in vigore, non possit earn occidere 
ratione quod sit tyranna nee habeat justum Eegni titulum. Et an 
Pontifex non possit dispensare ut hoc fiat, si probabile fuerit ejus morte 
religionem Catbolicam restituendam. 

Q. 11*. An Catholici non possint juramentum praestare quod Eliza- 
betha sit vera Angliae regina et legitima, non modo quantum ad pos- 
sessionem sed quantum ad titulum regni. Katio Catholicorum esse possit 
quod Pius bullam emiserit in favore Catholicorum, quare nunc videant 
quod contrarium plane habeat exitum, praesumere possunt quod Pontifex 
nollet eos hac bulla obligare ad eorum gravissimum damnum. 

Q. 12*. An Catholici praestito priore juramento non possint, eo non 
obstante, arma contra eam vigore hujus bullae sumere data opportunitate. 

Q. 13*. An praeveniendo bullam Pii V** non fuerit Catholicis licitum 
arma contra Elizabetham sumere, regno deturbare, incarcerare vel 
occidere, quia si tum fuerit licitum, etiam modo possunt, si bulla non 
habeat robur. Difficultatem facit quod Basiliense Concilium sess^ 20, cap. 
' Ad vitandum scandala,' renovavit Martini V" decretum quod nullus ex- 
communicatus sit vitandus nisi fuerit denuntiatus, aut si aliquem ita 
notorie in excommunicationis sententiam constiterit incidisse, quod nulla 
possit tergiversatione celari a,ut aliquo modo juris suifragio excusari. 
Talem fuisse constat Elizabetham ante Pii denunciationem : id ipsum ex 
Pii bulla poterit videri qui etiam ante denuntiationem eam vocat prae- 

Q. 14*. An Princeps aut Eex propter haeresim excommunicatus aut 
denuntiatus sit eo ipso etiam jure et titulo justo Regni privatus et populus 
ab obedientia et juramento liberatus, an opus etiam sit quod apertis verbis 

Q. 15*. An nobilis mulier Catholica et reconciliata cum mariti con- 
sensu curans se inter domesticas Eiizabethae enumerare, ut sic vitet 
persecutionem heretici pseudo-episcopi et aliorum qui eam ob religionem 
perturbare voluerunt, an haec possit Ehz£ft)etham comitari in cubiculum 
secretins unde Elizabetha audit per fenestram apertam officium haereti- 
<5orum, ea interim nullo gestu declarante sibi id officium placere vel dis- 
plicere quia se ipsam non vult prodere. 

Q. 16*. An Pontifex non poterit dispensare cum Catholicis ut ex justa 
<5ausa dum inter haereticos versantur carnes comedant diebus ab ecclesia 

Q. 17*. An Pontifex non poterit dispensare cum Catholicis ut ex justa 
causa aliquando tempore haeretici officii praesentes sint in ecclesiis, modo 
cum haereticis in sua caena diabolica non communieent, sed legant pri- 
vatas Catholicas preces, ut non se prodant. Ratio videtur et in esu 
carnium et in hoc facto par, eo quod in utroque sit scandalum tantum 
acceptum dum haeretici judicant eos non esse Catholicos tum quia come- 
dunt carnes diebus ab ecclesia prohibitis, quum quia praesentes sunt in 


eorum officio ; et an non sit idem judicium de eorum concionibus audien- 
di , quando probabiliter non est periculum seditionis. 

Q. 18*. An Catholicus accedens ecclesiam dum baereticorum agitur 
officium, et manens non eo fine ut sua praesentia legibus Principis satis- 
facere aut illud officium probare videatur ; quin potius aperte vult 
declarare sibi displicere quia dum dum alii externis exhibent reverentiam 
is studio operto sedet capite ; an talis vel schismaticus dicendus sit vel 
mortaliter peccare. Difficultatem facit quod haeretici talem praesentiam 
non probant, sed potius ejus optant absentiam. 

Q. 19*. An extra officium baereticorum, ut post prandium, Catbolicus 
accedens ecclesiam ab baereticis occupatam omni scandalo sublato et ibi 
Catholice oret, peccat. Eatio quod non peccat est quia id facit ex devotione 
eo quod scit ecclesiam esse consecratam et jure non ad baereticos sed ad 
Catbolicos pertinere. 

2. Answer to the above questions. 

Principio videtur expedire declarari autoritate Pontificis Catholic os 
Eegni Angliae non obligari ad peccatum aut excommunicationem ex vi 
bullae editae a Pio V'° ad tollendas multas difficultates quae ex predicta 
bulla exortae sunt. Nos tamen interim credimus, quicquid sit de pro- 
mulgatione sufficienti bullae et de iis quae in praedicta bulla contra 
praetensam Eeginam Angliae contentae sunt, Catbolicos modo excusari 
ab obligatione praecepti et excommunicationis neque ullum detrimentum 
ex vi ejus bullae accipere. 

Primo, quia bulla edita est in favorem Catbolicorum et religionis, 
atque constat magnum damnum Catbolicis et religioni ex ipsius bullae 
observatione accidere, quod non fuit ex mente legislatoris, ad quam 
oportet semper respicere ; nam quod pro cbaritate institutum est non 
debet contra charitatem militari. 

2°. Quia finis et ratio legis cessant in universali et in communi. At 
cessante fine legis cessat et ipsius legis observatio, 

3". NuUus tenetur obedire excommunicationi et praecepto cum gravi 
suo damno et incommodo vitae, accidente praesertim detrimento religionis, 
nee credendum est ecclesiam voluisse Catbolicos ita obligare. 

4°. Quia praeceptum et obligatio videntur posita pro loco et tempore 
dumtaxat quibus spes esset recuperationis illius Eegni ea via et modo. 
Ciun ergo talis occasio evanuerit, et spes sit frustrata, et ea via omnino 
interclusa, consequitur tempus illius praecepti praeteriisse, et obliga- 
tionem proinde cessare : praeter rationem enim videretur nunc uti modo et 
ratione incommodissima ad rem fere impossibilem. 

His ita constitutis sic responderetur ad singula proposita : et quidem 
ad primam : 

1. Dictum est bullam non obligare Catbolicos non quidem propter 
defectum publicationis, de qua nihil certi habetur, sed quia cessat omnino 
finis et ratio ipsius. 

2. Ad 2^". Si quis doceret cessare obligationem hujusmodi bullae, 
non contradiceret, cum certe constet de mente et intentione legislatoris, 
et ut uno verbo dicatur, Catholici quod ad ipsos attinet solo jure 
communi obstringuntur et non fine ullo novo. 


3. Ad 8*"". Seclusa bulla, unusquisque earn habere debet pro illegitima 
regina et excommunicata, quanto magis accidente declaratione summi 
Pontificis. Si quis tamen ignaratione aliqua probabili contrarium teneret 
non continuo peccaret mortaliter, nee arcendus esset a sacramentorum 

4°. Ad 4*'". Catholici possunt obedire tuta conscientia in civilibus 
Isabellae ; et cooperari in omnibus quaejusta sunt in regimine caeterorum 
tyrannorum licere et veteres fecisse constat. 

5°. Ad 6'^™. Sicut licitum est obedire Isabellae ita licitum illi in licitis 
et bonestis juramentum praestare cum contingeret de jurejurando in 6". 

6°. Ad G***™. Licet earn vocare Eeginam etc. quia tituli illi intelligendi 
sunt esse et dici tales quales ipsi sunt. 

7°. Ad 7^*". Licet liaeretici per illam vocem (et caetera) intelligant 
caput ecclesiae Anglicanae, non coguntur tamen Catholici ita earn in- 
telligere : ea enim vox indifferens est ad alia multa : immo vox est quae 
ut plurimum apponi solet in titulis aliorum Eegum. 

8°. Ad 8^™. Non possunt tuta conscientia earn Catholici defendere et 
propugnare contra eos qui earn vi bullae aut studio religionis impugnant : 
si tamen iniquo titulo Eeginam aliquis invadere vellet, illam certe pro- 
pugnare possunt. 

9". Ad 9*™. Ex vi bullae putamus non teneri ad ea quae proponuntur 
nisi omnia ita comparata essent ut certa parataque spes esset victoriae ; 
quo casu propter bonum commune fidei et religionis ii tenentur qui 
aliquid possent praestare. 

10. Ad lO™*^". Non licet privato quemcunque tyrannum occidere, ut 
deiinitum est in Concil. Constan. sess. 15 : nisi talis esset qui vi regnum 
invasisset, exemplo Aoth, Jud. 3. Quod vero ad hauc attinet, si quis ejus 
interitu Eegnum posset certe ab oppressione liberare, procul dubio illi 
liceret earn interimere. Sed rebus ut nunc constitutis multo satius ne 
loqui quidem ea de re. 

11. Ad 11*™. Huic quaestioni jam satisfactum est. Auget tamen non- 
nullum difficultatem ilia particula (Vera). Nunquam autem licet jurare 
falsum ; licet tamen occultare et tegere veritatem quacunque aequivoca- 
tione, ut si quis intelligat veram esse reginam opinione communi vulgil 
vel ei adhaerentium, aut quovis alio modo. 

12. Ad 12=^™. Ut paulo ante dictum est, licet virtute bullae (quae quod 
spectat ad favorem religionis et Catholicorum Integra et efficax manet) 
arma sumere contra reginam data opportunitate ; immo vero si bulla 
non esset publicata liceret tyrannam EeipubUcae et religioni maxime 
obnoxiam deturbare autoritate publica. 

13. Ad IS*^"^. Licuit arma sumere eo fine et mediis quae ante explicata 
sunt, id est, prudenter et non temere, atque ut Catholici eriperentur 
lis vexationibus corporis et animi quibus tunc afficiebantur. 

14. Ad 14™. Quamquam probabilis sententia sit haereticos ipso facto 
privatos esse dominio, communior tamen opinio est privandos esse. Ve- 
rumtamen ad majorem explicationem eorum que dicta sunt addere 
oportet Eeginam AngHae non solum quia haeretica est Tyranna, sed 
quia summo cum detrimento et perturbatione totius ecclesiae gubemat, 
jure poss^ auctoritate publica a Eegno deturbari, etiam si nulla Bulla 
publicata esset. 


Ad alias quaestiones quae sequuntur circa communionem Catholi- 
corum cum haereticis, 

16, Ad 15*™. Posset ilia mulier ad modum Naaman Syri se gerere 
cum Isabella, quanquam fatemur esse periculosum et debere subterfugi 
quoad fieri potest : si tamen fiat, cavendum est ne offendantur Catholici 
nimia facilitate ac licentia ejus, et ne prae se ferat se consentire aliqua ex 
parte haeresi. 

16. Ad 16™. Non expedit Pontificem dispensare in universum, sed ex 
causa necessitatis et vitae licet carnes comedere, nisi id fieret in profes- 

{Cetera desunt.) 


The Oxford Historical Society having recently published a book 
of seventeenth-century accounts/ it may be worth while, for the 
purpose of comparison, to give a few extracts from a similar book 
which has come under my notice. This book is in its original 
vellum binding and in good condition, and contains a statement 
of the personal receipts and expenses of WilHam Freke, youngest 
son of Sir Thomas Freke, of Shroton, in the county of Dorset, and 
of Elizabeth, daughter of John Talor, a London merchant. 
William Freke was born, according to a note at the end of the book, 
at Shroton, on 6 April 1605. He went to Oxford in the autumn 
of 1619, and entered at St. Mary Hall. He appears to have kept 
terms at Oxford till June 1622. Towards the end of that year he 
went to London and took chambers in the Middle Temple. Here 
he remained till June 1639, when he married Frances, daughter 
of Sir Thomas Culpeper, of Hollingborn, Kent. 

His father died on 5 May 1633, and left the manor of Han- 
nington, Wilts, to William and another son, Raufe, who married 
another daughter of Sir Thomas Culpeper. There was, however, 
some obscurity in the will, which gave rise to trouble in the family, 
the eldest son, John Freke, only consenting to leave Raufe and 
William in quiet possession on payment of a considerable sum of 
money. This transaction rankled in William's mind, and is the 
subject of some wrathful reflections, mingled with appropriate 
quotations from the psalms, which occur in the manuscript. At the 
foot of his accounts for June 1635 he writes : — 

And now, Lord, I render all possible thankes unto thy divine 
Majesty, for all thy mercies in Christ Jesus. At this time more particulerly 
for that thou hast preserved my brother Eaufe and my selfe from death 
untill this present hower ; and till the beegining of this moneth ; since 
otherwise, the surviuor should haue paid 1000 li. more unto my Brother 
John Freke (uppon a Couenant which hee extorted from us after our 
Agreements, that thereby (as hee said) his Freinds in Dorsett might 
' Collectanea, vol. i. part v. 


perceaue liee had not dealt soe ill with us, but that hee could yet use us 
worse) over and aboue the 3000 li. which hee took from us for that which 
hee well knew my Father intended, and sett under his hand, wee should 
haue. It hath bin thy power and providence only (good God) that hath 
protected us from the farther (Psal: 21 : 11) evill hee intended against 
us, for hee imagined a mischiuouse device, which hee was not able to 
performe (Psal : 18 : 48) — 

and a great deal more in the same vein. 

With Eaufe, on the other hand, William was on the best of 
terms. The brothers are said to have built the present Hanning- 
ton Hall together. The house is decorated with medallions on 
which are two hands on one heart, and two hands in one purse, 
with * Eaufe ' and ' William ' carved underneath ; and round the 
balustrade runs the motto, ' Behold how good and joyful a thing it 
is, Brethren, to dwell together in unity.' In the accounts Eaufe's 
name is sometimes indicated by a monogram of the letters B and 
E, standing for ' Brother Eaufe.' 

The accounts, beautifully written in a small clear hand, cover 
118 pages of the book. They are continuous from 28 Sept. 1619 
to 26 June 1630, and contain much biographical and other infor- 
mation. William Freke does not seem to have been a reading man 
in the university sense of the term. He bought books, but it is 
impossible to gather from the entries what he studied at Oxford. 
He was apparently a quiet, careful, well-behaved young gentleman, 
who amused himself in an innocent way. He learnt fencing, 
playing on the viol, and (after he went to London) dancing. His 
father allowed him, while at Oxford, about 40Z. a year, and when he 
went down he had money in his purse. Neither at Oxford nor in 
London did he spend much on food or drink : now and then he 
had supper with a few friends, but he did not give expensive 
entertainments or wines. In London he lived in rather better 
style, and kept one or two horses and a man servant, but his chief 
expenditure is throughout on dress. He was clearly somewhat of 
a dandy ; Spanish cloth, lace ruffs, embroidered girdles, silk stock- 
ings, and beaver hats costing from 31. to 4Z. each ai)pear frequently 
in the accounts. He bought the materials for his suits himself, 
and the tailor's bills for making them up bear a small proportion, 
judged by a modern standard, to the cost of the stuff. 

Mr. Freke was not, apparently, more assiduous at the bar than 
at Oxford ; in fact it does not seem that he practised at all. Law 
books seldom appear in his accounts. The only entry which I have 
observed as showing an interest in politics is that of ' a book of the 
proceedings in Scotland,' of which he bought six copies in 1638. In 
1628 he spent ten weeks in the Low Countries ; a note at the end 
of the book shows that he was at Utrecht with his wife in 1643 ; 
otherwise his only travelling was into Wilts and - Dorset, with an 




occasional visit to places near London. If he wished to communi- 
cate with his country house, there was a carrier, Mr. William 
Inkepen, who ' liveth in the backside of Longe-Aker, & goeth 
from thence with carriage & letters every Munday about noone 
towards Hyworth markett (in the county of Wiltes neere Hanning- 
ton) which is on Wednesdays ; And he comes home againe to 
London on Satterday in the afternoone.' Mr. Freke was of a 
rehgious turn of mind, and the books he bought are not unfre- 
quently of a devotional or moral nature. He was generous and 
fond of giving presents to his relations, friends, and servants. His 
health was generally good, but doctors' fees and apothecaries' bills 
show that he was not altogether exempt from the sicknesses which 
infected London in the days of the Stuarts. When he married he 
had about 1,250Z. in money, with debts due to him, furniture, horses, 
and plate worth about 250Z. more. His wedding-ring, of ' Angell 
gold,' cost him II. 3s. 6d., and had on it the following ' posie : ' 
* Franckely still enioy thy will,' which he says ' can be begun at 
any word.' Many other details of more or less interest may be 
gleaned from these accounts. They give information of value to 
students of economic and social history, and enable one to realise 
to some extent the life of an English gentleman not in any way 
famous, but worth study as the contemporary of Hampden and 
Pym, of Clarendon and Colonel Hutchinson, and a member of the 
class to which they belonged. 

I give (I) the Oxford accounts in full, with (II) selections from. 
the rest. 

G. W. Prothero. 

I. Oxford Accounts. 

Daye 1619 £ 

A true accompt of the moneys w'^^ I baue receaued by 
my Fathers allowance since my first going to 
Oxford and how I haue laid it out : 


Kec. September y« 28 
Eec. December y^ 16 
Kec. March the 25 . 
Eec. JuH the 1° 
Rec. September the 25 
Eec. December y® 27 
Eec. Aprill y« 15 
Eec. June the 6 


for admition to the house S"* Mary Hall 
I gaue the Butlers .... 

. 8 

. 10 

. 10 

. 10 

. 10 

. 10 

. 10 

. 10 









I gaue the Cooke & Manciple . 

for a Truncke .... 

for a laced ruffe & Cuffes . 

for making drawing and cloth i 
for the cape of my goune j 

for furring my goune 

for 5 oz : 3 quarters of lace 

for 1 oz : of silk 

for 3 quarters of fustion 

for Canuas 

for a Riders Dictionarie 

for Paper .... 

for Johnsons Stafford and Abbotts geographie 

for 3 yeards of frize . 

for Buttons and silk . 

for making a ierking 

for mending stockings 

for a paire of Shooes . 

for a laced ruff and Cuffes . 

for a hatt and band . 

for a paire of greene stockings 

for my battles . 

for my Tuter 

for my landress her quarterige 

for Chamberrent 

for 3 sacks of Coales . 

for a hat-brush 


for mending Cloathes 

for mending y'' furr of my gowne 

for a paire of Stockings 

for 2 paire of Shooes 

for mending a hatt . 

for mending stockings 

for my Battles . 

for Chamberrent 

for my Tuters quarterige 

for Phisick and for the Phisitians advice 

for my Landress her quarteridg 

for a round Capp .... 

for Admitian to M'' Sandies fencing schoole 

for a paire of shooes . 

for mending shooes . 

for Ribon for Shoostrings 

for a paire of Gloues . 

for mending stockings 

£ s. d. 








































































12 : 16 : 9 

for a girdle 

for the materialls of my Cliamlett suit of clothes 

for making the suite . 

for Poynts 

for mending Cloathes 

for my Battailes 

for Chamberrent 

for my Tuters quarteridg . 

for my Landress her quarteridg 

for 2 paire of Shooes 

for a Hatt and Band . 

for Bandstrings 

for a paire of Garters 

for a paire of Stockings 

for 2 yeards of Eibbon to make shoostrings 

for a Cloake-Bagg 

20 : 4 : 9 

expended from Oxford ...... 

for a paire of Bootes 

for a ruled paper booke ...... 

for mending my Cloathes 

for a moneths learninge of M*" Gollidg on the vioU 

& strings 

for my Tuter Paule his quarteridg . . 

for 1 yeard quarter and halfe of watered Grogorim . 

for 8 yeards of lace weying 8 quarters and a halfe 

for 3 paire of gloues . 

for 2 doz : of poynts . 

for mending my shooes 

for mending both my hatts 

for Battailes 

for Chamberrent 

for my Landress her quarteridg 

for mending stockings 

for the fencers quarterig . 

for a sack of Coales . 

for a paire of Pantophles . . 

Money which I spent that I cannot accompt for 

for a moneths learning on y* violl and strings 

I gaue Thorn Gollidg 

for 3 yeards of frieze 

for 3 dozen of silver buttons 

for silk . . . , 

for 2 sacks of Coales . 

for two paire of shooes 

for Bacons Essaies . 

£ s. d. 







































































20 : 4 : 9 

for glewing the violl 

for a paire of yeanie stock 

for mending shooes 

for mending stockings 

for a moneths learning on the violl .... 

for a paire of Shoostrings 

for my Supper at our Dorsetsheire meeting with my 
acquaintance at M'" Grishes 

for making my Jerking and for mending other clothes 

for my Landress her quarteridg ..... 

for my battailes 

for Chamberrent 

for my Tuter's quarteridge 

for dressing my Hatt and for a hatband . 

for the fencers quarteridge 

15 : : 9 

Owing my self since last quarter .... 
for a monetli learning on y^ violl and for strings 

for 2 paire of socks 

for 2 paire of Bandstrings ...... 

for mending shooes and for mending stockings . 

p*^ a fee to the uniuersitie as beeing a knights sonn . 

for a moneths learning and for strings 

for a paire of shooes . 

for mending my shooes 

for 12 yeards and half of Blacl 

for to make a Goune 
for 4 yeards of bayes . 
for 2 yeards of cotten 
for a quarter of silke . 
for a quarter of canuas 
for furring my gowne 
for Battailes 
for my Tuters quarter, 
for chamberrent 
for my Landress her quarter. 
for 3 y*'''* of coloured Phillip and cheney 
for dressing and facing of 2 Hatts 
for a monethes learning on the violl . 
for a paire of stockings 

for 2 yeards three quarters of white holmes fustion 
for halfe an Elle of Taffita 
for 4 doz : of buttons 
for dim yeard of Poledauise 
for 1 Ell of canuas 
for pasteboard and whalebone 
for 3 quarters of silke 

£ s. 

Phillip and Cheney 






























































£ s. d. 

12 : 17 : 5 

for the Taylors BiU 

. 13 

for Eibbon . . . . 


for a paire of shooes 


for mending shooes & stockings 

. 11 

for a moneth learning on y« violl and for string 

3 . 5 10 

I gaue M"" Hopper y^ Phisitian . 

. 11 

I gaue the Phisitian 

. 11 

I put in my Pockett 


I gaue the Phisitian 

. 11 

for learning part of a moneth on the violl . 


More put in to my Pockett 


I gaue the Phisitian 

. 11 

for a womans attendance on mee 3 weeks being 

sick . 15 

for Fustion and Inkle to make a wastcoate 


for y^ Apothicaries bill .... 

. 2 12 6 

for a blackworke Capp ^* gold lace 


for a hatt and Band . 

. 10 

for my Battles . 

. 3 15 

for Chamberrent 


for a paire of Shooes . 


for my Tuters quarterig 


for my Taylors bill . 

. 15 

for a paire of Stockings 


for 2 paire of socks . 


for my Landress her quarteridg . 


14 19 1 

14 : 19 : 1 

From y« 28 of September 1619 unto y« 23 of 


1621 I haue rec 

. 78 

whereof I haue spent 

. 75 17 9 

soe y* there remains 

. 02 02 3 

Kemaining of the last accompts .... 


Kec. July the 6* 

. 10 

Eec. In October 1* . . . 


. 10 

Kec. December the 3^ 


. 10 

Eec. Aprill the i 


. 10 

Eec. about y« 27 of June . 


. 10 

Spent going to & at Coleshill .... 

. 10 

for fretting mending and for stringing the violl . 


for a violl Bowe 


for my Musitian .... 




for a paire of Garters 




for a paire of Bootes .... 




for a paire of Shooes . 









£ s. d. 

I put into my pockett when I went into the Countrie , 

for a paire of Shoestrings . 

for a paire of Spurres 

for my Battles . 

To my Musitian and for strings 

for gloues .... 

for the Carriag of my clokebag 

for a Button for my Cloke . 

for a paire of Shooes . 

for a scabbard to my sword 

for Gallone Lace 

for 8 pounds of Candles 

for the fencers quarteridg . 

for riboning 

for making a girdle . 

for y^ Carriage of my Cloke bagg 

for dressing my hatt . 

for my Tuter's quarteridg . 

for my chamber 

To the Musitian for strings 

for a violl to M*" GoUigg . 

for a chest to case him in . 

for my Matriculation^. 

for 5 sacks of coales . 

for a paire of bootes . 

for mending shooes . 

for my Taylors Bill . 

for mending stockings 

for a yard and demi of siluer lace 

for Gold Lace for a Capp and for dying stockings 

for my Supper at the Dorsetsheire meeting , 

for Battailes 

for chamberrent 

for my Landress her quarteridg 

for the fencers quarteridg . 

for my Tuters quarteridg . 

To the Musitian 

for Kibera for my Co : Estmond 

17 : 16 : 5 

for a month lerning on y® violl 
for 2 sacks of coales . 
for y« supplication of Saints 
for mending bootes and shooes 
for a Coopers dictionarie . 

* He matriculated Nov. 2. 1621 (Register of University of Oxford, vol. ii., ed. 
A. Clark, part ii. 397). 










































































£ s. d. 

for mending my windowes 

for a paire of shooes . 

for scouring my couerlett . 

for scouring my Goune 

for 3 quarters and demi of silke . 

for galloone Lace 

for 7 doz : of buttons for my Coate 

for drawing my coate k for drawing my hose 

for Pocketts 

My Taylors Bill 

My Tuters quarterig . 

The fencers quarterig 

for mending stockings 

To the Musitian and for Strings 

for dying a paire of stockings ; 

for making knotts & for strings 

for mending y® furr of my gown 

for a Trunck .... 

my Landress her quarterig 

for my battailes 

for chamber & studdie rent 

8 : 16 : 9 

for mending shooes . 

for dressing my Hatt . 

for a paire of shooes . 

for the Art of hauking and Hunting 

To my Musitian 

Spent at and going unto CoUeshill 

for blacking my Bootes 

for a doz : & dim : of Poynts 

To my Tutor .... 

My Taylor Palmers bill 

My Landress quarteridg 

I gaue her Maides 

for my Battailes 

for Chamberrent 

The fencers quarteridg 

5 : 11 : 6 


8 6 
5 6 
9 2 

I haue receaued from Octob : 1621 unto June 1622 the 

some of 

and there rem since last yeare . 
The which is ... . 
And I haue spent in this time . 
So then there Clearely Kemaineth 

8 16 9 


. .006 











. 2 14 4 



5 11 6 

50 00 

02 02 


62 02 


32 04 


19 17 


Willi feeke 




[II. Selections.] 

1622 (?) Lampe of Pietie . 

1623 Feb. Eecords Arithmatick 
„ Mar. an English Littleton 
,, ,, Suttons meditations 
,, Ap. Bills Arithmatick 
,, May. a booke of flowers beasts etc. 
,, June, the Practice of Pietie . 
,, „ the Mass displaid 
,, July. Jo. Indacins Palmestrie 
„ „ Albertus Magnus & Arist : Probl 
,, Dec, Eupheus Golden Legacie 

1624 May. Sands his Quid and trauailes & Daniells historie 
„ June. Vox Populi ..... 
,, ,, Lingua and Othello 
„ Aug. a french bible .... 

1625 Jan. Deering's works .... 

S"" : francis Bacons Apopheg . 
„ ,, Hipocrisies Picture, alias Gondo^ : ^ 
,, Apr. Amboyna and a treatise of Patience in tribula- 
tion .... 
„ „ books & bills of the Plague 

,, „ The Game at Chess 

,, June. The English Secretarie 

Quid's Elegies in Englishe 

Hakluyt's Voyages 

for the binding up (in leather) of S"" Henery Mayne- 

waring's exposition of sea termes 
r Purchas his Pilgrims 4 volumes 
I and for clasping of them . 
a booke of Draughts principally seruing for 

glasiers Gardeyners & Plaisterers 
a booke of Playes 
„ Apr. Blundiwile's Logick 
„ Dec. Bacons Apothegmes 
,, ,, Stevens Essaies and Characters 

„ ,, A concordance of the Bible . 

,, ,, Godwin's Antiquities . 

1628 Jan. Ouerburyes Characters 
„ ,, Both parts of Don Quixote . 

,, „ Ariosto .... 

„ June. The Souldier pleading his cause 
„ „ The Belgick Common Weale 

„ Oct. Enemie to Athisme 

1630 Feb. Venus and Adonis 

1631 Oct. a booke of Spirituall Emblems 
,, Nov. Agrippa of the Vanity of Sciences 
„ „ Questions & answers of Love . 

^ Gondomar (?). 






























































1632 Jan. 

„ Feb. 

1633 Oct. 

1634 June. 

>> »> 

1635 Aug. 





1636 June. 

















The Bridbush Wheatlys Sermon . 
Crookes Anotomie 
The Belgike Pismire 
Haddocks booke of Painting . 
Peacheham's Emblems . 
Peacham of Drawing etc. 
The King's Declaracion for the Sabboth 
Smyths Commonwealth 
Markehams faithful ffarryer . 
Ponds Almanack .... 
Jo. Dauies of Herefords Coppie book 
Billingslys abridgd 
Bifields Marrow .... 
An Accedence .... 
Swetnams Araignem* of Weomen 
D*" Dunnes devotions and 1 

Ar. Warwick's resolved meditacions J 
A banquett of Jests .... 

2 books at Swifts ( f discorce of DueUs \ 
L the Arte oi giuemg j 
Quarles divine Emblems 
Harberts Poems .... 
2 Hec homo's .... 
Arthure Warwicks Meditacions 
Dauid persecuted .... 
A curten Lecture .... 
An Elegy on Jo. Wheler 
Balsacks Letters 2 bookes 
A Prayerbook and Psalmes well bound 
The Elements of Architecture 
A booke of the proceedings in Scotland 
A singing Psalme booke w*^ siluer clasps 
a Bible ....... 


1623 a paire of boote-hose 
,, 14 yards of Turkey Grogorim . 

a paire of black worsted & thred stockings 
a paire of shooes .... 
a yeard of bone lace 
2 ells of fine Dowless 
7 yards of 7 quarter broadcloth bought of Esrael Sherly 
at 13s 6d 

6 paire of thinn gloues . 

1 paire of bucks lether gloues . 

7 oz : 3 quarters of Purle lace at 2 : 3 the oz 

2 oz : & quarter of silke at 2s : oz . 
4 yeards & quarter of bayes at 3s 2d 
quarter and halfe of rich Taffat. at 12s 
1 yeard of scarlet Bayes being 5 quarters broade 





































































3 yeards & dim : of holmes fustian at Is the yeard 

4 doz : and halfe of buttons for the Dublett 
2 doz : for the Cloake 
Canuas and stiffning 
Poledauis for the Cape . 
Hooks for the breeches . 
Bayes to lay on the linings 
•Making the sute drawing & making the Cloake 
An embroidered girdle & hangers . 
2 doz : of drumm Poynts 

1624 A Dutch hatt with ritch lining and leather 
,, 7 yeards of nonparello .... 

an ell quarter of Taif : Sarscenet . 
2 yeards of black & Pile velvet 

1 ell quarter of ritch Taffatie . 
82 yeards of Sattine Lace 
dim : yeard of small sattine Lace . 
the Taylors bill for my coloured suite Turkey grogorim 

suite & cloke 
a cloke button 

embrodering black girdle and hang 
making of it upp 

2 doz : of incarnate drum points 
a paire of Cordevant gloues 

5 pair of Charmister gloues 

6 paire of Melcomb gloues 
a paire of French galloties 

1625 a black Plush Cloak to Thurman 
,, a siluer Hatband 

1626 for dyin my tawney silke stockings 

1627 5 ells & halfe of fine holland . 
„ for making it into 3 halfe shirts 
„ for making 2 pr of stockings, the wool! being myne 

owne ...... 

1628 a peece of dimmathy being 10 yeards 
my Buffe Doublet compleate cost . 
a shirt at Arneham [Arnhem] 
a callico Hankercheife . 
2 yeards & halfe of unshorne velvett 
2 yeards 3 quarters black cloth 
bobin lace 6 yards . 
silk 3 oz : 

making suite & cloake 
pair of winter bootes & shooes 

1629 a black worke & gold capp 

1630 nine yeards of Spanish cloth 

1631 a new Beaver lined in the head and a Silke Curie Bande 

1632 2 pr of Irish Stockings . 
„ a paire of Gambadoes 

£ s. d. 

3 6 




7 6 

13 6 


8 6 

2 8 

14 6 

2 4 




14 6 



2 6 

4 2 

3 6 

2 6 




1 11 





3 2 

2 15 
17 6 
17 6 
5 6 

3 6 




[Clothes] £ s. d. 

1633 a Black Bever to Kitt Langley 4 

1634 6 yeards of Lead colour Spanish cloth at 13s 4d the 

yeard to Thorn Nevell 4 0- 

,, paid Thurmans bill for making it upp into a plaine suite 

and coate . . 19o 

1635 Paid Jenkins by Paules Chaine for a sand coloured Plush 

& Satten of a cloake 5 0' 

„ Paid Thorn Nevill for 15} of Spanish cloth mixed w' an 

olive coloure and white at xvi s vi d per yeard 
„ a paire of silke stockins 


1623 six weekes Commons [at the Temple] 

„ three weekes Commons .... 

„ spent a weeke being out of commons 

,, spent dim weeke out of Commons . 

„ dim commons at the Dolphin . 

„ a week and halfe being out of Commons . 

„ 5 weeks Commons 

1630 My weeks Commons to Mrs Pirce . 

„ My weekes Commons to the Temple Steward 

,, Anthony es weeks allowance 
1635 Paid this weekes commons at the Mermayd 

„ My part for wine there this weeke . 

1637 allowed Nick for his dyett in London at 4d the meal 

1638 Nicks dyett in London for 3 weekes & 3 meales 

[Plate &c.] 

1626 a siluer standish weying 19 oz : at 5s the oz : . 
„ a siluer box weying 2 oz : less 4d waite . 

1627 siluer hilt & chape weying 30 : 3 : quarters at 5:4: the 

oz : because at second hand 

1628 a pair of siluer spurs at 2 hand after 4s 6d the oz : 

1629 a siluer cased watch at second hand .... 
1631 a Scollop Shell sugarbox weying 17 oz : } at 5s 5d 

the oz : . 4 

1638 a watch to Mr East at second hand, w'^^ was of his owne 

makeing, w* a Laram, & it shewes the day of the 
Moneth, the age of the Moone ; he is to keepe it for 
xii d per ann : For w**» I giue him a siluer case of a 

"Watch ; & in mony 8 

,, a siluer Candlestick & Snuffers being 5 oz 3*^ w" at 5s 5d 
per oz : 

1639 a watch w* a gold Plate Case the diall plate enamelled 

„ a siluer Peare Watch 

,, gilt & siluer watch 2 

„ Cristall Watch 

„ a Gold enamelled Chaine Spanish Worke w" 3 oz. 

4'! w" 12 gr 

,, a Ringe w* 3 diamonds 









































13 & 



















[Groceries &c 



















[Plate &c.] 

[1639] a Wedding Einge Angell gold 

„ a Siluer Candlestick formerly bought of M"" Moore at 
5s 4d per oz : weying 7 oz 

[Farm Produce] 

1634 Jan. 12 Buz : of Oates 

„ May. 3 Buz : & ^ of Eouston Oates .... 
,, „ P"^ Farmer Cutler for 3 buz : & dim of oats . 

1635 Aug. My brother Raufe gaue Sharpe of Farrington for 

going w*i* his horse the last weeke to Hannington 
& carrying thither "* Bushells of Fenegrike, 
Sant-Foyne, or French grass seede. . . . This 
kind of Seede originally was sent unto my Father 
out of France, from his Freind Mons"" Pontsillie 
Bayly de Constantine in Normandy . 

1636 Jan. 2 buz : of Oates bought last Saterday . 
„ „ 5 buz : & dim now bought by Nick 

,, Mar. Nie bought at Blandford Merkett 8 buz : of Oates 
at ii s ii d per Buz 

2 Buz : of Oates . 
a loade of Strawe for Litter 

3 Buz of Oates 


a dozen pounds of Candles . 
a pound & quarter of sugar . 
a pound of sugar and 4 nutmegs 

2 pound of Candles 

3 pounds of Candles 

2 pounds of Candles 
a bitter AUmoncake sifted 

3 pounds of Candles 

3 pounds of Candles 
an ounce of harde wax . 
6 pounds of Candles 

1 pound of Candles 
Wax Candle from London . 
6 pounds of sassages 
a pounde of Lumpe Suger 
a box of Marmalade 

2 owncs of the best harde wax 
28 pounds of M""* Martines Sassages 

2 ozes of Nutmeggs 

4 pounds of Lump Suger 
a pound of Raisons of the Sonn 

3 pounds of Prewans . 
12 pounds of Soape 
xii graines of Muske 
6 graines of Spiritt of Roses 


1 17 11 




8 3 


















































* Space left blank in the oxiginal. 


[Groceries Ac] £ s. d. 

[1637] a pounde of Loafe Suger 2 

„ 3 pounds of Lumpe Suger 5 

,, an ownce of Cloves 8 

1638 a Runlett of Sack 110 


1623 a pair of spurres 16 

,, for admition into the Dauncing Schoole & gaue the 


„ I gave the officer on Calves-head day .... 

„ P*^ a musitian for halfe a Moneth [teaching] . 

„ Spent in a journey to see the East indian Shipps at 


,, fined for not walking horses 

„ I gaue Mr Mathews the Chirurgion for letting blood 

1624 a paire of inlaid spurres ....... 

1627 a Port Manteau 

1628 dim Reame of Paper 

,, greate Iron Tin'd Spurrs 

,, Spent from y® 18*^ of June, the time I left London, untill 

y® first of September : when I returned from y« Lowe 

1630 for my Scarlett Saddle w* a Couer, Bitt & furniture to it . 

1634 my grey Mares meate for 5 nights at the Plough Stables 

& to the Ostler 

,, my Grey Mares meate for 2 nights at the Blue Boare by 

White Chappell & Ostler . 
„ one black lead & 1 Redd Lead in Cedar 

1635 a skinne of Parchment . 
1637 125 Quills at Shaston . . . 

„ 2 lattin Water Candlesticks 































The letters which follow are taken from the correspondence of 
John Hobart, now amongst the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian 
library. They refer to the second session of Cromwell's last 
parliament, to the preparations for that session, and to its sudden 
dissolution. Ranke in his History of England ' quotes a couple of 
the papers, but they are of sufiicient interest to be printed in 
full. John Hobart was member for Norwich in the parliament of 
1654. On 12 Sept. 1654 the Protector exacted from all the 
members of the parliament an engagement not to * propose or 
consent to alter the government as it is settled in a sole person and 
the parliament.' All the sixteen members for the different Norfolk 

' Translation, iii. 193, 199. 


constituencies signed this engagement, excepting Hobart and two 
others.^ Hobart drew up a paper summarising his objections to 
taking the engagement.^ "When Cromwell's second parliament met 
Hobart was again returned for Norwich, but was one of the ninety- 
three members refused admission to the house on 17 Sept. 
1656, because they would not produce a certificate of approval from 
the Protector's council. The protest of the excluded members is 
printed in the old ' Parliamentary History ' xxi. 28, and in White- 
lock's ' Memorials,' ed. 1853, iv. 274. Amongst Hobart's papers 
are copies of the protest of the excluded members and of their 
letter to the speaker, together with a list of their names and of the 
names of those who voted for their admission when the question was 
discussed in parliament on Sept 23. 1656.'* Hobart wrote to the 
mayor of Norwich, on Sept. 23, saying, ' I am not suffered to re- 
present you in parliament,' and adding, ' If those things which 
shall there be done prove to the glory of God, and the peace and 
freedome of this our nation, I shall exceedingly rejoyce, by what 
instruments soever they be effected ; if otherwise (which God of his 
mercy yet divert) I shall accompt it a great mercy in behig neither 
actor nor spectator in them.' ^ 

The second session of the parliament opened on 20 Jan. 1658. 
By the * Petition and Advice ' parliament had been recognised as sole 
judge of the eligibility of its members, and those who had been 
excluded in the first session were now able to take their seats 
again, if they were willing to take the oath required by the new 

As the first of these letters shows, the excluded members were 
uncertain what course to adopt. Hobart drew up a pamphlet, 
entitled * A brief discussion of this question, viz. whether those 
members of parliament, who upon the 17th of September 1656 were 
hindered by open force from sitting in the house of parliament, may, 
as things now stand, come upon the 20th day of January 1657 and sit 
and act with those who in their absence have taken upon them the 
name and power of the parliament.' ^ He concluded that ' to leave 
that tyrant and hispack'd convention to stand upon his sandy foun- 
dation is the greatest good as the things now are, which any secluded 
member can doe in discharge of his public trust.' Eemaining him- 
self at Norwich, he received from Josias Berners and other friends a 
series of letters giving an account of the proceedings of the parlia- 
ment and its abrupt conclusion. The accounts given of the dissolu- 
tion should be compared with those contained in the despatch of 

^ Burton's Diary, i. xxxvi. 

* Tanner MSS. lii. f. 149 ; where it is wi-ongly assigned to September 1656 instead 
of September 1654 

* Tanner MSS. lii. ff. 156, 166. * Ibid. lii. f. 168. 
« Ibid. lii. ff. 158, 219. 


Bordeaux, and the newsletter to the Dutch ambassador.'^ Compare 
also the tract entitled * A second narrative of the late parliament 
etc. 1658,' ^ which is followed by Ludlow in his memoirs. 

C. H. Firth. 

[From Josias Berners to John Hobart.^] 

Sir, — I received your letter, and have conferred with clivers secluded 
members, and others, and find them in a manner all to-seek and 
irresolved what to do. Some apprehend danger in the 1,000Z. penalty, 
though not guilty. Some think they shall be necessitated to build (if 
they go in) upon that xmrighteous foundation already laid ; others think 
that if they go in they must either countenance by their presence and 
silence or else inflame by opposition, that therefore the best way is to keep 
out and let them heighten him as high as they will, and that it will make 
him fall the sooner. The truth is he is generally feared but not beloved, 
and men are grown wary. The writs for the other House go out next 
week, which House is (by their negative voice) to be a screen for him 
whatever the temper of the House of Commons be or shall be. If you all 
could agree to go in at first (which I cannot hope) you might then out- 
vote that party or faction which receive of the public more than they pay 
to it, and so perhaps make him to dissolve you, which is the best we can 
expect at present as things stand, men observing the powers now, as some 
heathen worship Satan, not for good but that he may not hurt them. I 
asked one- of the party what good the Protector had done since his reign ; 
he instanced in the ordinance for triers, and what good there is in that 
the inclosed will partly tell you. The Protector hath warmed Fairfax by 
attendance to no purpose, and, searching still for Buckingham.'*' The 
Protector may voluntarily marry his two daughters in a week to the sons 
of two Cavaliers, and Fairfax must be blamed for marrying one daughter 
to please his wife more than himself. The Act about new buildings doth 
not bring in the tenth of what was expected. Mardicke will cost money 
and blood to maintain, and the Allies of Sweden and Portugal grow low and 
Holland high, and money must be had to help them and to buy a crown 
too for home. The Soldiers are angry but dare not trust one another. 
The Lord hath promised all things shall work together for the best for 
them that love him : to His blessed guidance and protection I commit 
you, with the tender of my own and my wife's best respects to yourself 
and worthy Lady, and am. Sir, 

Your most faithful Cousin and Servant, 

J. B. 

30 Nov. 1657. 

Mr. H. N. presents his service. 

' Thurloe Papers, vi. 778, 781. 

" Harleian Miscellany, ed. Park, iii. 4'72. " Tanner MSS. lii. f. 214. 

'" See Thurloe Papers, vi. 580, 616. The marriage of the duke of Buckingham to 
Mary Fairfax took place 15 Sept. 1657*; Frances Cromwell married Eobert Rich 11 Nov. 
1657, and Mary Cromwell Lord Falconbridge on 19 Nov. 1657. 



[Draught of a Letter from Mr. John Hohart on Public Affairs.^^] 

Sir, — I shall very gladly receive the favour from you of your promised 
accompt. I doubt not bui your wisdom will, in reading that and what- 
soever comes from such engaged pens, remember the fox which had lost 
his tail, and that their relations commonly are like to luxuriant youth, De 
quo aliquid amputandum. I did see a letter in Chapel in the Field, 
which speaks lamentation for the divisions already between the two 
Houses, and it is imputed to Lambert and Haselrigg (which last, though 
intended by his writ to be translated, yet still continues where he was), 
who have made they say a strong party, but I cannot so easily believe that 
your partner Juyse his house will forsake their own brat so soon, but 
rather think it a quarrel picked against them. 

But that I think you said that you had books weekly from London I 
could not have refrained from sending you the Prologue of the new Tragi- 
Oomedy, Fiennes his speech, '^ such stuff as is scarce imagmable by us 
who Ipsam bestiam disserentem midivivms (as J^schines of Demosthenes), 
it is a Hocus, a Cabal, mysterious and Jewish throughout, only in the 
last leaf it tells the gentlemen plainly that the 1,300,000/. per annum for 
€ver, 35,000/. per mensem for 3 years, and those other vast additions of 
the fines upon the new buildings, &c. are not sufficient to maintain that 
holy war which they have adopted against Spain, only it seems they had 
done well for one bout, and so they had leave to breathe till the 20th of 
January, and to it again. I shall trouble you only with my desire that 
if you have it you will consider this his Sorites brought by him there 
against restive spirits, as he calls, I fear, you and me. — None must be 
idle, but every one must serve God and his Country, according to his 
calling. That call cannot but be warrantable that is necessary. That is 
necessary which God by his providence so orders that a man must act by 
it or not at all. That he should not act at all is neither agreeable to 
God's commandment nor his Example — As if we were bound to go with 
[sic] to act with those to whom we are forbid to bid God speed, lest there- 
by we be partakers of their evil deeds : as if, because his jNIaster with 
30,000 will not let us act unless we will betray our country, therefore we 
must act to betray it. Sir, you judge too charitably of Ward ; it is not 
his parts, no nor the eloquence of the two Bacons (who make one Master 
of Requests), who summoned by powerful letter all those their neigh- 
bours, but the fears or hopes of those Suffolk gentlemen, which made 
them easy to be led.'^ At qui vel trepidus pavet vel optat cum non sit 
stabilis suique juris, abjecit clipeum locoque motus nectit, qua valeat 
trahi, catenam. I am more troubled than wonder at your kinsman's 
recidivation. Your labour is endless to reduce a sheep which wanders 
every day, yet it is worth your pains. It is no hard conjecture of the 

'' This letter is dated at the end 1 Jan., but the references to the opening of parlia- 
ment show that 1 February is probably the correct date. Taniier MSS. Hi. f. 218. 

'■- ' The Speech of the Eight Honourable the Lord Fiennes, Commissioner of the 
Great Seal, made before his Highness and both Houses of Parliament,' 20 Jan. 165^. 

'=• Francis and Nathaniel Bacon, members for Ipswich. Ward should probably be 
Wall. Daniel Wall of Stratford was one of the members for Suffolk. 


influence of ill example) upon others, and easy to foresee those above us 

gnash with their teeth, and those with and below us made believe that 

we desert our trust ; but where a man is sure that he hath chosen a true 

principle, Nee ardor civium prava jubentium, nee vultus \instantis 

tyranni mente quatit solida. I have sent you what I writ this week to 

Mr. Iccypemes, which is the last of your present trouble from, Sir, 

Your most assured Friend and Servant, 

J. H. 
1 Jan. 1657. 

Sir, — I received your letter this fatal day, the 4tli of Feb. '57, wherein 
all your arguments and reasons were granted long before they came ; but 
glad I was, not only to see you the same, of whom I never thought other- 
wise, but others the same with you, whose perseverance in good resolu- 
tions may now tell them it is best to hold to that which satisfies within. 
I now tell you that this day, about 11, the Lord Protector came to the 
late Lords' House and then sent for all the Judges thither, who imme- 
diately went ; and soon after sent for the late old House of Commons to 
come to him, to whom he delivered (as I hear) thus, or to this effect : — 
that at their request he took this government upon him, as in the petition 
and advice, and that he was not very willing therewith, and wished them 
well to be advised and well peruse the same, &c. : but now he found them 
so much altered from what they were, that notwithstanding the great 
preparations abroad, which he told them of last at Whitehall, that they did 
not only disagree and not assist him, but even some of them there presen 
had been tampering in the Army and the City to set up a Tribune for the 
Commonwealth, which he doubted not, but to make it appear to be trea- 
son, yea and even at this time, when as he had information within these 
two days, that an incredible Army were to be landed within these two 
months in England, &c. and much more to the same effect, and thereupon 
he did dissolve them. Many sad faces appeared upon this and what can 
be the consequence, but sadness and much distemper of spirit, beside 
great taxes. God of his mercy grant, that all may be according to his 
good pleasure for the best at last, though we suffer for the present. 
Indeed, unreasonable and not to be satisfied spirits have been the cause 
of this, whereby moderate men must suffer, and noways to be helped but 
by patience, which God grant to you and. Sir, to 

Your ever hearty Servant 

From the Three Legs, in Fleet Street, [signature erased] 

this 4th of Feb. '57. 

[Addressed : — ]For John Hobart, Esq., 

these be delivered. 


[With seal.] 


[Letter from Josias Berners to John Hobart.^ ^] 

Sir, — I received your letter, but Oliver, Protector, did me the kindness 

to answer it for me by his sudden dissolution of the Parliament, whereof 

our good friend Mr. [erased] told me he would the same day signify to 

you. The truth is he did the best for himself, for thmgs began to wo k 

'^ Tanner MSS. lii, f. 225. '* lUd. lii. f. 229. 


strangely and turn against him in the Army and Town by reason of the 
Parliament sitting, which otherwise, I believe, would at last have served 
his turn in regard so many Members kept out. There is now a general 
dissatisfaction, and some that were for him are now irreconcilably against 
him. He went with some of his guards in a hackney coach to the other 
House and called all the Judges from the Benches. St. John was catched 
napping and went up, but would not take his place but amongst the 
Judges on the Woolpacks. Fynes and Fleetewood being with him in 
the withdrawing rooms, where other attendants were, would have dis- 
suaded him, but he swore by the living God he would dissolve it, and 
after he had done it he went home with his drawn sword in the hackney 
coach. The heads of the petition '^ to the Commons, as the supreme 
authority, by 10,000 hands of the separated Churches, &c. were for main- 
taining the liberties of the people and privileges of Parliament, that the 
Militia might be in such hands as might do no hurt, that the officers of 
the Army, (whilst the Army should be thought fit to be continued), might 
not be cashiered, but by a Council of War. Sir, his own Regiment of 
Horse were of the same mind and, he sending for all the Captains thereof, 
they all manifested their dissatisfaction and so continue still, and one of 
them (though an Anabaptist) said, if he could not have liberty of con- 
science (which Oliver, Protector, pretends for), unless the nations must 
lose their civil liberties, he would venture or seek it elsewhere. This day 
he took their commissions from them all, but he knows there are nine of 
the Eegiments in Scotland of the same mind, from whence this Regi- 
ment lately came. What influence this cashiering may have upon them 
time will show, I think, for all his packed Parliament settlement he is 
now in more danger than ever. I have delivered j\[r, [name erased] a 
book for you, which may better inform you why you were kept out and 
why those that kept in voted as they did. I needed not to have writ so 
much, considering who is the bearer hereof, and therefore conclude with 
the tender of my own and wife's best respects to your self and Lady, 
and am. Sir, 

Your most faithful Servant 

J. B. 
11 Febr. 1657. 

Sir, — In order to your injunctions, to my best remembrance and 
information, the evening before the Dissolution, one Colonel Jenkins,'* a 

'* This petition was printed under the title ' A true copy of a petition signed by very 
many peaceable and well-affected people inhabiting in and about the City of London, 
and intended to have been delivered to the late Parliament. Now presented to the 
publick view and consideration of all men : With a brief Apology in the behalf of the 
Petitioners. By a Friend to the Commonwealth, and a cordiall well-wisher to the 
righteous things prayed for in the Petition, by E. H. . . .' London, Printed for the 
Author and to be sold by Livewell Chapman etc. 4° 1657. E. H. was probably 
Edward Harrison, sometime chaplain to Major-General Thomas Harrison's regiment. 
This same petition was presented to the next parliament on 15 Feb. 165f, by 
Mr. Samuel Moyer and other citizens, and was favourably received by them. See 
Burton's Diary, iii. 288 ; Thurloe Papers, vii. 617. Berners, Hobart's correspondent, 
was one of the deputation who presented the petition in 1659. 

" Tanner MSS. li. f. 1. 

'* Probably John Jenkyn, member for Wells, captain of a troop of horse, described 
as Major Jenkins, Harleian Miscellany, iii. 455. 


Member of the House, received a letter from a porter, in which was a 
letter included, directed to the Protector. The letter to Jenkins purported 
thus much, or rather had these words (videhcet) I hope you will be at the 
House to-morrow to do service for the Army and the Nation. Where- 
upon Jenkins stayed the porter, and asked him where he had that letter ; 
at first the porter dissembled, at last told him where, hvt not of whom, 
nor could he, for the porter was secured. Presently Jeniihis repaired 
to Secretary Thurlowe, and showed him his letter and delivered the 
enclosed to him, also that to the Lord Protector. When the Secretary 
had read Jenkins' letter, he presently sent for Mr. Maydston,''* one of the 
Bedchamber, and told him he must forthwith carry to his Highness those 
letters, which he did ; but he, being close shut up, could not suddenly 
speak with him, but knocking very hard, his Highness asked angrily, who 
was there ? He answered, that the Secretary had sent a letter to his 
Highness, as he thought, of great concernment ; he presently unbarred 
the door, and took the letter and shut the door again ; and after a short 
perusal, he commanded the porter should be set at liberty ; and presently 
sent for Whaley and Desboro, and some others, whose turn was that 
night to wait and watch, and asked them, if they heard no news, and 
they said, No ; and he again asked, if they did not hear of a Petition ; 
they said, No ; then he commanded them to go to Westminster and 
require the guard there to come to Whitehall, and that to go to West- 
minster, and they did go towards Westminster ; but hearing some soldiers 
speaking of enthralling their posterity, although themselves might live 
well for a while, those commanders returned back and told his Highness 
what they heard. Then he commanded them to go to the Mews and 
command that guard to come to Whitehall, and Whitehall guards to go 
to the Mews, which was done. Thus things rested until morning, and 
that morning the Protector sent a letter into [the] City, and had an 
answer returned ; upon which he seemed much troubled, and after a 
while, before 9 of the clock, called for his dinner, a little before which 
time he went to his Secretary, who was in bed and sick, and his Highness 
told him he would go to the House, at which he wondered why his High- 
ness resolved so suddenly. He did not tell him why, but he was resolved 
to go. And when he had dined, he withdrew himself and went the back 
way, intending alone to have gone by water ; but the ice was so as he 
could not ; then he came the foot way, and the first man of the guard he 
saw, he commanded him to press the nearest coach, which he did, with 
but two horses in it, and so he went with not above four footmen and 
about five or six of the guards to the House ; after which, retiring into 
the withdrawing room, drunk a cup of ale and ate a piece of toast, and 
then came into the Lords' House (as yet called). Then the Lord Fynes 
near to him asked his Highness, what he intended ; he said, he would 
dissolve the House. Upon which the Lord Fleetwood said, I beseech your 
Highness consider first well of it ; it is of great consequence. He replied, 
you are a milksop, by the living God I will dissolve the House. (Some 
say he iterated this twice, and some say it was. as the Lord Hveth.) And 
then the Lower House, or other, or first, or no House being come, he 
spake to this efiect :— 

'" John Maidstone, steward of the Protector's household and M.P. for Colchester. 


Gentlemen, and you Lords or Gentlemen, (turning his head to them,) 
whatsoever you are to be called — I think you are not ambitious of titles — 
When you first tendered this way of government to me, set forth in the 
petition and advice, you know I was not inclining thereto ; I call God 
and his angels to witness it. I then wished you well to consider of it and 
peruse it, and told you that, were it not that the necessity of the Nation 
required it, I should rather choose to lodge and keep sheep under an hedge, 
than so take it upon me. And notwithstanding I find you are not the 
same men you were ; you jar and disagree with me, and therefore I am 
also disengaged. And that you should not unite at this time, when as I 
told you lately at Whitehall and now tell you again, and can make it out 
by credible information within these two days, that the young man beyond 
Sea, entitled the King of Scots, hath a considerable number of forces and 
hath moneys, and that our neighbour the Hollander hath lent him 30 
sail of ships, and that upon the first opportunity they intend to land in 
some port of this Nation ; and yet we cannot unite, but must be at jars- 
about trifles. And as to the revenues of the Nation it falleth short half, 
and so do the money to be raised upon new buildings. And now much 
time hath been spent and nothing done, and how suddenly there may be 
a necessity of supplies of monies to secure the Nation I know not, and 
delays may breed dangers, I therefore now dissolve you. 

Since which time, this sudden and resolute dissolution hath begot 
none other production, but an assembling of the Officers of the Army, the 
Saturday following, to whom his Highness thus familiarly spake : - 
Gentlemen, We have gone along together and why we should now differ 
I know not ; let me now intreat you to deal plainly and freely with me, 
that if any of you cannot in conscience conform to the new govern- 
ment, let him speak, for now it hath pleased God to put me in a capacity 
to protect you, and I will protect you ; and he drunk to them, and many 
bottles of wine were then drunk, but no reply made. There was one 
remarkable passage that I omitted in his Highness' speech, that he did 
not doubt but it would be made out, that some, if not some here present, 
have been tampering with the Army and the City, which, if it shall be 
made to appear, he made no question but it was treason. 

Touching the petition which begot this dissolution, we understand it 
was consisting of the fifth-monarch-men (as is said) and of divers sects 
coupled and joined with a good part of the Army. I never saw the peti- 
tion, but the style is said to be from the Churches in London, &c. ; some 
of the heads these (as I hear). [1.] That the Militia may be put into safe 
hands. 2. That no Officer of the Army be removed without a Council of 
War, (they need no more if these [be] granted). 3. That one House of 
Parliament be the Supreme Judicature of the Nation, and some others, 
which I remember not. Mr. N. never went into House, but inclined 
if they had continued while Monday following &c. 

Yours lovingly and really to serve you. 
[No signature.] 

12 Feb. '57. 

[Addressed : — ^]For his much honoured Friend, 
John Hobart, Esq., 
at his House in Norwich, 
these be delivered. 

[With seal.] 



[John Hohart to Josias Bemers.^'^] 

Sir, — I am glad for your safe returne which I gather from the large 
favour which I have receyved from you, for which I returne you my 
hearty and enlarged thankes. I take notice from yours and some other 
information of two dawnings of Truth which, if it shall please God to 
cleare up will bring deliverance to this Nation. The one is, that these 
Churches begin to see that they have bin fooled under the specious pre- 
tence of Liberty of Conscience to betray the Civill libertyes of theyr owne 
native countrey, so that one of them told him to his head that if he 
could not have that Avithout the losse of these, he would adventure or 
seeke it elswhere. The other is that there is some sence in the Army how 
unworthy a thing it is to take pay to betray and inslave theyr Countrey 
and that all this oppression for so many yeares is for nothing but to sett 
up a single and inconsiderable family, in so much as the cheife Captain of 
his Regiment told him as the commaund and sence of the Army, that they 
engaged upon an other score, and that if a private familye's interest is to 
be set up they would choose the right. His doing such desperate things of 
his owne head against such perswasions, and being secret even to his 
owne Secretary, shew him to be at his witt's end, all things seeme to 
prepare for the Sun of Eighteousnes his appearing with heahng in his 
wings, if the thick mists of our sins doth not yet retard it, and then we 
must with patience and yet assurance expect it. However, Sir, as I 
doubt not but that as we have hitherto bin so much of the same judgment 
in these things so we are now of the same sence of our late personall 
deHverance in the very last moment, and therefore cannot but invite you 
to joyne with me while we live in our continu all acknowledgments to God 
for it, and to the continuation of that freindship betweene us whereby you 
have already rendred me 

wholly and really yours, 

J. H. 
20 Feb. '57. 

^0 Tanner M.S.S. li. f. 2. 
A royalist agent supplies some gossip about the causes of the dissolution. ' I was 
told the cause of breaking the parliament was Cromwell's fear of a remonstrance and 
a petition which should have been delivered the next day by Fairfax, that the first was 
very bitter against his . . . government, that the other was to desire the house to 
assume the power and the militia, that many of the army consented to this, and that 
the major part of the house resolved that if it was only opposed by Cromwell's friends, 
that they would remove into the city, vote the old parliament, and make Fairfax 
general, and establish the commonwealth as it was formerly. I was told too that the 
Duke his son, who is the oracle of his father, mother-in-law, and wife, which is the 
best of the four, agreed to this and he should say to one that blamed him for it, he was 
sure he could never be reconciled to those about the King, and that if this government 
were established he would be the best man in it. Though I can believe enough of his 
malice ambition and indiscretion yet I can hardly this ; but if he had these thoughts 
Cromwell has humbled him, for he is now of another mind, and does all he can to 
incense Fairfax to do something for his safety and revenge but its more likely their 
vigilant enemy will prevent him than that he'll be brought to act, as angry and as 
much injured he and the Duke are, for he is a slow beast and inconstant. . . . Crom 
well is not well in body or mind his mutinous officers vex him strangely and those he 
ashiered report him to be mad. The truth is he was forced to take opium two nights 
to make him sleep.' Daniel O'Neill to Hyde, February 1658 {Clarendon MSS. vol. Ivii, 



The manuscript diaries of travellers which are sometimes met with 
in libraries have lately begun to attract in a greater degree than 
formerly the attention which, from their notices of objects since lost 
or injured or from their mention of contemporary persons or events, 
or their illustration of manners, and the like, they are often found 
to deserve. Dr. Carl Curtius, the librarian of Liibeck, has lately 
printed (Liibeck, Borchers, 1890), as a contribution for the twentieth 
meeting of the Historical Society of the Hanse Towns, in a quarto 
pamphlet of forty-eight pages, a diary entitled 'Eeise durch das 
nordwestliche Deutschland nach den Niederlanden und England im 
Jahre 1683,' by Jakob von Melle, a theological and historical writer 
of Liibeck, and the Hamburg poet Christian Heinrich Postel. They 
spent about five weeks in England, crossing to Dover from Calais 
for five shillings, and thence to London by Canterbury for sixteen 
shillings. In London they paid ten shillings a week for board 
and lodging in Warwick Lane. At Windsor, on Sunday, 14 Aug., 
they attended service in the chapel, where they saw the king, 
the Princess Anne, and the king's natural sons the dukes of 
Grafton and Eichmond. They afterwards saw the king at dinner 
with the queen, the duke of York, and Prince George of Denmark. 
The Tower, Mint, Westminster Abbey (where they paid twopence), 
the Houses of Parliament, Gresham College, the Temple, Lambeth 
Palace, Greenwich, are among the places visited and described. 
Clarendon House is noticed, and the strange statement made that 
the chancellor was the son of a butcher, possibly by some confusion 
with the tradition of Wolsey's parentage. Three days were spent 
in Oxford, which was reached by a journey in a ' flying coach,' 
"which occupied one day and cost ten shillings. Here they lodged 
with one Mrs. Mountfort opposite the theatre, at whose table they 
met Professor Edward Bernard and Baron Sparr. The Bodleian 
Library is the only place described, partly from the Notitia Oxon., 
and some of the manuscripts and curiosities (including amongst the 
latter the * Joseph's coat ') exhibited to visitors are enumerated. 
The picture gallery then contained maps as well as portraits. 

W. D. Macray. 


The following contemporary account of the battle of La Hogue is 
copied from a manuscript formerly belonging to the Sharpe family 
of Little Horton, near Bradford, Yorkshire, of which family was 
Abraham Sharpe the astronomer. The manuscript seems defective 
at the beginning and bears no signature, but is evidently the work 
of an eye-witness. 


An account of Admiral Rooke's family is supplied from another 
manuscript in the same collection written in 1697. 

W. C. Boulter. 

On Friday y^ 20'* of May 92. — 4 this moriiing we had so greatt a 
fogg we Could not tell whether We were Amongst English or French. 
At Eight itt Cleared up we found our Selves in Company of y® Adm" of 
y* Blew and some of his Squadron, And we saw our Gen" to y® Westward 
and y« Dutch to y® Westward of him, and y^ French to y® Westward of y® 
Dutch, then our Generall made y*^ signall for y« whole Fleett to make all 
y® Sayle we Could in pursuance of y® French for contrary to our Ex- 
pecttations they Run from us, w'^^ we did all day without getting any 
Advanttage of them, and in y*^ Evening Anchored by reason of y® viollentt 
tides y* runs in those partts, but weighed again aboutt Eleven att nightt 
and Conttinued our Pursuitt. 

On Satturday y" 21*' of May 92. — This morning we Anchored att y® 
mouth of y® Race of Blanchard w*^^ runs between Cape La Hogue and 
y® Island of Alderne, the French ffleet being att an Anchor in y'^ Race, 
aboutt Ten of y« Clock this morning Sixteen Sayle of their Men of War 
drovefrom their Anchors to y« Eastward, Seven or Eight Sayleof them being 
Three deck Ships, y^ Adm" of France being one of them. Immediattly ^ 
our Adm" accompanyed w*^ four English Flags more, And three or four 
of y^ Dutch Flags more Cutt and pursued Them, and left S'' John Ashby 
and y^ Adm^' of Holland w*'^ two or three Dutch Flags more w**^ y* 
Remainder of y^ Fleett to Pursue y® rest yf°^ He did and took a ffrench 
Fireshp butt Could not Come up w*'^ y® Men of War all day, On y^ other 
side y® Gen" Pursued y® Adm" of France so Close y* for fear of being 
taken he run his Ship ashore in Cherbourg Bay, Two three deck Ships 
doeing y^ Like there also, w'^'^ y® Gener" seeing He ordered S'' Ralph 
Dallivall, w*'^ aboutt Ten Sayle of Men of War, and ffireshps to Attemp 
y« burning of them, and pursued y" Other Thirteen sayle who stood to y*' 
East*"*^. In Pursuance of y® Orders S'" Ralph had reed, he stood into 
y^ Bay w**^ Three or four fourth rates iiriggats & two ffireshps In Oi'der to 
bum y® Aforesaid French Men of War, butt they reed him so Warmly y* 
after an Obstinate fightt on both Sides He was forced to Come out without 
doing Execution. 

On Sunday y" 22""^ of May 92. — This morning S*" John Ashby had 
Lost sightt of y* Partt of y*' French Fleett He was Left to pursue, so 
he Tacked and stood to y® Eastward in order to Joyn ye Generall, And 
this day S"" Ralph Dellivall stood into y*^ Bay again w*'' Four or five Sayle 
of Third Rates and some ffireshps in Order once more to Attemp y^ 
Burning of y^ aforesaid Ships W*^^ after a very sharp dispute he effectted 
y« Ships Names was y® Roy" Sun of a Hundred and Ten guns, y® 
Admirable of ninty Six and y«^ Terrible of ninty Six, and Two Privateers 
y^ One of twenty four and y*' other of Twenty Guns, as also a ffireshp, 
He then stood outt of y^ Bay and made way to joyn y^ Fleett w*=** was 
then att Cape Barffleur, y« Thirteen Sayle of French Men of War haveing 
run ashore in a Bay Called La Houge. 

On Monday y^ 23'' of May 92. — Att Eleven this forenoon S"" John 
Ashby w*'^ y* partt of y^ Fleett under his Comand Joyned y^ Gener" Off 


of Cape BarflSieur, S^ Ealph haveing done y^ same before. Att two this 
Affternoon a Consulltation was held onboard y^ Adm" and they Came to 
these resollutions, viz That Vice Adra}^ Rooke should y* Evening Hoistt 
his Flag onboard of another Ship, and take w*^ him seven or Eightt sayle 
of small Friggatts and some ffireshps, and also y* all y^ Barges And 
Longboatts in y^ Fleett should be manned and goe w**^ him into La Houge 
bay to Attemp y^ burning of y® Thirteen ffrench Men of War y* was run 
afhore there. So according to y® Orders Vice Adm" Rooke had reed,, 
aboutt Seven in y« Evening he stood into y® Bay, haveing before hoistted 
his Flag onboard y^ Eagle and Accompanyed as aforesaid. Att his 
Entrance In he mett w*** Some Opposition from a Plattform y* they had 
made to Obstructt our pafsage, where they had Plantted sever" of y^ Ships 
Guns, but when he Came near he Answered them so warmly y* they soon 
quitted their Guns and afterwards did us Little damage, y^ boatts Were 
Comanded by y® Lord Danby and Capt. Pickard haveing all of them fire- 
works Onboard, being Entred into y^ Bay there was Another small Fortt 
w'''^ made some Refsisttance againstt us and y® Water being Shallow y* a 
Ship of force could not againstt itt y^ Larke ffriggatt was Ordered to Lye 
and batf itt w'=^ she did w**^ good succefs, y^ Bay was Lined w*'^ Souldiers 
both Horse and foott w'=^ fired Att us Amain without Intermifsion, butt 
notwithstanding their great Refsisttance, our Ships and boatts made an 
Assaullt upon y® French Ships, and by Ten att nightt sett Six Sayle of 
them on fire one of w'='^ was y« S* Phillip of a Hundred and odd Guns 
onboard of w''^ y® Late King James this day dined w'^'^ when they had 
Accomplished they Came outt and Anchored att y^ mouth of y® bay all 
Nightt, by reason there was no more Ships in this Bay y^ other seven 
Sayle haveing run ashore in a Little bay to y® Eastward of this ; The 
Magazine in w*'^ was all y'' Powder y* Came outt of y® Thirteen ffrench 
Men of War blew up this night butt y^ Cause we Cannot tell 

On Tuesday if 24'^ of May 92. — ^This morning our Ships and boatts 
made an Assaulltt upon y^ residue of y« Ifrench Men of War that was 
Left, being Seven sayle and Was very Hottly reed by y*' forces y* Lined y® 
Shore, however by ten of y® Clock in y® morning we sett them all on fire 
together w**^ Seven sayle of Merchantt men, and one more we broughtt oft' 
and then stood outt of y^ Bay, most of ye boatts Came off to y® Fleett w*'^ 
ffrench Flags in their bowes and good plunder, Att noon y® Fleett Came 
to sayle and stood for S* Hellens 


Of the Family of y« Rooks in Kent there were two B""* Laurence & 
W^ilUam : Laurence had a fair Estate of 700" a year, marry ed S*" Peter 
Hammond's Daughter, by whom he had Hamond Rook who prov'd an 
Atheistical swearing Man & a great Spender, marryed a Coffee-man's 
Daughter w*^ whom he liv'd uneasily & discontentedly, so he or his 
father rather begun to sell y® Joynture he had by his Grandmother 
to one M"" Morris (of whom afterwards). Hammond Rook then goes to 



Tangier, comes back, is now in y^ Regiment of S"" Jonathan Trelawny 
in Flanders ; hath made love whether in reality or sport I know not to 
other women, who asking him w* he meant to do w*^ y® Wife he had, 
Answered make minc'd Pies of her or a Fricasy ; he hath however got 
money, & would gladly buy back his Estate, but Morris y^ Proprietor 
will not sell. 

"William y« other B'" sometimes calld Colli Rook was in favour w* y* 
Duke of York, had but a small Estate saving w* he got from y* Court, 
he was Knighted by King James 2^ had 3 sons Georg Thomas & Finch. 
Georg was a very unlucky Boy & much given to stealing; his Father 
would have placd him w*"^ an Attorney but he durst not trust him : At 
last he resolvd to send him to Sea & being ask'd y^ reason said he had 
rather hear of his being drownd at Sea y** have him hangd at Land, so 
he was placd whilst a boy with S*" Edward Sprag, &c : This is he who 
was first a Capt" of a Ship under K. James, then Rear Admiral, Vice 
Admiral, & now S"" Georg Rook Admiral of y« Grand Fleet under King 
William 1697. 

M*" Morris who bought part of y^ Rooks Estate (as before noted) was 
a poor fellow, I think a Journey-man out of employment & was dejectedly 
sitting in an Inne whither Alderm" Blackwell came accidentally & asking 
bim who he was & whither going, He answered, into y* Coimtrey to my 
Freinds for here I can get no employment : Can y" write & keep a Book 
(said y® Alderman) Yes (said he) very well ; hereupon he took Morris 
to his house w" he had but one poor shilling left in his Pocket. He 
staid w*'' y® Alderman till he was able by piecemeal to by y« whole Estate 
of Laurence & Hammond Rook ; & now he is said to be worth a thousand 
pound a Year ; tiio some think he overreachd & rookd y® Rooks before he 
got into their Nest, bis Son proves prodigall his two Daughters foolish. 


The revival of a sentimental attachment to the house of Stuart, 
and of an inclination to the doctrine of the divine right of kings, 
80 soon as one and the other had ceased to be dangerous to the 
liberties and religion of the country, is among the phenomena of 
the second half of the eighteenth century. Among their causes 
may be enumerated the inevitable law of reaction ; that tenderness 
towards a defeated party which invariably sets in when the practical 
issues of the struggle are at rest, which inspires Homer with 
romantic compassion towards Troy, and softens Virgil towards 
Carthage, and is now raising up panegyrists of Lee and Jefferson 
Davis to the north of the Potomac ; above all the discovery that 
the maxims of the vanquished were exceedingly convenient for those 
by whom their champions had been displaced and dethroned. To 
the latter cause must be attributed the discouragement of Bishop 
Hayter's honest remonstrance (1762) against Jacobite books being 
offered for the perusal of his princely pupil. The protest which 


before the final overthrow of the Stuarts in 1745 would have 
seemed obviously right, after that event cost the bishop his pre- 
-ceptorship. About the same time Hume's apology for arbitrary 
power, though for the moment ill received by the public, gained 
him the commendation of two archbishops. In Shebbeare's pre- 
face to Clarendon's * Memoirs of Charles II,' twelve years later, 
this spirit appears without concealment, and the pension bestowed 
upon this libellous scribbler attests the approval of the court. 
Between the two, and also not without significance as a sign of 
reaction against the principles of the revolution, comes the little 
and utterly forgotten book, the production of a not uninterest- 
ing person, of which and of its author some account is now to be 
given. It is entitled * A Brief History of England, both in Church 
and State, by way of Question and Answer, faithfully extracted from 
the most authentic histories and records, now carefully revised 
and improved in a second edition by John Lindsay. London [1763].' 
In a preface dated 17 Jan. 1763 the author speaks of the sale 
•of ' a large impression ' of the first edition, but does not give the 
■date of publication. Particulars respecting him are to be ascer- 
tained from a note in Nichols's * Literary Anecdotes,' i. 373-376. 
From this it appears that he was a nonjuring clergyman, minister 
till his death at a nonjuring chapel in Aldersgate Street, which did 
not survive him. He died, aged 82, on 21 June 1768, and was 
buried in Islington churchyard, where his epitaph and his wife's 
were still to be read in 1808. Both are printed in the ' Literary 
Anecdotes.' It would appear that, like Elijah Fenton, he had 
refused ordination and preferment in the established church from 
ficruples of conscience. As early as 1720 he had written a * Short 
History of the Eegal Succession, with Eemarks on Whiston's 
Scripture Politicks.' In 1727 he had published a translation of 
Mason's 'Vindication of the Church of England,' with a long and 
valuable preface on the episcopal succession. 

His little history of England is drawn up in the form of a 
catechism, which gives the writer every facility for representing 
things his own way. It is very much such a production as might 
have been expected from a high churchman in the time of 
Sacheverell, but had been obsolete for half a century, at variance 
with the saner spirit of the age on the one hand and not sufficiently 
thoroughgoing in its Jacobitism to please the adherents of the 
Stuarts on the other. It is of no importance except as marking 
that reaction in public sentiment by which Jacobites were ad- 
mitted to influence opinion upon condition of giving up their 
Jacobitism while retaining the principles which logically conducted 
to it. Thus the glories of Elizabeth's reign seem to the author 
little in comparison with her treatment of Mary Queen of Scots, 
for Mary was a Stuart. Charles I's * prejudices ' against parlia- 

I 2 


ments were * just,' and * this nation never knew more plenty, 
prosperity, and glory than in those ten years of his reign in which 
there was no parliament.' Opponents of episcopacy were ' fanatic- 
ally mad,' and their * mutilation in the pillory ' was * a wholesome 
exercise of discipline.' Passive obedience is * a plain Scripture 
doctrine.' The whole blame of James II's illegal government is 
thrown upon Sunderland and other bad advisers, while it is 
inconsistently stated that their advice was given in order to acquire 
his favour. On the whole the little book, while destitute of all 
historical merit, is worth notice as a curious instance of the survival 
of unpopular principles under circumstances of great discouragement 
and their reappearance with modifications when times become 
more favourable. E. Gaenett. 


The following copies of two inscriptions on the tombstones of re- 
presentatives of the crown who died in the service in Turkey have 
been communicated by the late Eight Hon. Sir William A. White, 
G.C.B., G.C.M.G., her Majesty's ambassador at Constantinople. 
Two or three apparent clerical errors in the copy have been cor- 

Inscription on the tomb of Sir Edward Barton in the island of 
Halki : 


illustrissimo ac ferventissimo Anglorum reginae oratori viro praestan- 
tissimo qui post reditum a belle Ungarico quo cum invicto Turcarum 
imperatore profectus fuerat diem obiit aetatis suae XXXV salutis varum 
anno MDXCVII calendis lanuar. 

Inscription on the tombstone of Sir William Hussey, at present 
lying in the Greek church of the apostles at Adrianople : 

Venerabundus siste viator ecce invidenda mortis spolia viscera hoe 
sub marmore recondita excellentissimi dom. Guilielmi Hussey equitis 
aurati pro serenissimo Magnae Britanniae Eege Guilielmo tertio ad 
Portam Ottomannam legati extraordinarii qui ad pacem inter duo 
imperia Csesareum et Ottomannum feralibus dudum lacerata bellis stabi- 
Uendam cum feliciter laborasset iamque ad eandem consummandam 
Belgradam contenderet febre Adrianopoli invadente id. Sep. anno salutis 
MDCLXXXI. diem supremum obiit. 

1892 117 

Reviews of Books 

The History of Sicily from the Earliest Times. By Edward A. Free- 
man. Vol. I. : The Native Nations ; the Phoenician and Greek Settle- 
ments. Vol. II. : From the beginning of Greek Settlement to the 
beginning of Athenian intervention. (Oxford : Clarendon Press. 

These two volumes, which treat of the history of Sicily from the earliest 
times down to the death of Ducetius in B.C. 440, are the first instalment 
i)i a work which will eventually be carried down to the death of the 
Emperor Frederick II. Originally, as the author assures us, his plan 
was to take up the history at a considerably later period. But the diffi- 
culty of laying hold of the thread of the narrative at any particular time 
gradually drove him backward, and compelled him to begin the story at 
the very beginning. We have every reason to be glad that this was so, 
for the two volumes now before us are a welcome contribution, from the 
hand of a master, to the study of ancient history. Kepeated visits to the 
scenes he describes have given Professor Freeman a familiarity with 
Sicihan geography which is traceable on almost every page of the book, 
and which, besides making his narrative vivid and clear, is invaluable as 
a means of checking or confirming the statements of ancient writers. 

The work contains excellent maps, on a large scale, of Panormus and 
Solous, of Motya and Eryx, of the district of Syracuse and Megara, of 
Selinus, of Akragas, of Syracuse in the fifth century, and in illustration 
of the battle of Himera and of the territorial advance of Syracuse. The 
' Notes ' are a special feature of the work. Vol. i. contains, in 139 pages, 
twenty-one of these ' Notes,' and vol. ii. thirty-five similar ' Notes,' in 135 
pages. Many of these are careful and exhaustive discussions of various 
points too long or perhaps too technical to be dealt with satisfactorily in 
the text. We should be inclined to select as the most valuable of these, 
in vol. i. the notes on ' Sikans and Sikels,' ' The Palici and their Lake,' 
* Henna and its Goddesses,' and ' The Origin of the Elymians; ' in vol. ii. 
those on 'The Battle of Himera,' ' Hieron Polyzelos and Theron,' and 
The Wars in Western Sicily.' 

Sicilian history has been written by many authors ; a history of Sicily, 
on the present scale, by none. The nature of the subject, no doubt, has 
been partly responsible for this. Sicily never became a nation, in the 
sense of being the home of one people, speaking the same language, and 
governed by one permanent central authority. Lying as the island does 
between the eastern and western basins of the Mediterranean, it became 


first the colonising ground, and then the battlefield of many nations. 
Nor were the struggles which centred in Sicily of merely local interest : 
their issue, in many cases, was of the deepest importance in affecting the 
ultimate course of European civilisation. The struggles between Greek 
and Carthaginian, between the followers of Christ and the followers of the 
Prophet, were fought out largely on Sicilian soil, but the story of the con- 
tests has usually been related from the point of view of the contending 
parties themselves. Geologically speaking, Sicily is almost as much a 
part of Africa as it is of Europe ; one of the bamers which once parted 
the eastern from the western Mediterranean undoubtedly linked Sicily 
with the Tunisian coast. The recovery of Sicily for Africa was certain to 
be the first step in any design upon southern Europe which made north- 
ern Africa the basis of its operations. 

The historian of Sicily, so far as the period before the battle of 
Himera is concerned — perhaps one might almost say before the begin- 
ning of the Peloponnesian war — has a very difficult task before him. His 
materials are extremely scanty, while of anything like a continuous 
record of events there is not a fragment, until he gets to the eleventh 
book of Diodorus. With the exception of the priceless five chapters of 
the sixth book of Thucydides, and sundry pieces of narrative in Herodotus, 
he has to rake together his information from all kinds of sources, from 
chance references in the historians, from traditions preserved by the 
poets, from the evidence of geographical names, from the curiosity collec- 
tions of the lexicographers. It would be impossible to speak too highly 
of the manner in which Professor Freeman has performed this, the 
critical part, of his task. No one could hope to deal satisfactorily with 
material of this kind, unless possessed of a very just appreciation of the 
value of evidence. Temptations to overstate, to strain deductions, to set 
down as certain what is only probable or possible, to select facts which 
make for a daring theory and to pass lightly over those which tell against 
it, would, imder such circumstances, be too strong for the average 
historian. Professor Freeman has wisely kept clear of anything of the 
kind. He gives us all the evidence, and frequently is content to leave a 
definite decision unpronounced. He prefers to wait until more evidence 
turns up, or to acknowledge ignorance, rather than make his history a 
series of ingenious guesses. A good deal of this unsubstantial kind of 
history has arisen in discussing the question of Phoenician settlement on 
the Sicilian coasts, especially on the part of recent German writers, who 
build a great deal on supposed verbal similarities. Professor Freeman 
throws overboard their conclusions almost wholesale, and declines to 
recognise Melkart in every Heracles, or traces of Ashtoreth worship in 
every shrine of Aphrodite. 

With regard to the vexed question of Sikans and Sikels, Professor 
Freeman holds, with Thucydides, that they are quite distinct one from 
the other. Before Greeks, and even before Phoenicians made their 
appearance, Sicily was inhabited by three great tribes— the Sikans, who 
were possibly of Iberian origin, and who are the first known inhabitants 
of the island ; the Sikels, who appear to have migrated from Italy in 
about the eleventh century B.C., and gradually displaced the Sikans, even 
as they themselves were afterwards displaced by the Sikeliots ; and the 


Elymians, a race of uncertain origin, who occupied the extreme north- 
western comer of the island. 

One or two small points may be noted, in conclusion. In vol. i. p. 2, 
the passage of Thucydides (vii. 21) quoted to support the view that the 
inhabitants of Sicily were spoken of, and speak of themselves, as men of 
the mainland (^Tretpwratj, will hardly, we think, bear the meaning con- 
tended for. Hermocrates is urging the Syracusans not to be despondent 
of success in a naval battle against the Athenians, who themselves were 
not by inheritance nor from time immemorial skilled seamen, but used to 
be even more of landsmen {fjTreipwraQ jxaXXoi) than the Syracusans, and 
became a seafaring people only under stress of the Persian war. The 
contrast is not between islanders and mainlanders, but between a land and 
a naval power. It has always been a question how the epithet /ueyaXo- 
TToXiec, applied by Pindar to Syracuse, should be exactly understood. 
Professor Freeman seems to incHne (i. 352 n.)to take it as meaning Syra- 
cuse * made up of mighty cities ' (i.e. of its great suburbs Nasos, Tycha, 
Neapolis, Achradina, and Epipolae). It seems far more probable, from the 
fact that it is also applied to Athens by the same poet, where no such 
union of cities occurs, that the plural is simply due to the fact that the 
name of the town is also plural, and that the epithet means simply ' mighty 
city of . . . .' When applied to a town whose name is in the singular, 
fjeyaXoTToXiQ is used, as by Euripides, Troades, 1291, in the case of Troy. 
Perhaps no argument can be drawn from the later use of the word, but it 
is applied, in post-classical times, to Eome, Alexandria, Antioch, and 
Thessalonica, in each case, of course, in the singular. Once more, in the 
last line of the celebrated fragment of Cratinus (mentioned in vol. ii. 
p. 333, n. 2), surely rovcrrpaKoy, and not Perikles, is the nominative to 
-rapoix^rai, and the meaning is 'Perikles can carry his head high with 
impunity, now that the ostracism (i.e. that held in 444 B.C. when Thucy- 
dides the son of Melesias was banished) is a thing of the past.' The verb 
irapoixonai could hardly be used actively, meaning to escape or evade, al- 
though some of the lexicons give it so, for this passage only. When Thu- 
cydides was banished, the ' attempt was made to ostracise Perikles ' by the 
partisans of Thucydides. These are small matters, and count for nothing 
beside the brilliant success of the work as a whole. It is good news to hear 
that a great deal of the rest of the book is already written, and that we 
may hope for another instalment ere long. A. H. Cooke. 

Storia Greca. Parte I : La Grecia antichissima. Da Giulio Beloch. 
(Roma : Pasanisi. 1891.) 

A NEW history of Greece, by so eminent an authority as Professor Beloch, 
is just now extremely welcome. Since the days of Thirlwall, Grote, and 
Curtius, early Greek history has been revolutionised. Archasological 
discovery, ethnology, comparative philology, and the sciences (if such they 
can be called) of rehgion and mythology have all been at work to recon- 
struct the early history of the Greeks and of their artistic and literary 
productions. The result has been just what might be expected in a 
stage of transition ; a great quantity of new matter has been brought to- 
gether, but we are still in uncertainty as to how to deal with it. Quite 


apart from Athenian history, where some of our old ideas have been 
thrown into confusion by the great discovery of last year, any con- 
scientious student of early Greek times will allow that he stands sorely 
in need of a really clear-sighted guide, who will not lose his way in misty 
theories but while honestly keeping himself to the main road will indicate 
the devious paths of exploration which here and there diverge from it. 
The best book of this kind which has recently appeared on the continent is 
that of Dr. Adolf Holm, with which may be compared Mr. Evelyn Abbott's 
short Greek history. Here, however, is the first instalment of another 
work, the express object of which is to clear away misconceptions and to 
treat Greek history scientifically. This, like Dr. Holm's book, is the 
work of an Italianised German, a fact for which we have every reason 
to be thankful. The German in Italy seems to escape from the confus- 
ing din of learned competition at home, and to be able to think and 
write, whether he uses his own tongue or an adopted one, simply, idio- 
matically, and to the point, and to arrange his matter almost as cleverly 
and lucidly as a Frenchman. Dr. Beloch's ItaHan is excellent, and seems 
to be precisely the instrument with which a scientific mind like his 
dehghts to work. 

It is just this scientific habit of mind which distinguishes Dr. Beloch's 
work (so far as it has at present appeared) from most of its predecessors. 
Though scientific treatment will never indeed by itself enable us to 
understand the life of a people like the Greeks, it must be granted that 
for the solution of many pressing problems it is sorely needed just now. 
We shall not, therefore, expect Dr. Beloch to put us in sympathy with 
Greek life and thought, but we have reason to believe, from a careful read- 
ing of these hundred and fifty pages, that he will initiate a new method of 
treating at least the earlier periods of Greek history. We say initiate, for 
it is by no means clear how far this scientific treatment can as yet be 
successfully carried. We are still, for example, much at sea as to the 
real value of the results of recent Homeric criticism. We are not all of 
us disposed to accept as truth the conclusions of Niese or Willamowitz- 
Mollendorf, or to work on the Homeric poems as if we knew beyond a 
doubt which are the older and which the more recent portions of them. 
So too with the results of archaeological discovery, on which, as on the 
Homeric criticism, Dr. Beloch chiefly relies in this earlier part of his 
work. But as these points of controversy become gradually settled it 
will become more and more possible to apply to early Greek history that 
scientific method of which we have already long enjoyed the fruits in 
early Eoman history ; and it would be venturesome to say that Dr. Beloch 
has come into the field too early. Let us endeavour to show what he means 
by this new way of handling old problems. 

In his first chapter, starting with a clear distinction of * storia ' from 
• preistoria,' he brings together in a few pages all that, in his opinion, can 
be known with any certainty about the Greeks before the eighth century 
B.C., I.e. before the first appearance of written documents. And here the 
point to be noticed is, that the interpretation of myths is set aside as 
altogether uncertain and misleading ; our knowledge of the earliest Greek, 
as of the earliest Eoman history, must chiefly be drawn from the condi- 
tions under which the Greeks lived in those historical times of which we 


know at least something. Such few other inferences as are possible must 
be based on archaeological and philological researches ; and, whether Dr. 
Beloch means it or not, this chapter will leave an impression on the 
student's mind that the results hitherto reached by these channels are 
-extremely vague and limited. It may, in fact, be described as a demon- 
stration of our ignorance ; and as such it certainly has a distinct value. 
But is that ignorance complete, or can we say that we know anything at 
all of the origin of the Greeks and their ethnological affinities? We 
•can say that we know one face, says Dr. Beloch : that the Greek peninsula 
was inhabited by Greeks alone, who spread over the islands of the 
archipelago as far as Crete and Cyprus. Putting mythical interpretation 
■out of the court, this is what we arrive at by combining archffiological and 
philological research with what may perhaps be called the method of 
survivals, i.e. the use of later historical facts as a means of reasonhig 
backwards to earlier conditions of life. The question, however, which many 
scholars will ask is this : Have we a right thus to put the myths entirely 
out of court, or ought we not rather to wait patiently until they have 
been subjected to a more searching criticism than they have received at 
the hands even of skilled interpreters like Duncker ? Can we deal with 
Greek history exactly as we have dealt with Eoman ? Can we write the 
history of a people whose genius delighted in myth-making, and leave 
out of the account all the mythic products of that genius ? 

Let us take another illustration of Dr. Beioch's method from his 
fourth chapter, which deals with the legends of migration, and especially 
with that of the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese, in which we have 
all been used to believe from our childhood. To examine this important 
chapter adequately is impossible in a short space ; it must be sufficient to 
say that our author finds no basis of truth in any of these legends, which 
were invented after the eighth century to account for certain striking 
peculiarities in the Homeric poems. Even the Doric migration has to go ; 
and in this case unfortunately we cannot criticise the criticism until Dr. 
Beioch's work has proceeded further, and we have his explanation, which 
is so far wanting, of the social conditions and later history of the Doric 
states in the Peloponnese. So far we have only a negative criticism and 
a negative result. The extraordinary gift of invention which the Greeks 
possessed was called into play, we are told, by the popularity of the 
Homeric poems, to fabricate a history of their own adventures in the 
period between ' the age which they supposed those poems to represent 
and that in which they found themselves living in the eighth and seventh 
centuries. What we have been accustomed to think of as a period of con- 
vulsion and migration was, therefore, in all probability one of quiet deve- 
lopment, while epic poetry was giving place to lyric, heroic myth to 
explanatory legend, monarchy to aristocracy, and a society in which the 
royal palace was combined with village life to the steady growth of the 
city state. 

Enough has been said to show that Dr. Beioch's work demands serious 
attention from our students of Greek history. We shall await with much 
interest and curiosity its further progress, and though we may reserve 
our opinion for the present as to some of the views already propounded in 
it, we fully recognise its importance and the knowledge, at once wide and 


minute, which its author possesses of all the material which he handles. If 
it should turn out that he is to be the Niebuhr of early Greek history, we 
shall at any rate have that history made far more intelligible than it is at 
present ; but it is not as yet possible to conjecture how far his thorough- 
going criticism will eventually be found to hold good. 

W. Warde Fowler. 

Election by Lot at Athens. By J. W. Headlam. (Cambridge : Univer- 
sity Press. 1891.) 

By his able and closely reasoned monograph on ' Election by Lot at Athens ' 
Mr. J. W. Headlam has well maintained the standard of the ' Cambridge 
Historical Essays,' and has shown that the young English scholar is as 
capable as the German of original research, if only the opportunity be 
given him, and can bring to it a soundness of judgment which is but 
too often found lacking in the laboured compilations of the latter. 

The thesis that Mr. Headlam sets forth is that, though the lot was- 
probably in its origin rehgious, it was adopted by the framers of the later 
Athenian democracy to secure that rapid rotation in all offices of state 
without which it would have been practically impossible to uphold the 
supremacy of the assembly. In Athens Demos was king and asserted 
his sovereignty at all points. But since on account of his unwieldy 
numbers he could not transact all the business himself, he entrusted the 
greater part of the administration to committees, the functions of which 
were strictly defined, and which had either periodically or at the expira- 
tion of their term of office to render a strict account of their performance* 
The whole system of government was so elaborated that the particular 
duties required of the individual citizen were such as any man of the 
most ordinary ability could discharge. Prehminary training beyond 
attendance at the meetings of the assembly, which were open to all 
citizens alike, was quite unnecessary. Consequently the lot was muck 
the most convenient mode of election, since, coupled as it was, in most 
cases at any rate, with the provision that no one should hold such offices 
more than once, it was the readiest means of insuring that every citizen 
should in his turn take his share of the work. With the exception of 
the generals and extraordinary commissioners (e.g. ambassadors), all the 
executive officers of the state were thus appointed — the archons, the 
members of the council of five hundred, and the numerous officers of 
finance, like the logistae, the apodectae, and the numerous tamiae. This 
rapid rotation not only prevented the council or single magistrates from 
acquiring all the real power in the state, but at the same time made com- 
binations among colleagues in office for dishonest purposes almost impos- 
sible. Hence the many charges of bribery and corruption bandied about 
by the orators are to be taken as evidence rather of the difficulty than of 
the frequency of such offences ; for such practices, to be at all successful, 
imply general acquiescence and connivance. 

Such is Mr. Headlam's picture of the working of the Athenian con- 
stitution in time of peace. He is, however, fully alive to the darker side 
of the picture. Such demands upon the time of all the citizens alike, he 
truly points out, required a degree of leisure only possible in a state 


which was based upon slavery — a fact which shows how little it had in 
common with what goes by the name of democracy at the present day. 
' The Athenian democracy,' says Mr. Headlam, ' was an aristocracy. It 
had all the characteristics of an aristocracy. It made the assumption 
that each citizen had the time and ability to undertake public duties. . . . 
The Athenians had, in fact, that respect for leisure which is so character- 
istic of an aristocracy. Hard work was with them a disqualification. 
Men did not believe in the dignity of labour. The existence of the 
democracy depended on slavery.' 

Why, then, did the Greeks always regard election by lot as the special 
feature of democracy ? Mr. Headlam's answer is, because at Athens it 
was the principal means for keeping the council, the law courts, and 
all the various magistrates subordinate to and dependent upon the 
assembly. Nevertheless the able citizen had plenty of scope to show his 
merit. Military merit was rewarded with a generalship, to which the 
election was by vote and not by lot. Political merit had its chance in 
the assembly, and its possessor claimed for himself the envied but perilous 
position of the championship of the people. The combination of the two 
secured for Pericles his pre-eminent position : he was the only general 
who ever really dominated the assembly, and at last even he was made 
to yield to its supreme power. 

Mr. Headlam, in maintaining his thesis, seems inclined to subordinate 
the generals a little too much. That ' the board of the oTpaTrjyoi were 
never other than generals ' is of course in a sense true, and it is equally 
true that no other general ever rose to the position of Pericles. But 
Thucydides, it is to be remembered, finds the explanation of the fact not 
in the machinery of the Athenian democracy, but in the singular inferi- 
ority of that great statesman's would-be successors. 

Still in a monograph a little exaggeration can readily be pardoned, and 
Mr. Headlam's excellent essay should do much to correct the many 
erroneous views of Athenian constitutional history which seem to be 
overgrowing it like a fungus. There is, however, one thing that Mr. 
Headlam would do well to reconsider before he again puts pen to paper, 
and that is his system or want of system of punctuation, which annoys 
the reader at one time by the absence, at another by the frequency of 
stops. Otherwise the work throughout is most laudably free of typo- 
graphical errors of every kind. G. E. Undekhill. 

TeuffeVs History of Boman Literature. Eevised and enlarged by 
LuDWiG ScHWABE. Authorised translation from the fifth German 
edition by Geoege C. W. Wakr, M.A. Vol. I. : The Republican 
Period. (London : Bell & Sons. 1891.) 

A KEW edition of Teuifel's * Roman Literature,' a book absolutely indis- 
pensable to every scholar, requires no introduction to the readers of the 
Historical Review. The English editor, as he tells us in his preface, 
has, in incorporating the additions of Teuffel himself and of Schwabe, ' like- 
wise revised the translation itself, with so much alteration as appeared 
requisite to make it more completely accurate, and (I hope) more uni- 
formly idiomatic and readable.' Idiomatic and readable Dr. Wagner's 


former translation certainly was not ; and the form of the work itself does 
not lend itself to continuous reading, but the EngHsh editor has certainly 
made it as readable as the original text would permit. Bibliography was 
the strong point of the old edition, and that side of the work seems to 
have been kept up with care. 

This volume is called the ' Republican Period,' but the term receives 
a very broad interpretation, as it is made to include the Augustan age. 
In one respect the work is inferior to the smaller treatise, also covering 
the ' Republican Period,' which has lately come from the hands of Martin 
Schanz. In describing the works of an author such as Plautus, Schanz 
gives a clear and pleasantly written account of each separate piece, so that 
the general plot and method of treatment can be followed. In Teuffel no 
one who is not already entirely famihar with the plot would derive any 
information from the few general phrases applied to each play, and to 
those who have already read or have not forgotten the original, these 
commonplaces are unnecessary. In one point the English editor has 
differed from Schwabe, the German editor. Both write Vergilius as the 
Latin form of the name of the Roman poet. But while Schwabe writes 
Virgil as the German form. Professor Warr prefers with Nettleship and 
others to write Vergil. The matter is a small one, but surely the Ger- 
man editor has done better to abide by Virgil than to adopt the some- 
what pedantic spelling now in vogue. For after all, the name has in all 
probability been longer an English word than it had been a Latin word 
in the poet's time, and it is hard to see why the English usage of many 
hundred years should be upset. If the name had been preserved uncur- 
tailed in English, it would no doubt have been defensible to adopt the 
Roman form and write Vergilius ; as English has made and retained a 
form of its own founded on the medieval spelling with i in the first syl- 
lable, the history of the English language is quite as deserving of respect 
as that of Latin. Indeed, from the point of view of English, not only can 
the spelling with e not be justified, but it is even absolutely wrong 
unless we are prepared, when we adopt it, to pronounce the first syllable 
of the name of the poet as we do that in Derby and in sergeant. If we 
must be purists, let us be purists and write Vergilius ; if we prefer the 
shorter English form, let us write it in its English form. Vergil, in spite 
of its favour in high places, is neither fish, flesh, nor fowl. 

As regards its external appearance the book is in every way an im- 
provement upon the former edition. P. Giles. 

Tlie GreeJc World under Boman Sway, from Polybius to Plutarch. 
By J. P. Mahaffy. (London : Macmillan & Co. 1890.) 

After having discussed Greek life and thought in what may be called the 
classical, and again in the Hellenistic, period, Mr. Mahaffy here extends 
his survey not merely to Greece, but to the ' Greek world ' under the 
dominion, first of the Roman republic, and afterwards of the Roman 
empire. He leaves the subject for the present at or about the time of 
Hadrian, but gives an undertaking that he will at some future time 
partially retrace his steps and complete his scheme with a concluding 
sketch of the relations of the Greek world to Christianity. His present 


subject is a vast one, and he does not, of course, profess to have exhausted 
it. The book is a collection of essays, often ingenious and stimulating 
enough, on those aspects of the subject which happened to interest the 
writer and which lent themselves most readily to popular treatment. Its 
immense omissions may be gauged from the fact that there is no attempt 
to present to the general reader the results of the masses of material ac- 
cumulated in Kuhn's ' StJidtische Verfassung ' and ' Entstehung.' Nor is 
there the unity of conception running through it which might have been 
gained if the fundamental dualism of east and west had been kept steadily 
in view, and if the book had thus explained Antony and foreshadowed 
Constantine. It is not in any sense a repertory of the facts ; nor does it 
powerfully enforce, as it might have done, a ' world-historical ' point of 
view; but it contams a good deal of agreeable discursive exposition, 
some charming translations, and several remarks of great point and 
shrewdness on the social life of a Greek city under the Roman empire. 

The following points should be amended, or at all events considered, in 
a second edition. In the preface, p. xi, it is said, in reference to Egypt, 
that ' Arsinoe, which is commonly understood to mean a town, was used 
as the name of a district.' The truth is, it is all a matter of date. 
Arsinoe is an instance of the city-making process which went on through- 
out the empire. A nome only in the first two centuries, it — or rather its 
fnirpoTToXu — became a fully constituted city in the third century. The 
note to p. 15 is far from clear, but the reference to ' Pro Scauro,' § 44, is 
not at all to the point if (as seems to be the case) the writer is drawing a 
contrast between what Tacitus calls the ' civilisation of cities ' and the 
comparatively unorganised and barbarous life of country people in their 
villages. Cicero does not say that Sardinia was without cities, and he 
would have blundered badly if he had done so. All he says is that the 
unfriendliness of the province to Rome was shown by the fact that none of 
its cities was bound to Rome by treaty — in other words, that there was not 
a single ' federate city ' in the island. The comparison of this fragment 
of the * Pro Scauro ' with Plutarch, ' C. Gracchus,' 2, is interesting. On 
p. 120 for ' King Deiotarus in Cappadocia ' read ' Galatia.' On p. 154 
there is a confusion between the Gabinian and Manilian laws, on p. 15G 
between Demetrius the Besieger and Ptolemy Keraunos. On p. 170 the 
appearance of the Parthians on the western coast of Asia Minor is spoken 
of as if it were a new discovery. ' The inscriptions of Stratoniceia in Caria,' 
runs the note, 'imply this disastrous invasion. Of. "B.C.H." xi. 156.' 
The reference to the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique is wrongly 
given. It should be xi. 152 and ix. 472. But it is hardly necessary to go 
to inscriptions for a fact attested by Tac. ' Ann.' iii. 62, Dio, xlviii. 26, and 
Strabo, 660. On p. 184 the explanation of the Essenes by Buddhist in- 
fluences, besides showing the writer's characteristic preference for far- 
fetched and, so to speak, sensational explanations, when simpler ones lie 
at the door, is vitiated by the reference to the * Therapeutae ' of Philo. It is 
now almost universally admitted that the treatise in question is not a 
genuine work of Philo. On p. 192 the assertion that Mommsen ' generally 
uses the statements in Strabo not only for the Augustan, but even for 
the later condition of the Roman world,' is, I believe, quite unfounded. 
On the contrary, Mommsen has been careful to point out (' Provinces,' 


i. 256, note) that Strabo's statements sometimes refer not to Strabo's 
own time at all, but to an earlier one. On p. 194 the passage about 
Gades is a mass of blunders, not the least of which is the strange assertion 
that the five hundred Gaditanians of equestrian rank lived, not at Gades, 
but in Eome. In the note to the same page reference should have been 
made to the important discussions on the Cassiterides by Eh^s and by 
Unger (' Rheinisches Museum,' xxxv.) rather than to the unimportant 
one actually mentioned. On p. 195 there is an extraordinary passage 
about the Cantabrians. It is a minor matter that a story told of the 
Vettones (Estremadura) is applied to these Biscayans. What is more 
important is that the writer (at least I infer this from the curious re- 
ference to Horace) seems never to have heard of the long and arduous 
Cantabrian wars, which nearly J<illed Augustus and tested Agrippa's 
generalship as it had never been tested yet. The story is writ large in 
Dio and Florus. On p. 196 ' Paxanguita (Badajos) among the Celts ' 
should be ' Pax Augusta (Beja) among the Celtici.' The identification 
with Badajos is merely due to the * patriotism ' of Spanish archaeologists, 
unwilling to give up this important Roman place to Portugal. At vero 
res omnino confecta est, says Hiibner quite accurately in the ' Corpus ; * 
causae ah Hispanis pro Badajoz prolatae adeo futiles sunt ut ne eitarrare 
quidem omnes, muUo minus redarguere eas referat. ' Celts ' is too strong ; 
Strabo is careful to say ' the Celtici,' and it is no accident that Mela 
(iii. 1) and Florus (i. 33) use the same form. What was intended to be 
conveyed was that these Spanish ' Celtici ' were not pure Celts, but a 
mixed race in which the Celtic element predominated. In fact, the term 
appears to have meant much the same as ' Celtiberi.' In the note to 
p. 244 there is a statement to the effect that only inhabitants of the three 
or four Greek cities in Egypt could get the freedom of Alexandria. It is 
possible, but evidence is wanting. The letter of Pliny ('ad Traj.' v.) 
which Mr. Mahaffy quotes, so far as it goes, is against the theory. On 
p. 253 there is a passage on Amphipolis, ' with its Actian games, its 
amphictyofiy .' What are the words in italics supposed to mean ? Was 
the writer thinking of the fact that Amphipolis held a very important 
place in the Amphictyonic Council as reorganised by Augustus ? A few 
lines further on the statement that ' the neighbouring Aetolia, Thessaly, 
and Acarnania were depopulated' in order to fill Amphipolis is onl/ par- 
tially true as regards Acarnania and Aetolia, and quite unfounded as re- 
gards Thessaly. On p. 256 the description of Claudius as ' the first 
Hellenistic emperor ' may perhaps pass ; but such facts as Claudius's 
refusal to give the Roman franchise to a Greek who could not talk Latin 
should have been considered, and for my own part I should be disposed to 
call him rather a gallophile than a philhellene. On p. 303 any one who is 
led by the note to refer to Lecky, iii. 196, for a ' masterly statement of 
the uses and abuses of party government ' by that historian will be dis- 
appointed. Mr. Lecky has confined himself almost entirely to well-known 
quotations from Burke and Fox, On p. 355 Cyzicus is mentioned among 
the towns whose status was changed' without sufficient reason ' by its Roman 
masters. Reference to Dio, liv. 23, would show, however, that in that 
case there certainly was sufficient reason. On p. 366 the reference to the 
* Asmonean dominion ' in connexion with Herod the Great (who was, of 


course, the destroyer of that dominion) is a curious oversight, all the more 
remarkable as the right account of the matter is given on p. 171. On 
p. 391 the decree of a proconsul under Nero is contrasted with Pliny's 
constant references to the emperor when he was governor of Bithynia 
under Trajan. But Mr. Mahaffy answers his own argument about Pliny 
in his note to the same page, and the whole contrast between the pro- 
consul under Nero and PHny under Trajan is vitiated by the fact that 
the former did not settle anything. He merely waived jurisdiction. In 
the same passage ' Christians ' is, of course, a misprint for ' Chians.' 

I have probably supplied sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Mahaffy's 
touch is by no means sure in dealing with this period, and that his book 
needs to be used with caution. But I should be sorry to give the impres- 
sion that the book consists mainly of mistakes, or that even the specialist 
who has laboured chiefly in this one field cannot suck advantage from it. 
For instance, from historians like Gibbon down to scientific explorers of 
individual Eoman provinces like Playfair (Africa and Numidia) and Lanc- 
koronski (Lycia and Pamphylia), there can be no doubt that almost all 
discussions of the Eoman empire lay too much stress on municipal 
building as a proof of high and well-based prosperity. To judge from the 
public buildings in remote Pamphylian cities, the period of the Antonmes 
was one of unsurpassed or even unequalled material prosperity and 
municipal spirit. Such a conclusion need not be altogether given up, but 
it needs to be qualified by the touch of scepticism which Mr. Mahafiy 
very usefully supplies on pp. 357, 363. The suggestion is that the cities, 
particularly in Asia Minor, overbuilt themselves, ran into debt, and so 
brought down upon themselves the later curatores and Xoyiarai. Much 
of the building was ostentation and extravagance rather than legitimate 
mimicipal self-assertion. In the same way I find great suggestiveness 
in the passage on the ' extraordinary frequency of complimentary decrees ' 
to prominent personages in Greek towns. * We stand.,' writes Mr. Mahaffy 
(p. 263), ' before a decayed society of very rich men and paupers, the 
latter of whom had become accustomed to begging and subventions from 
the rich, not to pay for labour, but to obviate hostihty and to earn 
acclamation. Thus we find all the uses made of large fortunes during 
the period before us to be of this ostentatious and well-nigh immoral 
character. There is no attempt to start a new industry, to develope 
a new traffic, to enable the poor to help themselves by honest labour. 
The unfortunate precedent set to the world by Eome was indeed of fatal 
influence. There it had long been the custom to give huge presents to 
the city mob in the way of food and amusements, formerly to secure 
their votes, now to secure their favour ; and the same policy had been 
extended to the household troops (praetorian guards). This was the 
pattern imitated by the capitalists of Greece — the crime of distributing 
money to idle recipients who had votes in their local assemblies and 
could offer no return but acclamations and pompous decrees engraved on 
marble. We have no evidence left us how the ordinary resentment of this 
idle and outspoken populace was manifested ; but, if I understand the 
temper of the times, the mere non-attainment of a decree of gratitude 
may have meant to the rich man that he would be scowled at or hooted 
when he went abroad, that he would be maligned at headquarters, and 


put in danger of confiscation by emperors seeking for any fair excuse ta 
replenish their treasury. These decrees then, formal and foolish as they 
appear, may have been a sort of title to hold wealth in security and 
without constant molestation.' 

There is the same shrewdness and insight in the following charming 
passage (p. 221) on Greek manners : ' Any one who will take the trouble 
to wade through the Greek inscriptions in any collection, or to watch the 
new additions to the great *' Corpus," recorded in the current journals of 
epigraphy, cannot but be struck with the recurrence on almost every page 
of good manners as the quality in men and women which earns their 
grateful recognition during their life and affectionate remembrance from 
posterity. The text just cited is one of a thousand which state that 
" because such a one has not only performed his duties, general or special,, 
but also has been courteous to those whom he met in daily intercourse," 
therefore he is honoured with a statue, an inscription, civic immvmities, 
citizenship, as the case may be. Nor are these laudations confined to 
men of high official station, whose urbanity or the reverse was of real 
importance to their companions. They are adjudged to horse octors,. 
corn dealers, foreigners residing for pleasure in a city — in fact, to people 
so many and so various that we wonder how these honorary inscriptions 
can have been regarded as an honour. Nevertheless they have put it on 
record that in the Hellenistic world good manners were regarded as 
having a seriousness and importance quite foreign to modern civilisation. 
Perhaps the Germanic elements in England and Prussia, with their rude- 
ness in virtue and their almost suspicion of good manners, have caused 
this change. I have indeed, in an Irish epitaph which I have elsewhere 
quoted, seen a man praised for being an affable superior and polished 
equal. But this, which would have been a matter of course eulogy on a 
Hellenistic tombstone, strikes the modern observer as grotesque, if not 
indecent. The grave is too solemn, and the question of the future life 
too serious, to admit of superficial considerations. But in Hellenistic days 
they were not superficial ; human society was then the great object of 
life, and whatever tended to improve and refine it was a real \drtue 
and a solid recommendation to the world.' 

The use made of Dio Chrysostom and Plutarch strikes me as 
excellent. Martha and Greard have no doubt been beforehand with 
Mr. Mahaffy, but they have not rendered him superfluous, while his 
translations from Dio's charming idyl of the Euboean huntsman are 
quite first-rate.' In a word, the book is at present a dangerous one for 
the 'general reader,' and imperatively calls for the revision which 
Mr. Mahaffy will doubtless give it ; but it is full of suggestiveness to any 
one who is not dependent on it for his knowledge of the facts, and is 
almost everywhere lively and amusing reading. William T. Arnold. 

Geschiedenis der Boete en Biecht in de Christelijke Kerk. Door Dr. F. 
PijPEB. Eerste Deel : Geschiedenis der Boete en Biecht in de 
Christelijke Kerk gedurende de zes eerste Eeuwen. ('s Gravenhage : 
Nijhoff. 1891.) 

The institutions connected with penitence in the Christian church form a 
subject of great interest ; the materials are scanty at the outset, but 


afterwards tbey are abundant enough, and it is true, as is remarked in 
this work, that a proper study of this subject would be a valuable con- 
tribation to the history of morals and of conduct in the church. It 
is certainly not an attractive subject, but it deserves to be specially 
treated. Dr. Pijper has a good name in Holland as a writer on church 
history, and he tells us in the introduction to this work that he has 
given himself for many years to the subject he has now taken up, and 
further that he has special knowledge of the working of the confessional 
in the Koman catholic church. This may cause the later volumes of his 
work to be looked for with interest, but it also shows that the confessional 
is to the writer a matter of practical as well as of scientific interest, as to 
a writer in Holland it can scarcely fail to be. Dr. Pijper sets out, how- 
ever, with declaring that he does not intend to write controversy, but 
history, and that in this he will differ from all former writers on penitence, 
none of whom have been free from bias — not the catholic Bellarmine, not 
the protestant Daille, not even Bingham, who, though honest and 
faithful, could not forget his Anglican orders. The promise of impar- 
tiality seems to us to be well kept. There is more frequent reference 
than is necessary for the purposes of pure history to the contention of 
Roman catholic writers that auricular confession was practised in the 
church from the first, and is one of its original institutions (do they not also 
maintain tliat it began in the garden of Eden '?) ; but in the atmosphere 
of a partly catholic country this is perhaps unavoidable. 

Dr. Pijper undertakes to set forth his subject from the sources only. 
The period of the Libri penitentiales is not reached in this volume, and 
the sources here resorted to are the familiar ones of fathers and canons. 
First there is a chapter inquiring after institutions of penitence among 
the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, of which that of Christianity might be 
deemed the heir : but this inquiry yields only negative results ; Chris- 
tianity is held to have created its own methods of dealing with its erring 
members. Then we set out on a leisurely journey through early 
Christian literature, in which the passages bearing on the subject are 
quoted, translated, and commented on, a statement of results being 
given for each century. Little has been overlooked. Had an index been 
furnished to the volume, we might have known better as to this, and it 
may not be the writer's fault that we have failed to find several interesting 
passages. We are carried from east to west, and cross the Mediterranean 
frequently, to notice the practice of each region when anything is known 
of it ; good translations are given of the texts, and the comments are just, 
if sometimes rather obvious. That confession was at first an inward act, 
and when made to a fellow man did not need to be made to a priest ; that 
when the formal public tlofxokoyqtnQ appears it is an act referring to the 
congregation and not to the bishop or priest, and that the private inter- 
view with the bishop or priest which afterwards preceded the public con- 
fession was not meant to supersede the latter, but to prepare for it — 
these points are urged again and again as the evidence serves. This is 
the backbone of Dr. Pijper's work, and the collection of materials he has 
furnished to support his argument speaks of immense diligence and is 
worthy of all praise. 

It results, however, from the method which is adopted that the book is 



not properly a history, but rather a collection of materials for history. As 
we read passage after passage, each containing something like the others 
and something of its own, we wonder at Dr. Pijper's self-denial in refrain- 
ing from giving us his own story of the matter, which he could have done 
very well. To learn how the institution of penitence arose, where the 
penitent stood and what he said, who dealt with him, and what was said 
by the latter, what penalties were laid on him and for how long, we have 
to travel from one passage to another, and do not reach any connected 
result after all. If Dr. Pijper, who has studied the subject so carefully, 
had allowed himself to put the history together, his book would have 
been much more interesting. It is true that such a picture as Bingham 
gives is composed of elements drawn from widely separated districts of 
the church ; but Dr. Pijper could have avoided this danger, and could 
have given us the history of church discipline as it has not yet been 

In his later chapters Dr. Pijper treats of the moral standard of the 
church, the state of morals among Christians, the position of women and 
that of slaves in Christianity, and the attitude of Christians towards 
heathens. There is no convincing reason why these subjects should 
be dealt with in connexion with that of penitence. All we learn in this 
connexion is what sins were committed by Christians in these various 
respects. The writer of the work is well aware that a knowledge of the 
dark side of Christian life is not a full knowledge of it, nor the pleasantest 
kind of knowledge of it. 

If the work proceeds on the present scale, and if, as he seems to be 
prepared to do, Dr. Pijper enters on the subject of the discipline of the 
protestant churches, as well as that of the church of Rome in the Inqui- 
sition and otherwise, the book will be a large one. The Dutch kerkeraad 
and the Scottish kirk session might each furnish materials for a volume. 

Allan Menzies. 

Studies in the Arthurian Legend. By John Rnts, M.A. 
(Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.) 

This is a book full of learning and full of interest ; but the views put 
forward in it are not likely to receive general acceptance, nor are they in 
my judgment put forward in a manner best calculated to win it. It is 
impossible in this review to discuss at adequate length work which 
deals with mythology much more than with history. Still mythology 
itself — the history of the beliefs of a people at any time — does claim a 
place in history in the strictest sense of the word : in many cases it is of 
more value to the historian than the record of actual events. If the 
Arthurian legend were as closely connected as Professor Rh^s beheves 
it to be with the lost mythology of the Celtic folk, it would be really of 
greater importance to us on that score than on account of any stray records 
which it might preserve of the historic Arthur. 

Before, however, I say anything of the mythologic parts of the book 
(ninety-nine hundredths of it), I will speak of, in order to dismiss, those 
pages which treat of the historic Arthur. That there was an historic 
Arthur Mr. Rh^s admits. He makes the acute observation that the 


title which Arthur preserves in Welsh literature, yr amheratvdyr Arthur, 
the emperor Arthur — not gwledig, prince — points to his having held 
the office of comes Britanniae or the equivalent thereof. The comes 
Britanniae was the superior officer alike of the dux Britanniarum, who 
had charge of the forces in the north and especially on the wall, and the 
comes littoris Saxonici, the defender of the Saxon or south-east coast. 
It will be in the memory of those who have read the same writer's ' Celtic 
Britain ' that he discusses which of the two titles comes Britanniae or dux 
Britanniarum may be considered the prototype of the obscure English 
title bretwealda. As the successors of the diices Britanniae and the 
comites littoris Saxonici were called in Welsh ywledigs, it is reason- 
able to infer that the Roman title imperator (as it was preserved in the 
Welsh form amherawdyr) was preserved in order to be applied to the 
• successor of the comes Britanniae. This, at any rate, is Professor Rh_f s's 
theory, though it admits of very obvious objections, as that the title 
imperator was far too important a one in history ever to have dropped 
■out of a language in which it had once found a place, whether it did or 
did not continue to be applied to any known official in Britain. If the 
theory were accepted it would be an argument— so far as it went — against 
the attempts of Mr. Skene and Mr. Stuart Glennie to refer the origin of 
the Arthurian legend to the district between the walls. 

Mr. Rh^s takes no notice of this attempt ; nor, in fact, has he anything 
further of importance to say concerning the historic Arthur, excepting 
that the death of the mythic Arthur at the hands of Medrod (Modred) is 
probably a reminiscence of the death of the historic Arthur at the hands of 
his nephew Maelgwyn. Maslgwyn is an historic personage mentioned by 
Gildas (who, as everybody knows, has nothing to say of Arthur) as having 
slain his uncle (unnamed). It has been before suggested that this Mael- 
gwyn is the prototype of the mythic Modred. Professor Rh;fs thinks 
that it could not have belonged of right to the history of the mythic 
Arthur that he should be slain, and that this incident, therefore, in 
Arthur's career is a reflexion from history. 

We now come to the mythic Arthur — not the Arthur of Nennius, but 
the Arthur of the true Arthurian legend, the proper subject of this 

Now, at the outset let me say that the ideal fashion of dealing with 
mythological subjects remains yet to be discovered. The foundations 
of this study are so much matters in dispute that, unless we are fur- 
nished with some criterion for judging a writer's method, it is impos- 
sible to guess how far his assertions are based upon mere assumption, 
how far upon a process of induction of which the limits of his space do 
not allow him to furnish us with all the links. Professor Rh;f s belongs 
to what is commonly called the philological school of mythologists. Solar 
myths, dawn myths, visits to the other world, and so forth pass quite 
naturally through his pages, to an extent that is sure to call forth the 
sneers of the rival anthropological school. But in truth the methods of 
this anthropological school are not a bit more satisfactory than that of 
their opponents. If these last seem to give a wonderful significance to 
the bestowal of such a name as * White Lady ' or ' Bright Hero,' or to the 
fact that a certain prince is spoken of as wearing a circle of gold (which 

K 2 


according to Mr. Rhys argues him a sun-hero), the anthropologists are 
equally unrestrained in their search after analogies in folklore and quite 
as impossible to check in their range from Greenland's icy mountains to 
India's coral strand, or from the mythology of the Maoris to that of the 
Zulus. Each party has its criterion ; neither side is so arbitrary in its 
method as it seems to its opponents. But at present neither party has 
made any effort to master the principles of their opponents. The state of 
the controversy now must remind any one of the latter days of the French 
National Convention, when the split between the Girondists and the 
Mountain was past all healing. The anthropologists have succeeded in 
enlisting the ' galleries ' upon their side^in other words, they have ap- 
pealed successfully to a totally uninstructed public opinion ; so that now 
no ignorant rcAaewer is so ignorant but that he has a sneer ready for the 
' sun-myth ' theory. But this manoeuvre has not tended to further the 
reasonable stiidy of mythology, which at the present moment is passing 
from confusion to chaos. 

In such a state of things a reviewer can hardly do other than express 
his individual judgment ; and I will do no more here than enumerate 
what I personally consider the most successful and the most unsuccessful 
portions of Mr. Rh^'s's study. The most important chapter of all, so far 
as regards the actual personality of Arthur, is the second, wherein the 
author seeks — I am disposed to think seeks successfully — to show the 
mythical identity of Arthur and the Irish hero Airem, or Echaid Airem. 
The identity seems to extend to the root meaning of the two names 
Arthur and Airem, which both signify in the narrower sense a plough- 
man, but in a wider sense perhaps a bringer of culture. Arthur (accord- 
ing to Professor Rh^s) is essentially what this author calls a culture hero, 
very similar to the Gwydion of an older Celtic mythology, with whom 
the author has dealt in his Hibbert Lectures. Just such a being I ima- 
gine Sceaf-Skyld-Heimdal to have been in the Teutonic mythology. The 
likeness between Airem and Arthur extends to a likeness (though not of 
names) between their wives, Etain in the former case, Gwenhwyvar 
(Guinevere) in the latter ; for the fact that there are three Etdins ac- 
counts for the mysterious allusion by some authorities to three Guine- 
veres ; and it extends to the rivals of the two heroes, Mider, the rival of 
Airem, who carries off Etain, and Medrod or Modred, the rival of Arthur, 
who carries off Guinevere. Etain- Gwenhwyvar, I need perhaps hardly 
say, is, according to Professor Rhys, a dawn-goddess. And I have myself 
little doubt that she owes many of her attributes to this nature origin. 

Another series of comparisons which our author undertakes is between 
the labours of the ' Ultonian ' hero Cuchulainn and the labours of 
Heracles. In this case of course the subject is far wider and does not 
admit of any such satisfactory conclusions. Professor Rh^^s quite admits 
this. ' We are well aware,' he says, ' that the story of Heracles, or at any 
rate the most essential portions of it, are believed by many to be non-Aryan ; 
for that reason we make the following comparisons as comprehensive 
as we can, in the hope of learning from the advocates of the Asiatic 
theory what they claim and what they cannot claim. The question is 
one which greatly stands in need of a careful sifting. The reader is there- 
fore to bear in mind that these comparisons are entirely tentative, though 


it is not thought necessary to remind him of that fact in each instance 
as it comes forward for discussion.' The resemblances between the two 
series of adventure are on some points extraordinarily close, notably, for 
example, between the incidents of the obtaining of the girdle of the queen 
of the Amazons and the rescue of Hesione, the daughter of Laomedon, 
and the equivalent adventures of the Irish hero. But even if we were 
deahng with two Celtic heroes instead of two persons so widely separated 
as Heracles and Cuchulainn, this series of comparisons would be far less 
satisfactory than that between Arthur and Airem, because the myths 
compared belong much more to the region of folklore than of mythology 
properly speaking. There is a great distinction between these two fields 
of study ; and it is in the region of folklore that the anthropologists may 
claim to have established most satisfactorily the difiiculty of drawing 
conclusions from even close analogies. 

I wish it were possible for me to follow Professor Ehys through the 
chapters on Peridur (Perceval), Owain, and Lancelot, or through those on 
Uriel and his congeners, on Pwyll, Head of Hades, and Pelles (the grand- 
father or uncle of Perceval), on the origin of the Holy Grail, and on the 
Isles of the Dead ; but it would be impossible to do this without a much 
more detailed treatment than there is space for here. The chapters are 
full of interest ; and a large number of the results arrived at seem to me 
to hold good, though they are not likely to be accepted save by those who 
are already prepared to go some way with the writer. I have said that 
Professor Rhj^s's theories are not put forward in a way likely to solicit 
general favour. He has no great lucidity of exposition, and his style is 
often faulty. It would be impossible for any reader to understand this 
book unless he were already acquainted with the author's previous work 
on ' Celtic Heathendom ' (Hibbert Lectures). Even with this previous 
knowledge the ' Arthurian Legend ' requires two careful perusals before 
a reader can judge fairly of its merits. 

The following sentence, which occurs early in the book, may be taken 
as affording good examples both of Mr. Rh_f s's merits and of his defects : — 
' Arthur's mythic visit to Hades had for one of its chief objects, as 
appears from the poem in which Taliessin describes himself [as] one of 
the party, the bringing away of the cauldron of the head of Hades. The 
same story in a more detailed form served probably as the basis of one 
which occurs in the account of Kwlhwch and Olwen. This represents 
Arthur and his men sailing, not on a voyage to Hades, which had beconie 
unintelligible, but to Erinn, to obtain possession of the cauldron of a certain 
Diwrnach. This forms a sort of pendant to the Irish story of Cavilres's 
visits from Ireland to Hades, described as made to Britain. Arthur and 
his warriors are described as killing Diwrnach and routing his men, 
whereupon they return to Dyoed with the cauldron full of the money of 
Ireland. In the hands of Geoffrey of Monmouth this might become the 
quasi-history of a great invasion of Ireland by Arthur, resulting in the 
annexation of that country to his empire. The same was probably the 
nature of Arthur's march as far as the Caledonian forest when he made 
Brawn king of Scotland. For the Welsh knew only one Brawn, and he 
was king of Hades, and for the matter of that the substitution of Scotland 
for Hades will not be deemed very surprising by any one who will call to 


mind the ancient idea of the region beyond the wall as described by 
Procopius, to the effect that no man could live there for half an hour, on 
account of the unwholesomeness of the air, and that it was infested with 
vipers and all lands of noxious beasts. But it is possible that Geoffrey 
confounded Ireland, the old home of the Scotch, with the north of Britain,, 
to which they carried their name, nor does it much matter so far as we 
are concerned. Similarly Arthur's conquest of Scandinavia was probably 
founded on a change in the meaning of the word Llychlyn, which at first 
meant the fabulous land beneath the lakes or the waves of the sea, but 
got in the time of the Norsemen's ravages to mean the land of the fjords 
in Norway, as did Lochlann in Irish. Arthur, be it noticed, when he 
conquered Llychlyn, made Loth king of it. Loth, though he is also asso- 
ciated with Loudonesia or Lodoneis, whereby Lothian was meant, a 
district of which he may be regarded as the eponymus, his correct name 
being some form of that which is in Welsh Llud. A different account of 
the relations between Arthur and Loth is to be met with in some of the 
romances ; nor is it at all clear what authority Geoffrey had for making 
Arthur interfere on behalf of Loth. But, be that as it may, when he had 
thus represented Arthur in a manner conquering Scotland, Ireland, and 
Scandinavia, nothing could have been more natural to him than to extend 
his conquests east and south of the Alps, or even to Kome, as some versions 
of the story do. It appears on the whole, then, that Arthur's subjugation 
of the west of Europe was directly or indirectly founded on the mythio 
invasion of Hades by him in the character of the culture hero' (pp. 10-11). 

The defects of style, which increase the obscurity of the book, are suf- 
ficiently, but not exaggeratedly, illustrated in this passage. Such phrases 
as ' this story represents Arthiir and his men sailing not on a voyage to 
Hades, which had become unintelligible,' or ' similarly Arthur's conquest 
of Scandinavia was probably founded on a change in the meaning of the 
word " Llychlyn," ' and so forth, though they show no very important 
lapses, have at least the effect of obliging the reader perpetually to con- 
centrate his attention, for fear the meaning of a passage should have- 
escaped him ; and it would have been so easy to make the meaning plain 
by writing, say, ' not on a voyage to Hades (for that idea had now become 
unintelligible),' or 'similarly the story of Arthur's conquest of Scandinavia,' 
&c. In the case of the passage beginning ' Loth, though he is also asso- 
ciated with Loudonesia,' we have a sentence which as it stands has no 

But behind these obscurities of style are some exceedingly valuable 
suggestions, the worth of which is Hkely to be appreciated only by the 
professed student of mythology, and hardly by him if he has in the least 
a parti pris opposed to the school to which Professor Rh^s belongs. I 
mean the various suggestions which filter through the paragraph touching 
the degree in which a mythic journey to Hades has been transformed by 
popular euhemerism into certain voyages upon the surface of the earth. 
This journey to Hades occurs again and again in Professor Rh^s's pages^ 
and, as we see by comparing this book with the Hibbert Lectures, it fills, 
in his judgment, a very large space in the Celtic mythology. I have my- 
self maintained, and I maintain still, that the journey to Hades, or at 
least to the ' other world,' forms the groundwork not of one adventure 


only, but of all the chief adventures in the voyages of Odysseus. If this 
were a journal devoted to mythological studies, and if, further, time and 
space were suitable, it would be interesting to examine somewhat closely 
into Professor Eh^s's theories on the subject of the Hades voyages and 
the arguments by which they are supported. 

When, however, we have admitted all that must honestly be admitted 
in favour of the treatment of mythology from the standpoint of the ' philo- 
logical ' school, we always find that its methods are to a great extent one- 
sided, and that there are very obvious considerations which it has chosen 
entirely to ignore. (The same applies, I have already said, with quite 
equal force to the rival school of anthropologists.) In the case of the myth 
of Arthur it might, I think, be quite reasonably maintained that the deifi- 
cation of this hero is after all chiefly the result of accident, or at any rate 
of quasi-accidental circumstances in his career of which no traces have been 
preserved. A certain likeness between Arthur and Airem is not in itself 
enough to prove that Arthur had been an old Celtic divinity or culture 
hero. Arthur and the knights of the round table, Uke Charlemagne and 
his twelve peers, may after all only represent a strange transformation of 
Christ and his twelve disciples. Such a transformation would be not at 
all opposed to the spirit of the middle ages. There must always have been 
a tendency towards this kind of transformation, were it to go no further 
than the attribution to Christ of a title (such, for example, as drohtin 
in the ' Heliand ') which had previously been a badge of military honour. 
The last supper transformed into the table of Arthur would be also quite 
consistent with the workings of the mythopoeic spirit. Professor Rh^s is 
so wedded to his nature myths that he looks upon the ' attribution to Arthur 
of the first use of a common table ' as one of the proofs that he was a 
' culture hero ; ' and he thinks the table is extremely appropriate to Uthr 
Bendragon as the god of the under-world. After such an instance as this 
we are not surprised at his ignoring the obvious origin of two miracles 
wrought by the holy grail. 

' On one occasion ten or a dozen loaves placed on the table on which 
stood the grail were found to suffice for more than five hundred people. 
Another time, when the multitude clamoured that they and their children 
were dying of hunger, Bron was to go into the water and catch a fish, and 
the first fish he caught was to be set on the table ; then the grail also 
was to be set on the table and covered with a towel while the fish was 
placed opposite to it. This was duly done, and the people were bidden to 
seat themselves ; and those of them who were not defiled with sin were 
filled with sweetness and the desire of their heart ' (p. 310). 

Professor Rhys drops no hint to show that he has ever heard of the 
miracle of the loaves and fishes. On the other hand he thinks the fish 
must have been originally put in the grail or in its prototype in days 
when the prototype was- (what Professor Rhys supposes it to have been) 
the cauldron of the head of Hades. Such blindness to the obvious 
character of a myth is enough to cause the enemies of mythological 
studies to blaspheme. 

After all we must remember that our sources of Arthurian mythology 
are very late. As Mr. Rh^s has himself said in his lectures on Welsh 
philology, the dialect in which these poems are written is not earlier than 


the date of the manuscripts — that is to say, not earlier than the twelfth 
century. True he adds that they may very well date back to the ninth 
century or even earlier ; but this is no more than a conjecture, not more 
capable of proof than the elaborate theories of Mr. Skene touching the 
origin of the Arthurian poems and romances. It is curious, by the way, to 
find Professor Bhfs speaking, in the lectures to which I have referred, of 
the *" Mabinogion," which consist mostly of tales respecting Arthur and 
the knights of the round table,' and saying in the present volume that ' no 
story concerning Arthur is contained in the "Mabinogion." ' The latter 
statement is the true one. Such an aberration may lead us to believe that 
many of the less tenable theories of the author have been put forward 
without due reflexion, and that years which bring the philosophic mind 
will induce him to abandon them again. C. F. Keaby. 

The Vikings in Western Christendom, A.D. 789 to A.D. 888. By C. F. 
Keary, M.A. (London : Unwin. 1891.) 

Mr. Keary writes on an important period, and it must be confessed that 
his book is fuller in places than the corresponding portions of Palgrave, 
while it has the advantage over Mr. Howorth's useful papers in being a 
book rather than a set of studies. It would have gained greatly by the 
addition of some account of the sources for each chapter, and there is 
hardly a page that would not be the better for stricter condensation of 
phrase and even of thought. But, on the other hand, Mr. Keary is not a 
book-maker ; he writes with a real interest in hia subject. He is aware that 
there are difficulties in Lis path, and he does not forget that the historian 
should try and give the meanings of facts as well as the facts themselves. 
His preliminary studies in numismatics have given him a taste for exact 
fact, and his interest in primitive phases of thought has helped him to see 
that the spiritual issues of the struggle of the empire against the wickings 
were of immense importance to Europe. He has in several places shown 
considerable ingenuity in suggesting explanations of difficulties, and he 
is always willing to treat another man's theory fairly. His book is, 
however, rather a sketch of the Cai'ling empire down to 888, together with 
a discussion of the religious ideas of the age, than a history of the wicking 
wars, for the full treatment of which we must still turn to Steenstrup's 
detailed and careful work. There are clever things scattered up and 
down this volume (in which respect, as in others, it reminds one of 
some of Mr. Pearson's early work) ; the characters of the chief actors and 
the main ideas of the successive generations of Carlings are thought out 
with much ingenuity. 

As it is not unlikely that Mr. Keary may some day recast or republish 
this book, I have noted here a few phrases which struck me as worth 
alteration. As to chronology (p. 130), the Irish annals, though they adopt 
a different reckoning, are yet far more exact than our Old English 
chronicles ; p. 154, chronology will not allow the received EoUo story. 
Mr. Howorth's hypothesis fits the facts of Landnama-boc and the ver- 
nacular traditions (of Norwegian origin). As to folklore and the like 
(p. 183), the scales found in the wicking grave were possibly scales for 
divination (Scalaglam the poet possessed such instruments) ; p. 88, weav- 


ing has a different origin from plaiting ; p. 102, the tradition that Wilfred 
taught the South Saxons to fish in the sea is not so improbable as it looks, 
for it is not unlikely that in heathen days fish was ' tabu ' to them, as we 
know it has been to many peoples ; p. 178, Dozy gives some interesting 
particulars from Arab sources as to Oda or Otta, Thorgisl's wife ; p. 96, 
among the curious series of visions leading to the supreme vision of Dante 
that of Adamnan is omitted, though it is certainly one of the most striking 
that have reached us ; the curious and ill-preserved Solar-liod is also worth 
examination, as it is one of the earliest monuments of Scandinavian Chris- 
tianity in the western islands or British archipelago. P. 162, Holge (the 
Helga of Beowulf) and Ogier (the Otkar of Carling history) were confounded 
pretty early in popular tradition : for instance, the fairies that begifted 
Holge are made in the chanson de geste to visit Ogier ; yet the two heroes 
are two quite distinct personages. 

As to nomenclature : p. BOl, there can hardly be a thought of Horm= 
Horn ; the latter name does not occur in this century in the north, as far 
as I know, though as a nickname it is of course possible ; p. B38, Hamund 
is not Ogmund or Agmund, but a wholly distinct name ; p. 409, the guess 
as to Ghisela being so called from her acting as a means of peace by 
marrying a Northman is quite without foundation : Gi'sl names are often 
met with during this period, and there is no reference to the peculiar cir- 
cumstances of this particular lady ; such I'eference would probably require 
a nickname, whereas Ghisela is a pet diminutive of part of the full name. 
P. 343, Green and his authorities are probably mistaken as to Berkshire, 
which seems to come not from hearruc but from the Bihroci. P. 126, the 
whole difficulty of the HfBreSaland passage is caused by the patriotic 
squabbles of Scandinavian historians ; the only natural meaning of this 
phrase is that men came from Haurdaland (in West Norway), and the 
annalist very properly adds that these were the ' first ships of Danish men ' 
(the natural South English term for all Scandinavians at the end of the 
ninth century) that reached England. As to Alfred's illness (p. 347), we 
have in Alfred's own words, and in other hints, confirmation of Asser's 
statement, though it is not the kind of statement that anybody invents ; and 
even if we accepted (as I cannot) Mr. Howorth's date for the compilation 
of ' Asser ' we need not suppose that account of Alfred to be altogether 
apocryphal. The sneer at the French (p. 270) should certainly be cancelled ; 
it is wholly uncalled for ; the chronicler plainly tells us the Jews betrayed 
Bordeaux to the Northmen ; there is not the slightest reason to doubt it ; 
it is in consonance with the known circumstances of the time : one need not 
even blame the Jews for seeking revenge or profit out of the discomfiture of 
their Christian masters. Lastly, as to the ' skialtSborg,' it is not a locked 
testudo, but a * thin red line,' a rank of fighting men, with two clear feet 
or so between every two men, so that each has space to wield the stabbing 
or throwing spear and to handle sword and shield. Such a line bent in 
square or circle is a true ' fort of shields,' and was like the ' boar's head ' 
column (used by Northmen in the west and Kshatriyas in the east), an old 
but wonderful invention and the pride of Teutonic armies. The shield- 
locked order is unnatural with the weapons used by the Northmen, and 
it requires body shields, not hand shields, though it was right enough for 
a phalanx or long-piked Swiss battalion, and it might at any period be 


formed over a few men with pickaxes hacking at the base of an enemy's 
wall. It was possible for Northern warriors to fight linked by chains (as 
Swiss climbers are by the rope), and tradition seems to speak to chains 
having been actually used more than once, where desperate defence was 
meant ; but with chains the arms and weapons had full play. Any one 
who has had the luck to see a charge of Zulu impis and come home to 
tell the tale knows pretty well what a line of fighting men looked like in 
the ninth century, and how it behaved. 

On the whole the book is suited far more to the general reader than 
the student, and we prefer to meet Mr. Keary as an investigator rather 
than as a ' populariser ; ' for though of course both employments are useful 
and even necessary, his work as an investigator seems to us far the better. 

F. York Powell. 

The 0' Conors of Connaught : an Historical Memoir. By the Et. Hon. 
Charles Owen O'Conor Don. (Dublin : Hodges & Figgis. 1891.) 

This volume, partly compiled from materials left by John O'Donovan^ 
and partly collected by the O'Conor Don, is an account of the O'Conors 
of Connaught, the chief branch of the great stem of O'Connor, the most 
far-spreading of the princely Milesian Irish families. It is a valuable 
and instructive book, though rather too much of a genealogy, and wanting 
in historical breadth and insight. 

The line of the O'Connors springs from Heremon, one of the three 
mythical brothers who led the Milesian conquerors into Pagan Erinn, 
and it gave several heads to the rude monarchy formed in the island about 
the Christian era. The names of these princes are significant : they are 
warriors, but also judges and lawgivers ; and this proves that Aryan civili- 
sation was in its dawn, in Ireland, at this remote period. The kingship 
passed to the great race of O'Neill, the most famous of the Milesian houses^ 
between the sixth and the seventh century ; and thenceforward the 
O'Connors of Connaught — spelled O'Conors by their descendants for 
ages — were sovereigns of this region of the west only. Two or three of 
the kings of Connaught were very able rulers ; they constructed fleets, 
bridged the wide Shannon, and made highways through tracts of morass ; 
and a fine church, built by Turlough the Great, still attests the excellence 
of the architecture of his reign. We have a most interesting account, in 
this book, of the inauguration of an O'Conor to his royal honours ; he 
was crowned by prelates round ' a sacred stone ; ' he was attended by his 
' companions,' his dependent ' nobles,' his ' vassals,' and the ' free states ' 
of the province ; the ceremony was imposing and solemn ; and, in fact, 
the pageant strongly resembles the coronation of a German Caesar — a 
striking instance how the whole Aryan family have common usages » 
tastes, and tendencies. 

Giraldus, and others of the conquering race, have found a proof of the 
weakness of the Celt in the fact, that Roderic O'Conor, elected king not 
only of Connaught, but of all Ireland, yielded to Strongbow and his 
knights after a mere show of resistance. This, however, has been usually 
seen in history, when superior and more civilised power comes in conflict 
with a tribal community ; and besides, Ireland had suffered from the 


inroads of the Danes, Eome had given Henry II her aid, and the Normans 
were the imperial race of Europe. The O'Conor Don traces the annals 
of his house from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries, with indus- 
trious care, from the records of the past ; but his narrative might have 
been more thoughtful, if necessarily a genealogical sketch in the main. 
The Norman conquest of Ireland was, at first, a name, and the O'Conors 
of Connaught, removed from the Pale and protected by the scarcely pass- 
able Shannon, long held their state, as chiefs of the province, in merely 
nominal dependence to the ' lords ' of Ireland. By degrees, however, they 
began to feel the power of the Norman De Burghs, encroaching neigh- 
bours, who proved themselves irresistible foes, and they became more and 
more subject to the central government, as the chain of feudalism, a 
fiction at first, was made to a certain extent a reality. The kingship had 
passed away from the house, before the great decline of English rule in 
Ireland, towards the close of the fifteenth century ; and we find the O'Conors 
the divided chiefs of tribes often at feud with each other, occasionally 
in league with the Anglo-Norman colonists, and scarcely ever combined 
against the common enemy. This has been made the standing reproach 
of Irishmen ; yet history abounds in parallels of the kind. Nothing is 
more certain, too, than that the O'Conors, in common with the other Irish 
princes, were not the mere * barbarians ' they have been called with scorn ; 
the castles and the religious houses they built show what they achieved 
in the arts of war and peace ; and their intermarriages with the noblest 
Norman houses are decisive evidence that they were the equals of 
the proudest aristocracy of the middle ages, even in the opinion of the 
Englishry of the Pale. 

The march of Tudor conquest was slow in reaching the O'Conors 
of Connaught in the sixteenth century. It had overwhelmed the 
O'Moores of Leix, the O'Connors of Offaly, with their chiefs — half 
Geraldines in sympathy and blood — and the almost royal house of the 
lords of Desmond, before it swept into the wilds of Connaught ; but it 
showed at its worst in the misdeeds of Bingham, a ruler of the province 
in the reign of Elizabeth. The heads of the O'Conors had been long 
known by the title of ' Don,' a distinction of honour : but in the eyes of 
the conquerors they were ' mere Irish enemies ; ' and Hugh O'Conor was 
glad to accept a knighthood from Perrott, the lord deputy, with a confir- 
mation of his rights to his still immense domains. This assurance, how- 
ever, did not save the house in the era of war and troubles that followed ; 
the sons and grandsons of Sir Hugh took part in the risings put down by 
the swords of Cromwell and William III ; and the O'Conors lost nearly 
all their possessions in the great confiscations of this evil time. The 
O'Conor Don tells us they were not rebels but loyalists, true to the Stuart 
kings ; this, however, is merely a courtly phrase : the O'Conors fought 
and fell in a nobler quarrel ; they sought to avenge protracted wrongs, 
and to defend their natal soil from invasion and rapine. The subsequent 
fortunes of the house are imaged, so to speak, on its blazon ; the oak of the 
O'Conors has been torn up by the roots, but still flourishes, with spread- 
ing branches, and still towers high with luxuriant foliage. Charles of 
Belanagare, fourth in descent from Sir Hugh, began life as a landless 
man ; his lot was cast on the most gloomy and miserable time of 


Irish history, that of the penal laws of the eighteenth century, but he 
became one of the most learned of scholars, a friend of Grattan, 
of Burke, and of other leading statesmen, and one of the founders 
of the first society formed to save the Irish Catholic from a state of 
bondage. The descendants of this distinguished man have passed through 
many chances and changes of life : one or two took part with the United 
Irishmen ; another was a trusted ally of O'Connell ; one Charles was an 
illustrious name at the bar of New York in our day ; others have not been 
unknown in the armies of France. The O'Conor Don of this generation is 
the great-great-grandson of Charles of Belanagare. 

This work is confined to the O'Conors of Connaught, and does not 
extend to other branches of a race not without glorious annals. 

William O'Connor Morbib. 

Le Boyaume d" Aries et de Vienne (1138-1378). Par Paul Foubnier. 
(Paris: Picard. 1891.) 

The complete history of the Middle Kingdom has still to be written, but 
M. Fournier has given to the world in this volume a most admirable 
summary of the second half of that history. One might indeed entitle 
his book * The History of the Decline and Fall of the Middle Kingdom,' 
for after a rapid introductory sketch it starts with the period when the 
influence of the French kings was becoming a force that had to be reckoned 
with, and it ends with the final attempt of the last king of Aries, the 
emperor Charles IV, to make his kingship a reality, an attempt which 
ended in the practical handing over of his realm to his French rival. 

Those interested in matters relating to the Middle Kingdom have been 
aware for some time that M. Fournier has been devoting his attention to 
that subject, and had published several articles and papers on it in the 
'Bulletin de I'AcademieDelphinale' (1884-5) and the ' Revue des Questions 
Historiques ' (1886). These monographs he has now worked up and 
expanded into a continuous history which displays throughout the sound 
training the author received at the ' Ecole des Cliartes,' and is a most 
valuable contribution to historical learning. M. Fournier is well up in 
the polyglot literature of his subject, ancient and modern. In parts of 
his work he has himself worked out various points from manuscript sources ; 
in all he shows his mastery over the material collected with so much 
pains, and which is sorted out in an orderly and methodical fashion 
highly to be commended. He has brought together much information 
scattered over a very wide field, and while not hesitating to accept, with 
full acknowledgments, all that is of real value in the writings of his 
predecessors, he does not hesitate to break a lance with them, or even, as 
in the case of Sternfeld, to express his entire disagreement with their 

The point of view from which M. Fournier writes, or, more ac- 
curately speaking, the object of his book, is best shown by the sub-title 
he has given it, ' Etude sur la Formation Territoriale de la France dans 
I'Est et le Sud-Est.' It is thus designed to be a chapter in the story of 
the * making ' of France, but it is also of necessity a chapter in the story 
of the ' unmaking ' of the Empire. The diiference between M. Fournier 


and his German predecessors is just this : he records with joy the 
gradual attraction of the kingdom or of the greater part of it towards 
the rising French monarchy ; they record with regret and sorrow the loss 
of an important region to the Empire. Hence M. Fournier's work is 
pleasanter to read than those of his rivals, for the gi'eat future of France 
is ever before his eyes, whereas they, looking back to the brilliant past of 
the Empire, blame and carp at the acts of princes who were unable to 
swim against the tide. 

It must be borne in mind that while M. Fournier is well aware that 
the kingdom of Aries stretched, at least in name, from the Ehine to the 
Mediterranean, he does not pretend to work out the history of every portion 
of it on the same scale. He passes lightly over the history of its northern 
and southern extremities, the former probably because, during the period 
of which he treats, it was gradually becoming the Swiss Confederation, 
the latter possibly because the real struggle on the part of the French 
king to get hold of Provence was delayed till the fifteenth century. 
Hence his book is mainly concerned with the Dauphine, Savoy, Lyons, and 
the Franche-Comte ; that is, the central portion of the Middle Kingdom, 
bits of which were the first to pass over from the Empire to France. 

It is thus quite natural that his book should be printed — and well 
printed too — in Miicon, while the fact that M. Fournier himself is a 
Professor of the Law Faculty of Grenoble explains his keen interest 
in this period of the history of the Middle Kingdom. For the Dauphine 
forms, at this time, the centre of attraction. It was to the as yet in- 
dependent Dauphin that the crown of Aries was oftered in 1385 by Louis 
of Bavaria as a counter- weight to the basilisk- like fascinations of the 
French king ; it was the Dauphine which its lord sold in 1349 to that 
king — the first important acquisition he made at the expense of the 
Middle Kingdom, which between that date and the present century has been 
almost wholly absorbed in France ; while it was the Dauphin, the eldest 
son of the French king, whom Charles IV invested in 1378 with the 
* imperial vicariate of Aries,' thus practically resigning his own pretensions, 
although it was as recently as 13G5 that he had been crowned at Aries. 
But if the Dauphine was slipping away from the Empire, Savoy was 
being drawn towards the Empire ; and hence the long- continued rivalry 
between the two districts, the centres of French and of imperial influence 
respectively in this corner of Europe. This prominent position taken 
by the Dauphine in the break-up of the Middle Kingdom explains the 
origin of M. Fournier's book, written on the spot, and justifies him in 
making considerable use of manuscript authorities relating to that district. 
But though here and there his stately volume becomes almost a mono- 
graph on the relations of the Dauphine and its successive holders 
to the Empire, it is only right to add that they are studied not as isolated- 
phenomena, but as the best examples of and parts of a greater whole. 

No book, however, is as perfect as it might be, at least in the eyes of 
certain of its readers, and M. Fournier's work is no exception to the 
universal rule. It is much to be regretted that he follows the common 
French practice, and gives us no index, though there is a tolerably full 
table of contents. The authorities for each period are conveniently 
discussed in a note at the beginning of each important division of the 


work, and are, as I have said, very full ; but though of course Hiiffer's, 
Sternfeld's, and Winckelmann's monographs are mentioned, there seems 
to be no allusion to Kallmann's elaborate article on the relations of the 
Middle Kingdom to the Empire from 1038 to 1152, • the later portions of 
which deal with M. Fournier's period. M. Fournier too might have given 
us at least a sketch-map for the benefit of those not as familiar as himself 
with the geography of the Middle Kingdom ; and it seems really a pity 
that he has not printed the document of 1378, by which Charles IV 
conferred the imperial vicariate on the Dauphin, after telling us not 
merely that the text has not hitherto been published, but that the 
original is at Paris and a copy at Grenoble. Is it too much to hope that 
M. Fournier, having made such an excellent start, will now go back to 
the beginning of his subject, and will give us a history — in outline — of 
the Burgundian kingdoms from their origin in the ninth century, at the 
break-up of the Carolingian empire, to the point at which French 
influence becomes predominant, the point at which his present work 
starts? For such a task M. Fournier, owing to his previous studies 
and the lucky accident of his place of residence, enjoys unusual advan- 
tages. The scattered articles of Gingins la Sarraz and of Terrebasse, 
the brilliant apercu of Bresslau, and the monographs of Trog and 
Bliimcke, afford much valuable material — good bricks for building the 
house — while much more, recently collected, lies scattered in the historical 
periodicals of Switzerland, the Dauphine, Savoy, and Franche-Comte. 
M. Fournier has succeeded so well in building half the house that it is 
his bounden duty to build the other and smaller half. To historical 
students a continuous history of the Middle Kingdom would be a very 
great boon, even though they may agree with M. Fournier that being 
founded on no principle of nationality it could not have existed by itself, 
and only marks the transition stage in the consolidation of the greater 
states around it, into whose hands it ultimately fell. The story of such 
an historical accident is always interesting, largely because it is easier 
to trace out the working of great causes on a small scale, and also because 
its close association with neighbouring lands serves to give life and 
colour to the inevitably monotonous details of a purely local history. 

M. Fournier tells us that the expression ' kingdom of Aries * or * of 
Vienne ' does not occur in official documents till the very end of the 
twelfth century ; the older expression being ' kingdom of Burgundy ' or 
• of Provence.' He has written a model history of the one, and it may 
be hoped that he will lose no time in beginning, if indeed he has not 
already begun, an equally clear and well-planned history of the other 
and earlier kingdom. W. A. B. Coolidge. 

La FaculU de Droit dans Vancienne Universite de Paris (1160-1763). 
Par I'Abbe G. Peeies, Docteur en Droit Canonique de la Faculty 
de Theologie de Paris. (Paris : Larose et Forcel. 1890.) 

This is a good piece of work within the limits indicated by the title. 
The abbe throws no light on the questions relating to the origines of the 
universities, and he is not always a trustworthy authority on matters 
of general university history. He continues, for instance, to repeat the 
' Jahrbzich filr schweizerische Geschichte, vol. xiv. (1889), pp. 1-109. 


absurd derivation of bachelor from bas chevalier (p. 26), he makes the 
extraordinary assertion that the term regens (p. 38) is first found in a 
document of 1330, and solemnly informs us that * Vintroduction des grades 
universitaires est attribute d Irnerius, qui expliquait les Pandectes d 
Bologneen 1137 ' (p. 26), with a reference to Libri's ' Histoire des Sciences 
Mathematiques en Italie,' as though he had no better information to give 
us upon the subject. He knows the great work of Denifle, but he has 
failed to assimilate its contents. Some explanation is also wanted of the 
statement that Anselm the Peripatetic dedicated a book, written in 1047- 
1056, to Henry III of England. But when he comes to his proper sub- 
ject, the history of law, especially of the canon law, in the middle ages, 
he writes with competent learning, and his account of the organisa- 
tion of the law faculty at Paris, beginning with the later middle ages, 
is evidently based upon a thorough and conscientious study of original 
authorities, especially the unpublished registers of the faculty. 

On matters of opinion I am not always able to assent to Dr. Peries' 
judgments. He is an enthusiast for his favourite study, and what he 
has to tell us as to the civilising and humanising elforts of the canon 
law upon the legal system of medieval Europe is entitled to respectful 
consideration. But if the canon law did something to civilise and 
humanise the state it did much also to secularise and legalise the church, 
and of this effect of the canon law (which must, one would think, be 
admitted from any ecclesiastical point of view) the abbe has nothing to say. 
Few will be disposed to agree with him in attributing the decline of its 
beneficent influence, the disappearance of ce caracUre moralisateur et 
bienfaisant, exclusively or mainly to the limitations imposed upon the 
canon law by the growing authority of the state and the state courts from 
the beginning of the fourteenth century onwards. If this is not his 
meaning, if he merely means that the true moral and spiritual effects of 
the church's authority were destroyed by the fact that the church was 
herself englobee dans V organisation feodale, would not this be as true of the 
twelfth or thirteenth century as of the fourteenth ? If, on the other 
hand, he merely means that the science of canon law, from the point of 
view of the scientific jurist, was not as progressive in the fourteenth and 
fifteenth centuries as in the thirteenth, that is true of the Roman law 
as well, and (to speak roughly) of the intellectual life of medieval 
Christendom generally. In the explanation of this phenomenon we must 
look to other causes than the strengthening of secular authority. 

Another important question discussed by Dr. Peries is the prohibition 
of the study of civil law at Paris by Honorius III in 1230. He is no 
doubt right in denying that the prohibition was due to any dislike for the 
study of civil law in itself on the part of the church or of the popes. 
I cannot follow him, however, in his attempt to show that the prohibition 
was in operation. With the exception of an isolated allusion to auditores 
legum et decretalium in 1251, the evidence which he collects does not 
prove the formal teaching of civil law at Paris, though undoubtedly the 
canonists of Paris had usually, and indeed almost necessarily, studied 
the civil law, and often graduated therein, elsewhere ; and it seems that 
these degrees occasionally received a kind of official recognition even at 


The space at my disposal will not allow of my indicating the new 
pieces of information which are to be found in the work before us. Suffice 
it to say that there is a good deal to be learnt from it which could not be 
extracted from any existing book on the university or from any hitherto 
printed documents. Dr. Peries has, for instance, shown that, by a gross 
abuse of their powers, the regent doctors of canon law succeeded in 
making themselves a close oligarchical professoriate which excluded the 
ordinary graduates from the substantial privileges and emoluments of 
regency, while the greater part of the teaching devolved upon the 
bachelors. The book is a valuable contribution to university history, a 
subject which has need of many more such monographs. 

H. Rashdall. 

The Song of Leioes. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by C. L. 
KiNGSFORD. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.) 

The ' Carmen de Bello Lewensi,' or ' Song of Lewes,' is one of the most 
remarkable of English political poems, and an important source of in- 
formation respecting a critical period of English history. If it adds little 
to our knowledge of the events of the barons' war, it throws more Hght 
than any other document on the political ideas and principles of the 
movement connected with the name of Simon de Montfort. Only one 
contemporary manuscript of the poem is extant, and this is known to the 
public only through the somewhat inadequate transcript printed by Mr. 
T. Wright in his ' Political Poems ' (Camden Society). The text is in 
places corrupt, the Latin is not always easy to construe, and the allusions 
are sometimes obscure even to one well acquainted with the period. 
Tliese are reasons sufficient to justify a new and more correct edition, 
supplemented by a literal translation and by explanatory and bibhographical 
notes. Whether the foundation in this case is not somewhat too small 
for the superstructure, whether the original document is not liable to be 
smothered under so large an apparatus of prolegomena, notes, and excur- 
suses, and whether the mass of learning which is here brought to bear 
would not have been better displayed in a more independent shape, may 
perhaps be doubtful. But, setting this aside, there can be no doubt that 
Mr. Kingsford has done his work well, and has produced a complete and 
scholarly edition of the poem. 

Mr. Kingsford's introduction, which occupies thirty pages, deals with 
the manuscript itself, the authorship of the poem, its contents, historical 
value, style, &c. The date of its composition is proved by internal evidence 
to fall between the battles of Lewes and Evesham, ' probably,' says the 
editor, 'in the latter half of 1264.' The manuscript which contains it 
appears to be contemporary, and certainly belongs to the thirteenth 
century. ' There can be little doubt,' says Mr. Kingsford, ' that the author 
was a Franciscan friar, probably one who had been educated at Oxford 
under the influence of Adam Marsh and Grosseteste.' Various consi- 
derations make it appear probable that he was attached to De Montfort'a 
household, was present at the battle of Lewes, and even took part in the 
negotiations between Earl Simon and the king both before and after the 


battle. He may have been the author of an office in memory of the earl 
which has already been printed elsewhere, and after Evesham may have 
fled to Scotland and supplied the chronicler of Melrose with the remark- 
ably full information which he possesses on the subject of the war. All 
this is, of course, purely conjectural, but the allusions and coincidences 
on which the conjectures are based are fairly set forth by Mr. Kingsford, 
and he does not attach excessive weight to them. He is also careful, in 
discussing the historical value of the poem, to point out its partisan 
character. ' Our writer,' he says, ' is by no means free from bias ; but 
is the bias of such a character as materially to detract from the trust- 
worthiness and value of the song ? There is no reason to regard it as 
doing so, if only the true character of the song is kept in mind. It is not 
a history, nor an argument of the case upon its merits, but a political 
pamphlet written in justification of a particular cause. . . . There is every 
reason to believe that we have in it a trustworthy, perhaps even an authori- 
tative, exponent of that party's programme, and it is its very character as 
a party pamphlet which constitutes the true value of the song.' 

Mr. Kingsford's text is certainly an improvement on Mr. Wright's, 
though a comparison does not reveal, at the first glance, many important 
differences between them. Mr. Wright in his edition classicised the 
spelling (e.g. writing g^ra^m for gracia,praeterior2Jreter), inserted csiT^itals, 
and — what is worse — emended words and passages without pointing out 
where he diverged from the manuscript. He also left some obvious cor- 
ruptions uncorrected, and sometimes failed in his translation to catch the 
author's meaning. Mr. Kingsford's text is a far closer reproduction of 
the manuscript. He even prints his expansions of abbreviations in 
itahcs — a stretch of sincerity perhaps superfluous. Many of his emenda- 
tions have been anticipated by his predecessor, but he is careful to relegate 
them to the notes, leaving the text as it stands. Those that are new are 
often ingenious and generally command respect, e.g. mari and ignari for 
naui and ignaui (vv. 811, 812) ; but docuit for dehuit (v. 947) hardly 
seems probable, though the passage as it stands is untranslatable ; while 
ordini for omnium, v. 798 {suo cum sit omnium soli totus datus), is unne- 
cessary, the line meaning ' since he is entirely given up to his own [interest] 
alone of all,' i.e. ' apart from that of all others.' Mr. Kingsford's punc- 
tuation and translation are distinctly superior to those of the earlier 

The notes are very copious, occupying more space than the text and 
the translation together. The most valuable are perhaps those in which 
the editor has brought together illustrations from other writers, throwing 
light on the author's sentiments and principles, and tracing his phrases 
and language to the Vulgate and other sources. Such, for instance, is the 
note (covering five pages, pp. 113-118) on the relation of the king to 
the law, which is illustrated from Thomas Aquinas, &c. The historical 
references also are fully explained, and doubtful points, such as the exact 
date of the battle and of the negotiations which preceded it, are discussed 
with learning and acumen. The notes in general give abundant evidence 
of wide and accurate reading, and of first-hand acquaintance with the 
original authorities in any way connected with the subject. Some, it is 
true, are rather of the nature of excursuses, as the one mentioned above ;. 


others, as those on the sheriffs (p. 9) and the appointment of officers of 
state (p. 95), are more or less superfluous in this connexion. No one 
is hkely to study the ' Song of Lewes,' who is not already fairly well 
acquainted with constitutional history, and a reader wishing to know the 
details of these matters would naturally consult Bishop Stubbs or 
some other historian. The notes, however, appear to be generally 
correct in themselves, though exception may be taken here and there — 
for instance, to that on the constitutional rights of the baronage (p. 101). 
To take one point in this note only, it is misleading to say that ' by the 
end of the reign of John the great Council had acquired the recognised 
right to be consulted as to taxation,' and that ' without their consent 
no tax could be levied beyond the three prescriptive aids.' This is 
antedating even the formal recognition of the right thus stated by 
more than a century, and the practical acquisition of it by a much 
longer period. 

The volume concludes with three appendices. The first of these, in 
which the opinions of ' some medieval writers on kingship ' are ably 
sketched and connected together, is a valuable contribution to the history 
of medieval political philosophy. It is followed by a useful table of dates 
for the barons' war, and by a transcript of a French comic poem con- 
taining political allusions, taken from the same manuscript as the ' Song 
of Lewes' and now printed for the first time. G. W. Peothero. 

Flores Historiarum. Edited by Henry Richards Luard, D.D. Three 
volumes. (London : Published under the direction of the Master of 
the Rolls. 1890.) 

It was in all respects fitting that the late Dr. Luard should have supple- 
mented his great work on Matthew Paris by an edition of that chronicle 
which has so much in common with him, which has so often been con- 
founded with him, and of which the traditional compiler's name has 
arisen out of this confusion. This last fact — that ' Matthew of Westmin- 
ster ' is a factitious person — Dr. Luard appears to have proved beyond 
controversy, and in omitting the name from his title-page he has no doubt 
helped to prevent the further spread of error on the subject ; but he has 
at the same time left an opening for a new confusion, since ' Flores His- 
toriarum ' is also the title of the history of Roger of Wendover, which it- 
self, as is well known, formed the basis of part of Matthew Paris, and thus 
indirectly of * Matthew of Westminster.' On this account it would have 
been more convenient to have added the words ' commonly attributed to 
Matthew of Westminster ' on the title-page, just as Bishop Stubbs did in 
the analogous case of the ' Gesta Henrici II,' ascribed to Benedict of 
Peterborough. But there is this difference, that Benedict, although he 
did not write the ' Gesta,' was a real person, whereas no Matthew can be 
proved to have existed. The name, in fact, is derived from the Norwich 
manuscript of the ' Flores,' which was written so late as the beginning of 
the fifteenth century, and Dr. Luard accounts for it as follows. ' It was,' 
he says (vol. i. pref. p. xi), 'of course, obvious that the bulk of the 
earlier portion was taken from the greater chronicle of Matthew Paris, 
and as there were numerous introductions relating to Westminster, and 


'the earliest manuscript belonged at that time to Westminster Abbey (the 
words " Liber Westmonasterii " occurring frequently in the Chetham 
manuscript), the two names were combined and the imaginary " Matthew 
of Westminster " spoken of as the author.' 

According to Dr. Luard the manuscript of the work which is not only 
the earliest but also the source of all the rest is that preserved in the 
Chetham library at Manchester. It was written at St. Alban's as far as 
the year 1265, a few small corrections in it down to 1250 being apparently 
in the handwriting of Matthew Paris himself ; in 1265 it was taken to the 
abbey of Westminster, where some passages were erased and new entries 
relative to Westminster inserted, and a continuation added down to the 
year 1306 ; a further continuation, from 1807 to 1325, was then written 
by one Kobert of Reading. The manuscript of next importance is that 
now at Eton, which was written in the priory of Merton. It is not a 
••direct copy of the Chetham manuscript, but is taken apparently from 
some lost intermediate copy. While there are many alterations through- 
out, it agrees substantially with the Chetham manuscript down to 1245. 
Then, for twenty years, it gives a shorter acccount, which, as far as 1259, 
is derived not from the * Flores ' but from Matthew Paris himself. In 
1265 it is quite independent, but afterwards it agrees again with the 
Chetham manuscript until 1293, when it becomes much fuller until its 
conclusion in 1306. There are frequent insertions containing matter of 
interest to the canons of Merton. 

From one or other of these manuscripts, says Dr. Luard, all the 
remaining copies directly or indirectly descend ; but they are not on that 
account to be passed by as devoid of independent value. For the chroni- 
cle speedily acquired an extraordinary popularity ; and as it was tran- 
scribed for the use of various religious houses, insertions were constantly 
made of appointments, obits, and other data referring to those houses. 
Thus we possess manuscripts written at St. Benet Holme, in Norfolk, and 
completed at Tintern (Royal MS. 14 c, 6), at Norwich (Cotton MS. 
Claud. E 8), at Rochester (Nero, d 2), at St. Paul's, London (Lambeth 
MS. 1106), at St. Mary's, Southwark (Bodl. MS. Rawl. b 177), and at St. 
Augustin's, Canterbury (Harl. MS. 641). Nor are these copies of interest 
only for their local notices. The chronicle was accepted as a basis which 
it was permissible to expand or reduce as it seemed desirable. One 
manuscript, now at Westminster, contains remarkable additions con- 
cerning the barons' war. The Tintern copy has a number of insertions 
peculiar to itself, including some from the lost chronicle of Reginald 
of Wroxham,' from whom Matthew Paris also seems to have drawn. 
The St. Paul's manuscript has a continuation down to 1341, which is 
already known through its pubhcation under the title of ' Annales PauHni ' 
by Bishop Stubbs in the first volume of the ' Chronicles of Edward I 
and Edward II,' and is therefore not reprinted by Dr. Luard. 

The work before us is not merely the definitive edition of the ' Flores,' 
it is the first in which the chronicle is printed whole and unadulterated. 
Archbishop Parker's text of 1567 was, it is true, a respectable edition, 
but it was taken from a single manuscript. In his second edition, how- 

' These are printed by themselves at the end of the preface to vol. i. 

L 2 


ever, of 1570 he made all sorts of insertions from Matthew Paris and 
other writers, so that it cannot be relied upon as giving the specific evi- 
dence of the chronicle it professes to represent. The first attempt to 
arrive at a critical text was made by Dr. Liebermann in the twenty-eighth 
volume of the * Monumenta Germaniae ; ' but the plan of that great col- 
lection forbade the inclusion of anything that did not in some way bear 
upon German history, else the present work might perhaps have been 

In Dr. Luard's book the various shapes in which the chronicle has 
come down to us are for the first time adequately displayed, for no one 
before Dr. Luard thought of examining and in part collating all the 
twenty ^ manuscripts known to exist. We are shown the text actually 
written at St. Albans and Westminster, and also the curtailments, the 
amphfications, the local insertions, made in a number of religious houses, 
whose members used it as a common property, with the freedom to alter at 

The ' Flores ' themselves Dr. Luard considers to be based upon Paris's 
greater chronicle, while the compiler had before him also the work of 
Wendover and the original St. Albans chronicle, which forms the main 
source both of Wendover and Paris in their earlier portions, and which 
the editor long ago showed strong reason for believing to be the work of 
Abbot John de Cella. Down to 1066 the chronicle adheres so closely to 
Paris, and the changes are so few, that it might seem an unnecessary 
task to have printed this part of the work, filling the whole first volume ; 
the changed passages and insertions might have been printed by them- 
selves, were it not that Dr. Luard, not without good grounds, considered it 
desirable to publish a chronicle of so widespread a reputation in its entirety. 
From 1067 to 1249,^ where the work originally ended, the dependence 
on Matthew Paris is less close. Part of this narrative, from 1241 to 1249, 
in the Chetham manuscript was maintained by Sir Frederick Madden to be 
all in the handwriting of Paris himself ; but Dr. Luard holds, with Sir 
Thomas Hardy, decidedly against this, both on palaeographical and 
internal grounds. Henceforward to 1259, where Matthew Paris's greater 
chronicle ends, we have abridgments and transcripts, with some altera- 
tions, from several of his historical works, and it is only in this last year 
that the ' Flores ' began to assume an original character. The St. Alban's 
part of the book finishes in 1265, when, as has been said, the Chetham 
manuscript was taken to Westminster, and there continued from 1265 to 
1306. At this point the work was taken up by Eobert of Beading, who 
carried the narrative, which is now printed for the first time, as far as 
1325. Beyond this we have only some excerpts from known sources until 
the acceptance of Edward III as king in January 1327.'* 

* Dr. Liebermann {Deutsche Zeitschrift filr Geschichtswissenschaft, v. 1891, p. 414) 
accidentally speaks of nineteen ; he mentions several other manuscripts of which Dr. 
Luard has not taken account. M. B6mont, also by an apparent inadvertence, calls the 
number of manuscripts used by the editor twenty-one (Revtie Critique, N.S. xxxi. 
1891, p. 61). 

* The date 1250, given in vol. i. pref. p. xxxvi, is contradicted by the reference 
to the page there added (cf. p. xl), and is apparently a slip of the pen. 

* All the notices of 1326 in this supplement are placed under 1325, and Dr. Luard 
has omitted to correct the dates in his margin. 



Space is wanting in the present notice to discuss the points in which 
Dr. Liebermann, who has recently stated his views afresh,-^ differs from 
the conclusions arrived at by the editor as to the relation of the manu- 
scripts. It must suffice to say that he argues emphatically against the 
statement that all the manuscripts are traceable to the Chetham book, 
and takes the Eton copy to represent a second edition of the original. 
With regard to the composition of the sections intervening between the 
point where Matthew Paris's greater chronicle ends and that where Robert 
■ of Reading's continuation begins, M. Bemont has attempted, with greai 
. acuteness, to distinguish the authorship of the different parts.^ His argu- 
ment as to the first of these parts does not appear to us convincing. He 
notices the absence of the regnal year at the opening of 1262, 1263, and 
1264, and the omission of the annalis conclusio in all the years from 1261 
to 1264. But the regnal year is also wanting in 1256 and 1258, and else- 
where the formula with which it is introduced is not uniform, while the 
annalis conclusio is found in none of the years 1251-1258. It is true 
that the narrative in those years is exceptionally meagre ; but the fact of 
the normal structure of the annals having been thus deviated from in 
recent years may make us hesitate before attaching decisive importance to 
like irregularities in the years 1261-1264. 

A more positive indication of a change of authorship is detected by M. 
Bemont in the fact that in the reign of Edward I the chronicle, which 
has hitherto begun the year with Christmas, now begins it with the 
Annunciation. This he proves beyond dispute in the case of the years 
from 1295 to 1298. He also shows that the year 1281 is continued at 
least to 2 Feb., and the difficulty that the record of the following year 
opens with Palm Sunday — that is, 22 March,^ three days too early — is too 
slight to outweigh the unmistakable evidence of the other years. It is 
not so easy to say for certain how early the change of the date occurs ; 
but it seems pretty clear that the year 1275 runs on into the first months 
of 1276, and probable that the year 1272, which begins with Christmas 
1271, extends as far as 24 March 1273. It seems, therefore, that the 
old-fashioned practice of beginning the year at Christmas, which had been 
gradually going out of vogue since the time of Henry II, was retained in 
this chronicle (possibly in accordance with a local custom) until a West- 
minster monk ventured to introduce, with the accession of Edward I, the 
newer system of starting from Lady Day. But the curious thing is that 
in the years following 1299 we find once more the old computation from 
Christmas, and then the other resumed at latest in 1305. That both 
systems were in use at this time in the Roman chancery we know from a 
formulary drawn up by a notary of the court of Canterbury, from which I 
•quote the following sentence according to the manuscript 2238, f. 48 h, 
in the imperial library at Vienna : In curia Boniana incipiunt notarii, 
■anno Domini a nativitate, curia tamen in privilegiis incipit annas ab 
incarnacione.^ Just before a distinction is made between the lands 

* Deutsche Zeitschrift filr Geschichtswissenschaft, v. 413 f. 
" Bevue Critique, ubi supra, pp. 52-54. 

' The date 11 April, which Dr. Luard has noted in his margin, is that of Pahn 
Sunday 1283. 

* I have since found the treatise printed from two other manuscripts in L. Rockin- 
. ^er's Briefsteller und Formelbilcher, i. (Munich, 1863), 603-712. (The passage cited 


which use one or the other system, but unfortunately none is mentioned 
by name. It may be noticed that just about this time there was a tendency^ 
abroad to change the reckoning. The counts of Holland, for instance, 
dated from Christmas until the middle of the thirteenth century, then for 
half a century varied between the two systems, and finally settled down 
in favour of the dating from Easter; but in particular towns the old 
practice was maintained, and distinguished as the stilus communis from 
the stilus curie. In the church of Utrecht on the contrary the Easter 
style was customary until it was formally exchanged for that from Christmas 
m* 1810.9 

The result of the minute examination of M. Bemont is to fix with a 
fair approach to certainty the apportionment of the composition of the 
record from 1265 to 1306, which Dr. Luard assigned vaguely to ' various 
monks of Westminster Abbey ' (vol. i. pref. p. xliii), at least so far that 
the narrative from the accession of Edward I to 1298 belongs to a distinct 
author firom that of the narrative before and after it. It is not so clear 
at what point we are to separate the Christmas-dated portion which 
begins at 1299, since the years 1303 and 1304 furnish no positive evidence 
one way or the other. 

In the foregoing notice we have limited our attention to the external 
history of the * Flores,' how they were composed and added to, and in 
what forms they have been handed down to us. The special points of 
interest in their contents are brought together by the editor in the preface 
to the third volume ; and his index of nearly three hundred pages is a 
monument of learned industry. We cannot end our notice without 
expressing in a word the heavy debt of admiration and gratitude which 
all students of medieval history owe to Dr. Luard's unwearied and most 
fruitful labours in the publication of editions unrivalled by any in the 
Rolls series except those of Bishop Stubbs, and our deep sense of the loss 
to learning caused by his lamented death last spring. No man has 
deserved better of history, and few have left a more enduring memorial of 
their devotion to it. Eeginald L. Poole. 

Walter of Henley's Husbandry, together with an anonymous Husbandry, 
Seneschaucie, and Eobert Grosseteste's Bules. The Transcripts, 
Translations, and Glossary by Elizabeth Lamokd ; with an Intro- 
duction by W. Cunningham, D.D. Royal Historical Society. 
(London : Longmans, Green, & Co. 1890.) 

Miss Lamond has laid students of English social history under a heavy: 
obligation by her scholarly edition of Walter of Henley's treatise on, 
' Husbandry,' which up to this time has been known to most of us only 
from the brief references to it in the writings of the late Professor Thorold 
Rogers. Miss Lamond has not only transcribed the hitherto unprinted 
text of Walter of Henley from a manuscript which seems to represent the 
original form of the treatise ; she has added to it an anonymous tractate 

is on p. 610.) The book was compiled, apparently in 1289, by John of Bologna, and, 
dedicated to Archbishop John Peckham. 

» Bijdragen tot vaderl. Geschied. en Otidheidk. 3rd series, vi. (1891) pp. 268 S. j 


on ' Husbandry ' of the same period, dealing chiefly with the method of 
rendering manorial accounts, together with the manual of the duties of 
manorial servants known as the ' Seneschaucie,' and the ' Rules ' which St. 
Robert Grosseteste drew up for the guidance of the countess of Lincoln in 
the management of her household and estates. In each case the text is 
accompanied by an English translation, and this will be found of the 
greatest assistance by most of those who consult the volume. For 
the Anglo-French of the originals presents no little difficulty even to 
those who have a working acquaintance with old French, and Miss 
Lamond's admirably clear translation will save a world of trouble. It 
has a pleasant simplicity and yet antiquarian correctness, without being 
affectedly archaic. Whenever one feels inclined to dissent from her inter- 
pretation, it will usually be found that what is really involved is some more 
or less doubtful view of the conditions to which the treatises refer. 

The publication of these tractates is peculiarly welcome, since it puts 
at our disposal a new class of authorities for social history, namely, the 
handbooks for the practical management of estates which were in common 
use throughout the later middle ages. It is a source of information which 
must not be neglected ; in one sense it is more valuable than any other, 
for, with the exception of occasional passages in ' Piers Plowman ' and in 
manuals for the confessional, it is only from such handbooks that we can 
get the detail of daily life that is necessary to give depth and colour to 
our picture of earlier economic conditions. Hitherto we have had to rely 
for information of this kind upon the treatise known by the name of 
' Fleta ; ' which, as Dr. Cunningham points out in his * Introduction,' and 
as is at once apparent on turning over the pages of this volume, is a mere 
compilation from the ' Seneschaucie,' Walter of Henley, and other similar 
works. Yet, in another sense, these handbooks are of less immediate 
interest, because the details they supply need for their proper under- 
standing a knowledge of the institutional framework of society, which 
they do not give, and which must be sought elsewhere. Walter of Henley's 
little book was far more widely known than the rest ; with various minor 
alterations it served as a manual of practical agriculture for three cen- 
turies. And yet, for the purposes of the economic historian, as distinct 
from the historian of agriculture, it is perhaps, for this very reason, of 
less value than the other works which are 'here associated with it. 
For its abiding usefulness was due to the fact that it deals almost exclu- 
sively with agricultural methods, and but little with the position and 
relation of the various classes interested in tillage. And though social 
relations changed but slowly, they changed more quickly during the period 
between the thirteenth century and the sixteenth than the art of 

But even if minute detail of actual farming operations is the charac- 
teristic of these treatises, they occasionally suggest considerations of more 
general interest. For instance, it has been usual, on the authority of 
' Fleta,' to speak of every manor as having its ' bailiff' ' appointed by the 
lord, and its ' reeve ' or ' prepositus ' chosen by the villenage, both, in 
cases where the lord held several manors, subject to the control of the 
seneschal. This is the arrangement described in the ' Seneschaucie,' 
from which, as we now find, the author of ' Fleta ' derived his sections on 


manorial officers. But in the anonymous ' Husbandry ' (p. 63) an alto- 
gether different gradation of officers appears, to wit ' seneschals or head- 
bailiffs ' and 'provosts or under-bailiffs.' It has recently been remarked 
that, to judge from the evidence in Mr. Kogers's ' History of Agriculture,' 
each manor would seem to have had either an officer called a reeve or 
provost, or an officer called a baihff, but not both ; and that in many in- 
stances the reeve clearly performed duties which ' Fleta's ' theory ascribed 
to the bailiff. This is confirmed by several passages in these handbooks 
(e.g. pp. 7, 65). But what is more significant is, that the anonymous ' Hus- 
bandry ' (p. 65) expressly tells us that some manors are ' kept ' (' gardes ') 
by bailiffs and some by provosts, and lays down that he who is in charge 
of a manor, whether he be bailiff or provost, must render due account. 

Again, it may be noticed, as casting some light on the status of 
villeins as a class, that the * Seneschaucie ' contemplates the possibiUty 
of the sale of a villein (p. 87) — whatever such a transaction might imply. 
This section applies to the seneschal ; he is neither to sell nor enfranchise 
a villein without the lord's consent ; but, curiously enough, in the later 
section on the baihff 's duties, the bailiff is forbidden to enfranchise women 
' without the seneschal.' 

But to many readers the most striking passage in the volume will be 
the twenty-sixth ' Rule ' of St. Eobert, which indicates the relation in which 
the several manors which formed part of a magnate's territory stood to the 
lord's household economy. The writer advises the countess (p. 145) : 
'Every year at Michaelmas, when ymt know the measure of all your 
corn, then arrange your sojourn for the whole of that year, and for how 
many weeks in each place, according to the seasons of the year, and the 
advantages of the country in flesh and in fish, and do not in any wise 
burden by debt or long residence the places where you sojourn, but so 
arrange your sojourns that the place at your departure shall not remain 
in debt, but something may remain on the manor, whereby the manor 
can raise money from increase of stock, and especially cows and sheep,' — 
not, it will be noted, of corn : it seems to be implied that all the com 
raised will be usually consumed on the manor itself. 

This is substantially the same arrangement as that described in the 
* Domesday of St. Paul,' where every manor is found to be responsible for 
the food of the canons and their servants for a specified period ; the only 
difference being that in this case the food was sent to the lords, while in 
the case considered by Grosseteste the lord went to the food. Grosseteste 
goes on to suggest that the ' principal purchases ' of the countess should 
be made at the great fairs at two particular seasons of the year. It is 
suggestive of much that the ' principal purchases ' are defined as * your 
wines, and your wax, and your wardrobe.' 

The present publication is the outcome, if I am not mistaken, of the 
interest in economic history which Dr. Cunningham has been able to 
arouse among the younger generation of students at Cambridge. It is a 
piece of work of which master and disciple may both be proud. In Miss 
Lamond Dr. Cunningham has found a coadjutor not only zealous, but 
also of striking originality and independent power. In this volume Miss 
Jiamond has kept herself too completely in the background ; but to see 


what she is capable of in the way of original investigation, it is only 
necessary to turn to the remarkable paper in the April number of this 
Keview.' W. J. Ashley. 

Adae Murimuih Continuatio Chronicarum. Bobertus cle Avesbury 
de gestis mirabilibus regis Edwardi Tertii. Edited by E. Maunde 
Thompson. (London : Published under the direction of the Master 
of the EoUs. 1889.) 

Mr. Maunde Thompson, in his editions of Geoffrey le Baker (English 
Historical Review, vol. v. pp. 775-779) and of the St. Alban's Chroni- 
con Angliae, 1328-1388, has already thrown a flood of new light on the 
history of England during the first half of the fourteenth century. In the 
present edition of Murimuth and Avesbury he has rendered another 
great service to students of that period. His editions form a natural 
supplement to Bishop Stubbs's two volumes of ' Chronicles of the Reigns 
of Edward I and Edward II,' and are well worthy to be put beside them. 
If the plan of the Rolls Series has now prevented Mr. Thompson from 
giving us those elaborate notes and illustrations which enriched his 
edition of Baker, he has nevertheless done all that he could by providing 
us, along with an excellent text and a scholarly and instructive introduc- 
tion, all the small helps which a good editor can give, but which are by 
no means always to be found in the more recent volumes of the Rolls 
Series. For instance, his marginal summaries are real abridgments of 
the text, and real guides to his readers, his critical notes helpful and 
precise, and his index elaborate and intelligent. It does not seem much 
to note these points, but after some recent experiences I cannot refrain 
from calling attention to them. Moreover his introduction, following 
the best precedents of his predecessors, is a contribution of importance to 
the history of the period, and is marked by ripe scholarship, wide 
knowledge, and real historical power. As a trifling illustration of its 
•completeness we may notice the reference to Murimuth's pension from 
Christ Church, Canterbury, and his success in retaining it after the 
convent had declined to make payment, as is shown in Dr. Sheppard's 
recently published ' Literae Cantuarienses.' 

Both Murimuth and Avesbury are well-known historical authorities. 
Murimuth's ' Chronicle ' was first printed in 1722 by Anthony Hall, and 
•was edited a second time in 1846 by Mr. Thomas Hog for the English 
Historical Society. But the former edition is imperfect and hard to get, 
and the latter one suffers from the fact that the editor has practically neg- 
lected the important Harleian manuscript 3836, which, as Mr. Thompson 
points out, is the indispensable basis of a complete text. In investi- 
gating the literary history of the * Annales Paulini ' Bishop Stubbs was 
compelled to examine the life and work of Murimuth. Again in his 
edition of Baker Mr. Thompson was brought across the same problems. 
It is satisfactory that he has now completed their solution, and given us 

' Since this review has been in type, we regret to have to record the untimely death 
of the lady to whose devotion, in spite of a long and wearying illness, we owe the 
publication of the work with which it is concerned. 


a complete and critical text of this important work. It begins in 1303, a 
date at which Murimuth himself notices that the old chronicles mostly 
came to an end, and goes on almost until the death of the aged author 
in 1347. Meagre in its earlier part, it yet supplied the chief basis of the 
* Annales Paulini ' and the ' Chronicle ' of Baker. As the writer attained 
increased dignity and leisure its copiousness became greater, and all 
through the book the manly freedom and boldness of its tone, the severity 
of its personal criticisms, and in particular the extreme plain-speaking 
about the highest dignitaries of the church . and the misdoings of the 
Eoman curia gives it a character and value of its own. But Murimuth, after 
a long public career, never attained any higher position than a canonry 
at St. Paul's, and Mr. Thompson has good reason for his inference that 
the carping tone of his chronicle shows him to have been a disappointed 
and embittered man. Mr. Thompson notices some of Murimuth's varia- 
tions from the ordinary story. Very curious, for example, is the account 
he gives of the murder of Gaveston, and of the mean shift of his captors 
to make the fulfilment of their vengeance compatible with the technical 
fulfilment of their promise. Of extreme interest are the letters describing 
the battle of Crecy, which are given by both our chroniclers, the import- 
ance of which Mr. Thompson has ably explained in his introduction^ 
Mr. Thompson has printed as an appendix to Murimuth the text of a 
portion of the Cotton manuscript (Nero, D. x.), differing a good deal from 
the Harleian manuscript, which he has mainly followed, and some docu- 
ments from manuscript Cotton Claudius E. viii., svich as the ' Kecognitio 
Comitis Canciae,' already known through Mr. Hog. He has also given 
us an extremely interesting account in French of the defeat of the Moors 
at the battle of Tarifa in 1340, in which he rectifies the corruptions of the 
translation of the khalif's proclamation of a holy war with the help of 
Professor de Goeje of Leyden. Moreover he has discovered and printed 
the original French text of Thomas of Lancaster's letter to Edward II 
in 1317, which Bishop Stubbs had sought for in vain to supplement 
the Latin version which he had himself published. 

Avesbury's chronicle is more limited in its scope than Murimuth's, 
but it is also of considerable value. It is almost purely a military history, 
in which aspect it is of the first importance for the wars of Edward III 
in France, especially because of the important letters and documents, 
which, more freely even than Murimuth, he plentifully inserts in his 
text. Hearne's edition, published in 1720, is praised by Mr. Thompson, 
but it has become so scarce that this new edition was imperatively 
needed. Mr. Thompson has only been able to follow the three extant 
manuscripts, which Hearne also had used, but has carefully collated 
them afresh. 

The latter part of Mr. Thompson's introduction, which tells the story 
of Edward Ill's wars in the light of these two chronicles, brings out 
clearly and decisively their value, and is so well done as to make us hope 
that he will find leisure to give us the results of his work on this period 
with even greater particularity of detail. This is the more necessary as, 
except Barnes's useful but whimsical and old-fashioned work and Mr. Long- 
man's valuable but not quite complete studies, we have no history of 
Edward Ill's reign worthy of the period. T. F. Tout. 


Botuli Scaccarii Begum Scotorum. The Exchequer Eolls of Scotland^ 
Edited by George Burnett, LL.D., Lyon King of Arms, and M. 
J. G. Mackay, M.A. Oxon., LL.D. Edin., Sheriff of Fife and Kinross. 
Vol. XIII. : 1508-1513. (Edinburgh : H.M. General Register House. 

Whoever has occasion to consult the chronicles, calendars, and other 
works either of the Rolls or of the Register House series must certainly 
feel that, with all the abundance of historical material now available, the 
general public would be about as wise as before, without the help of the- 
editor's preface. Yet the character of the materials themselves differs 
immensely in one publication and another, and it would be difficult to 
name a book in which the services of an interpreter are so absolutely 
indispensable as the ' Exchequer Rolls of Scotland.' Here in this fat 
volume, the thirteenth of this particular work, are no less than 664 
pages of matter which at the first glance seems positively ' dry as dust.' 
There is, of course, something quaint in the discovery that a large part 
of the revenue of Scotland consisted of rents and dues received all over 
the country in the shape of so many ' chalders ' and ' bolls ' and ' firlots ' 
of meal, so many ' marts ' of beef and mutton, and the like ; but when 
the fact has once been elicited by a superficial examination of this or the 
preceding volumes it seems but the same story over again through all the 
664 pages. They are dry matter-of-fact accounts and nothing more. 
Their value is economic and statistical ; and it requires a very careful 
study of Scottish history and literature at the period, as well as a good 
deal of local knowledge, to make anything of them at all. In the hands 
of Mr. Mackay, however, they are anything but barren and unprofitable. 
The economic condition of Scotland is, in truth, a subject of rare im- 
portance at an epoch of such peculiar significance. The period embraced 
in this volume is that of the five years preceding the battle of Flodden ; 
possibly the careful student may be able to trace in its pages some of 
the predisposing causes of that disaster. Mr. Mackay, indeed, does not 
exactly say this, but he considers that the reign of James IV had reached 
its zenith in 1507, and that the five years included in this volume were 
the years of his decline. He is no doubt right, though we do not see 
that many visible tokens of this decline as yet presented themselves. 
The material resources of the country had never been very abundant, 
and if there was any falling off in this respect the editor has not pointed 
it out. At least the only indications of such a thing which we can see 
in his preface are some diminutions in the revenue from certain lands 
in ward, which might be due to local or accidental circumstances. But 
there is no doubt whatever that previously there had been a great advance 
in the country generally ; and it was probably owing not a little to the 
consciousness of that advance — to the feeling that he had attained a posi- 
tion of comparative wealth and security, together with an importance in 
the eyes of all Europe of which no Scottish king before him could ever 
boast — that James IV was induced to gratify his warlike propensities by 
that fatal and quite unjustifiable breach with England which cost him 
and his country so dear. 

That Scotland during the reign of James IV had been making steady 


progress in developing her own resources, with comparatively little inter- 
ruption from foreign war, was due quite as much to her neighbours as to 
herself. Henry VII of England was a king determined to take no offence 
at any foreign power if he could possibly avoid it, and so long as he 
lived his spirit of wisdom and conciliation affected even his son-in-law. 
It would be unjust, indeed, to deny that James IV had many noble and cap- 
tivating qualities, by no means so conspicuous, to say the least, in the 
character of Henry, Learned, pious, affable, and severely just, a great pro- 
moter of science, such as it was in those days, and of naval and commercial 
enterprise, for which his reign is especially distinguished, he was in every 
way conscious of the things which became a king. But moderation and 
self-restraint were not among his virtues ; and though devoted to the in- 
terests of his own subjects, he probably was hardly aware how much 
the advance of Scotland in his day was owing to special circumstances, 
the continuance of which was not to be relied on. For not only did 
Henry VII find it his interest to be conciliatory, and to conquer English 
prejudices against the Scots, but the powerful Spanish sovereigns Ferdi- 
nand and Isabella were also concerned for Henry's sake in promoting the 
same policy, winning over Scotland from its old alliance with France, flat- 
tering James's vanity with offers of a Spanish princess, and afterwards 
seconding Henry's efforts as mediators of that important marriage which 
ultimately brought the two kingdoms under a single crown. The advantages 
Scotland then enjoyed were altogether exceptional, and if James had not 
presumed upon them too much the prosperity of the country would have 
gone on continually increasing. For even Henry VIII at the beginning 
of his reign had no desire to quarrel with Scotland ; but he was not one 
to strain a point for the preservation of peace. The bellicose spirit of 
James at length broke through all restraints, and a period of unexampled 
prosperity ended with the crushing defeat of Flodden. In a moment all 
was gone. Faction, anarchy, and confusion took the place of order and 
civilisation ; and there is no need to wonder with Mr. Mackay at the mys- 
terious disappearance of the Scottish navy when, as he himself takes note, 
the * St. Michael ' was sold at Paris by the regent Albany the year after 
Flodden for 40,000 francs of Tours. A navy was too expensive a luxury 
for an impoverished country to keep up. 

One of the rare cases in which these rolls furnish distinct evidence of 
a fact of political importance occurs at p. 123 of this volume, where the 
account rendered by the treasurer (Mr. Mackay in his preface says by the 
controller, but the heading in the record itself is a thesaurario) gives the 
expenses of the French ambassador, Aubigny, and the exact date of his 
death in 1508, as follows : — 

' Et pro expensis quondam Barraldi Comitis de Bellomonte domini de 
Obonye et domini presidentis parliamenti Parisiensis, ambassiatorum 
regis Francie, cum sexaginta personis in eorum comitiva, a nono Mail 
inclusive usque primum Julii, licet dictus quondam Barraldus obiit un- 
decimo Junii infra dictum tempus, ut patet in libris dictarum expensarum 
examinatis super compotum, j"" Ixxxiij li. vij s. vij d.' 

Aubigny had passed through England to the court of James IV, and 
had met with a good reception from Henry VII, although James was even 
then cultivating a French alliance to the prejudice of England, and an 


able diplomatist (at that time comparatively unknown), whose name was 
Thomas Wolsey, had been sent to Scotland to counteract these tendencies. 
The arrival of D'Aubigny, a Stuart of Scotch extraction and one of the 
most renowned warriors of the day, was an event of high significance for 
the confirmation of the old alliance, and the poems of Dimbar declare 
both how warmly he was received and how deeply his death was lamented. 
Wolsey, on the other hand, wrote to his master that no man could be 
less welcome in Scotland than himself ; that James was too busy making 
gunpowder to grant him ready audience ; that the object of his mission 
was universally understood, and discussed even by women in the markets. 
Scotland was not a very favourable region for the exercise of first-rate 
diplomatic ability. Mr, Mackay seems not quite satisfied that Wolsey 
really was the envoy that met with this unfavourable reception. Pinkerton, 
it is true, printed the despatch and attributed it to Nicholas West, who 
was ambassador in Scotland for Henry VIII a few years later. The 
original manuscript is only a draft and bears no signature, but it is in 
the quite unmistakable handwriting of the future cardinal. If, therefore, 
it was the composition of Nicholas West, as Pinkerton surmised (and Mr. 
Mackay thinks the style in favour of that presumption), it would seem 
that Wolsey at this early period of his career acted only as the ambas- 
sador's secretary. But in truth there is no evidence that West was in 
Scotland at all at this particular date, whereas there is distinct mention 
of Wolsey's mission to Scotland in a Latin poem quoted by me from a 
manuscript many years ago, in which he is expressly styled legatus of 
Henry VII. ^ This surely must be accepted as conclusive of the fact that 
he was ambassador and not merely secretary. 

Mr. Mackay's preface certainly opens up to us a much larger field of 
comment and discussion than the text of the volume itself. Beginning 
with the state of European politics, he goes on to trace, from two different 
sets of records, the movements of the Scottish court, and to explain their 
significance ; he then glances at the foreign correspondence of James IV, 
his warlike preparations, and the building of his great ship the ' St. 
Michael,' showing how at the last, committed to a wrong course, he defied 
even papal excommunication in order to make war with England. He 
has some interesting remarks on the royal household, and finds one 
named Lyndesay in the queen's service in 1508 — perhaps the renowned 
Sir David of later years. After a page or two about the accomplished 
Alexander Stewart, archbishop of St. Andrews, the king's bastard, 
the state of the royal palaces and castles is discussed. ' A brief 
excursion ' next ' into the domain of poetry ' is not only pardonable but 
welcome, especially as the accounts contained in the volume appear to 
throw some light on the poems of William Dunbar. But, finally, the 
editor settles down on the main subject of the accounts themselves ; and 
here, with some self-denial, we will endeavour to follow him. 

Among other interesting information about Scotland collected by the 
Spanish ambassador Don Pedro de Ayala, a few years before this time, 
we are told that the Scottish longs had seldom lived much in towns. 
They journeyed about, passing from one castle or abbey to another, with 
their retinues, and this for a twofold reason — first, to administer justice 
' Letters and Papers, Richard III and Henry VII, i. pref. p. Ixii (1861). 


throughout the kingdom ; and, second, to collect their rents in kind and 
consume them. So also we are told by Mr. Mackay : 'The Scottish 
kings retained in all parts of the country, but especially in the Highlands, 
as a necessary part of government, royal castles, to which they resorted 
for enforcing law, administering justice, and enjoying sport.' Thus not 
only at places like Edinburgh and Stirling, but also at Dunoon on the 
Clyde, at Carnyburgh in the island of Mull, at Elgin, at Inverness, at 
Dingwall, and elsewhere in distant parts of the kingdom, were royal castles, 
the fees to whose keepers are duly entered in these accounts. Add to 
these the four royal palaces, Holyrood, Linlithgow, Stirling, Falkland, 
and it must be confessed that no kings in all Christendom had so many 
■convenient resting-places in their dominions as the kings of Scotland — 
quite apart from the abbeys which, as in England and other countries, 
received with equal hospitality kings, parliaments, and wayfarers of every 
grade of life. 

Buried in a mass of less interesting items, like needles in a haystack, 
yet easy to be found by the index under ' James V,' are notices of several 
of these royal visits, and of the expenses of the household during their stay 
in the different locahties — as at Darnaway and at Elgin during the king's 
pilgrimage to St. Duthac's — which are charged upon the revenues of the 
particular districts. There are items in the numerous disbursements 
allowed to the different accountants who collected the king's revenues in 
the different lands which were either temporarily or permanently in the 
hands of the crown. The bookkeeping, though different in style, is quite 
as systematic as that of any modern counting-house, and the yearly audits 
of the a'icounts had now for some time past been regularly fixed at 
Edinburgn. The inrolled accounts bear the exact date of their audit at 
the head, declaring the period over which they extend. The money 
revenue in each case is stated first ; then a number of charges set forth, 
for which allowance is claimed and a balance drawn, against which 
generally a number of smaller charges follow, giving another balance 
which is sometimes paid over to the controller, who acknowledges receipt, 
•or else is otherwise accounted for. Then comes the account of rents in 
the shape of corn and meal, or other produce of the soil, and the charges 
against that revenue in the same way. 

The most essential facts, however, contained in these accounts are 
those relating to the different systems of land tenure which prevailed in 
Scotland at the time. Some lands were held in ward under the feudal 
system by the death of a chief tenant of the crown, and the king as 
superior lord took the revenues during the minority of the heir. In this 
way the lands of the deceased earl of Buchan, in Forfarshire, came into 
the present accounts, and the reader can study not only the revenue they 
yielded from year to year but the charges upon it for widows' allowances 
(not only the late earl's widow but those of subvassals), the allowance to 
the heir, and various other incidents. But the most distinctive feature 
of the present volume is the light it casts on the gradual development and 
extension of feu-farm tenure in Scotland. Acts of parliament had been 
passed, first in 1457 and again in 1503, to enable the king with greater 
facility to convert other forms of tenure into feu-farm. This was a great 
advantage not only to the crown, but to the tenants themselves, who 


having now fixity of tenure, and being freed from the feudal burdens of 
ward, marriage, and other casualties, and sometimes, it appears, from 
menial services due to the lord, like carrying in his hay, were able and 
willing to give higher rents than heretofore. The operation of these 
acts seems to have been for some time obstructed by causes not very dis- 
tinctly indicated ; but a large use of them was made in a charter to the 
tenants of Bute in 1506, and their application was still further extended 
in the years immediately following. In 1509 a more general process com- 
menced of converting royal tenants into feuars, which is traced with 
peculiar distinctness in the Fife accounts. The change made a vast 
improvement in the immediate revenue, although, as Mr. Mackay points 
out, the crown abandoned almost all prospective interest in the increased 
value of the lands. On the other hand poor tenants had in many cases 
to give way to rich persons who could make better ofi'ers for the holdings 
— a subject of complaint mentioned in Lyndsay's ' Satyre of the Three 

Such are the more salient facts brought out by Mr. Mackay in his very 
masterly preface on the subject of Scottish land tenures ; and we need 
say no more to show the high importance of this volume to students of 
Scottish history. James Gairdner. 

Blessed Thomas More. By the Rev. T. E. Bridgett, of the Congrega- 
tion of the Most Holy Redeemer. (London : Burns & Gates. 1891.) 

Thirty years ago a writer in the North British Beview ' declared that 
* the biography of Sir Thomas More remained to be written.' In spite of 
the many Lives of the great chancellor that exist, this statement was, and 
still is, in a measure true. The materials are abundant, and much has 
recently been made accessible that was unknown to earlier writers. Mr. 
Seebohm has written only of the earlier years of More, and the story of 
his whole life has not been told in English since 1839 (Walter's Life, in 
Dolman's ' Catholic Library '). Sir Arthur Cayley's work (1808) has little 
value ; Sir James Mackintosh's brief study (1807, republished 1844) still 
preserves its interest. The German lives of Rudhart (1829) and Baum- 
stark (1879), works of very different character and value, have never ex- 
cited interest in England. Some years ago Mr. Cotter Morison contem- 
plated the task, but he made no progress in it. It is high time, then, that 
an attempt was made to collect and record our fuller knowledge of one of 
the noblest of English worthies. This attempt has been made by Father 
Bridgett. It is based upon considerable study of the materials, and 
appears generally, if not always, to be written from the original sources.^ 
The author is careful to state that the decree of Beatification does not 
place ' the object of it beyond a fair, candid, and intelligent criticism, even 
for the most docile and ordinary catholic ; ' and when he says, ' If I have 
been sparing in criticism, it is because the longer and more minutely I 
have studied [his] features, the more I have admired and loved them,' 

• Vol. XXX. p. 162 et scq. 

^ In a note on p. 13, a wrong reference is given to the Basle edition 1517 of Pace's 
De fructu qui ex doctrina percipitur.' Here Father Bridgett appears to have taken 
his reference from a later writer without verifying it. 


few, if any, of those who claim to know More's life and works will fail to 
sympathise with him. It is not, indeed, in his estimate of the character 
of More or in his judgment on the points of difficulty in his career that 
historical criticism will touch Father Bridgett. It is rather his account 
of the position of More in relation to the reforming tendencies of the age 
to which exception must be taken. 

Throughout the book Father Bridgett seems to be trying to make out 
that there were no abuses in the church to be corrected. Thus we find a 
constant tendency to depreciate Colet, and every severe saying of More 
against popes, clergy, or monks is explained away. Without going so far 
as Mr. Seebohm, who turns * the Oxford reformers ' into modern ' broad 
churchmen,' we ' cannot fail to see that, while clinging firmly not only 
to essentials of the catholic faith, but also to many doctrines and customs 
of medieval origin. More, as well as Erasmus and Colet, was liberal 
far beyond his time. A reformation on the lines which he would have 
laid down would have been an unmixed blessing to Europe. There 
is no reason why our remembrance of his severe condemnation of the 
eccentricities of Luther and the atrocities of the peasants' war should 
make us forget such definite statements as those which Father Bridgett 
quotes without seeming to realise their importance. * It is far more to be 
wished that God may raise up such popes as befit the Christian cause 
and the dignity of the apostolic office — men who, despising riches and 
honour, will care only for heaven. . . . "With one or two such popes 
the Christian world would soon perceive how much preferable it is that 
the papacy should be reformed than abrogated. And I doubt not that 
long ago Christ would have looked down on the pastor of His flock if the 
Christian people had chosen rather to pray for the welfare of their father 
than to persecute him, and to hide the shame of their father than to 
laugh at it.' ^ We are not surprised that Wolsey is throughout regarded 
as a mere political schemer who did great harm to the church. Such 
is the traditional Romanist treatment. But Father Bridgett ought to see 
that such a view makes by inference a serious reflexion on the honesty or 
sagacity of More, who invariably, if we except the probably spurious speech 
given by Hall (Nov. 3, 1529), speaks of him with the highest respect and 

Of a piece with Father Bridgett's disguise of More's real attitude towards 
the unreformed church is his most ingenious description of the opinions 
of the sixteenth century with regard to the papal supremacy. ' How 
could a highly educated catholic man hold, as More confesses that he did 
for a time, that the supremacy of the Eoman pontiff was only of eccle- 
siastical institutions ? ... Of course it should be known to every catholic 
man that the pope is the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter. But 
the great schism and the action of the councils of Constance and Basle, 
and the theories to which that action had given rise, had made students 
acquainted with difficulties for which they found no solutions.' Has Father 
Bridgett made no study of the English chroniclers of the thirteenth cen- 
tury ? It is surely not necessary, even for purposes of hagiology, to trace 
More's doubts to the councils of Constance and Basle. I cannot but con- 

• ThomcB Mori Angli omnia Latina opera (Louvain, 1566), p. 69. 


sider that Father Bridgett's treatment of the history of Ehzabeth Barton, 
both here and in bis ' Life of Blessed John Fisher,' is a similarly mis- 
taken refusal to look facts in the face. He declines to pass any judgment 
on the character of her visions ; he entitles the chapter in wbich he dis- 
cusses More's attitude towards her ' The Holy Maid of Kent ; ' and thus 
he finds no place for that praise of his hero which his noble sincerity 
justly deserves. 

The very inadequate treatment of the religious works of More (e.g. 
pp. 283, 298-299) was hardly to be expected in a religious biography, but 
may be excused on the score of the lack of general interest in the subject. 
But there are, from the historical point of view, two grave omissions in 
the book. No serious attempt is made to discuss More's relation to the 
Italian renaissance, a subject of singular and enduring interest ; and the 
account of his ' History of Kichard HI ' is sadly scanty. Nor does Father 
Bridgett try to clear up points of historical importance, such as those 
connected with the parliament of 1529. These errors should be repaired 
in the second edition which this book, like the author's work on Fisher, 
will probably receive. Trivial slips too, such as the repeated mention of 
Dr. Lumley (for Lumby) on p. 102, and the statement on p. Ill that the 
famous picture of More's family belongs to Lord Radnor, not to Lord St. 
Oswald, should be corrected. 

The book as a whole cannot be considered worthy of the hero, 
but it is a work of great patience and intelligence, written with no 
charm of style, but with a deep and genuine enthusiasm for the subject, 
which is indeed the one indispensable requisite of any record of so 
saintly and beautiful a life. W. H. Hutton. 

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic. Henry VIII. Vol. XII. 
Part iv. 1537. Arranged and catalogued by James Gaiednek. 
(London : H.M. Stationery Office. 1891.) 

This volume brings the calendar to the end of the year 1537. It covers 
the months June to December, and contains the index to the papers of 
the whole year. The story of the Pilgrimage of Grace still lacked its 
conclusion, and this volume has, accordingly, to despatch all its heroes. 
The government was triumphant, and was only concerned to carry 
out its triumph effectively. As long as Lords Darcey and Hussey, Sir 
Thomas Percy, Sir Robert Constable, Sir Francis Bigod, and Robert 
Aske lived, theirs are the names which make the calendar interesting. 
By July they were no more, and the best means of organising the 
council of the north had next to be considered. When the history of 
that council and the history of the other Border councils come to be 
written, the papers calendared in this volume will be found of great value, 
not merely as regards the composition of those bodies but also as regards 
their methods of working. 

The months June to December 1537 saw the government triumphant 
in more directions than one ; the hard work of the dissolution of the 
smaller monasteries was over, and the time for the division of the spoils 
had arrived. This volume gives the names of the successful candidates 



and the measure of their success ; it remains for historians to discover 
what was the nature of the services rendered that secured rewards from 
this source. The details of the history of the monasteries which were 
for the time exempt from dissolution, and of the two houses founded 
to pray for the souls of Henry VIII and Queen Jane, have been given by 
Dr. Gasquet, and this calendar proves the accuracy of his investigations. 
One paper from Richard Southwell, describing his labours in the disso- 
lution of Furness Abbey, he has overlooked ; it adds some interesting 
details to Dr. Gasquet's account. The monks repudiated the bill which 
they had signed at the earl of Sussex's instigation, and said that they 
had agreed to surrender on the understanding that he would be the 
means of getting them 'a better living.' Southwell compelled them to 
keep to their surrender, and when he suggested that he would ' assign them 
to religion ' they attacked ' religion ' with the greatest violence. ' I never 
heard written nor spoken of religion that was worst, to be worse than they 
themselves were content to confess.' He adds, apparently satirically, ' I 
have not seen in my life such gentle companions ; it were great pity if 
such goodly possessions should not be assigned out for the pasturing of 
such blessed carcasses.' That the house had kept up hospitality is, how- 
ever, admitted by his own account, for he suggests that ' divers parcels of 
the demesne should be distributed to four or five poor men who had 
wages of the house and are now destitute. Their only want is of another 
house to be suppressed and divided into farms among the poor.' 
Although the government by skilful management could make it appear 
that it had few difficulties to contend with at this time, the spy system 
was by no means relaxed. The political rhymes of the period are in 
consequence extremely difficult to interpret, and this calendar gives 
evidence of the existence of many such ; they appear to have been recited 
in forms so enigmatical that no member of the government could easily 
take offence. It is difficult to imagine how such a riddle as this should 
ever have become popular : — 

Vj. is com, V. is goon, wyth thris ten, be ware al men, 
Vij uyth vij shall mete wyth viij"" and viij"' niany 
A thousande shall wepe ad parabulam hanc. 
If I shulde seye what it is I shuld have no thaiike. 
For he that ne reckketh where that he steppeth, 
He may lyghtly wade to depe. 

The new calendar offers singularly little help to Cromwell's future 
biographer. There are extant only forty-four of his letters for these seven 
months, and very few of these are concerned with matters of much im- 
portance. The letters to Michael Throckmorton are the most interesting, 
and his grand attack on Pole's family, printed by Mr. Froude, is a really 
striking composition which probably shows Cromwell as he was. The 
majority of letters are to the Irish commissioners, and show his great 
grasp of business detail. Foreign politics seem to have had no natural 
attraction for him ; the few diplomatic letters which he wrote in this year 
have been published in Notts's ' Wyatt ' and have no great merit. In his 
hands English diplomacy becomes singularly barren of interest. A re- 
markable letter from Cromwell to the Council of Calais (No. 267) shows 



ihat Henry VIII bad some difficulty in changing the ' papistical fashion ' 
of that town. ' He thinks that you have little respect to him, and 
desires me to intimate to you that if such abuses be winked at he will put 
•others in the best of your rooms. It is thought against all reason that 
the prayers of women and their fond flickerings move you to this.' The 
list of Cromwell's ' Remembrances,' his daily memoranda (No. 1151, &c.), 
give perhaps the best picture of his life and the mass of laborious detail 
with which it was filled. 

The triumph of the government was crowned by the birth of Prince 
Edward. Only the death of the queen served to mar the rejoicings ; both 
events were fruitful topics for correspondence. The letters to and from 
Lady Lisle give an admirable account of the housewifely details that filled 
& lady's life at that time. Some of these have been printed by Mrs. Everett 
Green in her 'Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies,' a source which 
Mr. Gairdner has overlooked. Numbers 55, 881, 4705, and 1084 (State 
Papers) have all appeared in her valuable book. 

Mr. Gairdner's index, which covers 232 pages, is a splendid monu- 
ment of labour ; it is unfortunate that the index has to be postponed till 
the end of the calendared year is reached, but when it comes it is, so far 
as we have tested it, of extraordinary accuracy. There is a slight want 
of consistency in the manner in wliich various spellings of the same 
name are recorded ; these are sometimes given alphabetically with a cross 
reference to the best known spelling, sometimes in brackets after the 
word as ordinarily spelt, and in a few cases phenomenal spellings are 
omitted. What would be motes in other men's work become beams in Mr. 
Gairdner's, because of its great excellence. The only criticism which can 
legitimately be offered is that his abstracts are so faithful as almost to en- 
able historians to dispense with the original authorities. This system has 
its drawbacks and makes the calendar portentously long. Is it not a 
work of supererogation for the government to epitomise such sources as 
Pole's and Cranmer's letters, Notts's, ' Wyatt,' and the like ? Might not 
the humble pleasure of correcting the errors of such transcriptions be 
left to painstaking readers of manuscript who cannot aspire to construct 
a great theory of Henry VIII's reign from shelves full of calendars ? 
If so this volume would find itself considerably shorter, for it contains no 
new letters of Pole's and only one of Cranmer's — No. 435 ; for No. 703 
(iii.) appears in the Parker Society's collection. 

Maby Bateson. 

Felipe II y el Conclave cle 1559. Por Ricaedo de Hinojosa. (Madrid : 
Gines Hernandez. 1889.) Die Walil Pius V zum Papste. Von 
Benno Hilliger. (Leipzig : Fock. 1891.) 

The conclave of Pius IV is one of the most remarkable of papal con- 
claves, marking the epoch when the interference of the great catholic 
powers of Europe became an obvious factor in the election of a pope. 
This had, of course, always been influential ; not until then did a conclave 
become the visible field of battle between two great powers. From this 
the step to the direct right of exclusion of unacceptable candidates was 

M 2 


easy, and in fact, although no such right was claimed on this occasion, 
Philip II was able to frustrate the election of every cardinal whom he 
considered inimical to his interests. To bring his own candidate in, how- 
ever, surpassed his powers, and after a contest unequalled in length and 
severity he had to acquiesce in an election not indeed disapproved by 
him, but equally approved by the king of France, and more acceptable to- 
the grand duke of Tuscany than to either. Seiior Hinojosa modestly 
claims no other merit for his work than the judicious use of documents,, 
some hitherto unknown. By their aid he has given a lively picture of an 
episode of keen and unscrupulous intrigue, which became the preface to & 
new epoch in the history of the papacy. The attitude of Pius towards the 
great catholic powers was different from that of his predecessors. Under 
him the papacy drops out of the rank of leading temporal powers, and 
accepts a position of inferiority towards the great sovereigns, receiving in 
return spiritual liberty and the consolidation of its doctrine and discipline 
by the council of Trent. 

Herr Hilliger's entertaining monograph covers more ground than would 
have been inferred from the title-page, nearly half of it being occupied by 
a review of the pontificate of Pius IV, intended as an auxihary to the full 
comprehension of the influences which determined the election of his suc- 
cessor. The deceased pope had gone very far in the creation of cardinals 
in the interest of his nephews, but not quite far enough. The result was so 
nice a balance of parties that the new election could only be effected by 
compromise. After the defeat of the two great cardinals, Farnese and 
Morone, their partisans united upon the comparatively obscure Ghislieri, 
a monk and an inquisitor, recommended to Borromeo, the leader of the 
late pope's creatures, by his austere piety, and to Farnese by his accept- 
ableness to the king of Spain. The result was consequently a triumph 
for Philip, from the despatches of whose ambassador Kequesens we obtain 
much of our knowledge of the negotiations. It was a momentous choice, 
bringing in the long line of zealous and persecuting popes who occupied 
the papal chair for sixty years, destroying all chance of the concessions 
to protestantism which Pius IV had been ready to make, and preparing 
the way for steps as unwise as the deposition of Elizabeth and as sinister 
as the approbation of the St. Bartholomew. This conclave, therefore, 
is equally with that of Pius IV a turning point in the history of the 
papacy. Herr Hilliger relates its intrigues and vicissitudes with great 
clearness, and with such impartiality that it is difficult to guess at his 
own sentiments, save by his deliberate and very unjust disparagement of 
the liberal and tolerant Pius IV. The two Piuses were the represen- 
tatives of contrary systems, and the memory of the earlier has suffered 
much from historians imbued with the principles which became the 
criterion of orthodoxy under his successors. R. Gaknett. 


Acts of English Martyrs hitherto unpublished. By John Hungekfoed 
Pollen, of the Society of Jesus. With a Preface by John Morris, 
of the same Society. (London: Burns & Gates. 1891.) 

Father Pollen has made a good beginning with a work long expected 
from the Roman catholic community. Bishop Challoner had, indeed, a 
century and a half ago worked up with scrupulous fidelity for his ' Me- 
moirs of Missionary Priests ' all the materials accessible to him concern- 
ing the victims of the penal laws against papists in the reigns of Elizabeth 
and the Stuarts. But the bishop regarded the facts from too narrow a 
point of view. He took little note of the provocation given to Elizabeth 
•or of the incessant intrigues and plots contrived and promoted by the 
English catholic leaders. He had not even seen many Roman catholic 
•documents now available to the student, and he knew nothing of the state 
papers and records in protestant hands. He moreover lacked every 
literary gift which could relieve the monotony of his subject. The his- 
tory of the martyrs, then, needs to be rewritten ; but, before this can be 
done as it should be, a large amount of yet inedited material should be 
put into print. It is strange that this was not done, at least with regard 
to all the ' Acts ' or contemporary narratives on the catholic side, during 
the years which elapsed between the conclusion of the ordinary process 
f the martyrs presided over by Cardinal Manning in 1874 and the papal 
•decree of beatification in the December of 1886. Father Pollen's contri- 
bution comes somewhat late, and it does not pretend to be complete. He 
has, however, printed with suitable introductions a number of inedited 
narratives, mainly derived from the Stonyhurst and Westminster ar- 
chives, having reference to about one-tenth of the whole number of 
martyrs. It is to be regretted that he has not included some early and 
important catalogues, especially that drawn up by order from Rome in 
1628 by Dr. Smith, bishop of Chalcedon, and addressed with an interest- 
ing preface to the cardinals of propaganda. It was mainly by a compari- 
son of these catalogues that it was discovered, after the list approved at 
the ordinary process had been forwarded to Rome, that through a mistake 
of Challoner two martyrs had been made out of one man. The Roman 
congregation was able to profit by the rectification of this error, but simi- 
lar errors may yet be found. 

Again, Father Pollen omits portions of his documents without giving 
sufficient reason for his omissions. Why, for instance, are several 
stanzas (4, 7-12) of an autobiographical song by Mr. John Thulis 
omitted? The verses in question, we are told, deal with the martyr's 
own labours, and tlie martyr was a prominent appellant priest of whom 
we should like to know more. Then, to have the whole case before us, 
it is but fair that the corresponding documents regarding the martyrs, 
narratives of their capture, examinations before the magistrates, &c., 
preserved in the Record Office and British Museum, should be published. 
There is no reason to suspect deliberate suppression or falsification in 
the catholic accounts — though some of them come from strange sources, 
as, e.g., that written by the notorious renegade priest and spy James 
Young, alias Dingley, alias Christopher, who at one time made offer to 
the government to ' displace ' Father Parsons ; — but they at least ropre- 


sent only one side and suffer from inevitable bias. Father Pollen, how- 
ever, as the title of his book indicates, confines himself exclusively to 
what may be called ' Acts ' in the ecclesiastical sense. He seems impa- 
tient of the intervention of any unfriendly witness. Thus, a royal pro- 
clamation makes known that while the priests Anderton and Marsden 
had once protested that they would venture their lives in defence of the 
queen against the pope or any foreign invader sent by him, and in conse- 
quence had obtained a respite, these priests now deny the fact and recoil 
from their former position. Such vacillation was natural and credible ; 
and indubitable cases of the kind are on record. Yet Father Pollen will 
not hear of it, for ' falsification of their victims' words is of frequent 
occurrence in the utterances of their persecutors, and ought to make us 
cautious in receiving them.' Caution is indeed required on both sides at 
every step. 

The interest of these ' Acts ' is chiefly biographical. The reader must 
not expect to find any strong light thrown upon the larger historical pro- 
blems. Nevertheless the more these narratives of trials and executions- 
are examined the more increasingly clear does it become that the primary 
cause of all this cruel bloodshed was the government's well-grounded 
suspicion not only of traitorous designs on the part of the missionaries 
as a body, but of real peril to the state by their toleration. They were 
naturally regarded, to use Mr. Simpson's phrase, as ' recruiting sergeants ' 
for King Philip. The methods adopted for their suppression were, to our 
modern notions, imjust and barbarous, but the motive of the persecution, 
was political, not theological. Cardinal Allen in his heart so felt the- 
truth of this fact that he tried to cast it as a reproach against his country. 
' It is not a question of religion,' he said, ' for our enemies have none, but 
of the integrity of the empire and worldly prosperity.' To the Roman 
martyrologist the distinction may be insignificant, but to the historian of 
toleration it is all-important. 

In the face of the insidious interpretation of the bull of excommunica- 
tion brought from Rome by Campion, with the decision of the Jesuit 
theologians, Maldonat and Sa, as to the duty of catholics to take sides- 
against the queen and the obligation of priests to persuade the laity to do 
so in case of the projected invasion, any general protestations of loyalty 
were regarded as worthless, and the only sure way for a prisoner to escape 
the gallows was to avow his willingness to go to church. One Polydore 
Plasden, in answer to a question put, declared that if the king of Spain 
were to invade the country in order to establish the catholic faith he 
(Plasden) would counsel all men ' to maintain the right of the prince.' 
' He saith marvellously well,' cried Sir Walter Raleigh. ' No more. I 
w"ill presently write to the queen. I know she will be glad of this plain 
dealing.' Unfortunately for the priest the more wily and bloodthirsty 
Topclifi'e interposed. Did Plasden, then, think that the queen had any 
right to maintain protestantism, and would he really in such a case fight 
for queen against pope ? No, Plasden would never fight nor counsel 
others to fight against his religion, for that were to deny his faith ; and 
so he went bravely to his death. This was hard measure for 1591, when 
the worst of the Spanish panic was over. But it was not till the very 
last days of Elizabeth's reign, when the appellant movement against 


Jesuit rule and Spanish faction had come to a head, that the notion of a 
practical distinction between priests politically safe and politically unsafe 
could be entertained. The outbreak of the gunpowder plot was not cal- 
culated to facilitate any feeble steps of James I in that direction. His oath 
of allegiance only played into the hands of the pope. It was needless 
and absurd for the state to call upon priests to pronounce the doctrine of 
the deposing power to be ' heretical.' The terms of the oath enabled the 
pope to escape the difficulty in which a reasonably worded rejection of 
the offensive claim would have placed him, and provided him with a 
plausible ground for prohibiting it altogether. The pope, however, on 
his side was not justified in declaring the language of the oath to be ' flat 
contrary to faith and salvation.' It was, in any case, pitiable to see mis- 
sionaries as loyal as they were zealous — among them two or three of the 
appellant priests, men who doubtless heartily repudiated the ultramontane 
doctrines — dying not for any dogma of their creed, but through blind 
obedience to an arbitrary decree of the pope or from a scruple regarding 
their right as private individuals to declare a theological opinion, in their 
own eyes false and mischievous, to be also ' heretical.' Some interesting 
examples of logical fencing on this subject will be found in Father Pollen's 
volume. John Almond seems to have had the best of his argument with 
the bishop of London. George Gervaise, a Benedictine (executed in 1608), 
had no difficulties and needed no arguments. ' The recorder and justices 
demanded whether the pope could excommunicate or depose princes, to 
which with a vehement voice, to the great admiration of standers-by, he 
answered, " Yea, and also all princes in the world ; " at which the heretics 
fell into a great laughter.' 

The total number of martyrs since the accession of Elizabeth approved 
by Eome is 265. Of these twenty-four, having figured in the pictures 
which Gregory XIII allowed to be painted in the English college, are 
declared blessed ; the rest are, for the present, entitled venerable. 
Seventy-three are laymen and women. But it is only by a fiction, 
partly theological and partly historical, that all on this list can be said to 
have been put to death in odium ficlei. Among the ' martyrs ' are a priest 
who joins an army of insurgents and says mass for them, a layman who de- 
fiantly promvilgates the bull deposing his queen, a woman who contrives the 
escape of a priest from gaol, and a number of priests and laymen who, how- 
ever innocent, are indicted and condemned solely for political and criminal 
conspiracies of which they were believed to be guilty by judge and jury. 
The fact that in some of these cases a priest's life was forfeited accord- 
ing to the laws, on grounds other than those for which he was indicted, is 
hardly enough to constitute him a martyr in any rational sense, nor is 
it fair on the strength of such cases to affix the stigma of religious perse- 
cution upon state or sovereign. 

In the recent decree of the congregation of rites (printed by Father 
Pollen) it is remarked that ' until lately the cause of these martyrs had 
never been officially treated ; ' and the credit of initiating the movement 
seems to be given to Cardinal Wiseman. But this is to ignore not only 
the proceedings of the cardinals and Bishop Smith in 1628, already men- 
tioned, but the more definite action of the pope a few years later (February 
1643), commissioning by apostolic letters the archbishop of Cambrai to 


act in place of the ordinaries of England, empowering him to appoint 
delegates in England to institute a formal process, to collect evidence on 
oath regarding the martyrs, and to transmit the same to Eome. The 
seizure of the archbishop's letters and the civil war put an abrupt end to 
the proceedings. Many martyrs have been added to the catalogue since 
that date, and it is interesting to note that ore of the delegates. Father 
Cox, O.S.B., thus appointed in 1643 to inquire into the deaths of the 
martyrs, died himself, after a tedious imprisonment, in the Clink gaol. 

It is to be hoped that Father Pollen will find mears to continue his 
labours in this field. His volume shows much industry and care, and is 
crowned by an admirable index. T. G. Law. 

Calendar of State Papers, Ireland. Vol. V. : 1592-6. Edited by Hans 
Claude Hamilton. (London : H.M. Stationery Office. 1890.) 

It is now more than thirty years since the first volume of Mr. Hamilton's 
. ' Calendar of State Papers ' relating to Ireland appeared. A volume every 
six years can hardly be described as rapid progress even in the case of 
an official publication. But, whatever our regrets in this respect, they 
are in a measure compensated by a knowledge of the difficulties of the 
task and by the careful editing the work has received. It is indeed not a 
difficult matter, with the help that Mr. Hamilton has himself furnished, to 
pick holes here and there in his work, especially in the first two volumes. 
Occasionally it is a document that appears to have been misplaced or 
misdated ; more frequently it is the name of an Irish chieftain that has 
been wrongly identified — a venial offence surely, considering the erratic 
spelling of the times ; more frequently still it is an important document 
too imperfectly digested to furnish a sufficient clue to its contents. But 
those who have worked most constantly among the State Papers of this 
period will be the first to acknowledge its general excellence. It would 
of course be too much to say that the calendar is in effect a history of 
the period it covers, or even that it is absolutely indispensable to the 
historian of those times, but it undoubtedly serves very materially to 
lighten his labours, and in furnishing an incentive to the study of Irish 
history it at the same time provides the means for its effectual 
prosecution. As the work has grown in size, so also has it increased in 
tisefulness. In the first two volumes, covering a period of seventy-six years 
(1509-1585), the descriptions of the contents of documents were often pro- 
. vokingly meagre. The third volume (1586-8) showed a marked improve- 
ment in this respect. From that time all the more important documents 
have been given in extenso, and the less important ones carefully digested, 
so that for the period 1586-96 it is hardly necessary for the student to 
have recourse to the documents themselves. One great drawback, how- 
ever, to the general usefulness of the calendar is its restriction to 
documents preserved in the Public Record Office. And we cannot help 
regretting that the method adopted by Messrs. Eussell and Prendergast 
in their calendar, of including documents of importance preserved in the 
British Museum and elsewhere, was not pursued in the present instance. 
But to turn to the volume in hand, which we may describe in general 
;terms as the first act of that great tragic drama which reached its climax 


in the flight of the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, the confiscation of 
their estates, and the plantation of Ulster. The Invincible Armada has 
■come and gone, but Spanish intrigues are still rife and the hopes of the 
Irish are Still fixed on Philip. Sir Brian O'Eourke has paid with his 
head for his temerity in succouring the shipwrecked Spaniards who took 
refuge in his country, but his son Brian Oge rules in his stead. Hugh 
Roe O'Donnell, after once failing, has at last managed to escape from 
Dublin Castle in the dead of winter, and with the assistance of Feagh 
Mac Hugh 'Byrne and the connivance of Tyrone has reached his own 
country, where, with the consent of his father he has taken upon himself 
the title of O'Donnell and waits his opportunity to avenge the indignities 
placed upon him. Tyrone himself, ever watchful of his old enemy, now 
his brother-in-law, but all the more his enemy. Sir Henry Bagenall, and 
full of ambitious projects, still maintains the outward demeanour of a 
loyal subject. 

The curtain rises on a scene of universal tranquillity, ' The estate 
■of this realm,' the lord deputy Fitzwilliam and the council write on 
20 Nov. 1592, ' is quiet, without any stir or known troubles in any part 
thereof.' Meanwhile, the plantation of Munster flourished apace, though 
the undertakers, it is true, were not everything that could be desired, 
and commissioners had to be appointed to settle the disputes that had 
arisen among them and to enforce the conditions under which they held 
their grants. Still there was every hope that, with peace, Munster, like 
Connaught, would soon be able to pay its own way. But as the winter 
drew to a close, rumours of a disquieting nature reached Fitzwilliam. 
Edmund Magauran, titular primate of all Ireland, with his fellows, was 
reported to be busily engaged in fanning the flames of sedition in 
the north, and there were good grounds to suspect that O'Donnell, 
Maguire, and O'Rourke were prepared to raise the standard of rebellion 
at the first favourable opportunity. Sir Richard Bingham, the venerable 
president of Connaught, was for invading Maguire's territory and nipping 
the conspiracy in the bud. But Fitzwilliam, who had no belief in 
Bingham's ability to carry out his part of the project, and who clearly 
recognised the danger of pushing matters to an extremity, refused to 
countenance his scheme. Of course, when it shortly afterwards became 
apparent that Maguire was only.a catspaw to Tyrone, he had to submit 
to be sharply reprimanded by Elizabeth for his refusal to support 
Bingham. But this was after the event, and there can be no doubt that 
under the circumstances his view of the situation was wholly justifiable. 
Shortly afterwards, however, when Tyrone's conduct laid him open to 
suspicion, Fitzwilliam tried to allure him to Dublin (lord deputy and 
council to Burghley, 29 April, 1598). And when Tyrone, suspecting the 
trap that was laid for him, excused himself, Fitzwilliam required him and 
O'Donnell to appear at Dundalk on 20 June, ' that under pretence of 
border causes we might lay hold on him there.' 

On this and other points of importance the calendar is altogether 
silent, and it is quite clear that a number of letters both to and from 
Fitzwilliam are at present missing from the collection in Fetter Lane. 
But I hope to revert to this subject at another time. At present it must 
suffice to say that it was deemed advisable to wink at Tyrone's delin- 


quencies and to make use of him to recover Maguire. It was a risky 
proceeding to set one rebel to catch another, especially if Maguire, as 
was supposed, was merely Tyrone's agent, but there was just a chance 
that Tyrone had been maligned and that he might be willing to prove his 
loyalty, and the government were ready to catch at any straw. Tyrone 
readily undertook the task committed to him, and on 27 July wrote from 
Dmigannon that Maguire was prepared to disband his forces and to 
appear with Tyrone before the council provided he might receive a pro- 
tection for three months, ' and that assurance from you for the safety of 
his country as is meet to be desired in that behalf ' (p. 137). Fitzwilliam 
sent the protection as desired, but at the same time ordered Bingham 
to prepare to invade Fermanagh in case Maguire should refuse to sub- 
mit. On 4 Sept. Tyrone wrote that Maguire, after dispersing his 
forces, had gathered them together again and, ' little regarding the 
clemency of her majesty,' was preparing to invade Monaghan (p. 147). 
A day or two afterwards Tyrone appeared of his own free will in Dublin 
and handed in a copy of his grievances. A week later Bingham wrote 
to Burghley (p. 150) : ' Ulster has for many years been the sink of all 
revolts. The Earl of Tyrone is the chief rebel. Maguire himself might 
be suppressed by 200 soldiers.' Early in September Sir Henry Bagenall, 
with 143 horse and 208 foot, invaded Fermanagh from the side of 
Monaghan, burning the rebels' corn as he went and beating the woods 
about Lough Erne. At Enniskillen, ' the traitor's chief house,' he was 
joined by the earl of Tyrone with 200 horse and GOO foot. Meanwhile 
Sir Kichard Bingham watched the passes on the Connaught side. On 
10 Oct. Bagenall fell in with Maguire at Beleek, ' where we found the 
enemy in his full strength,' and gained a ' splendid victory ' over him, 
more than 300 rebels being slain. During the fight Tyrone was wounded 
in the foot with a dart, of which he did not fail to make the most, and it 
was noticed in his disparagement that he ' made earnest motion to be gone 
the day before the conflict.' His conduct in seizing thecreaghts of Connor 
Roe Maguire, ' the most dutifulest man of that nation,' was suspicious, 
and suspicion almost became certainty when it was credibly reported 
that he, O'Donnell, and Maguire had recently had a meeting together. 
' I see no reason,' wrote Bingham, ' but to hold a very good and honour- 
able opinion of the earl of Tyrone, for iier majesty and the state hath set 
him up and the state must uphold him still or else he will fall ; and 
besides he is wise and well experienced in the course of things ; but all 
men of judgment here and such espials and beggars as I employ into 
Fermanagh do wholly assure me that Maguire doth nothing without 
the Earl's advice and consent and that the Earl may at his own pleasure 
rule both Maguire and Hugh Roe O'Donnell' (p. 102). 

It was the last act of service rendered by Tyrone. After the fight, he 
retired to Dungannon, where he waited the further development of events. 
Maguire had escaped into O'Donnell's country. His losses had been 
really very trifling, and Sir Ralph Lane reported on 4 Dec. that he had 
already collected 1,000 men, and that strong reinforcements from Scotland 
were on the way to him (p. 189). On 2 Feb. 1594, Captain Dowdall, with 
the assistance of Captain George Bingham, captured Enniskillen, and 
Maguire, ' feehng his declining estate,' sent to crave for mercy. The 


question was what to do with him. Lord Chancellor Loftus, Sir Eichard 
Gardener, and Sir Anthony St, Leger, who had been appointed commis- 
sioners to treat mth Tyrone, advised a pacification by pardoning him 
and revoking Sir Henry Bagenall (p, 221). Bingham on the contrary 
thought it would be a great indignity to the state to take in so arrant a 
traitor (p. 203), and Sir Eoger Wilbraham advised that his country should 
be established as Monaghan had been (p. 209). As for Tyrone he ex- 
pressed himself willing to treat with commissioners, but altogether 
declined to have anything to do with Fitzwilliam or Bagenall. At 
pp. 222-6 is a long and interesting account, signed by the commissioners, 
of their attempts to parley with him and O'Donnell. It was clear to 
Fitzwilliam that Tyrone would only have peace on his own terms, which 
practically meant the evacuation of the garrison at Newry, and he re- 
quested that 1,500 soldiers might immediately be sent from England. 
On 19 April Captain Henshawe reported that Connor Roe Maguire had 
been plundered by Cormack O'Neill, the earl's brother, and his cattle 
driven off into Tyrone. About the same time a letter was intercepted 
from Tyrone to Neale M'Brian O'Neill, requiring him ' and every other 
that shall be at your counsel and advice to be true to Owen M'Hugh 
M'Neale Oge O'Neill (p. 239), the significance of which was apparent 
when it became known that Tyrone had been trying to tamper with the 
earl of Kildare (p. 241). 

On the last day of July the new lord deputy. Sir William Russell, 
arrived at the Head of Houth, and Fitzwilliam, having surrendered the 
sword of office on 11 Aug., sailed for England next day. A day or two 
later Tyrone appeared in Dublin, and having deluded Russell into the belief 
that he was the most loyal of subjects quietly slipped away again. Mean- 
while the little garrison placed by Dowdall in Enniskillen was being hard 
pressed by Maguire and O'Donnell, and a relief party under Sir Henry Duke 
having been repulsed with loss, Russell was constrained to march thither 
in person. The garrison was relieved, but the deputy was chagrined to 
find how httle trust was to be placed in Tyrone's promises. He was un- 
able, he had written to him, to hand over his eldest son as a pledge of his 
loyalty according to his promise, as both he and his brother had been 
carried off to Crew, near Newton Stewart, by their foster-fathers ! Bingham, 
who never minced his phrases, roundly asserted that the whole thing was 
a ruse, and that the attack on Enniskillen had been planned by Tyrone. 
Anxious to retrieve his mistake, Russell invited Tyrone to Dubhn, but, 
having so recently had his head in the lion's mouth, the earl declined the 
invitation. Even Sir Geoffrey Fenton, who had been inclined to take his 
part against Fitzwilliam, now declared that no trust was to be placed in 
him, and on 8 Dec. Russell wrote that he had broken off* all manner of 
temporising courses with him. 

With the new year affairs began to assume a more serious aspect. 
It was evident that there was a thorough understanding between Tyrone 
and Feagh Mac Hugh O'Byrne, and there were rumours of a Spanish 
invasion supported from Scotland by the earl of Huntly. Reinforce- 
ments under Sir John Norris were advertised as being on the way, but 
Tyrone had prior information and struck the first blow by mvading Cavan 
and Louth, which he burned up to the very walls of Drogheda. When 


Norris landed at Waterford on 4 May 1595, the fort at the Blackwater 
had fallen, and a day or two later Enniskillen was recaptured by Maguire. 
Tyrone had cut off all communication by land between Newry and 
Dundalk, and though the distance was only eight miles, Sir Henry 
Bagenall, after relieving the garrison of Monaghan, was compelled to 
bring his forces, ' 1,700 of the best footmen in Ireland and near 300 horse,' 
round by sea. Before Norris could take the field Sligo Castle had fallen, 
and its commander George Bingham been slain. On 24 June Tyrone 
was proclaimed ' in the English and Irish tongues at Dundalk,' but ' no 
man of any account came in from the rebels or their confederates.' On 
the approach of the army Tyrone, having first fired Armagh, fell back on 
Dungannon, and, do all he could, Norris failed to bring him to an engage- 
ment. To make matters worse, the relations between Eussell and Norris 
became so strained as to cause the former to withdraw altogether from the 
management of the war. On 3 Aug. Lane wrote that 4,000 Scots had 
landed in the Great Ardes, and that Tyrone offered ' to give in marriage 
to the bachelors of them generally through the army, the daughters of his 
gentlemen and freeholders, to every one a wife of degree proportionable 
to the man that is to marry her ' (p. 358). There seems to have been no 
truth in the report, but the situation was sufficiently grave to cause Cecil 
to write to Norris authorising him to treat with Tyrone. ' Her Majesty,' 
he said, ' would be content to see what was in the traitor's heart, and 
what he would offer ' (p. 364). But all that Norris could extract 
from him was the very conditional promise of submission printed at 
p. 374. On 12 Sept. the lord deputy sent Burghley a long account 
furnished by Captain Francis Stafford (pp. 887-390) of an engagement 
between Norris and Tyrone on the 5th, at a place eight miles on the 
Newry side of Armagh called Twissare (? Tassagh). A day or two 
after the engagement old Turlough Lynagh died, and Phillip O'Reilly 
announced that Tyrone was about to take upon himself the title of 
O'Neill. * The coming to the place of O'Neill,' wrote Norris, confirming 
the intelligence, ' hath made the rebel much prouder, and harder to yield 
to his duty, and he flattereth himself much with the hope of foreign 
assistance.' Nevertheless on 30 Sept. O'Neill wrote to the lord deputy in 
submissive terms, offering to meet him at Dundalk to negotiate a peace 
(p. 408). Whether he was sincere or not, depends upon the interpre- 
tation to be placed on the fact that only two days before he had 
addressed letters to King Philip, Don Carlos, and Don John d'Aquila, 
earnestly soliciting instant support. The priest who carried the letters 
was arrested at Drogheda and shortly afterwards broke his neck in 
attempting to escape out of Dublin Castle (p. 451). 

The information thus obtained seemed to throw a blaze of hght on 
O'Neill's motives, but however indignant Elizabeth might naturally feel 
at his duplicity the situation demanded that no notice should be taken 
of it (p. 418). On 2 Oct. a truce was agreed upon for a week, and Tyrone, 
who, to Norris's satisfaction, had again dropped the title of O'Neill, 
having tendered his submission on the 18th, the truce was extended to 
1 Jan. 1596. Elizabeth was willing enough to pardon him, but she stuck 
at leaving him possessed * either with his dignity of earldom and with so 


large possessions as he now enjoyetb,' and the ingenuity of her law officers 
was set to work to discover how her wishes in this respect might be carried 
into effect (p. 431). Tyrone also had his own objections, and when urged 
by the lord deputy and council to meet them at Drogheda to receive his 
pardon, he pleaded the case of Sir Brian M'Phelim O'Neill and Hugh 
Roe Mac Mahon, and the oath he had ' made to all that had combined with 
him, not to do anything but by their general consents, the which being all 
against it, he could not, without great danger to himself, come in ' 
(p. 442). In order to save the situation the truce, now on the point of 
expiring, was extended to 1 Feb., and Sir Henry Wallop and Sir Robert 
Gardener, as j;crsowae gratae, were appointed to treat with him. The docu- 
ments relating to their negotiations have already been printed in the 
calendar of Carew Papers, and there is nothing new to add. On 26 Jan. 
1596, a cessation of arms was agreed upon till the queen's pleasure was 
known, and Sir Robert Gardener was despatched to court to report their 
proceedings, but Elizabeth refused to admit him to her presence 'because 
he and Sir Henry Wallop had used too gentle subscriptions in treating with 
the rebels as " your loving friends" and " our very good Lord " ' (p. 488). 
Wallop and Gardener havingfailed, Sir John Norris and Sir Geoffrey Fenton 
were authorised to negotiate with the ' rebel ' and his associates, and on 
9 April they reported that Maguire, Mac Mahon, Sir John O'Reilly, Shane 
M'Brian, and Ross O'Ferrall had ' made their personal submissions in 
the marketplace of Dundalk upon their knees ' and had received their 
pardons. Tyrone, O'Donnell, and O'Rourke were more difficult to come 
at. They altogether declined to treat anywhere except in the open fields. 
They insisted that their allies in Connaught should be included in the 
pacification, and that the garrison at Armagh should be withdi'awn. 

But Elizabeth was determined to have peace at any price, and Norris 
and Fenton being nothing loth to meet her wishes in this respect, the paci- 
fication was signed on 24 April. A day or two later a Spanish vessel 
hove in sight, and Norris was afraid that it would ' overthrow the course 
begun for the pacification.' But neither Tyrone nor O'Donnell, though 
they both went to the Lifford to meet the Spaniards, showed any symp- 
toms of rebellion. They had been received into the favour of their own 
princess and could not answer the expectations of Philip. Such, according 
to their own report, was the answer they had given to Philip's message. 
But rumour asserted that their meeting had been very secret, and they 
had signed an instrument assuring the king of Spain of their services, and 
one of the last entries in the volume, dated 30 June 1596, is to the effect 
that Tyrone expected to be supplied with forces out of Spain by August, and 
that upon their arrival he would send his son to the king for a pledge. 

Other documents worthy of notice, but to which I can only briefly 
allude, are the reports of the commissioners for the plantation of Munster ; 
' an account made of my life from my first going out of England into France 
unto this day, by me Thomas Finglas,' with a ' Relation of all the Irish 
priests he knows in the Low Countries,' by the same writer ; some curious 
papers relating to Grany ne Malley, ' a notable traitoress and nurse to all 
rebellions ; ' references to Trinity College and the necessity for endowing it ; 
notices regarding Richard Boyle, afterwards the great earl of Cork, and 


Lodowick Briskett, Edmund Spenser's friend, from one of which we learn 
that his father was a natural Italian and that he himself kept up a corre- 
spondence with Florence ; and, finally, a very interesting letter from Sir 
John Dowdall to Burghley on the nature of the Irish. R. Dunlop. 

Philipp Glilver, der Begr Under der historischeii Ldnderkunde : ein 
Beitrcuj zur Geschichte der geogr aphis chen Wissenchaft. Von Dr. 
J. Pabtsch, Professor der Erdkunde an der Universitat Breslau. 
(Vienna : Holzel. 1891.) 

The university of Leyden during the first half-century of its existence 
held the first place for learning among the universities of the time. The 
list of its teaching staff contains no small proportion of names still famous 
as great philologists, grammarians, jurists, and theologians. Among 
these for his solid erudition and valuable contributions to archaeological 
and geographical science Philip Cliiver deserves to be reckoned. Unlike, 
however, many of his contemporaries, notably Lipsius and Scaliger, he 
left behind him no collections of letters to throw light upon his life and 
labours. The only real source of biographical information concerning 
his strange and adventurous career is contained in the funeral oration of 
Daniel Heinsius, which is printed as an appendix to Cliiver's ' Introductio 
in universam geographicam.' From this, together with all the hints and 
allusions scattered here and there in his published works. Dr. Partsch 
has compiled the account of the life of the geographer which is contained 
in the pamphlet under review. The close connexion of Cliiver with 
England should render it of some interest to English readers. 

The father of Cliiver was master of the mint at Danzig, and here 
Philip was born in 1580. As a boy he spent some years at the Polish 
court, and afterwards at the imperial court at Prague, and thus early 
acquired a love for travel and an acquaintance with foreign tongues. In 
1600 he was sent to Leyden to study jurisprudence. At first he seems to 
have led a gay and roystering life with boon companions, and to have 
been both extravagant and dissipated. From these evil ways he was res- 
cued by the influence of Joseph Scaliger. That remarkable man had in 
1593 succeeded to the post relinquished by Lipsius, and had since been 
the unrecognised head and director of the studies of the university. He 
strove to make himself acquainted with all the more promising young 
men, and to help and encourage them in their work. He perceived the 
natural bent of Cliiver for the study of geographical antiquity, and he 
urged him accordingly to throw up jurisprudence and follow his inclination. 
The advice was taken, but its issue was unfortunate. Philip's father, 
already irritated by his son's extravagances, was still further annoyed 
when he learnt that he had abandoned the study of law. An open breach 
was the result, and a cutting off of all supplies except such as were from 
time to time secretly furnished by the mother. For a time Cliiver led a 
wandering life of adventure. He served for two years as a soldier against 
the Turks, then visited Bohemia, where he got himself into trouble by 
writing a pamphlet in defence of an imprisoned nobleman, Baron Georg 
Popel von Lobkovvitz, who had in former days shown him kindness. Ho 


had better have let his pen rest, for the result of his pamphlet was that 
Popel was secretly executed, while he himself was thrown into prison. 
He had now no resources, and, on getting free once more, was obliged to 
struggle for a livelihood as best he could. He had mastered ten lan- 
guages, and he set himself to work at his task, the geography of the 
ancient world, by a systematic personal study of all the civilised lands of 
antiquity, eking out the doles he received from his mother by private 
tuition. But he was in constant debt, and often on the point of starvation. 
To increase his difficulties he married, while on his travels, a penniless 
English girl. Scarcely anything is known of the details of Cliiver's life 
between 1607 and 1613, except that he wandered through Norway, Scotland, 
England, France, Germany, Switzerland, and upper and central Italy. 
But it is interesting to learn that he stayed for the longest period in Eng- 
land, because he was attracted by the rich store of manuscripts in the 
newly opened Bodleian library, and his predilection was no doubt cemented 
by the love-match which he made during his residence. In England, 
too, on the introduction of Scaliger he made the acquaintance of Casaubon, 
who gave him encouragement and assistance in his researches, and in Eng- 
land his first work, ' De tribus Rheni alveis et ostiis,' was written, though 
it was published at Leyden. 

In 1615 he returned to Holland, and in the following year published 
his ' Germania Antiqua,' a work which aroused much attention in 
the learned world, and established the reputation of its author. In 
recognition of the value of his work, the States-General appointed 
him to the office of Geographicus Academicus with a stipend of 500 
florins. This was a small sum, but it meant that the days of misery and 
indigence were over. He now set to work at the geography of Italy 
and Sicily ; and after sixteen months spent in collecting materials, he 
started in December 1617, in company with his friend Holstenius (the 
Vatican librarian), to walk on foot through the entire country he proposed 
to describe. The routes which he traversed, and which are given on a map 
at the end of Dr. Partsch's pamphlet, amount to more than 3,700 kil. 
Though strong of frame, and exceedingly active and vigorous, this 
gigantic effort, accompanied as it was by all manner of exposure and 
privation, undermined Cliiver's constitution, and he returned to Leyden a 
broken-down man. His work progressed but slowly, but he persevered, 
and in 1619 his ' Sicilia Antiqua ' was published. His ' Italia Antiqua ' 
was to require a yet more strenuous effort. His wife, who had long been 
ailing, died ; he himself was reduced to a mere shadow of his former self. 
When his powerful frame had shrunk almost to a skeleton, in the very 
closing days of his life he corrected the last proofs for the press. Then on 
the last day of 1622 his life of suffering and struggle came to an end. 
He left a son and a daughter to the care of their aged English grand- 
mother, totally unprovided for. He had won reputation but not profit 
from his labours. 

Upon the character or the value of Cliiver's writings it is not necessary 
for me here to enlarge. I must refer the reader to the analysis of their 
contents and the judgment passed upon them by Dr. Partsch. This 
judgment is contained in its shortest form in the following sentence : 
Die grossen Werke, in denen Cliiver die alte Geographie Deutschlands, 


Italiens und Siciliens mit erschopfender Gelelirsamkeit und beherr- 
schender Urtheilskraft bewdltigte, sind bahnbrecJiend und grundlegend fur 
einen ganzen Zweig der Wissenschaft getvorden (p. 36). The pamphlet 
concludes with an account of the progress of the science since the days 
of Cliiver. Geohgb Edmundson. 

The Mamiscrtpts of his Grace the Duke of Portland. Vol. I. Hist. 
Manuscripts Commission Thirteenth Report. Appendix. Part I. 
(London : Printed for H.M. Stationery Office. 1891.) 

Whatever may have been the political demerits of Charles I, he had one 
supreme virtue in the eyes of historians. Immediately on the death of 
each of his secretaries of state he seized upon the papers in the cus- 
tody of his late minister, thereby, imwittingly, laying the foundation of 
the true history of his reign. In this, as in other matters, Charles II 
differed from his father. Nalson, as Mr. Daniell, the editor of the 
present volume, tells us in his introduction, ' was apparently allowed to 
take almost anything he pleased from the office of the clerk of the parlia- 
ment.' After his death a considerable number of these papers found their 
way into the Tanner collection in the Bodleian library, whilst the re- 
mainder, in some unexplained manner, found their way into the hands of a 
former duke of Portland. The two portions together illustrate the parlia- 
mentary side of the civil war, the greater part of the letters having been 
addressed to Speaker Lenthall, just as the royalist side is illustrated by 
the Clarendon manuscripts at Oxford. 

In editing the first volume of the calendar of the duke of Portland's 
part of the Nalson collection Mr. Daniell has done his work carefully and 
well. He has printed in full nearly all important documents, and 
has briefly indicated the nature of the contents of those of less interest. 
His complaint that so much has already been printed that the interest 
of the calendar ' is much diminished ' is hardly borne out by examination. 
The searcher who is already acquainted with the hitherto available sources 
of information is constantly stumbling upon new facts or finding old facts 
set in a new light. Much as has been said about the influence of local 
feeling on the course of the civil war, it would be difficult to find a better 
illustration of it than is afforded by the sentences in which the royalist 
Sir Marmaduke Langdale announces, on 9 Nov. 1G42 (p. 70), the news 
that a Danish ambassador has ' gone post to the king.' 

' It is reported he hath brought propositions to the king and parlia- 
ment, whereunto if the parliament will not condescend he will send great 
forces in the spring to aid his majesty, so as we are like to feel the 
miserable effects of our own disagreement the next summer, which is like 
to make this kingdom the seat of war for all the nations of Christendom. 
We in Yorkshire should have some happiness if we could make an end 
of the troubles and distractions of our county, and so divert the war south- 
ward, that whatever foreign nations come they may be employed in the 
south, where the well-spring of our miseries began, and where there is 
pillage enough to satisfy many armies.' 

Amongst important papers may be mentioned the examinations of 
some of the officers concerned in the army plot (p. 15), which will 


have to be carefully examined in connexion with existing evidence 
whenever a fresh attempt is made to tell the story of a movement which 
did much to shake confidence in Charles, whilst at p. 124 we have a 
curious statement, made on 5 July 1643, that ' my lord Newport is this 
day com and hath brought with him an offer from the lordes Essex, 
Say, Holl[and] and Manchester, Stapleton and others of turning that 
whole army to the kinges service.' Newport's authority is not a good 
one to base a sweeping accusation of perfidy on, and even if a proposal 
of the kind was really made by Essex and the rest one would like to 
know what conditions were required from the king. 

Enough has been said to give a hint of the richness of the feast which 
the duke of Portland has provided and Mr. Daniell has set before us. 
The only point on which objection may be taken in his editing is his 
persistency in spelling proper names as he finds them in his documents. 
Surely the proper course to adopt in the case of well-known personages 
is to give the spelling which is accepted by all men in the present day. 
The reader is irritated by having a peer of the realm called Lord George 
Digby, and by reading of Cardinal Mazarine and Mr. Thomazon. If he 
is not very familiar with the detailed history of the time, he will be 
liable to forget that the Mr. Saxby who seized upon the Scottish com- 
missioners in February 1649 is identical with the well-known agitator 
whom he has known as Sexby. Mr. Daniell's statement (p. xvi) that 
' the last castle to surrender in North Wales was Holt ' is obviously a 
mere shp of the memory. Harlech Castle held out for thirteen days 
after Holt surrendered. Samuel R. Gakdinee. 

Pitt. By Lord Rosebeey. (London : Macmillan & Co. 1891.) 

In this little book Lord Rosebery has discharged a difficult task with 
admirable skill. Travelling over ground which Lord Stanhope, Lord 
Macaulay, and Mr. Lecky have made familiar, he has contrived to draw 
material from all these writers, and, at the same time, to produce a work 
which is original. His Pitt is not the Pitt of any of his predecessors. He 
differs from Lord Macaulay in respect to the minister's policy during the 
last half of his long administration ; he differs from Mr. Lecky in respect 
to the minister's treatment of Lord Fitzwilliam. He has stated his own 
conclusions in language which is at once moderate and clear ; and, in his 
first serious attempt at hterature, he has furnished one more example 
that a man, who has risen to high rank as a speaker, may hope to acquire 
distinction as a writer. We shall not attempt to follow Lord Rosebery 
through the whole of his monograph. We shall omit all reference to the 
marvellous story of Pitt's boyhood and early rise ; and we shall equally 
refrain from dwelling on his later years, when his powers were clouded 
by illness and crippled by the attitude of the king. In the httle space at 
our disposal, we shall confine ourselves to three subjects connected with 
Pitt's first administration, viz. his poUcy from 1783 to 1792 ; his conduct 
from 1792 to 1800 ; and his treatment of Lord Fitzwilliam in 1794-5. 

It is difficult to award too high a praise to the first eight years of Pitt's 
administration. Lord Beaconsfield — so Lord Rosebery tells us — thought 



that they formed his title-deed to be looked upon as a tory minister. 
But they really confer upon him the far higher merit that attaches to any 
statesman in advance of his age. His efforts for parliamentary reform, 
commenced before he held office, but continued after he had succeeded to 
power, proved that, on organic questions, he was before all his succes- 
sors till the time of Grey. His proposal in 1785 to secure for Ireland ' a 
permanent and irrevocable participation of the commercial advantages of 
this country,' might, if it had been adopted by parliament, have altered 
the future history of the United Kingdom. His Irish policy in 1793 — for 
Lord Eosebery rightly says that the liberal measures of that year were 
forced by the cabinet on the Irish government — did more to promote 
rehgious liberty than any other legislation before 1828-9. His negotiations 
with France anticipated the policy to which Mr. Cobden and Mr. Gladstone 
gave effect more than seventy years afterwards. He was the first English 
financier who endeavoured to check smugghng by a reduction of duties. 
Though Lord Macaulay declared that his sinking fund, ' so far as it differed 
from other sinking funds, differed only for the worse,' his judgment is 
emphatically untrue of that fund till the outbreak of war, and the ex- 
penditure which war involved, made it not only useless but mischievous. 
Pitt's institution of the consoHdated fund is not mentioned by Lord Eose- 
bery, just as it was not mentioned by Lord Macaulay. It was partly due to 
the recommendation of the committee on public accounts. But the 
minister who gave effect to that recommendation deserves to be recollected 
for a reform which, by combining scores of small accounts into one large 
account, simplified administration and promoted economy. Lord Eose- 
bery truly says of him : — 

' The task he had set himself was to raise the nation from the exhaus- 
tion of the American war ; to repair her finance ; to strengthen by reform 
the foundations of the constitution, and by a liberal Irish pohcy the bonds 
of empire. ... He was meditating the broadest application of free trade 
principles — the throwing open of our ports and the raising of our 
revenue entirely by internal taxation. His enthusiasm was all for peace, 
retrenchment, and reform. . . . He had the consciousness of a boundless 
capacity for meeting the real requirements of the country. Had he been 
able to carry out his own policy, had France only left him alone, or even 
given him a loophole for abstention, he would have been by far the 
greatest minister that England has ever seen.' 

But this brings us to the second half of Pitt's administration. Lord 
Eosebery's position is expressed in the preceding paragraph ; Pitt was 
forced into the war, because France did not leave him alone or even give 
him a loophole for abstention. But is this an accurate statement of 
the facts ? Lord Eosebery shows that, up to 13 Nov. 1792, Pitt was 
in favour of leaving France to ' arrange its own internal affairs as it 
can.' Up to that date, therefore, Pitt had not been forced into war by 
French action ; but Lord Eosebery thinks that the decrees of 19 Nov. 
and 15 Dec. 1792, coupled with the opening of the Scheldt, left Pitt 
no alternative. ' The first of these decrees promised assistance to all 
nations that should revolt against their governments ; . . . the second 
compelled all territories occupied by the French to accept the new French 
institutions.' Monstrous as these decrees were, it is not clear that it 

1892 tlEVIEWS OF BOOKS 179 

was the duty of this country to resist them by force of arms ; while the 
correspondence of Maret, as well as the language which the king was 
advised to use in the speech from the throne, proves that, down to Decem- 
ber 1792, Pitt did not despair of ' preserving the blessings of peace.' 
In fact, it was neither the decree of November nor the threatened 
opening of the Scheldt, but the trial and execution of Louis XVI in 
January, which led to the abrupt dismissal of M. Chauvelin from England, 
and the consequent declaration of war by the French Republic ; and, though 
Pitt's hands were forced in the matter, he was not driven to the extreme 
step of sending M. Chauvelin his passports by the policy of France, but 
by the horror of George III at the execution of a foreign sovereign and 
the frenzied excitement of public opinion. Powerful as Pitt was, for the 
second time in two years he found it necessary to defer to the strong 
feeling of the people. In March 1791, he had been compelled to abandon 
his hostile preparations against Russia ; and similarly, in January 1793, 
he was forced to forego the hope to which he still clung of maintaining 
peace with France. 

The circumstance was fatal to Pitt's reputation, ' The most strenu- 
ous peace minister that ever held office in this country,' he was destined 
to prove his incapacity for conducting a great war. During the whole 
of his tenure of office this country obtained no results commensurate 
with its exertions and its expenditure. The English navy, indeed, 
achieved some brilliant successes ; for, as Lord Macaulay says, ' the 
English navy no mismanagement could ruin : ' but, to quote the same 
great writer, ' the English army under Pitt was the laughing-stock of all 
Europe. It could not boast of one single brilliant exploit. It had never 
shown itself on the continent but to be beaten, chased, forced to re- 
embark, or forced to capitulate. To take some sugar island in the West 
Indies, to scatter some mob of half-naked Irish peasants, such were the 
most splendid victories won by the British troops under Pitt's auspices.' 
The failure of our arms on land was distinctly attributable to Pitt. He 
never realised the nature of the war which he had been reluctantly com- 
pelled to undertake. He could not believe that France could continue 
her exertions after the loss of her credit. He could not consequently 
imagine that the war would be protracted. He failed to understand the 
new forces which revolution had created, and, to quote Lord Macaulay 
again, acted as if he ' had to deal with the harlots and fops of the old 
court of Versailles.' And this radical failure to comprehend the nature 
of the struggle not only led to military disgrace, it concurrently pro- 
duced the greatest financial embarrassment. It prevented Pitt, at the 
outset, from making the necessary provision for the expenses of the 
struggle ; it induced him to continue the operations of the sinking fund 
when it had become not merely useless but mischievous, and it involved the 
rapid accumulation of the debt till it stood at an amount which crippled 
his successors. His domestic policy during the same period was equally 
unfortunate. It is hardly too much to say that it precipitated rebellion 
in Ireland, while in Scotland and England state prosecutions, suspen- 
sions of the Habeas Corpus Act, and gagging acts of every description made 
this country less free than it had been at any time during the preceding 
hundred years. 

N 2 


Lord Eosebery attempts to defend this policy of repression by dwell- 
ing on the circumstances of the time and by pointing to the popular 
clamour. It was not the coercion of a people by a government, it was 
the coercion of a government by the people. But he is compelled to 
admit that * Pitt was compelled to drag out the remainder of his life 
in darkness and dismay, in wrecking his whole financial edifice to find 
fimds for incapable generals and for foreign statesmen more capable than 
honest, in postponing and, indeed, repressing all his projected reforms.' 
One reform, indeed. Lord Eosebery claims that Pitt did introduce in this 
miserable period. His poor law, though constantly revised, ' was remark- 
able as a sterhng and strenuous endeavour to grapple with a great ques- 
tion.' But Lord Eosebery cannot surely be ignorant that the poor law 
of 1796, by allowing relief to be given in aid of wages, inflicted greater 
injury on the poor than any other measure passed in the eighteenth century, 
and imposed a burden on the property of the country which became, in 
the course of the next generation, even more intolerable than the interest 
of the great debt which war had necessitated. 

We have h'ttle space left at our disposal to consider Pitt's quarrel with 
Lord Fitzwilliam. The account of it, in this volume, does credit to Lord 
Eosebery's impartiality. For throughout he takes the side to which his 
own political prepossessions must have made him indisposed, and vindicates 
Pitt against Mr. Lecky's conclusions. This article has nothing to do 
with current politics. But we may at least examine the contrary views 
of Lord Eosebery and Mr. Lecky. 

On the reconstruction of the ministry in July 1794, in consequence of 
the accession of the whigs, the duke of Portland was made home secretary, 
' under which department Ireland was then directly, as it is now more 
nominally, placed.' It was also arranged that, as soon as a new opening 
could be found for Lord Westmorland, Fitzwilliam should succeed him 
as viceroy of Ireland. So far there is no disagreement between Lord 
Eosebery and Mr. Lecky — but while Lord Eosebery asserts that it was 
expressly stipulated that there should be no change of system, Mr. Lecky 
declares that ' some change of system favourable to the catholics was to be 
effected.' The two writers, therefore, at the very outset of the transaction, 
are sharply at issue. But the weight of evidence seems to us to rest with 
Mr. Lecky. On the one hand. Lord Eosebery relies on a statement of Pitt, 
made some weeks later, when he was ' thoroughly alarmed at the pre- 
cipitate proceedings of the reversionary lord lieutenant,' that ' the very 
idea of a new system (as far as I understand what is meant by that term), 
and especially one formed without previous communication or concert 
with the rest of the king's servants here, or with the friends of govern- 
ment in Ireland, is in itself what I feel it utterly impossible to accede to ; 
and it appears to me to be directly contrary to the general principles on 
which our union was formed and has hitherto subsisted.' On the other 
hand, Lord FitzwiUiam himself said in parliament that ' the union would 
never have taken place had not his grace (the duke of Portland) received 
ample authority to reform the abuses which he knew existed in the 
government.' Grattan declared that the duke said to him, * I have taken 
office, and I have done so because I knew there was to be an entire change 
of system ; ' and Burke assured Windham that, ' from a conversation 


with Portland shortly after the coalition, he gathered that, rightly or 
wrongly, he considered without a doubt that the administration of Ire- 
land was left wholly to him, and without any other reserves than what are 
supposed in every wise and sober servant of the crown.' 

On comparing these utterances there seems no reason to doubt that, 
whatever may have been Pitt's intention— and Pitt's words, it is only fair 
to remember, deserve the credit attaching to a man of scrupulous honour — ■ 
he allowed the duke of Portland and Lord FitzwilMam to beheve that 
they were authorised to introduce large changes into the Irish system of 
government. The utmost that can be said is that they inferred this from 
the general purport of their conversation with the prime minister, and 
were not careful to obtain a precise statement of Pitt's meaning. But 
then, in justice to them, it must be recollected that the whole presumption 
was in their favour. It was rather Pitt's business than their own to lay 
down the reservation on which he intended to insist. For Pitt's poHcy 
in 1793 justified them in thinking that he was in favour of large conces- 
sions to the catholics ; and the very change of persons which he was 
negotiating imphed that he was still in favour of such changes. If Lord 
Salisbury were, at the present moment, to reconstruct his ministry, and 
to fill up the lord lieutenancy, the chief secretaryship, and the home 
office with three statesmen known to be favourable to home rule, the pre- 
sumption would be that he was prepared for a new system ; and similarly, 
when Pitt, in 1793, placed in the two offices directly connected with 
Ireland statesmen notoriously in favour of concessions to the catholics, 
they were justified in assuming that they were appointed to give effect 
to their principles. If their position led to subsequent misunderstanding, 
the responsibihty must rest with the minister who omitted to explain 
that his selection of them must not be suffered to bear the meaning which 
nine persons out of every ten must necessarily have attached to ii. 

The junction with the whigs took place in July 1794. But Fitzwil- 
Ham's appointment to the viceroyalty was not finally effected tUl the 
following October. In the interval, indeed, it was generally known that 
he had been selected for the place. Lord Kosebery tells us that ' he 
published his nomination everywhere. He wrote, three months before 
he was appointed, to offer Thomas Grenville the chief secretaryship. He 
wrote at the same time to solicit the support of Grattan, and to propose 
an immediate conference.' But Lord Eosebery cannot surely mean to 
imply that the offer to Thomas Grenville, made after the appointment 
had been definitely arranged, was premature ; while the letter to Grattan, 
so far from publishing the nomination, contained the caution that he 
should not be quoted as having announced himself in the character of 
lord lieutenant, as, in consequence of the king's absence from London, 
the nomination had not been mentioned to the sovereign. 

There is no doubt, however, that the news of Lord Fitzwilliam's ap- 
pointment soon reached Ireland, and that the Irish almost universally 
expected that it would be followed by a change both of men and measures. 
The catholics, in consequence, were filled with expectation, the pro- 
testants with despair. The tories in England shared the apprehensions 
of the protestants in Ireland ; and Pitt found it necessary to arrive at 
some clearer understanding with his new allies. At a conference which 


took place late in the autumn, and at which Pitt, Portland, Fitzwilliam, 
Spencer, Grenville, and Windham were present, it was arranged that 
Fitzwilliam should go as lord lieutenant, ' but on the explicit understand- 
ing that there was to be no new system of men or measures in Ireland ; 
that he should, if possible, prevent any agitation of the cathohc question ; 
that in any case, on that or any other important measure, he should 
transmit all the information he could collect with his opinion to the 
cabinet ; and that he should do nothing to commit the government in 
such matters without fresh instructions.' Lord Eosebery omits to add 
the very important circumstance, which appears clearly from Mr. Lecky's 
account, that, at this interview, Pitt seemed strongly impressed with the 
conviction that the catholics should be reheved from every remaining dis- 
qualification ; and that Fitzwilliam understood that ' if the catholics should 
appear determined to stir the business, and to bring it before parliament, 
[he] was to give it a handsome support on the part of government.' 

Lord FitzwilUam reached Ireland early in January 1795. According 
to Lord Eosebery, ' from the day on which he landed he bombarded Port- 
land with letters to press for the immediate settlement of the question. 
To these communications Portland for some weeks gave no reply what- 
ever. It is urged by FitzwilHam's apologists that silence gives consent : 
a proverb, doubtful at all times, but preposterous as a political plea ; more 
especially absurd, when it is relied upon for guidance in defiance of definite 
instructions.' We dislike differing from Lord Eosebery, but, with Mr. 
Lecky's help, we must examine the paragraph in detail. Fitzwilham 
landed on the 4th, on the 8th he wrote to the duke of Portland promising 
his best efforts to stop the catholic agitation. On the 15th, eleven 
days after he landed, he wrote a long and elaborate despatch, in which he 
said that he should not be doing his duty if he did not distinctly state his 
opinion that ' not to grant cheerfully all that the catholics wish will not 
only be exceedingly impolitic, but perhaps dangerous.' And, after as- 
suring the duke that no time was to be lost, and begging him not to delay 
to talk with Pitt on the subject, he added, ' If I receive no very peremptory 
directions to the contrary, I shall acquiesce with a good grace.' It seems 
almost incredible that no reply to this important despatch was sent till 
8 February, when the duke cautioned Fitzwilliam against giving his 
countenance to the immediate adoption of the measure. It is all very 
well for Lord Eosebery to say that the proverb, ' Silence gives consent,' is a 
preposterous plea. But, when one member of a government distinctly 
assures another that he shall interpret silence as consent, it rests with 
him who receives the warning to remove the misapprehension. Lord 
Eosebery, however, adds that the plea is not only preposterous : it is 
absurd when it is relied upon for guidance in defiance of definite in- 
structions. But Fitzwilham had received no definite instructions. On 
the contrary, he was dehberately of opinion, as he told the duke of Portland 
on 12 February, that he was fully authorised to decide for himself on 
the subject, ' but still, considering the extent proposed, I am desirous to 
have the mode considered in England in the present stage.' 

In the meanwhile, during that long interval of disastrous silence for 
which Pitt and the duke of Portland must be held responsible, the Irish 
parliament had met, the catholic question had come to a climax, and 

1892 REVIEWS OF BOOKS . 188 

Fitzwilliam had expressed his determination to give it his full support. 
Thus the viceroy was committed to the measure when Portland's letter of 
the 8th, deprecating encouragement to the catholics, reached him, to be 
followed by another on the 16th, expressing entire disapproval of the 
policy of emancipation at that time. Lord Rosebery complains that even 
after receiving the letter of the 16th Fitzwilliam did not resign. But he 
did not resign because the letter of the 16th crossed one of his own of 
the 14th, in which he had distinctly said that if ministers did not intend 
to support him, the sooner they recalled him the better. On the 19th his 
recall was decided on. 

We have refrained from mixing up this account with any nar- 
rative of the causes or consequences of Fitzwilham's concurrent dis- 
missal of Beresford and other Irish officers. On this question, again, 
on which we have no space to enter, the view taken by Lord Rosebery 
is far less favourable to the viceroy than the view taken by Mr. Lecky. 
Whether in this matter Fitzwilliam acted with undue precipitation we 
cannot now examine ; that he acted in the best interests of the Irish 
government no one acquainted with the miserable history of Irish ad- 
ministration would care to deny. 

We have dwelt at some length on the personal issues involved in 
Pitt's treatment of Fitzwilliam, because they have a far higher historical 
importance than the careless reader might imagine. When Fitzwilliam was 
sent to Ireland in 1795, Pitt had already taken the plunge into the seething 
whirlpool of foreign war from which he was never destined to emerge ; but 
so far as Ireland was concerned, he still stood at the parting of the ways. 
He had still to choose between concession and coercion. His own policy 
of 1793, his own selection of Portland and Fitzwilliam, justified the hope 
that he was prepared to take the better and the happier course. But, 
unhappily for his own reputation, and still more unhappily for his country, 
he had not the courage to pursue the pohcy to which his own appoint- 
ments had apparently committed him. Fitzwilliam was consequently 
recalled, and, with his recall, the movement commenced which led to 
rebellion on one side, to repression on the other, and to hatred on each. 

We have alluded to one or two points in which we differ from Lord 
Rosebery's conclusions ; we cannot conclude without reiterating our ap- 
proval of the general tenor of his book. Most readers will rise from it 
with a fuller knowledge of Pitt, and consequently with a keener apprecia- 
tion of the nobler qualities of his character ; and, whatever regret they may 
feel at some incidents in Pitt's career, they will acknowledge that for 
eloquence, for courage, for integrity, he deserves to rank in the forefront 
of those twelve great English statesmen to whose lives this excellent httle 
series is devoted. S. Walpole. 


The Correspondence of William Augustus Miles on the French Bevolution 

(1789-1817). Edited by the (late) Rev. Charles Popham Miles. 

2 vols. (London : Longmans. 1890.) 
Correspondance Intime du Comte de Vaudreuil et du Comte d'Artois 

pendant l' Immigration (1789-1815). Publi6e par M. L^once Pingaud. 

2 vols. (Paris : Plon, Nourrit et Cie. 1889.) 

Letters written by persons who were in a position to see and hear 
what was passing during a period of crisis, even if they only exercised a 
very slight influence on the course of events, are generally interesting 
and often valuable. They need not be examined, like documents, with the 
most careful analysis. Whether the information conveyed in them is 
correct is not the principal consideration, but the light they throw upon 
contemporary opinion. "When, however, the point of view of the writers 
is understood, and their prejudices discounted, any evidence as to facts 
afforded by them may also be received, if it agrees with and supplements 
authentic documents. These two books, it must be said at once, do not 
add to the knowledge at present possessed of the history of the French 
revolution, but they contain much that is interesting, and from diametri- 
cally opposite points of view support and develope the opinions generally 
accepted on the subjects of which they treat. Both Mr. Miles and the 
comte de Vaudreuil had excellent opportunities for forming their judg- 
ments during the course of the revolution ; both were well acquainted with 
prominent actors in the great drama and not chary of giving their advice, 
though neither of them did much more than give advice which was 
not followed. Miles has hitherto been known to students of history as 
an industrious pamphleteer, who was much en evidence in London on 
the eve of the outbreak of war between England and France in 1793, and 
Vaudreuil as the intimate friend of the comte d'Artois, afterwards 
Charles X of France, and of the duchesse de Polignac, the favourite of 
Marie Antoinette. The reputation of both of them will be much 
enhanced by the publication of these volumes, which prove Miles to have 
been no mere political scribe but a singularly sagacious observer, and 
Vaudreuil no ordinary roui but an able statesman. Both books deserve to 
be read, and neither of them can be neglected with impunity by any future 
historian of the period. 

The early career of Miles, his residence at Liege, his idea of forming 
the Austrian Netherlands and the province of Liege into an independent 
state, and his mission to Frankfort need no more than a passing notice, 
for the interesting part of the correspondence begins with his secret 
mission to Paris in 1790. It is generally known that Hugh Elliot, a 
brother of the first Lord Minto and former schoolfellow of Mirabeau, was 
sent to Paris in 1790 to carry out some secret negotiation, on which no 
papers exist in the English record office. It has been conjectured that 
he was sent to use his personal influence with Mirabeau to induce that 
great statesman and orator to persuade the constituent assembly to 
abrogate the pacte de famille, or alliance offensive and defensive between 
the Bourbons of France and the Bourbons of Spain. It now appears 
from these volumes that Miles was sent on a similar errand. His in- 


structions and despatches, like those of Hugh Elliot, are missing, but in 
subsequent letters it is made evident that he was to place himself in com- 
munication with leading members of the assembly, and to endeavour to 
prevent the family compact from becoming a national compact. Mirabeau 
was naturally left to his old friend Elliot, while Miles attached himself 
to the only other man of commanding influence in France, Lafayette. 
Under the circumstances, considering that the king was still nominally at 
the head of the executive, there need be no surprise that Pitt kept the 
missions of Elliot and Miles secret ; but it is very curious, to say the least 
of it, that no record whatever of the negotiations should have been pre- 
served. The result, so far as Miles is concerned, was satisfactory ; 
he not only became intimate with Lafayette, but was elected a member of 
the Jacobin and monarchical clubs, and he evidently did his best to dis- 
abuse all whom he came across of their prejudices against England. 
These prejudices were fostered alike by the extreme royalists and the 
extreme democrats ; for the moderate constitutionalists, such as Mounier 
and Lally-Tollendal, who wished to build up for France a constitution 
resembling that of England, had on that very account been discredited 
before the close of 1789. The two secret emissaries had been sent under 
the pressure of the Nootka Sound dispute with Spain in 1790, when Pitt 
expected an outbreak of war with the court of Madrid and feared that 
France would aid the Spaniards ; and his interest in them seems to have 
expired when Spain withdrew her pretensions, for Miles bitterly complains 
that the English minister did not answer his despatches or give him any 
further instructions. Miles nevertheless continued at Paris until April 
1791, observing men and things, and his letters during this period are the 
most valuable contained in the collection. 

His sympathies were mainly with Lafayette, whose empty vanity he 
does not seem to have fathomed, and he utterly failed to understand 
Mirabeau. Perhaps this was only natural, for the keynote to Mirabe au's 
policy and character was only given to the world many years after Miles 's 
death by the publication of the ' Correspondance entre Mirabeau et La 
Marck,' which important work, strangely enough, does not seem to have 
been known to the editor of these letters, for he never once refers to it in 
his explanatory notes. Apart from his false estimates of Lafayette and 
Mirabeau, Miles was a most sagacious observer ; he alone of all con- 
temporary writers professes at an early date in 1791 to have grasped the 
character of Eobespierre and prophesied the height of power to which the 
avocat of Arras was to attain. Before the death of Mirabeau Eobespierre 
was of no account, and owed what popularity he possessed to the constant 
eulogies passed upon him by his old schoolfellow, Camille Desmoulins, in 
the * Eevolutions de France et de Brabant ; ' yet on March 1, 1791, Miles 
wrote the following sentences concerning him in a letter to H. J. Pye, the 
poet laureate, sentences so remarkable at such an early date that they are 
worth transcribing at length : — ' The man held of the least account in the 
national assembly by Mirabeau, by Lafayette, and even by the Lameths 
and all the Orleans faction, will soon be of the first consideration. He is 
cool, measured, and resolved. He is in his heart republican, honestly so, 
not to pay court to the multitude, but from an opinion that it is the very 
best, if not the only, form of government which men ought to admit. 


Upon this principle he acts, and the public voice is decidedly in favour of 
this system. He is a stern man, rigid in his principles, plain, unaffected 
in his manners, no foppery in his dress, certainly above corruption, 
despising wealth, and with nothing of the volatility of a Frenchman in his 
character. I do not enter into the question of the forms of government, 
but I say that Eobespierre is bond fide a republican, and that nothing 
which the king could bestow on him, were his majesty in a situation to 
bestow anything, could warp this man from his purpose. In this sense 
of the word — that is, in Ms heart meaning well as to the destruction of 
the monarchy — he is an honest man. I watch him very closely every 
night. I read his countenance with eyes steadily fixed on him. He is 
really a character to be contemplated ; he is growing every hour into 
consequence, and, strange to relate, the whole national assembly hold him 
cheap, consider him as insignificant, and, when I mentioned to some of 
them my suspicions and said he would be the man of sway in a short 
time, and govern the million, I was laughed at ' (vol. i. p. 245). Were 
not the editor of these volumes above suspicion, it would be easy to argue 
that this passage was written years after the date assigned to it. It has 
generally been acknowledged that Eobespierre was an honest supporter 
of constitutional monarchy in 1791 and not a republican ; he is always 
said to have been a fop, and is described as dressing like a tailor ; and 
taking these considerations and many other minute points into account, it 
must be acknowledged either that Miles deserves credit for unusual 
sagacity and prophetic power, or that he altered the terms of the copy 
which he kept of this letter by the light of subsequent events. 

In April 1791 Miles returned to England, and at the close of 1792 he 
again became a character of historical importance. The events which 
led to war between France and England have been closely examined in 
recent years. M. Sorel, the greatest authority on the foreign policy of 
the revolution, has studied every debatable point, and Mr. Oscar 
Browning has given a most valuable summary of the papers in the 
English record office in an article in the Fortnightly Beview for October 
1883. The letters now published justify the conclusions arrived at by 
M. Sorel and Mr. Browning. Miles seems to have been the last English- 
man to give up the hope of maintaining peace ; it was Miles who procured 
for Maret his famous interview with Pitt, and Miles kept up a constant 
correspondence with Le Brun, the French minister for foreign affairs, 
whom he had known and assisted with money at Liege. Yet Miles him- 
self admits that the war was inevitable, owing to the behaviour of the 
convention, and that it was forced on Pitt by France. In the state of 
madness which reigned in the convention and in all France, no concession 
on the part of England would have averted war, for the majority of the 
French people and of their representatives believed erroneously that 
England was ripe for a revolution and that the capture of the Bastille 
was about to be imitated by the capture of the Tower of London. It is 
not, therefore, necessary here to examine the history of Miles's efforts to 
preserve peace ; the great war was fated to be waged ; no human agency 
could have averted it. 

After the outbreak of the war between France and England Milea 
sinks into insignificance. Pitt, and still more Grenville, believed him to 


be a democrat from his ardour in endeavouring to postpone the war, and 
he would not enter into negotiations with the opposition. While acknow- 
ledging that war was inevitable, Miles, like many others, attacked Pitt's 
conduct of it and his persistence in not making peace. M. Sorel has 
imderstood Pitt and Grenville better than any English historian, and 
better than any of their contemporaries. He has pointed out that those 
two great ministers, unlike the ministers of continental courts, saw that 
no permanent peace could be made with France, until she had a stable 
government, willing and able to maintain it. What was the use of 
patching up a peace with the convention, the directory, the consulate, or 
the empire ? Such a peace was bound to be but temporary. Castlereagh, 
the true successor of Pitt, and the most maligned English statesman of 
the present century, understood this too. Better actual war than a tem- 
porary peace. Miles is not to be blamed for failing to perceive that each 
successive government of France was in its nature transitory, for most 
Enghshmen failed to see it also. A word must be said also about the 
project to raise the mountaineers of Auvergne and the Cevennes on behalf 
of a limited monarchy against the republic, which was proposed to Miles 
by one, M. de la Colombe, and pressed by him on Pitt's attention. Such 
an idea was utterly chimerical ; the hopeless failure of Charrier's insur- 
rection in the Gevaudan proves that. Limited monarchy was not likely to 
rouse enthusiasm ; it had neither the prescriptive sanctity of the old 
regime nor the inspiring cry of liberty and equality to attract men to its 
standard, and Pitt showed his wisdom in not wasting time over the 
notion, just as he showed the reverse of wisdom in listening to the royalist 
imigrds and allowing the expedition to Quiberon Bay. After the outbreak 
of the great war Miles was not again employed in any diplomatic capacity. 
He retired to the country ; he wrote many and vigorous pamphlets ; he 
lived to see peace at last restored ; and he died in France in 1817. His 
son did well to publish these letters ; they are full, as may be gathered 
from the above remarks, of peculiar interest ; and the opinions on con- 
temporary events of a man who possibly foresaw the greatness of Eobes- 
pierre in March 1791, deserve careful attention. 

Joseph Hyacinthe Fran9ois de Paule de Kigaud, comte de Vaudreuil, 
was a man of a very different type from William Augustus Miles. He was 
a typical courtier of the ancien regime and the life and soul of the 
Polignac coterie, whose intimacy with Marie Antoinette did so much to 
ruin the reputation of that unfortunate queen. Though a wealthy man, 
and holding a lucrative office as grand falconer of France, the comte de 
Vaudreuil was, as became the lover en titre of the duchesse de Polignac, 
terribly extravagant, and the king was more than once forced directly or 
indirectly to pay his debts. But he was not only the lover of Madame 
de Polignac, he was the intimate friend of the comte d'Artois, the 
youngest brother of the king. He was one of the three noblemen who 
accompanied that young prince out of France in July 1789, after the 
fall of the Bastille, and though he lived, as before, with the Pohgnacs, at 
Rome and Vienna, he established himself as adviser-in-chief to the prince, 
to whom he addressed long and important letters and memoirs on state 
affairs. M. Forneron, in his ' Histoire Generale des Emigres,' has given 
a good account of the emigration of the nobihty and clergy from the 


picturesque point of view, but the political views of the princes and their 
advisers have never yet been thoroughly analysed. Vaudreuil, like the 
younger prince, had no idea of making terms with the revolutionary leaders ; 
he detested the constitutionalists of 1789 more than republicans, and his 
advice was ever to make use of the continental powers to restore the 
absolute power of the Bourbons. He understood what Miles, with his 
notions of a rising in favour of limited monarchy, could not understand. 
Je soutiens encore, he wrote in 1795, (ce que la convention a pro- 
noncd elle-meme), que la France n'a que des ripublicains et des royalistes. 
Ya-t-il en France une arm&e de constitutionnels ? Non; mais ily a une 
armie de royalistes. Pourquoi done etablir que la France veut la con- 
stitution ? Ceux qui le disent savent d'ailleurs qu'aprds le crime et la 
licence tout ramdne a Vautorite absolue, qui seule pent r&tahlir Vordre 
(vol. ii. p. 224). The comte d'Artois quite agreed with this advice; he 
always thanked Vaudreuil in touching terms for tendering it ; but he 
made no attempt to act. He was always promising to go to France to 
set himself at the head of the royalists in La Vendee ; but he never went, 
and Vaudreuil, in spite of his affection for his friend, at last despaired of 
getting him to show any energy. He himself remained in exile for the 
whole twenty-five years from 1789 to 1814, and sufi"ered, like the other 
imigrds, from many discomforts, though he was never, like Chateaubriand, 
reduced to starvation. In December 1793 the duchesse de Polignac died, 
two months after the execution of her unfortunate friend Marie Antoinette, 
and the comte de Vaudreuil seems to have been far more grieved at 
her death than her husband. After this loss he determined to marry and 
settle down. He selected for his wife a young cousin, whom he wedded 
in 1795 in London, and he spent the first twenty years of his married life 
in London and Edinburgh, exhibiting all the charm of manner which 
was characteristic of the ancien r&gime, and which manifests itself fully in 
his letters. On his return to France at the restoration he was created a 
peer and appointed governor of the Louvre, where he died in the same 
year as Miles, in 1817. 

Both of these books are well printed and in general well got up, but the 
French has one vast advantage over the English, for it has an index. If 
any book needs an index it is a collection of letters. A table of contents 
may do for documents ; in biographies, diaries, and chronological histories 
it is generally possible to find a reference by a recollection of the date ; 
but the little remarks illustrating contemporary opinion, which form the 
most valuable feature of private letters, are scattered about in such a way 
as to be almost impossible to find without the aid of an index. Unfortu- 
nately the editor of Miles's ' Correspondence ' has not thought of this, and 
it seriously detracts from the value of his work that he has made it neces- 
sary for historical students possessing it to compile an index for their own 
use. H. MoBSE Stephens. 


Great Commanders of Modern Times. By Wm. O'Connob Mobeis. 
(London : W. H. Allen & Co. 1891.) 

Mb. O'Connob Mobbis has reprinted from the Illustrated Naval and 
Military Magazine a series of articles on great modern generals, begin- 
ning with Turenne, which might have reposed in the back numbers of that 
periodical without the world being much the poorer. Neither in form nor 
in substance has any attempt been made to form them into a connected 
book. Such phrases as ' I cannot dwell on ' this, ' a word must be said 
on ' that, recur continually. Appropriate in an oral lecture, excusable per- 
haps in a magazine article, they are intolerable in a book. Though two 
separate chapters are given to the campaign of 1815, it is also described 
at great length under Napoleon and briefly again under Wellington. The 
maps also are bad — badly executed, worse spelt, faulty in the insertion of 
useless names and still more in the omission of important ones. Will it 
be believed that in a map intended to illustrate the Waterloo campaign 
Wavre is not inserted ? The author doubtless did not draw his own maps, 
but if he inserted any at all he was bound to see that they were better 
than these. 

Mr. O'Connor Morris begins by saying (p. 12) that ' an opinion is abroad 
that German genius has wrought such a revolution in the art of war 
that all that has gone before is obsolete,' and that ' it is time to expose 
the perilous errors, mixed with particles of truth, in these shallow state- 
ments.' Possibly the infantile mind capable of adopting such an opinion 
might find it adequately disposed of by reading a series of rather flimsy 
biographical sketches. The better informed reader, who knows perfectly 
well that the last generation has seen a revolution in the art of war, 
would have welcomed a treatise that should explain untechnically exactly 
wherein this great change consists, what is and what is not obsolete in 
the military methods of the past. Mr. O'Connor Morris might possibly 
be able to write such a book ; his present volume, however, is not even 
a contribution towards it. 

The selection of names is reasonable enough, subject to one or two re- 
marks. The omission of Gustavus is partially atoned for by a feeble 
introductory chapter, written by another hand, which deals mainly with 
the Swedish hero. The author has not fallen into the error of placing 
Conde, the mere fighter of battles, on a level with Turenne ; but, on the 
other hand, he scarcely notices how nearly Montecuculi approached 
Turenne in strategic skill, and he barely names Vauban. On his own 
showing too he ought to have given Villars a foremost place, if it be true 
that the marshal ' combined almost in the highest degree the great facul- 
ties of Turenne and Conde ' (p. 68). And the American civil war brought 
out in E. E. Lee a general who might reasonably be placed beside Frede- 
rick the Great. 

The author of these sketches has obviously a great interest in military 
history, but, whether from want of care or from some defect less easily 
remedied, he leaves much to be desired. The Semmering Pass is over 
sixty miles from Vienna; Napoleon was some sixty miles further 
away when, in April 1797, he agreed to an armistice. Yet Mr. O'Connor 


Morris says that he then ' beheld the steeples of Vienna from the heights 
of the Simmering' (p. 116). 'Austria and Prussia joined hands for the 
first time in war,' How can a writer who knows even a smattering of 
history use these words of the coalition of 1673 ? How would one 
set to work to find on the map ' the tract between the heads of the Seine 
and Burgundy ' (p. 301) ? How would a French army on the line of the 
Moselle have availed to defend Alsace (p. 288) ? With what propriety can 
the Adige be said to be ' bounded on the west by the Lake of Garda' 
(p. 112)? What sort of a sketch of the Kussian campaign is it that omits 
all mention of the battle of Valoutina, and condemns Napoleon for having 
'recoiled' (p. 184) at Malo Yaroslavetz ? Such are among the queries 
which a perusal of these articles suggests. On other questions Mr. 
O'Connor Morris may with perfect reason say that they are matters of 
opinion, and that he has formed his own judgment and will abide by it. 
Still a man need have profound confidence in himself before setting his 
opinion in contradiction to the views entertained by the majority of com- 
petent authorities. Mr. O'Connor Morris is never weary of quoting 
Marengo as a masterpiece of the miUtary art. Now, apart from the fact 
that the battle would have been lost had Desaix not turned back on hear- 
ing the cannon, and that Napoleon, if defeated, would have been almost 
as disastrously situated as Melas was when the tide in fact turned in 
favour of the French, practically all critics agree, first, that the scheme of 
the campaign, though dazzling, was too risky to be sound, and, secondly, 
that Napoleon abandoned for it the straightforward and decisive policy 
of throwing his main strength against the Austrians in the valley of the 
Danube. It may be pleaded that pohtical considerations, the necessity 
for consolidating through personal success his newly grasped power, and 
not mere jealousy of Moreau, dictated this course. But none the less it 
was the preference of the less important to the more important object, 
and therefore has no right to be regarded as a crowning masterpiece. 

Mr. O'Connor Morris reverts to the view that the loss of the Waterloo 
campaign was the fault pf Grouchy, and in favour of this he has the 
great authority of Napoleon himself, who notoriously never attempted to 
shift on others responsibility which could with any plausibility attach to 
himself. Similarly he accepts Napoleon's desperate attempt to find fault 
with the fundamental principle of the strategy of the allies, that under no 
circumstances would they cease to co-operate closely. According to him 
Bliicher made a gross blunder in retreating on Wavre, whence it was some 
hours' march to Waterloo, instead of retiring from the lost field of Ligny in 
close conjunction with the English. Faihng this the alUes ought to have re- 
treated at least to Brussels, in order to be sure of concentrating. Ordinary 
mortals have been content to admire the tenacity with which the allied 
generals, having foreseen the chance of the campaign opening as in fact 
it did, adhered to their plan of retiring in concert so far, and only so far, as 
might be necessary to enable them to co-operate effectually. Without at- 
tempting to argue the matter, it may suffice to ask Mr. O'Connor Morris to 
point out the roads by which the Prussians defeated at Ligny could have 
retreated on Waterloo, and the impediment to their retiring from Wavre on 
Brussels, had WeUington not seen his way to accept battle at Waterloo. 
And before he repeats his emphatic condemnation of Grouchy for not 


crossing the Dyle, falling on Bliicher's flank, and entirely preventing the 
Prussians from reaching Waterloo, let him calculate how long it would have 
taken Grouchy to file his army over one narrow stone bridge at Ottignies 
and a wooden one at Moustier (the only possible points of crossing the 
Dyle), which were accessible only by bad country roads sodden with rain. 
Very few will doubt that this is what Grouchy ought to have attempted ; 
but no calculation that makes equal allowance for both sides will ever 
show that Grouchy could have stopped Billow's march, or even retarded 
it, though he might v-ery possibly have prevented Pirch and Ziethen from 
reaching the field of Waterloo in time to convert Napoleon's defeat into 
rout so total that his army ceased to exist. Hekeford B. George. 

Mr. F. M. Nichols, in his massive volume on The Hall of Lawford 
Hall (privately printed), simply and modestly tells us the story of its 
genesis. Having hung round the hall of this old manorhouse shields 
bearing the coats of arms of its former owners, his intended description 
of them changed its character, an account of the contents and orna- 
ments of a room being converted into a lengthy history of the manor 
and its owners. May we confess that we have one grievance against 
the accomplished author ? He has given us more than we have a right 
to ask, or any reason to expect. Had he merely recorded the descent 
of the manor, in however elaborate detail, adding any information as to 
the occupants of the hall, he would have made a valuable, indeed a 
model, addition to manorial monographs ; but nearly 340 pages, or the 
bulk of the volume, are devoted to the period from 1529 to 1539, during 
which the manor was held successively by William lord Mountjoy and 
Henry marquis of Exeter. Consequently we have in this work, admirable 
and conscientious though it is, one of that provoking class of books which 
deal with other subjects than those with which they are professedly 
concerned. Lord Mountjoy affords the opportunity of bringing in his 
friend Erasmus, of whom Mr. Nichols has much to say, while the lives 
of Lord and Lady Exeter have offered him a wide field. 

But as the author had a perfect right to adopt what system he chose, 
we may at once admit that his biographies are the fruit of careful and, 
not unfrequently, of original research. A special point is made in the 
case of Humphrey duke of Gloucester and his mysterious death in 1447, 
of the grants of his estates before and just after his death, which the 
author has collected from the Patent Rolls. His successor in the 
possession of Lawford was John Say, of the royal household, afterwards 
speaker of the House of Commons, whose history is most carefully 
worked out. 

The book is exquisitely printed, and is one to be secured by Essex col- 
lectors. We cannot tell why Mr. Nichols suggests that the ' seignorial 
rights ' (p. 115) of the lord of Tendring hundred, as described by Morant, 
are unconfirmed, for Morant's statements are fully borne out by the 
inquisition of 12 April 1637 (' State Papers, Domestic,' ccclii., 62) on 
which they are based. 


We have received the first part of the * Dictionary of Political Economy,' 
edited by Mr. E. H. Inglis Palgrave (London : Macmillan & Co.) The 
idea of such a dictionary is a good one, but it is open to objection from 
the indefiniteness of the field covered, and its liability to trench upon 
extraneous subjects. Thus we have an article upon ' Armed Neutrality,' 
and another on * Aristotle,' whose economic views we should have rather 
expected to find treated in a general article on the history of economic 
opinion. But a graver fault in the Dictionary lies in the laxity of editorial 
control, a laxity which results not only in articles overlapping one another, 
but actually in the frequent appearance of two articles on the same sub- 
ject and with the same, or practically the same, heading. The article 
* Banks (England and Wales)' begins by noticing ' the origin of banking 
in Germany,' and the ' history of the bank of Dundee,' both of which are 
dealt with suitably under other headings. But the duplication of articles 
is still less defensible. There are two upon James Anderson, the second 
of which is almost a verbal repetition of a couple of sentences in the 
former. ' Agio,' ' Arbitrage,' * Balance-sheet,' appear in duplicate ; and 
any one who tries to construct a balance-sheet with the help of the * Dic- 
tionary ' will find it difficult to reconcile the specimens of accounts drawn 
up in totally different forms in the two articles. We have noticed some 
very good and serviceable articles, such as Mr. R. E. Prothero's sketch 
of the history of ' Agriculture in England,' but we fear that their useful- 
ness will not redeem the Dictionary from the faults of selection and the 
chaos of arrangement by which it is marred. If Mr. Inglis Palgrave hopes 
to attain the purpose he aims at, he must for the future take more trouble 
in insisting upon uniformity, and setting his face against discursiveness. 
At the least, it is not too much to require of an editor that he shall not 
assign the same article to more than one contributor. 



List of Historical Books recently published 


(Including worka relating to the allied branches of knowledge and works of 
miscellaneous contents) 

Adams (H.) Historical essays. London : 
Unwin. 7/6. 

BiANCHi (G.) La proprieta fondiaria e le 
classi rurali nel medio evo e nella eta 
moderna : studio economico-sociale. 
Pp. 279. Pisa : Spoerri. IGmo. 4 1. 

DoLLiNftER (Ignaz von). Akademische 
Vortrage. III. Pp. 353. Munich: 
Beck. 6 m. 

Harrison (F.) A new calendar of great 
men : biographies of the 558 worthies 
of all ages and countries in the positiv- 
ist calendar of Auguste Conite ; edited 
by. London : Macmillan. 7/6. 

Hasbach (W.) Untersuchungen iiber 
Adam Smith und die Entwicklung der 
politischen Oekonomie. Pp. 440. Leip- 
zig : Duncker & Humblot. 9 m. 

Jastrow (J.) Jahresberichte der Ge- 
Bchichtswissenschaft, herausgegeben 
von. XII : 1889. Berlin : Gaertner. 30 m. 

Lavisse (E.) General view of the politi- 
cal history of Europe. Transl. by C. 
Gross. London : Longmans. 5/. 

Lavollee (B.) Essais de litt^rature et 
d'histoire. Pp. 436. Paris : Hachette. 
18mo. 3-50 f. 

Lewis (sir George Cornewall). An essay 
on the government of dependencies 
(originally published in 1841). Ed. 

with an introduction by C. P. Lucas. 

Pp. 440. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Mahrenholtz (R.) Wandlungen der Ge- 

schichtsauifassung und des Geschichts- 

unterrichtes, besonders in Deutschland. 

Hamburg : Verlags-Anstalt und Druck- 

erei. 1-60 m. 
Mollat (G.) Lesebuch zur Geschichte 

der Staatswissenschaft des Auslandes. 

Pp. 191. Osterwieck : Zickfeldt. 3 m. 
Retortillo y Tornon (A.) Compendio 

de historia del derecho internacional. 

Pp. 285. Madrid. 
Serre (contre-amiral). Les marines de 

guerre de I'antiquit^ et du moyen age. 

II : Etude d'architecture navale. Paris : 

Baudoin. 8 f. 
Warschauer (O.) Geschichte des Socia- 

lismus und neueren Kommunismus. I : 

Saint-Simon und der Saint-Simonisraus. 

Pp. 106. Leipzig : Fock. 2 m. 
Weiss (.1. B.) Lehrbuch der Weltge- 

schichte. IX, 2. Pp. 771-1508. Graz : 

Buchhandlung Styria. 10 m. 
Woodward (A.) & Burnett (the late G.) 

A treatise on heraldry, British and 

foreign, with English and French 

glossaries. 2 vol. Pp. 770, plates. 

Edinburgh : W. &A. K. Johnston. 50/. 


Abd-l-Hasan. Ibn Muhammed Emin aus 
Gulist4ne, das Mujmil et-Tarikh-i 
Ba'dnadirije. I : Geschichte Persiens 
in den Jahren 1 747-50. Herausgegeben 
von 0. Mann. Pp. 48, 72. Leyden : 

Anciaux (M.) Les confr^ries musulmanea 
et leur r61e politique. Pp. 28. Brussels : 

B018BIEB (A.) Recherches sur quelques 
contrats babyloniens. Pp. 73. Paris : 

Chan-Hai-Kinq. Antique g^ographie 
chinoise, traduite pour la premiere fois 


sur le texte original par L. de 

Rosny. I. Paris : Maisonneuve. 

30 f. 
Jacobi (H. G.) Methods and tables for 

verifying Hindu dates, <Src. (Kiel : 

Haeseler.) 4to. 3-60 m. 
Nerazzini (C.) La conquista mussulmana 

dell' Etiopia nel secolo XVI. Pp. 203. 

Neoeblandsch - Indisch Plakaatboek 

[i6o2-i8ii], door J. A. van der Chija. 

VIII: 1765-1775. Pp. 1043. The 

Hague : Nijhoff. 5 fl. 
Renan (E.) History of the people of 


Israel. Ill : From the time of Heze- 

kiah to the return from Babylon. Pp. 

440. London : Chapman & Hall. 15/. 
KouGE (vicomte J. de). G^ographie an- 

cienne de la Basse-Egypte. Paris : 

Eothschild. 20 f. 
Sayce (A. H.) The races of the Old 

Testament. London : Religious Tract 

Society. 3/. 

Tallqvist (K. L.) Babylonische Schen- 
kungsbriefe, transscribiert, iibersetzt, 
und commentiert. Leipzig: Pfeiffer. 
Pp. 24. 4to. 2-60 m. 

Waille (V.) De Caesareae monumentis 
quae supersunt vel de Caesarea ex titulis 
I'eliquiisque a tempore regis Jubae 
usque ad annum a Christo 372. Pp. 
111. Algiers : Fontana. 


Adamek (0.) Beitrage zur Geschichte des 
byzantinischen Kaisers Mauricius [582- 
602]. II. Pp. 32. Graz : Leuschner 
& Lubensky. 1*30 m. 

Abbois de Jubainville (H. d'). Les 
noms gaulois chez C6sar et Hirtius de 
Bello Gallico. I. Paris : Bouillon. 
12mo. 4 f. 

Aristotelis qui fertur liber 'Adrifaluv 
iroMrela. De republica Atheniensium. 
Post Kenyonem add. H. van Herwerden 
et J. van Leeuwen, J. F. Pp. 241. 
Leyden : SijthofE. 

Beissadd (J.) De I'organisation militaire 
chez les Remains. lUustr. Paris. 

Caknazza (G.) II diritto commerciale dei 
Romani. Pp. 199. Catania : Pansini. 
5 1. 

CuRTius (E.) Die Stadtgeschichte von 
Athen. Mit einer Uebersicht der 
Schriftquellen zur Topographie von 
Athen von A. Milchhoefer. Pp. cxxiv, 
339, illustr. Berlin : Weidmann. 16 m. 

DoESBUKG (J. J.) Geschiedenis der 
Romeinen van de stichting van Rome 
tot Kaizer Diocletianus. Pp. 606, 
illustr. Amsterdam : Boon. 4*50 11. 

Garofalo (F.) Le leges sacratae del 260 
u. c. Pp. 42. Catania : Martinez. 

Heikel (I. A.) Beitrage zur Erklarung 
von Plutarchs Biographic des Perikles. 
Pp. 18. (Berlin : Mayer & Miiller.) 4to. 
1-20 m. 

Inscbiptiones antiquae orae septentrio- 
nalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae. 
Ed. M. B. Latyschev. II : Inscriptiones 
regni Bosporani continens. (Leipzig : 
Voss.) 4to. 30 m. 

Insceiptionum Latinarum, Corpus. Ill: 
Inscriptionum Orientis et lUyrici Lati- 
narum suppi. Edd. T. Monimsen, O. 
Hirschfeld, A. Domaszewski. II. 
Berlin : Reimer. Folio. 29 m. 

VIII. Inscriptionum Africae procon- 

sularis Latinarum suppl. Edd. R. Cagnat 
et J. Schmidt, commentariis instruxit 
J. Schmidt. Berlin : Reimer. Folio. 
52 m. 

Meyeb (P.) Des Aristoteles Politik und 

die 'Ad-nvalwu -noKiTela. Nebst einer Lit- 
teratur-Uebersicht. Bonn : Cohen. 
1-20 m. 

Miller (A.) Die Alexandergeschichte 
nach Strabo. II. Wiirzburg : Stahel. 
4to. 1-50 m. 

Eeinach (S.) Chroniques d'Orient : docu- 
ments sur les fouilles et d6couvertes 
dans I'orient hell^nique [1883-1890]. 
Illustr. Paris : Didot. 15 f. 

Reinhardt (G.) Der Tod des Kaisers 
Julian, nach den Quellen dargestellt. 
Pp. 31. Cothen : Biihling. 1-20 m. 

ScHUCHARDT (C.) Schliemanu's excava- 
tions, an archaeological and historical 
study. Transl. by Eugenie Sellers. 
Pp. 380, illustr. London : Macmillan. 

Schulthess (0.) Der Process des C. 
Rabirius vom Jahre 63 v. Chr. Pp. 78. 
Frauenfeld : Huber. 4to. 2 f. 

Stadelmann (F.) Erziehung und Unter- 
richt bei den Griechen und Romern. 
Pp. 217. Trieste : Schimpfif. 3-50 m. 

Stein (E. von). Das Hannibalisohe 
Truppenverzeichnis bei Livius xxi. 22. 
(Berliner Studien fiir classische Philo- 
logie und Archaologie. XII, 2.) Berlin : 
Calvary. 150 m. 

Stoffel (colonel). Guerre de C6sar et 
d'Arioviste, et premiei-es operations de 
C6sar, en Pan 702. Maps. Paris : 
Bouillon. 4to. 30 f. 

Strzygowski (J.) Byzantinische Denk- 
maler. I. Pp. 127, illustr. Vienna : 
Mechitbaristen - Congregation. 4to. 
13 m. 

Tacitus, The Annals of. Ed. with intro- 
duction and notes by H. Furneaux. II : 
Books XI-XVI. Pp. 700, map. Ox- 
ford : Clarendon Press. 20/. 

Teia (G.) Un poema republicano ai 
tempi di Nerone : saggio critico suUa 
Pharsalia di Lucano. Pp. 56. Trani : 

Weber (M.) Die romische Agrarge- 
schichte in ihrer Bedeutung fiir das 
Staats- und Privatrecht. Pp. 284. 
Stuttgart : Enke. 8 m. 



Abetino (P.) Pasquinate per il conclave 
e r elezione di Adriano VI. Pubblicate 
ed illustrate di V. Kossi. Pp. 252. 
Palermo. 16mo. 

Bernhardt (W.) Die BannbuUe Leo X 
gegen Luther, nach dem Original-Text 
der Ausgabe vom 17. Juli 1520. Pp. 68. 
Wittenberg : Senf . 16mo. 1 m. 

Brockinq (W.) Die franzosische Politik 
Papst Leos IX : ein Beitrag zur Ge- 
schichte des Papsttums im elften Jahr- 
hundert. Pp. 106. Stuttgart : Goschen. 
2-50 m. 

Cassel (D. K.) Geschichte der Menoniten. 
Pp. 560. Philadelphia. 

Cornelius (G. A.) Kristna kyrkans his- 
toria. VII. Pp. 175. Stockholm. 

Denkingkr (H.) Alcimus Ecdicius Avitug, 
archeveque de Vienne [460-526], et la 
destruction de I'arianisme en Gaule. 
Pp. 80. Geneva : Georg. 1-50 f. 

Funk (F. X.) Die apostolischen Konsti- 
tutionen. Pp. 374. Rottenburg : Bader. 
6 m. 

Hilliger (B.) Die Wahl Pius V zum 
Papste. Pp. 152. Leipzig : Fock. 
3-50 m. 

JaCQUIER (E.) Ai5ax^ riiv SiiStKa 
inrorndKoiv. La doctrine des douze 
apotres et ses enseignements. Pp. 
271. Lyons : Georg. 5 f. 

Leonis X, pontificis maximi, regesta, 
collegi et edi coepta a J. Hergenroether 
composuit F. Hergenroether. VII, VIII. 

(II. Pp. 1-216.) Freiburg: Herder. 

4to. 10-80 m. 
Le Vasseur (L.) Ephemerides ordinis 

Cartusiensis, nunc primum a monachis 

eiusdem ordinis in lucem editae. I-III. 

Paris : Lechevalier, 4to. 75 f. 
LoisY (A.) Histoire du canon du Nouveau 

Testament. Paris : Maisonneuve. 15 f. 
Mejer (O.) Zum Kirchenrechte des Refor- 

mationsjahrhunderts. Pp.210. Hanover: 

Meyer. 5 m. 
Paulson (.1.) Fragmentum vitae sanctae 

Catharinae Alexandrinensis metricum. 

Pp. xxxi, 72. Lund : Hjalmar Moller. 
Perpetua (S.) The passion of. Ed. by 

J. A. Robinson. Cambridge : University 

Press. 4/. 
Pierson (A.) Studien over Johannes 

Kalvijn. Ill: [1540-1542]. Pp. 184. 

Amsterdam : P. N. van Kampen. 

2-25 fl. 
PiTRA (J. B.) Analecta sacra. Spici- 

legium Solesmense. VII. Paris. 15 f. 
Thouvenot (E.) Vie de Jean Chrysostome. 

Pp. 219. Toulouse : Lagarde. 12mo. 

1-40 f. 
Vernier (D.) Histoire du jiatriarcat 

armenien catholique. Paris : Delhomme 

& Briguet. 6 f. 
VoiGT (H. G.) Eine verschollene Urkunde 

des antimontanistischen Kampfes : die 

Berichte des Epiphanius iiber die Kata- 

phryger und Quintilianer. Pp. 351. 

Leipzig : Richter. 8 m. 


FiCKER (J.) Untersuchungen zur Rechts- 
geschichte. I : Untersuchungen zur 
Erbfolge der ostgermanischen Rechte. 
I. Pp. XXX, 540. Innsbruck : Wagner. 
16 m. 

GiRALDi Cambrensis Opera. VIII : De 
principis instructione. Ed. by G. F. 
Warner. Pp. Ixviii, 432. London : 
Published under the direction of the 
master of the rolls. 10/. 

Glasson (E.) Histoire du droit et des 
institutions de la France. IV : La 
feodalit6 ; les sources du droit ; la 
f6odalit6 civile ; la f^odalite politique. 
Paris : Pichon. 10 f. 

HuBNER (R.) Gerichtsurkunden der 
frankischen Zeit, verzeichnet. I. Pp. 
118. Weimar : Bohlau. 3 m. 

Lentz (E.) Das Verhaltnis Venedigs zu 
Byzanz nach dem Fall des Exarchats 
bis zum Au^gang des neunten Jahrhun- 

derts. I : Venedig als byzantinische 
Provinz. Pp. 68. Berlin : Mayer & 
Miiller. 1-20 m. 

Regel (W.) Analecta Byzantino-Russica. 
(Leipzig : Voss.) 7 m. 

Robert (U.) Les signes d'infamie au 
moyen age : juifs, sarrasins, heretiques, 
lepreux, cagots, et filles publiques. 
Paris : Champion. 12mo. 5 f. 

ToMAscHEK (W.) Zur historischen Topo- 
graphic von Kleinasien im Mittelalter. 
I : Die Kiistengebiete und die Wege der 
Kreuzfahrer. Vienna : Tempsky. 2 m. 

Valrogkr (L. de). Etude sur I'institution 
des consuls de la mer au moyen age. 
Pp. 68. Paris : Larose & Forcel. 
2-50 f. 

Weiland (L.) Die Wiener Handschrift 
der Chronik des Mathias von Neuen- 
burg. Pp. 59. Gottingen : Dieterich. 
4to. 4 m. 


Corfu, Cenni statistici suU' isola di ; 
documento del 1576. Pp.14. Venice: 
Longhi e Montanari. 16mo. 

DiDiER (L.) Lettres et n6gociations de 

Claude de Mondoucet, resident 
France aux Pays-Bas [1571-1574]- 
Fyfe (H. H.) Annals of our time : 



record of events, social and political, 
home and foreign. III. 1 : From the 
fiftieth anniversary of the accession of 
queen Victoria to the end of 1890. 
Pp. 168. London : Macmillan. 

Jensen (N. P.) Napoleons Felttog 1814. 
Pp. 348. Copenhagen. 

Key-Xberg (K. V.) De diplomatiska for- 
bindelserna meUan Sverige och Storbri- 
tannien under Gustav IV Adolfs senaste 
regeringsSr. Upsala: Armquist & 

Kbebs (L.) & MoKis (H.) Campagnes 
dans les Alpes pendant la revolution 
[1 792-1 793]. Pp. clvii, 405. Paris : 
Plon. 15 f. 

Laqeehjelm (G.) Napoleon och Carl 
Johan under Kriget i Tyskland 181 3 till 
och med slaget vid Leipzig. Pp. 421, 
6 maps. Stockholm. 

LuBOMiRSKi (prince). Histoire contem- 

poraine de la transformation politique 
et sociale de I'Europe. Ill : De Sebas- 
topol k Solferino. Pp. 601. Paris : 
C. L6vy. 7.50 f. 

Lutken (0.) Les Danois sur I'Escaut 
[1809-1813]. Copenhagen. 

MERCY-ARdENTEAU (comte de). Corres- 
pondance secrete avec I'empereur 
Joseph II et le prince de Kaunitz. 
Publi6e par A. d'Arneth et J. Flammer- 
mont. Introd. & vol. II. Pp. Ixxxviii, 
589. Paris : Imprimerie nationale. 
12 f. 

MoLTKE (Graf Helmuth von). Gesam- 

. melte Schriften und Denkwiirdigkeiten. 
Ill : Geschichte des deutsch-franzo- 
sischen Krieges von 1870-1871. Berlin: 
Mittler. 7 m. 

Rotenhan (FreiheiT von). Die neuere 
Kriegsgeschichte der Cavalerie, vom 
Jahre 1859 bis heute. 1 : 1859- 1870. 
Munich : Franz. 4*50 m. 


Allain (E.) L'ceuvre scolaire de la 
revolution [1789-1802]. Pp. 436. 
Paris : Didot. 

Atjlard (F. a.) La society des Jacobins : 
recueil de documents pour I'histoire du 
club des Jacobins de Paris. II : [Jan- 
vier k juillet 1791]. Paris : Jouaust. 
7-50 f. 

Barthelemy (A. de). Numismatique de 
la France. I : Epoques gauloise, gallo- 
romaine, et m^rovingienne. Pp. 52, 
illustr. Paris : Leroux. 2"50 f. 

Bketrand (A.) Nos origines : La Gaule 
avant les Gaulois, d'apr^s les monu- 
ments et les textes. 2" Edition enti^re- 
ment refondue. Illustr. Paris : Leroux. 
10 f. 

Beuel (A.) Visites des monast^res de 
I'ordre de Cluny de la province d'Au- 
Tergne aux treizi^me et quatorzi^me 
si^cles (nouvelle s^rie), publi^es d'apr^s 
les originaux. Pp. 56. Nogent-le- 
Eotrou : imp. Daupeley-Gouverneur. 

Bbutails (J. A.) Etude sur la condition 
des populations rurales du Roussillon 
au moyen Age. Pp. xliv, 314. Paris : 
Picard. 7-50 f. 

Carre (H.) La France sous Louis XV 
[1723-1774]. Pp. 260, illustr. Paris. 

CoMPAiN (L.) Etude sur Geoffroy de 
Vend6me. (Biblioth^que de I'Ecole des 
Hautes Etudes. LXXXVI.) Paris: 
Bouillon. 7-50 f. 

CoBNiLLON (J.) Le Bourbonnais sous la 
revolution francjaise. III. Paris : 
Lechevalier. 5 f. 

CoYECQUE (E.) L'H6tel-Dieu de Paris 
au moyen &ge : histoire et documents. 
I : Histoire de rH6tel-Dieu ; docu- 
ments [1316-1552]. Paris : Champion. 
10 f. 

EspiNAY (G. d'). Les reformes de la cou- 

tume de Touraine au seizi^me si^cl . 
Pp. 246. Tours : P^ricat. 

Flees (marquis de). Le roi Louis- 
Philippe: vie anecdotique [1773-1850]. 
10 portraits. Paris : Dentu. 10 f. 

Frizon (N.) Recueil de documents in- 
edits et de . pieces rares sur Verdun et 
le pays verdunois. Ill, Pp. 204. 
Verdun : Laurent. 16mo. 4 f. 

Gambetta (L.) Depeches, circulairea, 
decrets, proclamations, et discours. 
II. Pp. 540. Paris: Charpentier & 
Fasquelle. 7-50 f . 

Jadart (H.) L'entrde de Jeanne d'Arc k 
Reims le 16 juillet 1429 : po^me de 
Nicolas Bergier a nouveau publi6 avec 
introductions et notes. Pp. 31. Reims : 
Michaud. 2 f. 

Jean (A.) Les ev^ques et les archevSques 
de France [1682-1801]. Paris: Picard. 
12 f. 

Le Coq (F.) Documents authentiques 
pour servir a I'histoire de la constitu- 
tion civile du clerge dans le d^partemeni 
de la Mayenne. IV : District d'Ernee. 
Pp. 181. Laval : Chailland. 

Maignien (E.) Bibliographie historique 
du Dauphine pendant la revolution 
fran<?aise, de 1787 au 11 nivose an 
XIV, 31 decembre 1805. IL Paris: 
Lechevalier. 10 f. 

MAaoN (A.) Quelques notes sur I'originfr 
des 6glises du Vivarais, d'apr^s les 
anciens cartulaires et d'autres docu- 
ments. I. Paris : Lechevalier. 12mo. 5 f» 

Meunier (P.) La revolution en Nivernais. 
Pp. 127. Nevers : imp. Mazeron. 

MoNTPELLiER, Sixi^me centenaire de 
I'universite de : compte rendu. Pp. 175. 
Montpellier : imp. Firmin & Montane.^ 


Nys (E.) Les theories politiques et le 
droit international en France jusqu'au 
dix-huiti^me si^cle. Pp. 208. Brus- 
sels : Weissenbruch. 4 f . 

Pajol (comte). Les guerres sous Louis 
XV. VII. Paris : Didot. 12 f . 

Pauthe (abb6 L.) Madame de La 
Valli^re : la morale de Bossuet k la 
cour de Louis XIV. Pp.515. Toulouse: 
Privat. 7-50 f. 

PiNEAu (P.) Histoire de La Tour d'Au- 
vergne. Pp. 164. Limoges : Lavau- 
zelle. 3 f. 

PoiTOu. — Tr6sor des chartes ; extraits 
relatifs au Poitou, par P. Guerin. V. 
(Soci6t6 des archives historiques du 
Poitou. XXI.) Pp. xxxvi, 495. Poi- 
tiers : imp. Oudin. 15 f. 

■Quentin-Bauchart (E.) La bibliotheque 
de Fontainebleau et les livres des 

derniers Valois k la Bibliotheque 
nationale [1515-1589]. Pp. 239, 
illustr. Paris : Huard & Guillemin. 
25 f. 

Kedet (L.) & EicHABD (A.) Inventaire 
sommaire des archives d^partementales 
ant6rieures k 1790. Vienne. Archives 
civiles. (Series A, B, C, D.) Pp. 
clxi, 284. Poitiers : imp. Blais & Eoy. 
4to. 12 f. 

Retz (cardinal de). ffiuvres. Nouvelle 
Edition. IX. Supplement k la Corres- 
pondance diverse. Pp. xliv, 473. Paris : 
Hachette. 7-50 f. 

Stephens (H. Morse). A history of the 
French revolution. II. Pp. 561. 
London : Longmans. 18/. 

Tremault (de). Cartulaire de Marmoutier 
pour le Vendomois. I. Pp. 269. Ven- 
dome : imp. Lemercier. 6 f. 

(Including Austria-Hungary) 

Altmann (W.) Studien zu Eberhart 
Windecke : Mitteilung bisher unbe- 
kannter Absclmitte aus Windecke's 
Welt-Chronik. Berlin : Gaertner. 
2-80 m. 

Baring-Gould (S.) The church in Ger- 
many. Pp. 416, maps. London : 
Gardner. 6/. 

Becker (W.) Ueber die Teilnahme der 
Stadte an den Keichsversamnilungen 
unter Friedrich III [1440-1493]. Pp. 
115. Bonn : Eohrscheid Sc Ebbecke. 
1-50 m. 

Below (G. von). Die landstiindische 
Verfassung in Jiilich und Berg. Ill : 
Geschichte der direkten Staatssteuern 
bis zum geldrischen Erbfolgekrieg. II. 
Diisseldorf : Voss. 6 m. 

BoNNELL (W.) Bilder aus drei Jahrhun- 
derten brandenburgisch-preussischer 
Geschichte. I : Das Jahrhundert des 
Grossen Kurfiirsten. Berlin : Zillessen. 
2-40 m. 

■Fkaknoi (W.) Mathias Corvinus, Konig 
von Ungarn [1458-1490]. Aus dem 
Ungarischen iibersetzt. Pp. 316, illustr. 
Freiburg : Herder. 7 m. 

Fbicker (C. V.) Grundriss des Staats- 
rechts des Konigreichs Sachsen. Pp. 
261. Leipzig : Ilossberg. 8 m. 

Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, 
Urkunden und Actenstiicke zur Ge- 
schichte des Kurfiirsten. XIV. 
Auswartige Acten. Ill : Oesterreich. 
Herausgegeben von A. F. Pribram. 
II. Pp. 785-1428. Berhn: lieimer. 
20 m. 

Gerlach's (L. von), Generals der Infan- 
terie und General- Adjutanten Konig 
Friedrich Wilhelms IV, Denkwiirdig- 
keiten aus dem Leben. I. Pp. 848. 
Berlin : Hertz. 11 m. 

Glatz, Geschichtsquellen der Grafschaft. 
Herausgegeben von Volknier und 
Hohaus. V : Aeltestes Glatzer Amts- 
buch Oder Mannrechtsverhandlungen 
[1346-1390]. Pp.169. Habelschwerdt : 
Franke. 2-50 m. 

Gudemann (M.) Quellenschriften zur 
Geschichte des XJnterrichts und der 
Erziehung bei den deutschen Juden. 
Pp. 324. Berhn : Hofmann. 12 m. 

Hajimerstein, Urkunden und Eegesten 
zur Geschichte der Burggrafen und 
Freiherren von. Bearbeitet von E. von 
Hammerstein-Gesmold. Pp. 841, il- 
lustr. Hanover : Hahn. 20 ni. 

Hase (K. von). Annalen meines Lebens. 
Herausgegeben von K. A. von Hase. 
Pp. 356, portrait. LeijDzig : Breitkopf 
& Hiirtel. 6 m. 

Hessisches Urkundenbuch. II : Urkun- 
denbuch zur Geschichte der Herren 
von Hanau und der ehemaligen Provinz 
Hanau, von H. Eeimer. I : [767- 
1300]. (Publicationen aus den k. 
preussischen Staatsarchiven. XLVIII.) 
Leipzig : Hirzel. 15 m. 

Horning (W.) Dr. Johann Pappus von 
Lindau [1549-1610], Miinsterprediger, 
Universitats-Professor, und President 
des Kirchenkonvents zu Strassburg. 
Aus unbenlitzten Urkunden und Manu- 
skripten. Pp. 323, portrait. Strass- 
burg : Heitz. 6 m. 

Hungary. — Monumenta Vaticana his- 
toriam regni Hungariae illustrantia. 
Ser. I. VI. Pp. Ixxxv, 280, illustr. 
Budapest. 10 m. 

Karoli IV imperatoris acta inedita : ein 
Beitrag zu den Urkunden Kaiser Karls 
IV. Gesammelt und herausgegeben 
von F. Zimmermann. Pp. 273. Inns- 
bruck : Wagner. 10 m. 


Lavisse (E.) The youth of Frederick the 
Great. Transl. by S. L. Simeon. Pp. 
476. London : Bentley. 16 . 

Lehmann (H. O.) Quellen znr deutschen 
Eeichs- und Kechtsgeschichte zusam- 
mengestellt und mit Anmerkungen 
versehen. Pp. 309. Berlin : Liebmann. 
8 m. 

Lehmann (K.) Die Entstehung der Libri 
Feudorum. Eostock : Stiller. 4to. 
2 m. 

LoHEK (F. von). Kulturgeschichte der 
Deutschen im Mittelalter. I : Germa- 
nenzeit und Wanderzeit. Pp.531. Mu- 
nich : Mehrlich. 10 m. 

LoosHOEN (J.) Geschichte des Bisthums 
Bamberg, nach den Quellen bearbeitet. 
Ill: [1 303-1399]. Pp.755. Munich: 

LuDWiGS des Bayern (Kaiser), Vatikani- 
sche Akten zur deutschen Geschichte 
zur Zeit. Pp. 926. Innsbruck : 
Wagner. 30 m. 

Maas (H.) Geschichte der katholischen 
Kirche im Grossherzogthum Baden. Mit 
besonderer Beriicksichtigungder Regie- 
rungszeit des Erzbisehofs Hermann von 
Vicari. Freiburg : Herder. 10 m. 

Mebkel (C.) Adelaide di Savoia, elettrice 
di Baviera. Pp. 272. Turin : Bocca. 

MicHELS (A.) Leben Ottos des Kindes, 

ersten Herzogs von Braunschweig und 
Liineburg. Pp. 99. Gottingen : Van- 
denhoeck & Ruprecht. 2 m. 

Philipp der Grossmiithige (Landgraf) 
von Hessen. Briefwechsel mit Bucer. 
Herausgegeben und erlautert von M. 
Lenz. III. (Publicationen aus den k^ 
preussischen Staatsarchiven. XL VII.) 
Leipzig : Hirzel. 16 m. 

Pribram (A. F.) Die Heirat Kaiser Leo- 
pold I mit Margaretha Theresia von 
Spanien. Vienna : Tempsky. 1-20 m. 

Roth v. Schreckenstein (K. H.) Philipp 
Christian Friedrich Graf von Normann- 
Ehrenfels, konigl. wiirttembergischer 
Staatsminister [1756-1817]. Pp. 395. 
Stuttgart : Kohlhammer. 6 m. 

Thorsch (O.) Materialien zu einer 
Geschichte der osterrcichischen Staats- 
schulden vor dem achtzehnten Jahrhun- 
dert. Pp. 117. Berlin : Prager. 3 m. 

Wacker (C.) Leben und Werke des 
Aachener Geschichtsschreibers Chris- 
tian Quix. Pp. 73. Aachen : Cremer. 
1-20 m. 

ZiMMERMANN (F.) Ucbcr Archive in 
Ungarn : ein Fiihrer durch ungarlan- 
dische und siebenbiirgische Archive. 
Hermannstadt. Pp. 132. (From tho 
' Archiv des Vereins fiir Siebenbiirgische 
Liinderkunde,' xxiii. 3.) 


Baigent (F. J.) A collection of records 
and documents relating to the hundred 
and manor of Crondall, in the county 
of Southampton. I. Pp. 560. Win- 
chester : Warren. 20/. 

Biography, Dictionary of national. Ed. 
by S. Lee. XXIX : Inglis — John. 
London : Smith, Elder, & Co. 15 '. 

Braine (E.) The history of Kingswood 
Forest. Pp. xxxviii, 288, map. Bristol : 
Mack. 7,6. 

Bbown (Cornelius). A history of Notting- 
hamshire. Pp. 306. London : Stock. 

Beown (P. Hume). Early travellers in 
Scotland. Pp. 320. Edinburgh: 
Douglas. 14/. 

Clark (A.) The colleges of Oxford ; their 
history and traditions : twenty-one 
chapters contributed by members of the 
colleges ; ed. by. Pp. 486. London : 
Methuen. 18/. 

Cunninghaji (sir H. S.) Earl Canning 
and the transfer of India from the 
company to the crown. Oxford : 
Clarendon Press. 2/6. 

Edward III.— Calendar of patent rolls 
[1327-1330]. Pp. 776. London: 
Published under the direction of the 
master of the rolls. 15 . 

■ Year books of the reign of. Year 

XV. Ed. and transl. by L. O. Pike. 
Pp. Iv, 528. London : Published under 

the direction of the master of the rolls. 

Ely. — A calendar and concise view of the 
episcopal records preserved in the 
muniment room of the palace at Ely. 
Compiled by direction of the bishop, by 
A. Gibbons. Pp. 558. Printed for 
private circulation. Lincoln : William- 

Frocde (J. A.) The divorce of^Catherine 
of Aragon : the story as told by the 
imperial ambassadors resident at the 
court of Henry VIII. Pp. 482. London : 
Longmans. 16/. 

Gamlin (Hilda). Emma, lady Hamilton. 
Pp. 298, illustr. Liverpool : Howell. 
4to. 63/. 

Gardiner (S. R.) A history of the great 
civil war [ 1 642- 1 649] . Ill : [ 1 647 - 1 649].. 
Maps. London : Longmans. 28/. 

School atlas of English history. 

London : Longmans. 4to. 5/. 

A student's history of England, 

III: [1 689- 1 885]. Illustr. London: 
Longmans. 4/. 

Hall (H.) The antiquities and curiositiea 
of the exchequer. Pp. 230. London : 
Stock. 6/. 

Hassencamp (R.) History of Ireland. 
London: Sonnenschein. 4 6. 

Herbert (T. A.) The history of the law 
of prescription in England. Cam- 
bridge : University Press. 10 . 


HoDDER (E.) George Fife Angas, father 
and founder of South Australia. Pp. 
432, portrait. London : Hodder & 
Stoughton. 12/. 

Jenks (E.) The government of Victoria 
(Australia). Pp. xlii, 403. London : 
Macmillan. 14/. 

Law (E.) The history of Hampton Court 
Palace. III. Pp. 566, illustr. London : 
Bell. 31/6. 

Macray (W. D.) Calendar of charters 
and documents relating to Selborne and 
its priory. Pix 184. Winchester : 
Warren. 10/6. 

Manchester presbyterian classis. Minutes 
of the [1 646-1660]. Ed. by W. A. 
Shaw. III. Pp. 283-464. Manches- 
ter : Chetham Society. 4to. 

Maxwell (A.) Old Dundee, ecclesiastical, 
burghal, and social, prior to the re- 
formation. Pp. 424. Edinburgh : 
Douglas. 4to. 

Merle (Willelmus). Considerationes 
temperiei pro septem annis [1337-1344]. 
Reproduced and translated under the 
supervision of G. J. Symons. London : 

Northumberland, Three early assize rolls 
for the county of. Section 13. (Pub- 
lications of the Surtees Society, 
LXXXVIII.) Pp. 476. London: 
Whittaker. 31/6. 

Paravicini (Frances de). Early history 
of Balliol College. Pp. 370. London : 
Paul, Trubner, & Co. 12/. 

Philippson (M.) Histoire du regne de 
Marie Stuart. I, II. Pp. 344, 408. 
Paris : Bouillon. Each 6 f. 

Portland (duke of), Manuscripts of the. 
(Historical Manuscripts Commission. 
Thirteenth report, appendix, I.) Lon- 
don : H.M. Stationery Office. 3/. 

BooEUS (the late J. E. Thorold). The in- 
dustrial and commercial history of 

England : lectures delivered to the 
university of Oxford. Ed. by A. G. L. 
Eogers. London : Unwin. 16/. 

Sayous (E) Les deux revolutions 
d'Angleterre [1603-1689] et la nation 
anglaise au dix-septi^me si^cle. Pp. 
260. Illustr. Paris: Librairies-Im- 
primeries reunies. 4 f . 

Scotland, The register of the privy 
council of. Edited and abridged by 
D. Masson. X: [1613-1616]. Edin- 
burgh : H.M. General Register House. 

Sinker (R.) The library of Trinity 
college, Cambridge : its history and 
contents. Illustr. London : Bell. 10/6. 

State Trl\ls, Reports of. New series : 
III: [1831-1840]. Ed. by J. Mao- 
donnell. London : H.M. Stationery 
Office. 10/. 

Stebbing (W.) Sir Walter Ralegh, a 
biography. Pp. 414, portrait. Oxford : 
Clarendon Press. 10/6. 

Sydney (W. C.) England and the Eng- 
lish in the eighteenth century. 2 vol. 
Pp. 768. London: Ward & Downey. 

Tesoroni (O.) King Ceadwalla's tomb in 
the ancient basilica of St. Peter. Rome : 

Vagoioli (F.) Storia della Nuova Zelanda 
e dei suoi abitatori. I. Pp. 711, map. 
Parma : Fiaccadori. 

Vinogradoff (P.) Villainage in England : 
essays in English mediaeval history. 
Oxford : Clarendon Press. 16/. 

Wall (J. C.) The tombs of the kings of 
England. Pp. 478, illustr. London : 
Low. 21/. 

Waurin (John de). Chronicles and ancient 
histories of Great Britain [1422-1431]. 
Transl. by E. L. C. P. Hardy. London : 
Published under the direction of the 
master of the rolls. 10/. 


(Including Savoy) 

Abhate (G.) L' Italia nel medio evo. Pp. 

828. Alba. 
Agnelli (G.) Eoncaglia : dissertazione 

storico-topografica nel vero luogo delle 

diete imperiali. Pp. 01. Milan : tip. 

Barozzi (L.) & Sabbalini (E.) Studi sul 

Panormita e sul Valla. Pp. 268. 

Florence : Le Monnier. 7 1. 
Bologna. — I rotuli dei lettori, legisti, e 

artisti dello studio bolognese dal 1384 

al 1799, pubblicati daU.Dallari. Ill, 1. 

Pp. 857. Bologna : tip. Merlani. 4to. 
Calisse (C.) Storia del diritto italiano. 

3 vol. Pp. 323, 410, 347. Florence: 

Barbara. Each 7 1. 
Cappelletti (L). Storia di Carlo Alberto 

6 il suo regno. Pp. 632. Milan. 
Card (G.) Studien zur Geschichte von 

Genua. I: Die Verfassung Genua's 

zur Zeit des Podestat's [1190-1257]. 

Pp. 169. Strassbuig : Heitz. 4 m. 
Castro (G. de). Milano e le cospirazioni 

lombaide [1814-1820]. Pp. 448. 

Milan: Dumolard. ICmo. 4 1. 
CosTANZo (R.) and others. Carlo Ema- 

nuele I, duca di Savoia. Pp. 263. 

Turin : Bocca. 
Davabi (S.) Federico Gonzaga e la fa- 

miglia Paleologa del Monferrato [1515- 

1533]- Pp.107. Genoa : tip. deir isti- 

tuto Sordomuti. 
Fabbbi (P.) Memorie storico-biografiche 

sulla real casa di Savoia. Pp. 23. 

Siena : Nava. 
Feebanti (P.) Memorie storiche della 

cittadi Amandola. I. Pp.368. Ascoli 

Piceno : Cesari. 2'60 1. 


Gaeta. — Codex d iplomaticus Cajetanu8, 
II (Tabularium Casinense, II). Pp. 480. 
Monte Casino : tip. Archicoenobii. 4to. 

Malagola (C.) L' archivio governativo 
della repubblica di S. Marino riordinato 
e descritto ; aggiunti gli statuti Sam- 
marinesi dal 1295 alia met4 del secolo 
XIV. Pp. 344. Bologna: Fava & 

SiMONESCHi (L.) Studl pisani. II : Tom- 
maao da Tripalle. Pp. xxxxii, 20. 
Pisa : Marriotti. 16mo. 

Spano Bolani (D.) Storia di Reggio di 
Calabria. II. Pp. xxxii, 471. Beggio 
di Calabria : Morello. 16mo. 

Staffetti (L.) La congiura del Fiasco e 

la corte di Toscana : documenti inediti. 

Pp. 72. Genoa : tip. dell' istituto 

Sordomuti. 4to. 
SuTTEK (C.) Johann von Vicenza und die 

italienischeFriedensbewegung im Jahre 

1233. Pp. 186. Freiburg : Mohr. 

3-60 m. 
ViLLAEi (P.) The life and times of Nic- 

C0I6 Machiavelli. Transl. by Linda 

Villari. New ed. augmented and 

revised. 2 vol. Pp. 550, 597, illustr. 

London : Unwin. 
ZipPEL (G.) Nicolo Niccoli : contributo 

alia storia dell' umanismo, con un' 

appendice di documenti. Pp. 114. 

Turin : Bocco. 


Nameche (A. J.) Cours d'histoire na- 

tionale. 6' partie. Periode autrichi- 

enne. XXVIL Pp. 430. Louvain : 

Fonteyn. 4 f. 
Prud'homme (E.) Lea 6chevins et leurs 

actes dans la province de Hainaut. Pp. 

598. Mons : Desquesne-Masquiller. 4 f. 
ScHEPERs (J. B.) Groningen als Hanze- 

stad. Pp. 107. Groningen : Wolters. 

1-90 fl. 
Tandel (E.) Les communes luxembour- 

geoises. I. Pp. 678, illustr. Arlon : 

imp. Bruck. 12 f. 

Tiekenteyn (L.) Histoire des origines, 
du d6veloppement, et du role des offi- 
ciers fiscaux pr^s les conseils de justice 
dans les anciens Pays-Bas depuis le 
quinzi^me jusqu'^ la fin du dix-huiti^me 
si^cle. Pp. 276. Brussels : Hayez. 

Utrecht, Bijdragen voor een oorkonden- 
boek van het sticht ; regesten van 
het kapittel van St. Pieter, bewerkt 
door S. Muller Fz. Pp. 367. The 
Hague : Van Weelden & Mingelen. 
3-50 fl. 


Eykbyggja Saga. Story of the ere-dwel- 
lers. With the story of the heath 
sayings as appendix, done into English 
by W. Morris & E. Magnusson. Pp. 
450. London : Quaritch. 5/. 

Meyer (E. H.) Die eddische Kosmogo- 
nie : ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der 
Kosmogonie des Altertums und des 
Mittelalters. Pp. 118. Freiburg : Mohr. 
3-60 m. 

Oxenstiekna (rikskansler Axel). Skrifter 
och brefvexling. Senare afdelningen, 
IV : Hugo Grotii bref Fi 640- 1645]. 
Pp. 702. Stockholm:^ Norstedt. 

Sattler (C.) Reichsfreiherr Dodo zu 
Innhausen und Knyphausen, konigl. 
schwedischer Feldmarschall : seine 
Lebensgeschichte. Pp. 680, portrait. 
Norden : Soltau. 12 m. 


BiLBASsoFF (B. von). Geschichte Katha- 
rina II. Transl. by M. von Pezold. 
I, II. Pp. 543, 185. Berlin: Nord- 
deutsches Verlags-Institut. 12 m. 

Jelinek (B.) Materialien zur Vorge- 
schichte und Volkskunde Bohmens. 
I. Vienna: Holder. 4to. 3*60 

Kallenbach (J.) Les humanistes polonais. 

Pp. 72. Fribourg: imprimerie de 

I'ceuvre de Saint-Paul. 4to. 
Poland. — Monumenta medii aevi historica 

res gestas Poloniae illustrantia. XII. 

Pp. Ixxvii, 531. Cracow : Buchhand- 

lung der polnischen Verlags-Gesell- 

schaft. 12m. 


Castilla, Actas de las Cortes de, XVII : 
[1592-1598]. Pp. 602. Madrid: Riva- 
deneyra. Folio. 

DoHB (B.) Pombal ; sein Charakter und 

seine Politik : nach den Berichten der 
kaiserlichen Gesandten im geheimen 
Staatsarchiv zu Wien. Pp. 182. Frei- 
burg: Herder. 


Fernandez Dubo (C.) Colecci6n biblio- 
grafico-biografica de noticias referentes 
a la provincia de Zamora, 6 materiales 
para su historia. Pp. 579. Madrid : 
Tello. Folio. 11 pes. 

MoRET (J.) Anales del reino de Na- 

varra. VII. Pp. 500. Madrid : Murillo. 
4to. 6 pes. 
Posada (A.) E studios sobre el regimen 
parlamentario en Espana. Pp. 198. 
Madrid : Rodriguez. 12mo. 0*75 


Based. — Denkschrift der historischen und 
antiquarischen Gesellschaft zu Basel 
zur Erinnerung an den Bund der Eidge- 
nossen [i Aug. 1291]. Pp. 176, 
plates. Basle : Schweighauserisohe 
Buchdruckerei. 8 f. 

Bern. — Fontes rerum Bernensium. 
Bern's Geschichtsquellen, VI, 4. Pp. 
577-809, 65. VII, 1 : [1344-1346]. 
Pp. 1-192. Bern: Schmid, Francke, 
& Co. 6 f . 

Bloesch (E.) Festschrift zur siebenten 
Sakularfeier der Griindung Berns [i 191- 
1891]. lUustr. Bern: Schmid, Francke, 
& Co. 30 f. 

'Gay (H.) Melanges d'histoire vallaisanne. 
Pp. 107. Geneva: Jullien. 16mo. 
1-50 f. 

-GoTziNGEB (W.) Die romanischen Orts- 
namen des Kantons St. Gallen. 

Pp. 91, map. St. Gallen : Huber* 
2-40 m. 

HiLTY (C.) Die Bundesverfassungen der 
schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft. 
Pp. 470, plate. Bern : Wyss. 3 f. 

MuLiNEN (W. F. von). Bern's Geschichte 
[1191-1891]. Pp.235. Bern: Schmid, 
Francke, & Co. 3-20 f. 

Oechsli (W.) Die Anfange der schwei- 
zerischen Eidgenossenschaft. Pp. 391, 
319. Bern : Wyss. 7 f. 

Ratische Urkunden aus dem Central- 
archiv des fiirstlichen Hauses Thum 
und Taxis in Regensburg. (Quellen zur 
Schweizer Geschichte. X.) Pp. 556. 
Basel : Geering. 10'40 m. 

RiVAZ (C. E. de). Memoires historiques 
sur Toccupation militaire en Valais par 
le general Turreau, par le grand-bailliff 
de Rivaz. Pp. 385. Sion : Aymon. 4 


Barrett (J. A.) Evolution of the ordi- 
nance of 1787, with an account of the 
earlier plans for the government of the 
north-west territory. Pp. 94. New 
York : Putnam. ^1. 

Croix (marquis de), capitaine general 
des armees de S. M. C, vice-roi du 
Mexique. Correspondance [1737-1786]. 
Pp. 343, portraits. Nantes : Grimaud. 

Dyer (0.) General Andrew Jackson, 
seventh president of the United States. 
Pp. 372, illustr. New York: Bonner. 

Edgar (Matilda). The Ridout letters 
[1805-1815]. Pp.389. London: Un- 
win. 10/6. 

Goss (J. D.) The history of tariff admini- 
stration in the United States. (Studies 
in History, Economics, and Public Law. 
I, 2.) Pp. 87. New York : Columbia Col- 
lege. 16mo. 

Groneb (A.) Oesterreicher in Mexiko : 
Erzahlung aus den Tagen des Kaisers 
Maximilian. Teschen : Prochaska. Pp. 
257, illustr. 

Jameson (J. F.) The history of historical 
writing in America. Pp.164. Boston: 
Houghton, Mifflin, & Co. 12mo. ^1-25. 

Bempin (E.) Die Rechtsquellen der Glied- 

staaten und Territorien der Vereinig- 
ten Staaten von Amerika, mit vornehm- 
licher Beriicksichtigung des biirger- 
lichen Rechts. Pp. 80. Ziirich : Orell 
Fiissli. 3 f. 

Maguire (T. M.) The campaigns in Vir- 
ginia [1 86 1- 1 862]. London : Allen. 3/6. 

Miller (S.) Lectures on the constitution 
of the United States. Pp. 786. New 
York : Banks. 

Ordronaux (J.) Constitutional legisla- 
tion in the United States : its origin 
and application to the relative powers 
of congress and of state legislatures. 
Pp. 696. Philadelphia : Johnson. 

ScHuiiz (C.) Abraham Lincoln : an essay. 
Pp. 117. London : Putnam. 2/6. 

Thoumas (general). R^cits de guerre 
[1862-1867] : les Francjais au Mexique. 
Paris : Bloud & Barral. 5 f. 

TscHUDi (J. J. von). Culturhistorische 
und sprachliche Beitriige zur Kenntniss 
des alten Peru. Vienna: Tempsky. 
4to. 11-30 m. 

Vaeigny (C. de). Les Etats-Unis : esquis- 
ses historiques. Paris. 18mo. 

Venable (W. H.) Beginnings of literary 
culture in the Ohio valley : historical 
and biographical sketches. Pp. 569. 
Cincinnati: Clarke. 



Contents of Periodical Publications 


Annales de I'Ecole Libre des Sciences 
Folitiques, vi.4. October — E. Boutm^ : 
The formation of nationality in the 
United States [regarding the obstacles to 
the formation of a homogeneous and 
united nation as exceptionally great. In 
the west over two-thirds of the country 
the population is too sparse and too 
shifting, and of too many different 
races, possessing local and provincial 
rather than national feehng. In the 
south the population is more fixed, 
and in the north denser ; but in the 
southern half the population consists of 
negroes, and in the north the prepon- 
derance of foreign-born emigrants in 
the great cities prevents the growth of 
national feeling and disturbs the normal 
course of politics]. 

Bibliotheque de I'Iscole des Chartes, 111. 
3." — C. DE Grandmaison : Gagni&res, his 
correspondence and collections of por- 
traits, continued from vol. li. 6, with 

letters. E. Teilhard de Chardin 

prints the register of BarthMemi de 
Noces, secretary and treasurer to tlie 
duke of Berri [1374-1377, relating to 
money matters. One document relates 
to the ransom of John Cresswell, of the 
English garrison of Lusignan, 1374], 

first part C. V. Langlois : Pons 

d'Aumelas [a judge in the time of 

Philip the Fair] N. Valois : Honori 

Bonet, prior of Salon [now Selonnet, in 

the diocese of Embrun, 1382] L. 

Mancest-Batiffol : The piovostship of 
the merclmnts of Paris at the end 

of the fourteenth century P. M. 

Pereet : The mission of P^ron de 
Baschi at Venice [1493], from Venetian 
documents [printing deliberations of 

the senate, 8 July — 4 November] 

M. FouRNiER prints a contract between 
two masters of arts and a bachelor of 
m,edicine [1458] at Perpignan super 
regimine scolarium [in all probability 
connected with the establishment of a 
' tutela ' or hall for arts students]. 

Bevue Critique d'Histoire et de Littlra- 
ture, 1891. No. 43. Oct. 26 — H. 
CoRDiER : Mandeville's Travels [stating 
the evidence for the accepted view that 
they are a compilation by John of 
Burgundy, otherwise de Barba ; in con- 
nexion with G. F. Warner's edition]. 

Eevue Historiqne, xlvii. 1. September 

P. MoNCEAtix : The legend of the 

Pygmies and the dwarfs of equatorial 
Africa [collecting and examining the 

evidence ancient and modern] G. 

Bonet-Maury : The tvill of Ren&e de 
France, duchess of Ferrara [printed in 
vol. xlvi. 1. The writer discusses its 

provisions and points of interest] A. 

Morel-Fatio : The marquise de Gudanes 
[or Gudana] ,a political agent in Spain at 
the end of the seventeenth century. •=^ 
2. November— C. Jullian : Ausonitis 
and his times. I : The life of a Gallo- 
Roman at the end of the fourth cen- 
tury J. Tessier : EJikeJmrd's 

chronicle [raising the questions of its 
authorship and its relation to the 

'Annales Herbipolenses ']. A. D. 

Xenopol : 2V^e Walacho - Bulgarian 
empire [taking the Roumans of the 
south of the Danube from the regions 
beyond the Balkans, sketching the 
history of the Walacho-Bulgarian power 
from 1 185 to 1250, and examining the 
part played in it by the Koumans. It 
is maintained that the Roumans of the 
north of the Danube came from the 

south by way of the Carpathians]. 

A. Caktellieri : The birthplace of 
Philip Augustus [arguing for Paris, 
against L. Delisle's decision in favour 
of Gonesse]. P. Vauchelet : Gene- 
ral Gobert, first article [1760-1793], 
with letters, &c. 

Revue d'Histoire Diplomatique, v. 4. 
October — Georgevitch : Servia at tJie 
congress of Bcrli?i [an account of the 
negotiations of M. Ristitch at Berlin in 
1878, based on his own papers. The 
writer concludes that Servia owes its 
modest acquisitions, after two wars, 
chiefly to the dexterity and decision of 
Milan IV and the ability of M. Ristitch]. 

Due DE Broglie : The prison of 

prince CJiarles Edward Stuxirt [giving 
passages from an extremely curious 
historical play on the expulsion of 
Charles Edward from France after the 
treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, written in imi- 
tation of Shakespeare's historical plays 
by the marquis d'Argenson, ex-minister 
of foreign affairs, who bitterly criticises 
the terms of the peace, brings his late 
colleagues on the stage, and exhibits 


their weaknesses and foibles with the 
greatest frankness] . 
Bevue des Questions Historiques, 1. 2. 

— F. DE MooK : Tlie early history of 
Israel accordmg to Egyptian and Hit- 
tite evidence [on the Exodus and settle- 
ment in Canaan]. C. de Smedt : 

The organisation of Christian churches 

in the third cenhiry O. Vigier : 

The political influence of p^re Joseph ; 
the negotiations with the princes of 
Germany and with Sweden [1629-1638]. 

M. Sepet : The revolution of July, 

1 789. J. VAN den Gheyn : St. Theog- 

nius, bislwp of Bethelia in Palestine 
[425-522], and the sources for his 

biography A. d'Herbomez : Tlie 

journey of Philip Augustus to Tournay 
[1187J, and the 'charte de commun ' of 
1 188. 

Societe de I'Histoire du Frotestantisme 
Francais. Bulletin historique et litte- 
raire. xl. 8, 9. August, Sej^tcmber — 
C.Pascal: Louis XIV and the hugue- 
not refugees in Etigland [1681-1689], 
from the despatches, in part un- 
published, of the king and his ministers 

and ambassadors; two articles. N. 

Weiss prints documents illustrating the 
situation of the huguenots after the 
massacre of St. Bartliolomew [1572- 

^573] ^'"^ autobiograpliy of 

Jacques CabHt [1669-1751], seventh 

section N. Weiss prints the five 

last letters of Paul Rabaut [1788- 

1792]. :10." October — C. Eabaud : 

The family of Sirven in Siuitzerland 

[1762-1772, protected by Voltaire] 

N. Weiss prints a letter of Voltaire to 
Paul Rabaut [1(5 May, 1767]. 


Dentsclie Zeitschrift fiir Geschiclitswis- 
senscbaft (Freiburg), vi. 1.— W. Ju- 
LEiCH : The battle of Adrianople [9 
Aug. 378]. - — E. Davidsohn : The origiyi 
of the consulship, with special refereiice 
to the county of Florence • Fiesole 
[arguing that the ' consules ' were at 
first a committee of the ' boni ho- 
mines '] F. Stieve : Duke Maxi- 
milian I of Bavaria and Jus aims at 
the imperial crown [owing chiefly to 
the influence of his father, William V], 

with documents [1600-1602] F. X. 

Wegele dismisses A. Maass's argu- 
ments against the genuineness of 

Dante's treatise ' de Monarchia.' 

K. ScHELLHASS prints a docximent on 
the meeting of Frederick III and 

Charles the Bold at Treves [1473] 

W. Varges : On R. Sohm's identifica- 
tion of ' tveichbildsrecht ' and ' burg- 
recht.' T. Wichert : On the his- 
torians of the tipper Rhine in the 
fcnirteenth century [on the relation 
between the continuation of James de 
Voragine (manuscript at Colmar) and 

Closener's chronicle]. 1{. Schmidt 

prints a letter of Bielfeld [22 Feb. 
1760] on the proposed secret mission 
of colonel von Pechlin to St. Petersburg. 

H. HiJrFER : O71 the [fabulous] 

interview of Haugwitz with Napoleon 
at Briinn [7 Dec. 1805; explained 
as arising from a misunderstanding of 
Napoleon's bulletin of 10 Dec. which 
really referred to the interview of 28 

Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Kirchenrecht 
(Freiburg), i. 1.— A. Fraktz : Prussia 
and the catholic church at the beginning 

of the nineteenth century H. Was- 

8ERSCHLEBEN prints a document ' de 
contentiotie monasterii Limpurgensis et 

sanctimonialium in Sebach [iig8].== 
2. — T. DisTEL prints a letter from 
Justus Jonas [10 July 1565]. 

Historisclies Jahrbuch (Munich), xii. 3. — 
The late K. J. Anixgek : Tlic date of 
composition and the purpose of the 
dialogue ' Philop>atris ' ascribed to 
Lucian [written in the reign of John 

Zimisces] Dr. Falic : The attempt 

of the elector palatine Frederick III 
to introduce Calvinism into Sponheim, 

second article ; with documents - 

K. Unkel : The establishment of tJie 
permanent apostolic nuntiature at 
Cologne [arguing against M. Lossen's 
view that it was established so early as 
1573]; fii"st article: Bishop Giovanni 
Francesco Bonomo of VercellVs first 

mission to Cologne [1583]. H. J. 

Wuiwi : Tlie alleged recall of cardhial 
Albornoz in 1357 [maintaining that he 
was not recalled, but resigned his 

legation of his own free will] ^F. X. 

Glasschroeder : The ecclesiastical re- 
Jmbilitation of Leiois the Bavarian 
[showing that the excommunication 
was not removed until 1430]. 

Historisclie Zeitschrift (Munich), Ixvii. 
1. — J. Jung : The Roman muyiicipal 

system in the pi-ovinces M. Leh- 

MANN : The memoirs of field-marslial 
von Boyen ; with the text of his account 
of the Prussian military organisation, 

past and present [May 1817] 2. — 

H. VON WiLKE : Gouverneur Morris, 
the American minister at Paris during 

the reign of terror H. Dondorff : 

Nobility and citizenship in ancient 
Hellas [B.C. 800-5CXD].— — -M. Lehmann : 
Enlistment, comjmlsory service, and 
leave in the army of Frederick William 

I. T. Wiedemann : Frederick tlie 

GreaVs ' Histoire de mon temps ' [on 


the relation between the edition of 
1775 ^^^ the king's memoir on the 
first Silesian war, 1742- 1743]. 

Uittheilungen des Instituts fiir Oester- 
reicMsclie Geschichtsforschung (Inns- 
bruck), xii. 3. — T. VON Sickel: On the 
diplomas of Otto III, continued. Ill : 
TJie documentary evidence for Otto's 
itinerary [noticing and explaining 
irregularities in the dates and places of 
documents, difficulties about the speed 
of the royal journeys, cfec.]. IV : The 
itinerary of the years 996 and 997 
[identifying the place ' Pistria ' or 
' Plistia ' with ' Pistia ' between Foligno 
and Camerino, maintaining that Otto 
was in Italy, at Verona, as late as 
September 996, and examining the 
chronology of the emperor's corre- 
spondence with Gerbert (Gerb. Epist. 
182, 183, 185-187, 213-216, 218-220), 

&c.]. R. EoHRiCHT : Amalric I, king 

of Jerusalem [1162-1174, a narrative 
of his reign] : printing a letter of 
Bohemund III of Antioch [after 2 
Oct. 1 1 87]; Erbo's poem on the 
loss of Jerusalem ; documents of 
Bohemund III and IV of Antioch 
[April 1 1 89 and December 1203] grant- 
ing privileges to the Genoese ; a letter 
of ' A., archbishop of Nazareth ' [after 
12 April 1204] ; a document of Garinus, 
master of the hospital [1231]; and a 
document of Richard Filangieri, im- 
perial marshal [1242]. 0. Redlich 

prints four sets of messenger's vouchers 
illustrating postal arrangements [1496- 
1500. The rate of speed on long 
journeys from end to end was about 5| 
kilometres an hour ; the journey from 
Malines to Innsbruck about 5| days. 
The vouchers are the earliest known 
evidence of the jDostal organisation set 
on foot by Johann Baptista von Taxis]. 

T. VON Sickel : The remains of the 

archives of the monastery of St. Chris- 
tina at Olonna. H. V. Sauerland 

prints a document of Rudolf of Habs- 
burg [Vienna, 15 May 1278] anApart of 
a dedication-notification [1338] men- 
tioning the meeting of Edward III of 
England with the emperor Lewis IV at 

Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fiir altere 
Deutsche Geschichtsknnde (Hanover), 
xvii. 1. — Letters from Wilhehn von 
Giesebrecht to 0. H. Pertz [written in 
Italy 22 December 1843-IO January 

1845, with two of 1846 and 1847] W. 

Wattenbach describes the Fonmdarius 
diversarum epistolarum [of the 11th 
and 12th cent.] contained in the 
Munich MS. Lat. 19411 [of the begin- 
ning of the thirteenth century, formerly 

at Tegernsee] V. Kratjse : The acts 

of the synod of Tribur [895, arguing 
from a collation of manuscripts that 
the ' vulgate ' text represents the true 
and original recension of the canons, 

of which the form given by Regino is 

only an epitome] — F. Kurze : The 

• Annules FuldensesJ" I : The text 
[the manuscripts and their relations]. 
II: The first part [714-838]; its 
sources [including among them, against 
Waitz, the ' Annales Sithienses ' and 
discerning the use of a lost Bavarian 
book of annals down to 796] and au- 
thorship [assigned to the well-known 
Einhard]. Ill : The remaining parts 
[from 838 to 863 the work of Rudolf of 
Fulda ; from 863 to 887, of Meginhard 
of Fulda, written at Mainz ; the 
Bavarian continuation, 882-901, written 
probably at Eatisbon].— — 0. Holder- 
Egger : On the ' Chronica principum 
Brunsvicensiuni ' [recently discovered 
at Treves] and the ' Chronica princi- 
pum Saxoniae,' and the chronicles 
related to them [arguing that the 
' Chronica ducum de Brunsvick ' is 
derived chiefly from the former, but in 
part from the latter ; describing the 
remaining contents of the Treves MS., 
which include an enlarged recension of 
the ' Chronica principum Saxoniae,' 
wherein is traced the use of some lost 
annales of St. Blasius at Brunswick, 
and which was itself borrowed from, 
together with the ' Chronica principum 
Brunsvicensium,' by the author of the 
' Cronica Saxonum ' known to us by 
the fragments in Heinrich von Her- 

ford] T. Mommsen : The synod of 

Turin [suggesting that this ' Tauri- 
nense concilium ' (called between 400 
and 418, and admittedly Galilean) was 
held not at Turin but at Tours, the 
name of which in the ' Notitia Gallia- 
rum ' appears as 'Civitas Torinorum ']. 

T. Mommsen describes tlie Paris 

MS., Lat. 1682, of Gregor. Magn. epist. 
i. 16a and 166 [overlooked by P. Ewald]. 

L. M. Hartjunn : On the letters in 

Greg. Magn. Reg. vi. 42 and ix. 187 
[usually considered to be copies of the 

same, but shown to be distinct]. 

K. Neff : Paid the Deacon's description 
of the provinces of Italy [confirming T. 
Mommsen's position, as against Waitz, 
that the Madrid catalogue, A. xvi, is 

derived from this, not vice versa]. 

H. ZiMMER : The dates of SS. Blaith- 
maic's and Moengal's deaths [24 July 

827 and 871] F. W. E. Roth: 

Johann von Hexheim and his Mainz 

chronicle [believed to be lost] R. 

Sternfeld prints a report of Guide 
Fulcodii [afterwards pope Clement IV] 
on the feudal obligations of Sault in 
Forcalquier [1251]. 
Neues Archiv fiir Sachsische Geschiclite 
und Altertamskunde (Dresden), xii. 3, 
4. — P. Hassel : TJie line taken by 
electoral Saxony in relation to the 
prelim,inaries of the peace of Basel 

[1794-1795], with two letters P. 

Vetter: Jakob Schenck and the 


preachers at Leipzig [1541-1543]. 

S. IssLEiB : The Wittenberg capitulation 

of 1547. H. Knothe : Additions to 

Huberts ' Begesten Kaiser KarlsIV.' 

0. Meltzer: a rhyming proplwcy of the 
time of the Schmalkaldic ivar [1547]. 

G. MiJLiiER : Note on the literature 

of the Schmalkaldic war T. Dis- 

TEL : The sign-manual of elector Au- 
gustus of Saxony [from 1584]. 

Theologische ftuartalschrift (Tubingen), 
Ixiii. 4. — A. Brull : The ' Clementines ' 
and the primacy of the Roman church. 

Theologische studien und Kritiken 
(Gotha), 1892, 1.— Dr. Wandel : C. 
Sentius Saturninus, jyrocuratorof Syria 
[fixing the date of his appointment at 

10 B.C. and making the census of Luke 
ii. take place during his governorship, 
B.C. 7]. 

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandi- 
scheu Gesellschaft (Leipzig), xlv. 3. 
A. Spkenoer : On HamdunVs de- 
scription of the Arabian peninsula. 

Zeitschrift fUr Katholische Theologie 
(Innsbruck), xv. 4. — E. Michael : Dot- 
linger, second article P. von Hoens- 

BROECH : Cyprian and the baptism of 
heretics. — E. Michael prints letters 
of Dlillinger [sixteen earlier than 1830, 
with one each of 1840 and 1855]. 

Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschnftliche Theo- 
logie (Leipzig), XXXV. 2. — A von 
Eaffay : The Hussites in Hungary. 


Church Quarterly Review, No. 65. Octo- 
ber — The life of archbishop Tait • 

The council of Epheszis [giving an 
account of an unpublished Coptic 
MS. at Paris containing the report of 
St. Cyril's agent at Constantinople, 
Victor archimandrite of Faou, during 
the session of the council. This nar- 
rative, of which a summary with exten- 
sive extracts is here given, includes an 
unknown letter of St. Cyril, and throws 
a much-desired light upon the diplo- 
macy carried on by the opposing parties 

at the court of Theodosius II]. John 

Wyclif [a biographical sketch, with 
special reference to his philosophical, 

poKtical, and religious position]. 

The county and diocese of Lincoln 
[with a short account of successive 

bishops] T. Mozley^s letters from 

Rome on tlie occasion of tlie cecumenical 

coimcil [1869-1870]. Elizabetluin 


Dublin Review. 3rd Series. No. 53. 
October — Blessed Thomas More [on 
T. B. Bridgett's ' Life ']. A. Hamil- 
ton : Benedictine government from the 

sixth to the eleventh century. Miss 

J. M. Stone : Queen Elizabeth and the 
Roman catholics. 

Edinburgh Review, No. 358. October — 
The earlier life of Sir Robert Peel [to 

1827]. Austria in 1848-1849 [from 

Hiibner's account] Tlie life of 

archbishop Tait. Germany arid 

field-marshal von Moltke. 

Jewish Quarterly Review, No. 13. 
October — D. Kaufmann : The Jewish 
prayerbook according to the ritv/il of 
the church of England before 1290 
[from the work of Jacob son of Judah 
Hazan of London, entitled Q'^pi YV> 
' The Tree of Life,' and composed in 
1275. It is contained in the Hebrew 
MS. 17 of the Leipzig Stadtbibhothek. 
Whether the additions to and varia- 
tions in the common prayers found 
here belong in fact to the Anglo-Jewish 

synagogue in general, or are due to the 
particular writer, cannot be decided 
until the entire manuscript is pub- 

Law Quarterly Review, No. 28. October — 
F. W. Maitland : Frankalmoign in the 
tioelfth and thirteenth centuries [tracing 
the history of the meaning of grants 
' in elemosina ' and showing how the 
specification acquired a technical sense. 
It is explained that tenure in frank- 
almoign did not of itself involve 
exemption from forinsec service, nor 
always from services to the immediate 
lord. The assize L'trum established 
by the Constitutions of Clarendon, 
cap. ix., decided not the title to 
lands, but the competence of courts. 
If the land was proved to be held in 
frankalmoign, the ecclesiastical courts 
had jurisdiction. But by Bracton's 
time the assize had become limited to 
suits brought by rectors of parish 
churches, because other ecclesiastical 
persons were now held to have their 
remedy by ordinary process in king's 
court. The king's courts had thus 
acquired an extension of jurisdiction 
which was not contemplated, far less 
claimed, in the time of Henry II]. 

Quarterly Review, No. 346. October — 

The life of archbishop Tait. The 

history of the Bodleian library 

Abraham Lincoln. H. Taine on 

Napoleon I. Warwick the king- 
maker [criticising his character and 
policy from a hostile point of 

Scottish Review, No. 36. October— ¥. 
Legge : Witchcraft in Scotland [chiefly 
in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
turies]. A. T. Sibbald : The acquisi- 
tion of the Caucasus by Russia 

Gaelic historical songs. The 

Norse discovery of America. Miss 

Florence McCunn : James Melville's 
account of the visit of the presbyterian 
ministers to London [1606]. 




Archivio Storico Italiano (Florence), 6th 
ser., viii. 1.— G. K. Sanesi prints an 
unknown speech of Donato Giannotti 
[1528] an the armament of the city of 

Florence C. Castellani prints 

twelve letters of princes of the house of 
Savoy to Sirnone Contarini [1598- 
1618J G. A. Ventuki : Tlie contro- 
versies between the graiul duke Leopold 
I of Tuscany and bishop Scipione de' 
Micci with the Boman curia [from 1769], 

first article C. Paoli describes a 

letter-book of the balia of Siena for the 
year 1544 [printing two of the letters]. 

E. Casanova prints a cojyy of the 

letters of Charles V and Clement VII 
for the summons of a council [ 1 530] , with 
autograph corrections by Francesco 

Archivio Storico Lomhardo (Milan), xviii. 
3. — G. Agnelli : Boncaglia, a disserta- 
tion on the true locality of the imperial 
diets [fixing it not on the right bank of 
the Po between Piacenza and Cremona, 
buton the left bank between Piacenzaand 
Lodi].— — Z. VoLTA : Catone Sacco afid 
the college founded by him at Pavia 
[1458], printing his will and the statutes 
of the college. G. Romano : Tlie mar- 
riage of Lucia, daughter of Bernabd 
Visconti, with Frederick of Meissen 
[1399; and afterwards with Edmund 

earl of Kent, 1407] G. B. Intra: 

The two empresses Elconora Gonzaga 
[the wives of Ferdinand II and III] , 

second article ; concluded P. Ghin- 

zoNi prints letters c&c. relating to Cesare 

Archivio Storico per le Province Napole- 
tane, xvi. 3. — B. Ceoce : The tJieatres 

in Naples from tJie fifteenth to the 
eighteenth century, concluded [with 
notes on Neapolitan provincial theatres, 
&c.]- — G. Ceci : Churches and cliapels 
at Naples recently destroyed or await- 
ing destruction, fourth article G. 

D. B. continues the publication of a 
history of the kingdom of Naples 
[written by a Venetian at the end of 

the fifteenth century]. N. F. Faua- 

GLiA : The topography of the Abruzzo 

in the middle ages, third article G. 

FoETUNATo describes two twelfth 
century inscriptions from the church of 

S. Maria di Perno N. Pabibio : 

Calendar of documents formerly be- 
longing to the family of Fusco, 
continued; no. ccxii.-ccxx. [1256- 

Nuovo Archivio Veneto, i. 2.— G. Bigoni 
prints ten letters to count Francesco 
Apostoli from Gerolamo Tomich, secre- 
tary to the Bussian legation at the 
court of Naples [20 November 1 792 to 

9 April 1793] V. Padovan : Notes 

and documents illustrating the history 

of the Venetian coinage. G. Monti- 

coLo : The art of the fiolarii in Venice 
in the thirteenth and early fourteenth 
centuries, and their statutes, concluded. 

G. Biadego ; Boman and medieval 

aqueducts in Verona. G. Monticolo 

describes a Latin pioem of the dtical 
chancellor Tanto addressed to Albertino 

Bivista Storica Italiana (Turin), viii. 3. — 
P. Orsi : The correspondence of Charles 
Emmanuel I [printing letters, 1582- 

1630]. F. Gabotto : The poems of 

Charles Emmanuel I. 


(Communicated by W. R. Mobfill) 

Istoricheski Viestnik. — September — S. 
Shubinski : The centenary of the death 
of prince Potemkin [which occurred 
about 30 versts from Yassy : the spot 

is now marked by a pillar]. Sergius 

of Badonezh [ti39i, a hero of the 
time of Dmitri Donskoi and the battle 

of Kulikovo] J. Dcbasov : Domestic 

history of Tambov in the sixteenth and 

seventeenth centuries. P. Yddin : 

The emperor Alexander in tJie Oren- 
burg district in 1824 [his visit to the 

rninps]. - Ortnher — A. BeuCKNER : 

The Bussian court in the years 1728- 
1733, from, the reports of the English 
residents. [Ward and Rondeau : the 
wife of the latter published a volume 

of letters from Russia] 1. Ladabi : 

Becollections of an Abkhasian peasant 
during the last Btcsso- Turkish war. 

N. Ogloblin : The Siberian diplo- 
matists of the seventeenth century 

[from ofiicial reports]. P. Yudin: 

Alexander II, when tsarevich, in the 
Orenburg district.^=November — The 
eastern policy of the emperor Nicholas. 
P. Sementkovski : T'he Italian ex- 
pedition of 1799 and the meeting at 
Cronstadt in 1891. — N. Baesov : 
Characteristics of Bussian history and 
life during the reign of the em'peror 

Peter II. D. Evaenitski : Excava- 

tiotis of the Kurgans in the basin of the 
rivers Orel and Samara. 
Eusskaia Starina. September-November 
— N. Bbaudo : The account of Muscovy 
by De la Neuville in 1689 [describing 
among other things Golitsin's expedi- 
tion to the Crimea].=/Sep<em6er- 
October — An account of Napoleon's 


expedition in iSi 2, from the manuscript 
diary of De la Flize, a surgeon in the 
French army. == September, October, 
November — The diary of count Peter 
Valuyev [1859]. =0cto6cr — The life 
of Yefim Chemesov [1735-1801, illus- 
trating the rebellion of Pugachev]. 

N. Ogloblin : The battle with the 
Swedes at Klotsh, from the diary of S. 
Nepluyev, 19 April, 1706 [from the 

Moscow archives]. Baron N. Kaul- 

BAKS : The death of Cliarles XII of 
Sweden [the writer thinks he was killed 
by his French secretary Siquier ; the 
weapon with which he was shot is pre- 
served at the baron's seat].= iVbuemfter 
— ProfessorBniBAsov : NikitaPanin\i\\e 
well-known minister of Catherine II] 
and Mercier de la Rividre [their corre- 
spondence]. L.LoPATiNSKi : Memoirs 

of the archimandrite V. Terletski 
[1808-1858], concluded. Ukaz of 

the tsar Boris Godunov relating to pre- 
cautions against a famine [Nov. 3, 1601]. 
Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Fro- 
sviestchenia). — September-October^A. 
Markevich : TJie election of the tsar 
Michael Romanov [by the boyars, who 

wanted to rule in his name] V. 

Miller : Collection of materials for the 
description of places and peoples of the 
Caucasus, XII; Tiflis : 1891.= 
October — I. Milyukov : TJie economical 
condition of Russia with reference to the 
reforms of Peter the Great [continued]. 
October - November — M. Berez- 
KHov : Plan for the conquest of the 
Crimea made by Yuri Krizlianich [a 
Serb, the first panslavist, towards the 
close of the seventeenth century] .== 
November — G. Afanasiev : The trade in 
cereals in France at the end of the 
eighteenth century : Necker and Ca- 


Boletin de la Beal Academia de la His- 
toria, xix. 1-3. July- September — T. 
G. EoDRiGUEZ discusses with the aid of 
documents the successful resistance of 
Arivalo to its alienation to Ferdinand^ s 
widow Germaine de Foix [the revolt 
was headed by the alcaide Juan Velaz- 
quez, whose page Ignatius Loyola here 

received his bapteme de feu]. -L. J. 

DE LA Llave prints documents relating 
to the foundation of the see of Carta- 
gena in the Indies. C. Gakran 

prints, with a commentary, the text 
and various confirmations of the fiiero 
of Najera [of special interest to 
students of municipal history, since 
the fuero of this Navarrese town 
served as model for many Castilian 

municipalities]. F. Fita prints 

royal and other letters relating to Fray 
Bernal Boyl [or Buyl) [1481-1496. 

They bear upon his expedition with 
Columbus, his services in the recovery 
of Roussillon, and the establishment of 
the order of S. Francesco di Paola at 
Montserrat]. F. Fita: Roman epi- 
graphy of Talavera de la Reina 4. 

October — F.Fita : The correspondence of 
Fray Bernal Boyl with Descds [a Lul- 
list enthusiast of Majorca, 1484-1493. 
Fray Boyl is identified with the author 
of the translation of Isaac de Eeligione 
into Castilian -Aragonese, of which his 
preface is here printed]. 5. Novem- 
ber- C. F. DuRo : Two cartographers 
claimed by Majorca, Angelina Dulcet 

and Jafuda Cresques. F. Fita : 

The unpublished correspondence of 
Arnaldo Descds [1485- 1495. The 
letters refer in great measure to the 
persecution of the Lullist professor 


Johns Hopkins' TTniversity Studies in His- 
torical and Political Science (Balti- 
more), ix. 3, 4. — B. C. Steiner : Uni- 
versity ediication in Maryland. D. 

C. GiLMAN : The Johns Hopkins^ uni- 
versity [i876-i89i].=5, 6.— M. K. 
Williams : The development of munici- 
pal unity in the Lombard communes. 
7, 8. — A.Stephenson: The public 
lands and agrarian laws of the Roman 
reptiblic.=:=:9. — T. Iyenaga : The con- 
stitutional development of Japan [1853- 

t88t] 10— .T. H. T. McPherson : A 

history of Liberia.==ll, 12. — F. J. 
Turner : The character and influence 
of the Indian trade in Wisconsin. 

Magazine of American History (New 
York). — September — B. A. Hinsdale : 
The first English foundation ofcolcmies 
in America.-=October — ^Mrs. M. J. 
Lamb : Some portraits of Columbus. 

W. F. Ganong : The identification 

of the river St. Croix, with maps. 

Right rev. M. F. Howley : The point 
at which Cabot touched the New 
World in his first voyage [arguing in 
favour of the east coast of Newfound- 
\&n&.].^=November—3. H.- Patton: 
One hundred years of national life, 

1 789- 1 889 [a slight sketch]. Be v. C. 

A. Stakely : Introduction of the negro 
into the United States in the sixteenth 


century. Journal of hrigade-inajor 

F. Shelly [dealing with the demonstra- 
tion against Charlestown, 1779], con- 
tinued Letter from colonel M. 

Willet to Washington [1783]. Letter 
from general Dearborn to governor 
Tompkins [asking for more troops, 

tRt?] Dprpinhpr — K. P. BaTTLE I 

Brigadier-general Jethro Stimner[ 1733- 
1785] Hon. H. King : Fragments 

from the journal of the prince de 

Broglie [concerning Washington] 

S. B. Weeks : The code in North 
Carolina [notes on the history of duel- 
ling] G. E. Manioault : General 

George Izard's military career [a reply 

to H. Adams]. Hon. S. H. M. 

Byebs: The republic of St. Gall. 

Letter by general Andrew Jackson 


Mr. W. H. Stevenson's revised proof of his note on ' The Old English Charters ta 
St. Denis' (vol. vi. 736-742) failed to reach the Editor. The following corrections 
are therefore necessary : — 

Page 736. The reference to note 5 should be placed after the word ' interest ' (line 12) 
in the text. 
737, line 14 from foot, for ' Agonauurla ' read ' Agonauuala.' 

,, „ 4 „ for ' Hasingas ' read ' Hasfingas.' 

739, „ 15, for ' perhorrescens ' read ' perhwrrescens.' 

741, „ 8 from foot, for ' ^thwlwulf ' read ' iEthelwulf.' 

742, „ 12, for'i>' read ' p.' 

The Bev. J. P. Whitney asks us to say that in his review of Mr. Poole's edition of 
Wycliffe de Dominio divino the sentence, ' The editor has done good service by reprint- 
ing ' (page 764, line 9 from foot), should run, ' by printing for the first time.' On 
age 762, 1 ine 15 from foot, for ' though ' read ' and.' 

The English 

Historical Review 

NO. XXVI.— APRIL 1892 

The Swedish Part in the Vikijig 

WESTEEN viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to 
Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Kenewed investigations 
reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these achievements, 
notably in the acquisition of England, and that, among other famous 
conquerors, Eolf, the founder of the Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued 
from their country. 

Suioniun Jibic ciuitates, ipso in oceano, praeter viros armaque 
(iassihus valent ^ contains the earliest allusion to northern vikings. 
Its form implies that the inhabitants of the southern Baltic shores, 
who evidently gave the description, must have suffered inroads from 
the Suiones, the recognised early Sveas or Swedes. The inter- 
pretation stands confirmed in the rock inscriptions at different 
points of the Scandinavian coast, almost exclusively in Sweden, 
which, according to Hildebrand and Montelius, depict war ships as 
far back as the bronze age. The traditions of the sagas, moreover, 
embrace naval expeditions to different parts of the Baltic, from 
viking seats which studded the entire Scandinavian shore. The 
raids of the early, even semi-mythical, kings of Upsala oh the 
eastern side are sustained by the many Swedish words grafted by 
warlike contact on the Finnish language of the Slav border, long 

■ Tacitus, Oermania, cap. 44, 


before the introduction of runes. ^ Prior to saga times the Swedes 
had founded Gardarike, on the shores of Lake Ladoga, whence 
they subsequently extended their sway over the present Muscovite 
region and laid the foundation of the Eussian empire. King Adils, 
whose name occurs in the poem of Beowulf, is said to have invaded 
Saxland, in Germany, and thus given an impulse to the Saxon 
movement toward England. Ivar Vidfa^me, the wide-ruling, con- 
quered nearly all the Baltic lands, from Finland round into 
Denmark. Other Svea kings occupied at different times portions 
of the same region, and raided even along the coast of northern 
Norway. Danes and Norwegians likewise ravaged in the Baltic, but 
their historians recognise the supremacy of the Swedes in these 
waters and as eastern conquerors. The saga records of invasions 
in the south and south-west are as credible as the verified tales con- 
cerning the east, for Germany presented a richer and more alluring 
field for vikings, with whom trade and plunder went hand in hand. 
Holmberg's lists of Eoman treasures and coins in Scandinavia, from 
the Augustan period onwards, prove the early contact of Sweden in 
particular with the south Baltic shore ; while the foundation here, 
at the mouth of the Oder, of the renowned Jomsburg league of 
warriors and sea robbers, by vikings from the Swedish side, 
points to the facilities for similar early settlements. Those who 
object to the theory of a trans-Baltic migration of Aryans or their 
branches may in the Jomsburg settlement seek a probable solution 
of the much-disputed traditions among so many Teutonic peoples — 
Goths, Longobards, Herules, Franks, Anglo-Saxons — of their Scan- 
dinavian origin ; for some of the conquests mentioned above may 
have been effected by mere bands, which acquired domination 
among these Teutons, as the Varangians and vikings did over the 
Eussians and others, and gave rise to the boast of a Swedish origin, 
for the leading families at least. 

For several centuries we behold vikings in ojoeration, but only 
within the sea bordered and controlled by the Swedes, or upon the 
coasts of Denmark and Norway. Beyond this limit encroachments 
are not recorded until the sixth century, when Danes move across 
their southern boundary. The viking voyages westward are gene- 
rally reckoned to begin with the raids on England at the close of 
the eighth century. These descents ^ take place, be it observed, not 
on the richer south-east coast, which would have been heard of 

* Tliomsen, V., Den Gotiske Siyrog. Indflyddse ; and notably The Origin of the 
Bus, p. 75 &c., by the same author, which reviews the early Swedish occupation of 
Russia. See also Rambaud's Hist. Russia ; and Noreen's authorities in Paul, Grund- 
riss der Philologie, i. 418-21. It will be observed that the term Sweden is applied 
to the present territory of that name, and the claims advocated embrace also those 
pertaining to the districts formerly belonging to Denmark and Norway. 

» Excluding the first of 787, as isolated and blurred by interpolation, according to 
Steenstrup's recent researches, Nonnannernc, ii. 15.^ 


and sought by Jutland Danes in the course of their gradual advance 
westward along the continent. They occur higher up, and are, 
between 795 and 831, confined to Scotland and Ireland. The Danes 
would evidently not turn away from their partly opened route along 
the attractive continental coast to the barren north of Scotland ; 
nor would they be likely to seek distant Ireland by way of the 
Channel, with its extensive and populous slopes, without touching 
them, or without being noticed for several decades. Palgrave shows 
that vikings do not enter the Seine until 841, and raids are not 
resumed in England till the preceding thirties. The invaders of 
Scotland and Ireland in 795-831 are less likely, therefore, to have 
come from southern Denmark, and, as Irish chronicles distinguish 
them from the later dominant yet cognate Norwegians, they must 
be assigned rather to Sweden or eastern Danish islands. 

The Swedes here present several strong claims for considera- 
tion. Until the eleventh century they stand forward as the 
leading and most enterprising of the Scandinavian powers ; as the 
earliest vikings and the most extensive conquerors east of the North 
Sea — so Norwegian historians affirm. The continental chroniclers, 
moreovfer, distinctly name them, the Sveones — not Sweden generally 
— together with the Danes, as being the ' Northmen,' or western 
vikings, of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries.^ Danish his- 
torians, like Steenstrup, actually declare that foreign annals afford 
no distinct evidence of Norway's participation in western expedi- 
tions until the eleventh century, except one solitary instance in 
favour of Vestfold, near the Swedish border, when it ravages 
western France. But this is open to doubt. Norwegians, like 
Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and 
Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad, 
as appears from Einhard, and as has been shown by Maurer, 
Thorsen, and others. The earlier conversion of the Danes to 
Christianity and their more immediate contact with Germany 
account for the frequent application of their name to all Scandi- 
navians, whose language and customs were at that time identical, 
or appeared so to foreigners, as a rule, long after differences became 
marked among the natives. 

The expansion of Sweden concerns us closely, since one of its 
effects was the inauguration of the western viking age. For centu- 
ries there had been a struggle for supremacy between the rulers of 
the northern Sveas, centering round the lake of Maelar, and the 
southern Sveas, who, according to the Hildebrand school, in course of 
time had spread over lower Sweden and Denmark, merging with 

* Dani siquidcm ac Sveones, quos Nortmannos vocamus, observes Einhard, in Vita 
Karoli Magn. cap. xii., placing the emphasis upon the Swedes. Helmold, Chron. Slav., 
copies verbatim. Steenstrup refers to still other chronicles for similar remarks. 

p 2 


the earlier Gautic or Gothic inhabitants. This rivalry terminated 
toward the close of the eighth century at the battle of Bra valla — 
the greatest in the north, according to the sagas. The northerners 
or Swedes proper, here affirmed the political ascendency which, ex- 
cepting a brief interruption, had been theirs since the beginning 
of the Ynglinga dynasty and of the great Scandinavian shrine at 
Upsala. In order to assure the acquired control over Denmark 
and southern Norway, the victorious Sigurd Eing moved his 
court into West Gothland, on the central west coast of Sweden. 
The battle of Bravalla took place between 770 and 785, or just 
before the advent of vikings in England. The victory relieved from 
service a large fleet. The number of vessels on Sigurd's side alone 
has been estimated at 2,500. The idle crews naturally bethought 
themselves of congenial piracy, and competition obliged a portion, 
with the larger craft, to seek fresh fields westward. Who were 
these men ? The answer opens with the significant fact that none 
of the early viking chiefs of renown, notably EoUo and the Lodbroc 
line, who achieved the first important conquests in England and 
France, can be identified as either Danes or Norwegians, notwith- 
standing the large number of sagas and chronicles covering the 
period in question. These sources are almost exclusively Nor- 
wegian and Danish ; for the Norwegians of Iceland preserved and 
transcribed the sagas, while the Danes acquired native and foreign 
chroniclers at a comparatively early date, by receiving Christianity 
nearly two centuries before the Sveas did so. Sweden stands 
recorded only in a few sagas, chiefly fragments, and in brief, dis- 
torted allusions. These allusions point, nevertheless, to her, rather 
than to the sister countries, as the home of some of the greatest 

The southern Danes undoubtedly began to figure early as sea- 
rovers, and acquired possessions along the south-eastern coast of 
the North Sea ; but they advanced slowly, while other raiders, as 
already said, gained Ireland by a northerly route many decades before 
them. A few vikings, like Hasting and his comrade Biorn Joernsida, 
are traced to the Dano-German corner, which Munch claims as a 
S wedo-Norwegian settlement. It certainly seems to have been held by 
a mixed gathering of adventurers, like the Jomsburg league, for Biorn 
Joernsida is the peculiar name of a then roving prince of Sweden ; 
Eolf of Normandy comes from Sweden to obtain reinforcements 
here, and the Lodbrocsons frequent the district, so do Norwegians. 
The many vikings calling here, or sailing hence, need not, therefore, 
be Danes or natives of the place. 

As regards the Lodbroc line, the most widespread and famous of 
the rovers, the direct evidence assigns them to Sweden. ' All the 
sagas agree,' says Munch, that Eagnor Lodbroc is the son of 
Sigurd Eing, the Svea conq^ueror, and his successor as ruler of the 


united northern kingdoms, yet also a viking. Sven Aggeson, the 
earliest chronicler of Denmark, and Dahlmann, one of her latest, 
likewise recognise him as such, while Mr. Howorth seeks to solve 
certain doubts by assuming him to be a younger son and sea-rover, 
or that sub-kings rule for him at Upsala. Certain Danish writers 
insist that he is the son of a Danish king ; but then Sigurd was 
sovereign of Denmark as well as of Sweden. If western accounts at 
times allude to the Lodbrocsons as Danes, we need only recollect 
that the term was applied also to Scandinavians in general.^ 

Lodbroc could not have been born before 760, was born probably 
decades later, and may have lived beyond the middle of the ninth 
century. While Sigurd lived he would, in accordance with prevailmg 
taste and social requirements, seek glory as viking, and very likely 
lead direct western expeditions across the North Sea to England from 
the river Gotha, where a Swedish fleet must have been stationed, to 
assure the conquests of Sigurd Eing and to be near the court. He 
kept to the north, and subsequently toward Scotland and Ireland, 
probably because the superior attractions of the southern regions 
were unknown to him. It has already been shown that the southern 
Danes would not have deviated from the richer continental route to 
the bleak north, and did not touch the English Channel coast till 
after 830, and that Irish chroniclers indicate Swedes or eastern 
Danes, not the later dominant Norwegians, as the first intruders in 
their land. Now, as Ireland was ravaged before the above date, and 
as Saxo, the Danish annalist, describes Lodbroc as being one of the 
raiders, the evidence points to Swedes as the early invaders in 
England and Scotland as well as Ireland. Lodbroc may not have 
opened this northern route, but followed the hidications of trading 
pirates, who so frequently acted as pioneers. That those forerunners 
can be claimed as his countrj^nen is supported by the testimony of 
the sagas and of contemporary German missionaries that Swedes 
early navigated the upper and lower parts of the North Sea ; ^ and 
by the established fact that Gar^ar Svavarson, who first occupied 
Iceland, long named after him, was a Swedish trader, or semi-pirate, 
on his way to the islands north of Scotland — evidently held by 
people of his own nationality, partly at least. ^ 

* Einharcl (in his Vita Karoli, as also in the Aniialcs attributed to him) repeatedly 
uses Danes or Northmen as synonymous ; so does Helmold, Chron. Slav, passim ; 
Maurer, Bckehrung, i. ?8, Howorth, in Royal Hist. Soc. ix. Steenstrup relies greatly 
on O'Donovan's Three Fragments, 169, which refers to ' Eaghnall, son of the king 
of Lochlan,' but this determines nothing. 

* Rimbert (Vita Anskarii, cap. 27) shows that Swedish men and women frequented 
Dorestad, in Holland, and we have seen that sagas refer to Swedish raids in Saxland 
as well as on the northern coasts of Norway. 

' Hist. Norveg., fol. 5, declares him the first discoverer of Iceland, but this honour 
is also attributed to another. See Formnanna Saga, Sognbrut, and Munch, Norsk. 
Hist. i. 44G, which has further references. 


The greatest among the many achievements ascribed to the 
Lodbroc Hne is the conquest of Northumberland and other counties, 
dating from 866, which laid the foundation for Scandinavian 
domination in England. The leaders were Ivar, Halfdan, and 
Ubba, the recognised sons of Lodbroc, and their associates ; * 
but, as the northern kingdoms are said to have been divided among 
these and other sons, it is probable that the invasion of Great 
Britain was undertaken by the brothers, who acquired sovereignty 
or property in southern Sweden and Denmark. The followers of 
the Swedish princes may, therefore, have been chiefly from this 
quarter, thus explaining the subsequent Danish mastery. "VVorsaae 
admits that other Scandinavians, besides Danes, settled here in 
large numbers, and Steenstrup very properly observes that the pre- 
ference must be ceded not to Norwegians, but to the intermediate 
Swedes, who were then more closely associated with Denmark."-* 

The independent operations of Swedes in western waters are 
sustained by other evidence. The great viking region, north of 
Denmark, from which issued most Norwegian expeditions, par- 
ticularly those which founded kingdoms in Ireland and the Scottish 
waters, was Viken, a term embracing in general the inlet approaches 
to the present Christiania, but applying properly to the coast strip 
north of the river Gotha, constituting the kingdom of Eanrike, the 
present county of Bohus in Sweden. From this term, indeed, is 
probably derived the word 'viking,' although some prefer to trace it 
to the similar name for entrenched camps formed by the sea-rovers. 
While Yiken was their chief resort, as shown by the sagas and by 
the characteristic rock inscriptions, which are more numerous in 
Bohus than in any other part of western Scandinavia, their 
principal rendezvous here, as Munch, the Norwegian historian, 
further explains, was close to the present Gothenburg, on the river 
Gotha, a stream at all times in Swedish possession, although its 
mouth formed the common border-point at least at some periods 
for the three nations. 

The country behind it was mainly Swedish, and far superior to 
the adjoinmg narrow strips of Danish and Norwegian territory in 
fertility and population, while the river itself was the great and 
only western outlet for the rich and thickly settled lake region of 
central Sweden, with its several viking seats, as enumerated by 

8 In support of the sagas may be adduced the statement of Bishop Asser that their 
banner was worked by the hands of ' their sisters, the daughters of Lodbroc ' (Camden's 
Ancjlica Script, p. 10 ; Munch, i. 014). Adam of Bremen, i. cap. 39, alludes to ' Inguar 
(Ivar), filius Lodparchi,' as the chief. 

• Steenstrup, Normannernc, i. 84-8 ; Worsaae's Danes ami Norwegians in Eng- 
land. Both are Danish writers. Many of the deeds attributed to the Lodbroc line can- 
not well be brought within two generations, but may have been achieved by descend- 
ants, who would be proud to proclaim themselves of his blood, or eager to wield so 
awe-inspiring a name, 


Geijer.'° At the opening of the western viking period, moreover, 
the warHke Svea court had been moved near to this outlet, and 
served to attract and encourage daring and enterprising men. As 
Norwegians and Danes had their own havens, at Vestfold and else- 
where, and would not be likely to enter to any extent the harbour 
of the frequently hostile neighbour, it follows that the chief viking 
rendezvous, on the river Gotha, belonged to the Swedes, and that the 
large fleets here gathered were mainly theirs. Sweden must accord- 
ingly have operated extensively and independently in Great Britain, 
France, and the Mediterranean.^^ 

Let us now examine the indirect or subordinate participation of 
Sweden in the expeditions from Norway and Denmark, and note 
indisputable evidence that she contributed a much larger propor- 
tion of the Scandinavian invaders in England and adjoining coun- 
tries than has been supposed. Munch admits that the testimony 
of the sagas reveals a conquest of south-eastern Norway by Swedes 
from the adjoining Vermland about the beginning of the eighth 
century. The later suzerains of Sweden installed rulers in Vestfold 
and other districts, the last appointments being by Eric the Vic- 
torious and Olaf Skautkonung, in the beginning of the eleventh 
century. The leading chiefdom in the group so long controlled by 
Sweden, actually and nominally, by virtue of conquest and immi- 
gration, was Vestfold, the site of the great western shrine of 
Skiringsal, with its Svea cult. Hence issued the greatest of the 
Norwegian vikings, notably those who held possession of the long- 
enduring Scandinav kingdoms in Ireland. Sogn and other Viken 
districts shared with her those acquisitions in Scotland and the 
island group northward which are conceded to be essentially Nor- 
wegian, and in expeditions to England, France, and southward. 

Apart from the nominal share in these operations, which may 
be assigned to Swedes as recent immigrants or conquerors of Viken, 
there appears a more substantial claim. It is likely that the 
inhabitants of Sweden's west provinces, more populous than those 
of Viken and filled with viking seats, would not only sail in ships 
of their own from the river Gotha, but would cross the narrow strip 
of Viken proper and enlist on Norwegian vessels. Indeed, the geo- 
graphical position and physical aspect of this narrow fjord-indented 
land, which as a rule formed a distinct chiefdom, indicate that it 
must have been occupied largely or mainly by people from the rich 
and broad Swedish provinces behind, which required its harbours. 
The fame of Vestfold's shrine and markets would alone suffice to 
attract a number of these adventurers, eager for the booty and 

" Hist. Sverige, i. 61, Heeren and Ukert's edition. Munch, i. 455, &c. 

" The Arab writer Al Katib identities rovers in Spain with the Swedish ' Eus,' who 
ravaged the Black Sea regions. See Gayangos, Hist. Mohamm. Dynasty, lib. vi. &c. 
Ynglinga Saga, cap. 26, also alludes to such Svea expeditions. 


martial glory which were then deemed indispensable to Northmen. 
The Viken folk, therefore, to whom the renown and acquisitions of 
Norwegian vikings mainly belong, were a mixture of pure Swedes, 
recent Swedish colonists, and Norwegians. Even the latter may be 
regarded as earlier Svea conquerors of Norway. This attempt to 
analyse the composition of the Norwegian element in Great Britain 
harmonises with the data of Munch, the jealously national historian 
of Norway. ^- 

We can now turn southward, to examine the Swedish factor in 
the Dano-English element. Until the seventeenth century the 
Danes generally held possession of south-west Sweden. The 
reason lay partly in the proximity of these provinces to their 
capital, and partly in the traditional feeling which regarded them 
as the cradle of that branch of Sveas which, after overrunning the 
southern half of the peninsula and rnerging with the preceding 
Gothic inhabitants, settled in Scania, the south-west corner, and 
thence crossed to the isles and peninsula of the present Denmark. 
Sweden proper, however, remained the leading power until the 
eleventh century, and more than once assumed direct control over 
Denmark, particularly under Eric Vidfadme, Sigurd Eing, Eric the 
Victorious, and Olaf Skautkonung. The last two, indeed, drove out 
successively Harold Bluetooth and his son Svein, the father of 
Canute the Great. '^ But Svein was wily. He managed to win and 
wed Sigrid the powerful, widow of Eric, who reconciled her son 
Olaf with him. Denmark became independent, and joined as ally 
of Sweden in the temporary division of Norway. 

Now, in 1002, came news of the massacre in England of 
Scandinavians, chiefly Danes, whose leader Svein had been during 
his exile. Duty and patriotism bade him hasten to the rescue. 
The situation was grave and required a strong force. Aid seems, 
indeed, to have been given by the Swedish Olaf, his ally and relation, 
whose fleets lay in readiness near the newly acquired domain in 
Norway, and whose interests and sympathy, like those of his entire 
people, were roused by a bloody deed that must have involved 
so many Swedes. The feelings of Norway, on the other hand, 
whose western possessions lay mainly in Scotland and Ireland, must 
have been greatly neutralised by political jealousy, aggravated by 
the recent overthrow of both king and freedom. It is also 

'2 He argues, however, that the Sveas separated in Russia, whence the Norwegian 
branch proceeded by way of the White Sea, round the North Cape, into Norway. But the 
immigration through Sweden is now admitted. The boast by the chief kings of Nor- 
way of being descended from the Svea Ynghng dynasty, as Munch explains, would 
hardly have been indulged in unless a strong and recent Swedish infusion had existed 
in the country. 

" Danish writers recognise only the latter occasions as actual conquests. Adam 
of Bremen, ii. 28, 37, limits the Swedish occupation to fourteen years. The Swedish 
supremacy is strikingly emphasised in the Vestgota Laws, Eonungabok, U7. 


certain that Svein's queen encouraged her numerous followers to 
join her husband, and that he was only too eager to relieve 
Denmark from the host of adventurers who had overrun his king- 
dom during its long occupation by Swedish troops and officials. 
This interpretation is supported now by the acknowledged fact that 
Olaf gave Canute the Great the aid he implored for the reconquest 
of England a decade later, when the Danish power was greater 
and the urgency less, while the Swedish friendship and sympathies 
had diminished. '^ 

In addition to Swedish troops and adventurers men were 
drafted from the Danish provinces in Sweden, the most populous 
part of the peninsula.''"' It is evident that the enrolment here 
must have been very large, for the loyalty of these districts was 
doubtful, owing to their constant intercourse with the adjoining 
Swedes and the exposure to their attacks and intrigues. Indeed, 
they had more than once revolted and maintained temporary inde- 
pendence. When, therefore, the Danish kings embarked on distant 
undertakings, like the conquest of England, it became necessary 
to secure the home possessions, not so much by planting "these 
provinces with Danish garrisons as by taking with them a large 
proportion of the troublesome people, partly as hostages, and 
attracting them to the enterprise with prospects of fame and 

The forces mustered against England consisted accordingly of 
troops from Denmark proper, of Swedish regular soldiers, of levies 
from Danish Sweden, of Swedish adventurers in Denmark, and 
volunteers from the many poor jjrovinces of Scandinavia. As Nor- 
way was at first embittered by subjugation, and subsequently 
in revolt from Denmark, few auxiliaries could have come from 
there. Hence the proportion from Sweden must have been half, 
or even more, of the total ; and this applies to the expeditions both 
of Svein and Canute in nearly equal degree. Indeed, the Danish 
Icings could not take a very large force from Denmark, in view of 
her frequently complicated relations with Germany as well as 

'* Canute prepared his expedition. Dcniqitc, missis Icgatis, duos rcgcs ad sHtini 
evocat siiffragium : Lacman cquidcm Suavorum, d; Olavovi Noriconim. Hi ad ciiis 
auxilium advenicntcs cum suis cojnis militum, &c., writes William of Jumieges, lib. v. 
cap. 8. Geijer (Hist. Sv. 122) quotes another early chronicler to the same effect. See 
Leges Edwardi, and Adam of Bremen, ii. cap. .50. Lacman means lagman or earl 
of the Svea king, according to Scandinavian writers, including Munch, ii. 478, who 
also believes that Earl Ulf, grandson of the Swedish prince Styrbiorn and founder 
of a new dynasty in Defimark, led the Swedes. St. Olaf of Norway, who is men- 
tioned as the other companion, was not yet a king, only a slighted princeling, and 
could not have brought many followers, so that the ' strong auxiliary forces ' must 
have been nearly all Swedish. Geijer intimates that Swedish troops assisted during 
the entire preceding'conquest (Steenstinip, p. 279). 

" Superior in arms and people to any of the Danish districts, says Helmold, icbi 
sup. ; Geijer, p. 51. 


Sweden and Norway. An attack by the latter compelled Canute, 
in fact, to hurry back home soon after.'*^ 

The conquest of England might have been undertaken by 
Sweden but for the vacillation of feeble Olaf and the influence of 
his mother Sigrid, whose marriage with Svein and disagreements at 
home served to gain conquests as well as independence for 
Denmark. The i^olitical character of the three northern peoples 
explains, moreover, why the Swedes allowed their foreign con- 
quests to lapse and the supremacy in the west to fall to others. 
Nordstrom and Sars show that the Swedes were more democratic 
and independent of their rulers than the Danes with their despotic 
sovereigns and the Norwegians with their many aristocratic chief- 
tain families. The former were as eager for viking expeditions as 
their neighbours, but it required a more cohesive power than that 
of mere pirates to maintain territorial acquisitions and transform 
them into kingdoms. Thus we find that Danish official inter- 
ference became necessary to save both the English and Norman 
conquests. Nor was the control of Svea kings over the west coast 
sufficiently strong throughout to interest them or their eastern 
chiefs in the western operations. Indeed, Denmark took advantage 
of this, and acquired the supremacy in England and Normandy 
partly through her proximity to and influence in western Sweden. 
Norway, acting mainly under petty chiefs, did accordingly found 
comparatively small domains in Irelaiid and Scotland, being other- 
wise content to enter as auxiliaries or settlers in the Danish acqui- 
sitions. Swedes had a double impulse to do likewise in their con- 
nexion both with the leading Norwegian viking districts and the 
Dano-Swedish provinces, and in the growing custom among them 
to leave their poor land for foreign military service. The Varangian 
legions of Eussia and the Byzantine empire were founded by, and 
composed mainly of, Swedes ; and we know they formed a propor- 
tion of the ThingaliiS forces in England. Great Britain and France, 
presenting more congenial features than distant Greece, must have 
attracted larger numbers. 

The wide participation of Sweden in the western conquest is 
sustained by archaeological evidence.'^ Eune stones exist all over 

'" Canute asked Olaf the Swede to assist him first in the reconquest of England, 
then of Norway (Adam of Bremen, ii. cap. 50 ; Munch, ii. 478). German chroniclers 
contain frequent allusions to hostile as well as friendly relations with the adjoining 
Denmark. Munch, ii. 729-31, relates how Canute hurries home to check the Norwego- 
Swedish attacks. Concerning these points and Swedish intrigues and wars in Danish 
Sweden, see also Dahlmann, Hist. Dan. vol. i. ; Hist. Sverige, vol. i. passim, and other 
general histories of Scandinavia. A careful consideration of the data therein presented 
will show that the preceding analysis of the Danish armies in England is not mere 

'' Concerning coins, jewelry, rune stones, &c., see Hildebrand, Anglosachs. Mynt ; 
Sverige Hist., i. 293 et seg.. ; Monteliys's work? ; Ph Ctaillu, Viking Age, ii. last appen- 
dix ; Kohnlierg, &c. 


Sweden, in the east and centre as well as west and south, with 
notices of men who served and died in England. As such stones 
were raised mostly or wholly to influential persons, they represent 
an imposing total of followers likewise. Anglo-Saxon coins, more 
numerous than in any other country, Great Britain not excepted, 
have been dug up in almost every county of central and southern 
Sweden, in troves of hundreds or several thousand pieces each. 
A still greater mass must have been smelted by the finders, particu- 
larly prior to this century, before the authorities began to collect 
such relics. About half of them pertain to Gotland, one-fourth to 
Scania, and the rest chiefly to the east coast provinces. The west 
coast exhibits comparatively few, like Denmark proper, while 
Norway has only 1,500. 

This distribution has led to the belief that Sweden acquired her 
coins mainly by trade. But it must be considered that the east coast, 
which holds one-fourth of the finds, and is shown by rune stones to 
have shared in British expeditions, was comparatively poor and had 
few things to sell. The only likely commodity, furs, was more readily 
procured on the eastern shores of the Baltic or in Norway. If 
amber was sought the coin would go to the German side. The 
trade that alone could attract money from England, or from Danes 
and Norwegians, was the oriental, via Eussia and the south-eastern 
points of the Baltic. Now, the upper Swedish east coast never had 
any great mart, save Birka, on the Mselar Lake, destroyed prior to 
the Danish conquest of England. The Maelar trade with the west, 
moreover, would have passed along the great water channel to the 
stations on the river Gotha, the great entrepot on the North Sea ; but 
here are hardly any coins. Besides Birka we know of only three or 
four great Scandinavian marts in the Baltic at that period — Wisby, 
on the island of Gotland ; Oeland, its rival ; and Hedeby or Sleswig, 
in Denmark ; to which may be added the Jomsburg viking seat. 
Oeland can be classed with the lower east coast of Sweden, which 
it almost touches, and coins hereabouts transferred in trade would 
naturally seek this point ; but a very insignificant proportion has 
been disclosed, beside the goodly number of southern stamp, drawn 
by way of German.y. The Gotland coins evidently came by trafiic, 
but mostly, no doubt, from the near-lying Swedish provinces : for 
the island had not yet attained the commercial supremacy which 
later raised it to a power in the north. Indeed, the oriental trade, 
according to Sartorius and Geijer, still delayed in making central 
Russia its main channel, and Wisby did not found her famous factory 
at Novgorod, for its control, until the beginning of the thirteenth 
century. The Danes, who acted also for England, would, therefore, 
either have had recourse to their own emporiums — say, at Sleswig, 
situated upon a peninsula, which geography had so distinctly as- 
signed as trading centre between Eussia and the Baltic on one side 


and West Germany, France, and England on the other ; or they 
would have sailed to the direct and cheaper markets which evidently 
still existed along the south-east shores of the Baltic. The mouths 
of the Vistula and Oder had been the main avenues for trade with 
the Black Sea and the Mediterranean since Greek times, although 
with occasional interruptions from migrations and wars, and at 
Jomsburg, which dominated the Oder, Danish influence was at this 
time paramount.'^ The same observations apply to Norway, which 
exhibits the correspondingly smaller share of money to be expected 
in a country whose operations lay chiefly beyond the Anglo-Saxon 
border. The larger proportion of English coins found on Gotland, 
as well as the east coast of Sweden, can, therefore, safely be regarded 
as an originally Swedish acquisition in booty, pay, and tribute. 
This conclusion is affirmed by the retention in Scania of so large a 
number. This share could not have come from Denmark proper, 
for Scania had nothing to offer save agricultural products, in which 
the neighbouring islands were far richer. Besides, the small Dane 
capital then lay on the further side of Seeland. The comparatively 
sterile east provinces of Sweden probably did buy from her, so that 
any treasures here acquired by trade must have come mainly from 
Swedes. The reason why Denmark proper exhibits so small a 
number of coins can be partly explained. Her people were com- 
pelled to serve in the British expeditions, receiving little or no pay, 
only maintenance and booty. Scandinavians, indeed, are shown to 
have bargained only for food and clothing when fighting under 
Ethelred. The not over-abundant money obtained by the Danish 
chiefs returned to the king in taxes and other form, to pass in due 
time to Swedes, who received pay as well as booty. 

The conquest of Normandy, which so intimately concerns us, has, 
like many other viking deeds, been a bone of contention between 
Danes and Norwegians. Steenstrup and other late Danish writers 
show that most names and records in Normandy testify in their 
behalf, and that Kolf, or Eollo, the redoubtable founder of the 
Norman dynasty and dominion, cannot have been the saga hero 
Ganger Eolf, as widely believed. Indeed, Palgrave and Mr. Freeman 
evade the doubtful question. Among the several irreconcilable 
points in the sagas concerning the Norwegian Eolf may be men- 
tioned his gigantic stature, the reason for the double appellation, 
which prevented him from riding. So remarkable a feature would 
not have escaped his biographers, had Eollo possessed it. The ac- 
counts of the family chroniclers, on whose statements Dudo built 
up his chronicle, and who derive him not from Norway, do therefore 
merit the attention which they now begin to receive. Dudo, who 

'* Wiberg, Klassiska folkens forbindclser rued Norden ; Sadowski, Ilandelsstrassen ; 
Genthe, Etrusk. Handel. See also Sartorius, Geijer, tibi sup., and Ottar's voyage in 
King Alfred's ' Orosivs.' 


was born three decades after Eolf's death, and gathered data 
from surviving comrades and children of the conqueror, describes 
Rolf's father as a prominent chieftain, with possessions in Dacia 
(Denmark, including Scania) and on the borders of Dacia and 
Alania (Halland, in the Danish territory, on the west coast of the 
Swedish peninsula). His independent attitude had roused the ill- 
will of the Danish king, who upon the death of the old man pro- 
ceeded to wrest the domain from his two sons, Eolf and Gorm. 
After several unsuccessful attacks he succeeded, with the aid of 
treachery. Gorm fell, and Eolf escaped to * Scanza Insula,' as the 
Swedish peninsula was then named abroad. He dwelled here for 
a long time, until admonished in dreams to seek his future in the 
west. He accordingly fitted out several vessels with men, arms, 
and provisions, and sailed first to England, then to the German 
side of the North Sea, and finally reached the Seine with increased 

On examining the narrative we find that preceding geographical 
allusions, coupled with the flight to and long stay in Sweden, 
confirm the interpretation of Steenstrup, the Danish commentator, 
that Alania, as the name indicates, must be Halland, the district on 
the Swedish coast then belonging to Denmark ; and that the portion 
of Eolf's domain bounded by Halland, and consequently by Scania, 
must be partly or wholly within Sweden proper. As the possessions 
of such chiefs were most likely in one body, not scattered over 
regions far apart, the probability is that they lay entirely in the 
Swedish peninsula. Indeed, preceding geographic details indicate 
that Dacia means Scania, the most important Danish part of that 
peninsula, or even of all Denmark ; and this is sustained by the 
coupling of Dacia with Alania as a common border for the territory 
in question. Moreover the hostility of the king upholds the idea that 
Eolf was one of the suspected chiefs in the frequently rebellious and 
independent Scania, or a Swede encroaching on the Danish side of 
the disputed frontier. When expelled, Eolf would naturally take 
refuge on the Swedish side,- and his doing so shows that he can 
hardly be assigned to southern Denmark, with its independent 
viking resorts.'^ If, again, Denmark was still divided among several 
minor kings, as generally assumed, the flight to Sweden, rather than 
to a Danish territory, likewise points him out as belonging to the 
Scania region. His retreat was either in warlike Smoland, or more 
likely in West Gothland, the main abode of Swedish west vikings — 

'* The expression Scanzam insulam cum sex navibus aggrcssus est need not 
signify that he came from any Danish island. The possessions of such a chief would 
naturally extend to the shore, where, like others, he kept vessels, which would also 
afford the best means for escape. The retreat was naturally as near as possible to 
bis friends and estates, in order that funds, &c., might be obtained. See Dudo, in Du 
Chesne, p. 71. 


two counties which adjoin Halland and Scania. After long dweUing 
her6 he fits out several vessels with men, arms, and other requisites. 
His men must therefore be mainly pure Swedes, with probably an 
admixture of Dano-Swedes. Since his domain lay in Scania, or on 
the border of the Danish provinces, he would be called a Dane, and 
the subsequent preponderance of Danes among his followers, or 
in Normandy, may have rendered it politic to describe him as one 
of them. The term was besides applied to Scandinavians in general. 
The assumption is sustained by the suspicious omission of the 
father's name — proV<ably to hide the Swedish origin from jealous 
Danes, or to cover up a parvenu. In confirmation may be added 
the significant statement by the sagas that the father of the Norman 
conqueror was EarlEagnvald — a name borne by the great chief 
of West Gothland, who assumes so independent an attitude under 
Olaf Skautkonung. As celebrated names are continually revived in 
families, here as elsewhere, it is not unlikely that Eolf s father was 
an earlier member of this chieftain line. Steenstrup emphasises 
the statement that Eolf's grandson asked for aid from the Danish 
king Harald, who in reply alludes to the relationship between their 
families as a reason for the assistance twice given by him ; but the 
utterance is doubtful, and if true might refer to later kinship by 
marriage. Had Eoli's father been related to the king, his name 
would never have been allowed to escape. When, therefore, in 
addition to other facts, the important admission is made — by 
and among rather jealous Danes — that Eolf's expedition was fitted 
out in Sweden, with men as well as other requisites, there is every 
reason for assuming him likewise to have been a Swede, or at least 
from Danish Sweden. ^^ Although Danes predominated in Nor- 
mandy probably from the first, their writers recognise that Swedes 
proper as well as Norwegians here formed part of the settlers, which, 
half gallicised, issued not long after to achieve the final conquest 
of England. 

The preceding evidence deserves consideration, and it must to a 
great extent modify the exclusive claims to western viking achieve- 
ments by Norwegians, and particularly by Danes. The independent 
and extensive operations of Swedes in the west stand affirmed by 
continental chroniclers as well as by sagas, by their reputation as 
the earliest and greatest of eastern sea-rovers, by their possession 
of the chief viking resort on the Scandinavian side of the North 
Sea, and by their wars and conquests, which served to inaugurate 
the western viking age. Further, sagas and foreign annals unite 

™ Eolf's life is given most fully in Dudo and William of Jumieges, in Duchesne 
and other editions, and in Steenstrup, Normanrierne, i. 130, IGl, &c. It is significant 
that Frankish annals, as already shown, combine Danes and Swedes as the ' Northmen ' 
of those times, and that Dudo, as the mouthpiece of the dominant Danish element, 
makes so many and important references to disliked Sweden. This consideration 
renders even the doubtful statements in these works of value for the argument. 



in pointing to the present Sweden as the home of many great viking 
leaders — notably Eolf, Biorn Jsernsida, and most probably the 
Lodbrocsons. Lastly, it becomes clear that western Em*ope, and 
England in particular, in the course of two centuries received from 
the Swedish peninsula a much larger number of people than hither- 
to supposed. This influx may be divided into several classes — 
independent invaders, warlike and peaceful, from Sweden direct, 
by way of the river Gotha and other Swedish ports, throughout 
the viking age ; troops tendered by the Swedish monarch to two 
Danish kings for the conquest of England ; volunteers constantly 
flowing from different parts of Sweden, whom poverty and custom 
prompted to enlist in foreign service ; adventurers who had stranded 
in Denmark, or settled there during the several Swedish occupa- 
tions ; precautionary levies at different times from the suspected 
Dano- Swedish provinces ; men from the western and interior 
provinces of Sweden, who entered the Viken districts to join the 
wide-spread and prolonged Norwegian expeditions. With this 
record may be compared the invasions by Swedes of continental 
Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, under 
Gustavus Adolphus the Great and the two succeeding Charles, whose 
achievements with mere handfuls of men against great empires bear 
the very stamp of a final viking episode. 

"William Eoos. 



Henry II and the Criminous Clerks 

IF I venture to write a few words about the great quarrel between 
Henry and Becket, a quarrel which has raged from their day 
until our own, it is with no intention of taking a side, still less with 
any hope of acting as a mediator. But, as it seems to me, there 
is a question of fact (which is also in a certain sense a question of 
law) involved in this quarrel, about which we are apt to think that 
there is, and can be, but one opinion, while in reality there are two 
opinions. Possibly I may do some good by pointing out that this 
is so. Perhaps if we were better agreed about the facts of the case 
we should differ somewhat less about the merits of the disputants. 
At any rate it is not well that we should think that we agree when 
really we disagree. 

What did Henry II propose to do with a clerk who was accused 
of a crime ? This is a very simple question, and every historian 
of England has to answer it. Generally, so far as I can see, he 
finds no difficulty in answering it and betrays no doubt. And yet, 
when I compare the answers given by illustrious and learned 
writers, it seems to me that there is between them a fundamental 
disagreement, of which they themselves are not conscious. The 
division list, if I were to draw it up, would be a curious one. Some 
of Henry's best friends would find themselves in the same lobby 
with warm admirers of Becket, and there would be great names 
on either side of the line. But I will not thus set historian against 
historian, for my purpose is not controversial, and I am very read^'' 
to admit that every writer has told so much of the truth as it was 
advisable that he should tell, regard being had to the scale of his 
work and the character of those for whom he wrote. Bather I 
would point out that, without doing much violence to the text, it 
is possible to put two different interpretations upon that famous 
clause in the Constitutions of Clarendon which deals with criminous 
clerks. I may be told that the difference between these two in- 
terpretations is a small one, one hardly visible to any but lawyers. 
Still it may be a momentous difference, for neither Becket nor 
Henry, unless both have been sorely belied, was above making the 
most of a small point, or insisting on the very letter of the law. 

Let us have the clause before us : — 


Clerici rettati et accusati de quacunque re, summoniti a iustitia regis 
venient in curiam ipsius, responsuri ibidem de hoc unde videbitur curiae 
regis quod ibidem sit respondendum ; et in curia ecclesiastica unde videbitur 
quod ibidem sit respondendum ; ita quod iustitia regis mittet in curiam 
sanctae ecclesiae ad videndum qua ratione res ibi tractabitur. Et si clericus 
convictus vel confessus fuerit, non debet de cetero eum ecclesia tueri. 

Now, according to what seems to be the commonest opinion, we 
might comment upon this clause in some such words as these: — 
Offences of which a clerk may be accused are of two kinds. They 
are temporal or they are ecclesiastical. Under the former head 
fall murder, robbery, larceny, rape, and the like ; under the latter 
incontinence, heresy, disobedience to superiors, breach of rules 
relating to the conduct of divine service, and so forth. If charged 
with an offence of the temporal kind, the clerk must stand his trial 
in the king's court ; his trial, his sentence will be like that of a lay- 
man. For an ecclesiastical offence, on the other hand, he will be 
tried in the court Christian. The king reserves to his court the 
right to decide what offences are temporal, what ecclesiastical ; also 
he asserts the right to send delegates to supervise the proceedings 
of the spiritual tribunals. 

The words are just patient of this meaning. Nevertheless if 
we adopt it two things will strike us as strange. Why should 
Henry care about what goes on in the ecclesiastical courts if those 
courts are only to deal with breaches of purely ecclesiastical rules ? 
If he did propose to send delegates to watch trials for incontinence, 
disobedience, and the like, he inflicted a gratuitous and useless ' 
insult upon the tribunals of the church. And then let us look at 
the structure of the clause. In its last words it says that after a . 
clerk has been convicted or has confessed, the church is no longer I 
to protect him. Has been convicted of what ? Has confessed 
what ? Some temporal crime it must be. But the phrase which 
tells us this is divorced from all that has been said of temporal 
crimes. We have a clumsy sentence : * A clerk, if accused of a 
temporal crime, is to be tried in the king's court ; but if he be 
accused of an ecclesiastical offence, then he is to be tried in a 
spiritual court ; and when he has confessed or been convicted [of 
a temporal crime] the church is no longer to protect him.' And 
what, if this interpretation be correct, is the meaning of the state- 
ment that when he has confessed or been convicted the church is 
to protect him no longer ? If he is to be tried like a layman in 1 1 
a temporal court, the church will never j)rotect him at all. 

Let us attempt a rival commentary. The author of this clause . 
is not thinking of two different classes of offences. The purely 
ecclesiastical offences are not in debate. No one doubts that for 
these a man will be tried in and punished by the spiritual court. 
He is thinking of the grave crimes, of murder and the like. Now 



every such crime is a breach of temporal law, and it is also a breach 
of canon law. The clerk who commits murder breaks the king's 
peace, but he also infringes the divine law, and — no canonist will 
doubt this — ought to be degraded. Very well. A clerk is accused 
of such a crime. He is summoned before the king's court, and ho 
is to answer there — let us mark this word respondere — for what he 
ought to answer for there. What ought he to answer for there ? 
The breach of the king's peace and the felony. When he has an- 
swered — when, that is, he has (to use the words of the enrolment 
that will be made) 'come and defended the breach of the king's peace, 
and the felony, and the slaying, and all of it word by word,' then, 
without any trial, he is to be sent to the ecclesiastical court. In 
that court he will have to answer as an ordained clerk accused of 
homicide, and in that court there will be a trial {res ihi tractahitur) . 
If the spiritual court convicts him it will degrade him, and thence- 
forth the church must no longer protect him. He will be brought 
back into the kmg's court — one of the objects of sending royal 
officers into the spiritual court is that he may not escape — and 
having been brought back, no longer a clerk but a mere layman, he 
will be sentenced (probably without any further trial) to the lay- 
man's punishment, death or mutilation. The scheme is this : 
accusation and plea in the temj)oral court ; trial, conviction, 
degradation in the ecclesiastical court; sentence in the temporal 
court to the layman's punishment. 

This I believe to be the meaning of the clause. The contrary 
opinion can only be upheld if we give to the word respondere a sense 
that it will hardly bear. No doubt if nowadays one says that a 
man will have to answer for his crime at the Old Bailey, one means 
that he can be tried there and sentenced there. But we ought not 
lightly to give to respondere so wide a meaning when it occurs in a 
legal document. It means to answer, * to put in an answer,' to 
plead, ' to put in a plea.' The words of our clause are fully satisfied 
if the clerk, instead of being allowed to say, * I am a clerk and will 
not answer here,' is driven to * defend ' — that is, formally to deny — 
the breach of the king's peace and the felony, and is then suffered 
to add, ' But I am a clerk, and can be tried only by the ecclesiastical 
forum.' According to this opinion Henry did not propose that a clerk 
accused of crime should be tried in the temporal court, and he did 
not propose that a clerk should be punished by a temporal court. 
\ The clerk was to be tried in the bishop's court ; the convict who 
was to be sentenced by the king's court would be no clerk, for he 
would have been degraded from his orders. 

Even if this clause stood by itself we should, so I venture to 
think, have good reason for accepting the second as the sounder 
of these two interpretations. If we look to the words it seems the 
easier ; if we look to the surrounding circumstances it seems the 



more probable. But we do not want for contemporaneous exposi- 
tions of it. In the first place I will allege the letter addressed to 
the pope in the name of the bishops and clergy of the province of 

Qua in re partis utriusque zelus enituit ; episcoporum in hoc stante 
iudicio, ut homicidium, et si quid huiusmodi est, exauctoratione sola 
puniretur in clerico ; rege vero existimante poenam hanc non condigne 
respondere flagitio, nee stabiliendae paci bene prospici, si lector aut 
acolythus quemquam perimat, ut sola iam dicti ordinis amissione tutus 

According to this version of the story there is no dispute between 
king and clergy as to the competence -of any tribunal ; the sole 
question is as to whether degradation — a punishment which can be 
inflicted only by the ecclesiastical court — is a sufficient penalty for 
such a crime as murder. Still more to the point are the words of 
Ealph de Diceto. 

Eex Anglorum volens in singulis, ut dicebat, maleficia debita cum 
severitate punire, et ordinis dignitatem ad iniquum trahi compendium 
incongruum esse considerans, clericos a suis iusticiariis in publico flagitio 
deprehensos episcopo loci reddendos decreverat, ut quos episcopus 
inveniret obnoxios praesente iusticiario regis exauctoraret, et post curiae 
traderet puniendosJ^ 

Now this, of course, is as plain a statement as could be wished 
that the second of our two interpretations is the right one, that the 
accused clerk is to be tried by his bishop ; and those who contend 
for the contrary opinion seem bound to maintain that the dean of 
St. Paul's did not know, or did not choose to tell, the truth. Still 
it may be said of cne of these witnesses — the author of the letter 
to the pope — that he is Gilbert Foliot, Becket's bitter antagonist, 
and of the other that he may have had his version of the tale from 
Foliot, and that, though a fair-minded man, he was inclined to 
make the best case he could for the king ; and I must admit, or 
rather insist, that in the last words of the passage that I have cited 
from him Ealph de Diceto is making a case for the king, for he is 
in effect telling us by the phrase that is here printed in italics that 
we ought to read our Gratian and see how strong the king's case is. 

But we may turn to other accounts. In the tract known as 
* Summa Causae ' the king is supposed to address the bishops thus : — 

Peto igitur et volo, ut tuo domine Cantuariensis et coepiscoporum 
tuorum consensu, clerici in maleficiis deprehensi vel confessi exauctorentur 
illico, et mox curiae meae lictoribus tradantur, ut omni defensione ecclesiae 
destituti corporaliter perimantur. Volo etiam et peto ut in ilia exauc- 
toratione de meis oflicialibus aliqueminteresse consentiatis,ut exauctoratum 

« Materials for thi Biat. of Thomai Bechet, v. 405, ' E, de Diceto, I 313. 



clericum mox comprebendat, ne qua ei fiat copia corporalem vindictam 

Thereupon * the bishops,' who in tliis version take the king's 

■ side, urge that the demand is not unreasonable. Ejnscojn dicehant 

secundum leges saecidi clericos exauctoratos curiae tradendos et post 

poenam spiritualem corporaliter puniendos. Thomas replies that 

this is contrary to the canons — Nee enim Deus iudicat his in idipsum. 

He argues that the judgment of the ecclesiastical court must put 

an end to the whole case. It condemns a clerk to degradation. 

^ jEither this judgment is faulty or it is a complete judgment. It 

'ought not to be followed by any other sentence. 

The story as told by ' Anonymus II ' is to the same effect." 
The king's demand is thus described : — 

ut in clericos publicorum criminum reos de ipsorum [sc. episcoporum] 
consilio sibi liceret quod avitis diebus factum sua curia recolebat ; tales 
enim deprebensos, et convictos aut confesses mox degradari, sicque poenis 
pubHcis sicut et laicos subdi, tunc usurpatum est.'* 

To this the bishops reply, not that a lay tribunal is incompetent 
to try an accused clerk, but Non iudicahit Deus bis in idipsum. 

Yet more instructive is * Anonymus I.' The king's officers, 
instigated by the devil, took to arresting clerks, investigated the 
charges against them, and, if those charges were found true, com- 
mitted them to gaol. (We must note by the way that even these 
royal officers, though instigated by the devil, do not condemn these 
clerks to death or mutilation ; they are sent to prison.) The arch- 
bishop, however, held that though these men were notoriously guilty, 
the church ought not to desert them, and he threatened to excom- 
municate any who should pass judgment upon them elsewhere than 
in the ecclesiastical court. Thereupon the king, admitting the reason- 
ableness of this assertion {necessitate rationis compidsiis), consented 
Ithat they should be given up to the bishops, upon condition that if 
they should be degraded by their ecclesiastical superiors they should 
then be delivered back to the temporal power for condemnation {ita 
tamen ut et ipse [arcldepiscopus^ eos meritis exigentihus cxordinatos 
suis ministris condemnandos traderet). Thereupon Thomas, as is 
usual, is ready with the Nemo his in idipsum/' This is an instruc- 
tive account of the matter, because, as I read it, it distinctly repre- 
sents Henry as not venturing to make the claim which he is 
commonly supposed to have made. No doubt he would like to try 
clerks in his court, but he knows that the church will never consent 
to this. 

Testimony that could be put into the other scale I cannot find. 
True, it is often said that the king wants * to draw clerks to 
secular judgments {trahere clericos ad saeciilaria indicia).' This 

* Materials, iy. 202. . ..*;j6id.-iY. 96.- - v ■■ " Ibid., i\. 39. ' 


was Becket's own phrase ; "^ and though I do not think that it was 
strictly and technically true, I think that in the mouth of a contro- 
versialist it was true enough. Henry did propose that clerks should 
be accused in his court, and he did propose that punishment should 
be inflicted by the temporal power upon criminals who were clerks 
when they committed their crimes. The archbishop might from 
his own point of view represent as a mere sophism the argument 
that during the preliminary proceedings in the lay court there was 
no judgment, and that during the final proceedings there was no 
clerk. But we can hardly set this somewhat vague phrase, * to draw 
clerks to secular judgments,' in the balance against the detailed 
accounts of Henry's proposals which we have had from other quar- 
ters, in particular against the plain words of Ealph de Diceto. 

But we have yet to consider the story told by Herbert of Bosham. 
He says that the king was advised that his proposed treatment of 
criminous clerks was in accordance with the canons, and that the 
advice was given by men who professed themselves learned in 
utroqiie iure. Herbert sneers at these legists and canonists as 
being scienter indocti ; still he admits that they appealed to the 
text of the canon law. He puts an argument about that text into 
their mouths, and then proceeds to refute it in the archbishop's 
name. Now of course if Henry really proposed to try criminous 
I clerks in a temporal forum he had no case on the Decretum Gratiani,' 
and no one would for one moment have doubted but that he was 
breaking canon after canon. However we have Herbert's word 
for it that the king's a dvisers thoug ht, or at all events said, that 
the k ing's sc hem e was sanct ion^d^by the law of the church, and 
with Herbert's help we may yet find in the Corpus JurisUaiionici the 
words upon which they relied. It will, I suppose, hardly be ques- 
tioned that Herbert may in the main be trusted about this matter, 
for he is here making an admission against the interest of his hero, 
St. Thomas ; he is admitting that the king's partisans professed 
themselves willing to stand or fall by the canon law. And the story 
is corroborated by phrases which are casually used by other writer?, 
phrases to which I have drawn attention by italic type. When 
Ealph de Diceto writes curiae traderet piuiiendos, when the author of 
* Summa Causae ' writes curiae meae lictorihus tradantur, when 
Anonymus II writes mox dcgradari, they are one and all alluding — 
so it seems to me — to certain phrases in 'Gratian's book. 

The debate, as I understand it, turned on two passages in the 
Decretum.'^ One of them is the following : — 

Deer. C. 11, qu. 1, c. 18. Clericus suo inobediens episcopo depositiis 
curiae tradatur. 

• ' Letter by -Thomas to the pope, Materials, v. 388. " Materials, iii, 266-70. 



Item Phis Papa epist. II. 

Si quis sacerdotum vel reliquorum clericorum suo episcopo inobediens 
fuerit, aut ei insidias paraverit, aut contumeliam, aut calumniam, aut 
convicia intulerit, et convinci potuerit, mox [depositus *] curiae tradatur, 
et recipiat quod inique gesserit. 

The other of the two is introduced by a dictum Gratiani which ends 
thus : — 

In criminali vero causa non nisi ante episcopum clericus examinandus 
est. Et hoc est illud, quod legibus et canonibus supra diffinitum est, ut 
in criminaH videHcet causa ante civilem iudieem nullus clericus produ- 
catur, nisi forte cum consensu episcopi sui ; veluti quando incorrigibiles 
inveniuntur, tunc detracto eis officio curiae tradendi sunt. Unde Fabianus 
Papa ait ep. ii. Episcopis orientahbus. . , . 

On this follows Deer. C. 11, qu. 1, c. 31. 

Qui episcopo insidiatur semotus a clero curiae tradatur. 

Statuimus, ut, si quis clericorum suis episcopis infestus aut insidiator 
extiterit, mox ante examinatum iudicium submotus a clero curiae tradatur, 
cui diebus vitae suae deserviat, et infamis absque uUa spe restitutionis 

These passages, it will be seen, contain more than once the phrase 
curiae tradere. What is the true meaning of it ? 

This seems to me an almost unanswerable question, for it 
amounts to this : By what standard shall we, standing in the 
twelfth century, construe certain passages which we believe to come 
from two popes, the one of the second, the other of the third cen- 
tury, but which really come from a forger of the ninth century, 
who, it is probable, has been using at second or third hand a con- 
stitution of the fifth century, when we know also that these pas- 
sages have very lately been adopted, though not without modifica- 
tion, by a highly authoritative writer of our own days ? 

Apparently the disputable phrase takes us back in the last 
resort to a constitution of Arcadius and Honorius which was re- 
ceived into the Theodosian code.'' It begins thus : — 

Quemcunque clericum indignum officio suo episcopus iudicaverit et ab 
eoclesiae ministerio segregaverit, aut si qui professum sacrae religionis 
obsequium sponte dereliquerit, continue eum curia sibi vindicet, ut liber 
illi ultra ad ecclesiam recursus esse non possit, et pro hominum qualitate 
et quantitate patrimonii vel ordini suo vel collegio civitatis adiungatur ; 
modo ut quibuscunque apti erunt publicis necessitatibus obligentur, ita ut 
colludio quoque locus non sit. 

Then with this in his mind — or rather with the West Goth's inter- 

« It will be Been hereafter that this word is not in the text of the pseudo-Isidore, 
nor ig it in the Decretum Ivonis, p. 5, c. 243. 
• Lib. xvi. tit. ii. 1. 89. 


pretatio of it in his mind, or yet rather with some epitome of that inter' 
pretatio in his mind — the pseudo-Isidore inserted certain clauses into 
the decretals that he was concocting for Pope Pius I and Pope 
Fabian.'" What he says in the name of Fabian we need not 
repeat, for it is fairly enough represented by the second of the two 
passages from Gratian that are quoted above.'' What he says in 
the name of Pius is this : — 

Efc si quis sacerdotum vel reliquorum clericorum suoepiscopo inobediens 
fuerit aut ei insidias paraverit aut calumniam et convinci poterit, mox 
curiae tradatur. Qui autem facit iniuriam, recipiat hoc quod inique gessit.'* 

There is here enough difference between Gratian and Isidore to 
make us doubt whether the one fully understood the other. But 
yet a third time did the great forger return to this theme. To the 
pen of Pope Stephen he ascribed 

Clericus ergo qui episcopum suum accusaverit aut ei insidiator extiterit, 
non est recipiendus, quia infamis effectus est et a gradu debet recedere aut 
curiae tradi serviendus.'^ 

Now of course the phrase in the Theodosian code, continuo eum 
curia sibi vindicet, has nothmg whatever to do with the point at 
issue between Henry and Becket. The clerk who has been de- 
graded from, or who has renounced, his holy orders is to become a 
curialis ; he is to become obnoxious to all those duties and burdens, 
those munera, by which in the last days of the empire the curiales are 
being crushed. I suppose that no words of ours will serve as 
equivalents for the curia and the curialis of the fourth and fifth 
centuries ; even German writers, with all their resources, leave these 
terms untranslated. I suppose that if Henry had wished to substitute 
for the words of Arcadius and Honorius a phrase which should 
express their real meaning, and be thoroughly intelligible to his 
English subjects, he would have said, Clericus degradatus debet 
scottare et lottare cum laicis. It would seem also that Becket and 
his canonists knew something of the history of the words tradatur 
curiae, and were prepared to go behind Gratian. But what I am 
concerned to point out is that on the text of the Decretum Henry 
had an arguable case. Here, he might say, are words that are plain 
enough. A clerk disobeys or insults his bishop ; mox depositus curiae 
tradatur, et recipiat quod inique gesserit. What can this mean if it 
be not that the offender, having been deposed by his bishop, is to 
be handed over to the curia, the lay court, for further punishment ? 
Very well, that is what I am contending for. Further punishment 

'" Hinschius would trace these passages to that epitome of the Breviarium Alarici 
which is represented by the Paris manuscript, sup. lat. 215. See Haenel, Lex Bomaiia 
Visigothorum, pp. 246-8. 

" Fabianus, xxi. (ed. Hinschius, p. 165). " Pius, x, (Hinschius, p. 120)f 
" Btephanus, xii. (Hinschius, p. 186 — • 


after degradation does not infringe your sacred maxim Nemo his 
in idipsum, or if it does then you are prepared to infringe that 
maxim yourselves whenever to do so will serve your turn. 

But more than this can be said. Not very long after Henry's 
death the greatest of all the popes put an interpretation on the 
phrase curiae tradere. Innocent III issued a constitution against 
the forgers of .papal letters. The forgers, if they be clerks, are to be 
degraded and then 

postquam per eeclesiasticum iudicem fuerint degradati, saeculari potestati 
tradantur secundum constitutiones legitimas puniendi, per quam et laici, 
qui fuerint de falsitate convicti, legitime puniantur [c. 7, X. 5, 20].'* 

This seems plain enough. Henry, had he been endowed with 
the gift of prophecy, might well have said, * Here, at any rate, is an 
exception to your principle, and for my own part I cannot see that 
the forgery of a decretal — though I will admit, if you wish it, that 
it is wicked to forge decretals — is a much worse crime than 
murder, or rape, or robbery.' 

But this is nothing to what follows. Innocent III speaks once 
more (c. 27, X. 5, 40). '-^ 

Novimus expedire ut verbum illud quod et in antiquis canonibus, et in 
nftstro quoque decreto contra falsarios edito continetur, videlicet ut clericus, 
per eeclesiasticum iudicem degradatus, saeculari tradatur curiae puniendus, 
apertius exponamus. Quum enim quidam antecessorum nostrorum, super 
hoc consult!, diversa responderint, et quorundam sit opinio a pluribus 
approbata, ut clericus qui propter hoc vel aliud flagitium grave, non solum 
damnabile, sed damnosum, fuerit degradatus, tanquam exutus privilegio 
clericali saeculari foro per consequentiam applicetur, quum ab ecclesiastico 
foro fuerit proiectus ; eius est degradatio celebranda saeculari potestate 
praesente, ac pronuncianduni est eidem, quum fuerit celebrata, ut in suum 
forum recipiat, et sic intelligitur ' tradi curiae saeculari ; ' pro quo tamen 
debet ecclesia efficaciter intercedere, ut citra mortis periculum circa eum 
sententia moderetur. 

Now this, as I understand it, is an authoritative exposition of 
the true intent and meaning of the phrase tradere curiae, contained 
in those passages from the Decretum that have been printed 
above. It was a dubious phrase ; some read it one way, some 
another ; but on the whole the better opinion is not that of St. 
Thomas, but that of King Henry II. And so the king's advisers 
have this answer to the sneers of Master Herbert of Bosham : — We 
cannot hope to be better canonists than Pope Innocent III will 
be. , 

I am far from arguing that Henry's scheme ought to have 
satisfied those who took their stand on the Decretum. From their 
pomt of view the preliminary procedure in the king's court, whereby 

" Beg. Inn. Ill, ed. Baluze, i. 574. » Ibid. ii. 268. 


the civil magistrate acquired a control over the case, w^ould be 
objectionable, and the mission of royal officers to watch the trial in 
the spiritual court would be offensive. But still about the main 
question that was in debate, the question of double punishment, 
Henry had something to say, and something which the highest of 
high churchmen could not refuse to hear. 

This account of the matter seems to fit in with all that we 
know of the behaviour of Alexander III and of the English bishops. 
Had Henry bee n striving^ to sul^ject_cmmj3^u^ck to the judg- 
ment^iltheJemporaljQrumj the case against himwould liaveljeen 
an exceedingly plain one. A pope, however much beset by troubles, 
could hardly have hesitated about it ; no bishop could have taken 
the king's side without openly repudiating the written law of the 
church. But the pope hesitated and the English bishops, to say the 
very least, did not stubbornly resist the king's proposal. Even 
Becket's own conduct seems best explained by the supposition that 
until he grew warm with controversy he was not very certain of the 
ground that he had to defend. Mox depositus curiae tradatur et 
recipi'at quod inique gesserit, was ringing in one ear, Nee enim Deus • 
iudicat his in idipsum in the other ear. . . • . ; 

It is a curious coincidence, if it be no more than a coincidence, 
that Henry's plan for dealing with criminous clerks — a plan. 
which, as he asserted, was not his plan, but the old law of his I 
ancestors — agrees in all its most important points with what, . 
according to an opinion now widely received, was the scheme 
ordained by a Merovingian king in the seventh century. The 
clergy of Gaul had been claiming a complete exemption from 
secular justice. By an edict of the year 614 Chlothar II in part 
conceded, in part rejected their claim. If a bishoj), priest, or 
deacon (clerks in minor orders were for this purpose to be treated 
as laymen) was accused of a capital crime, the accusation was to be 
made and the preliminary proceedings were to take place in the lay 
court ; the accused was then to be delivered over to the bishop for 
trial in a synod ; if found guilty he was to be degraded, and when 
degraded delivered back to the lay court for punishment. Mero- 
vingian grammar, to say nothing of Merovingian law, is a matter 
about which no one who has not given much time to its study 
ought to have any opinion. Stjll this opinion, put forward by 
Nissl, has met with great favour.'*^ If it be true, then after five 
centuries and a half we find Henry reverting to a very ancient 
compromise. On this point I dare say little more, but it does not 
seem very certain that at any time the lay power in the Frankish 
state, or in the new principalities which rose out of its ruins, had 

'* Nissl, Gcrichtsstanddes Clerus ; Schroder, Bechtsgeschichic, 178 ; VioUet, Histoire 
des Institutions Politiques, i. 394. The settlement thus effected is not very unlike 
that defined by Justinian's Novels, 83 and 123. 




ever, at least by any definite act, receded from the position which 
Chlothar II took up. I see no proof that the law laid down by 
Chlothar, the law laid down by Henry, was not the law as under- 
stood by William the Conqueror and by Lanfranc. The evidence 
that we have of what went on under our Norman kings is extremely 
slight. From cases such as those of Odo of Bayeux, of William of 
Durham, of Koger of Salisbury, we dare draw no inference about 
the general law. In none of these cases is there a sentence of 
death or mutilation. In the two latter the king can be represented 
as merely insisting on the forfeiture of a fief, and even great canon- 
ists would admit that purely feudal causes were within the cogni- 
sance of the temporal forum. Bishop William and Bishop Roger 
rely much less on the mere fact that they are in holy orders than on 
the great maxim of the pseudo-Isidore (his greatest addition to the 
jurisprudence of the world), Spoliatus ante omnia debet restitm. As 
to Bishop Odo, Lanfranc very probably would have had no difficulty 
in proving that the scandalously militant earl of Kent had jiut 
himself outside every benefit of clergy. It has not been proved that 
our Norman kings insisted on treating criminal clerks just as though 
they were criminal laymen, and on the other hand it has certainly 
not been proved that such clerks had enjoyed the full measure of 
exemption that Becket claimed for them. Henry's repeated asser- 
tions that he is a restorer,* not an innovator, meet with but the 
feeblest of contradictions. 

On the whole I cannot but think that the second of the two in- 
terpretations of the famous clause is the right one. If this be so 
all those modern arguments which would contrast the enlightened 
procedure of the canon law with the barbarous English customs — 
I am not at all sure that in the England of the twelfth century 
the procedure of the ecclesiastical courts was one whit more rational 
than that of the temporal courts — are quite beside the mark. 
Henry did not propose that an accused clerk should be tried in the 
lay court ; he was to be tried in a canonical court by the law of 
the church.'^ 

F. W. Maitland. 

" In the middle of the twelfth century the English clergy were still using the 
ordeal, c. 3, X. 5, 37 ; and their only alternative for the ordeal in criminal cases was 
the almost equally irrational compurgation. 

1892 235 

The Siege of Belgrade by Muhammad II y 
July 1-23, 1456. 

THE capture of Constantinople first gave the Turk an abiding- 
place among the powers of Europe. So long as the imperial 
city remained in Christian hands the footing of the Ottomans in the 
Balkan peninsula was slippery at best. A single reverse on the 
Danube, a single palace revolution at Adrianople, a single revolt in 

• The literature of the subject is pretty copious, but fragmentary and much scat- 
tered. To begin with, we have the independent testimony of four eye-witnesses, 
Hunyady, Capistran, Tagliacotius, and Behem. The letters and despatches of the 
first three are set out in Katona (Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis mixtae, 
torn. vi. pt. 2), and in Hunyadiak Kora Magyarorszagon, Kot x. The rhyming 
chronicler's narrative is contained in Qucllan und ForscJmngen zur vaterldtidischen 
Gcschichte, Literatur und Kunst, edited by Karajan (Vienna, 1849). As to contempo- 
raries, not eye-witnesses, we have first the Greek annalists Dukas, Frantses, Chalco- 
condylas, and Kritoboulos. In Dukas and Frantses, indeed, the siege of Belgrade is a 
mere minor incident dismissed in a few lines, but the account of Chalcocondylas is, on 
the whole, the best we possess. The historian Kritoboulos was absolutely unknown till 
1874, when an Hungarian savant discovered the manuscript at Stambul. Kritoboulos 
was in the service of the last two Greek emperors, and a man of authority in the isle of 
Imbros. His Life of Muhammad II is a work of considerable value but very unequal 
merit. His narrative of the siege of Belgrade (cap. 89-108) is simple, lucid, and 
methodical, but frequently condensed to the verge of confusion. Thus he omits all 
notice of the naval battle of July 14, and confounds Capistran with Hunyady and vice 
versa. No Greek text being procurable, I have been obliged to use the Hungarian 
translation published in vol. xxii. of Monumenta Hungariae Historica, 1875. To 
another eminent Hungarian, Prof. Vambery, I am indebted for a Magyar translation 
of the Turkish annalist Said Eddin's description of the siege. SaidEddin's exuberant 
fancy, vituperative exaggeration, and rhetorical eccentricities are, at first, somewhat 
overpowering ; but his narrative, stripped of its exuberant verbiage, is fairly correct ; 
he furnishes many picturesque details, and rises at times to flights of real poetic 
grandeur. Next we have brief notices in contemporary Servian lyetopisi contained in 
Olasnik Srpskog Uchenog Drushtva, Knj. 32 (Belgrade, 1871) ; the little known 
chronicles of Eagusa (Monumenta spectantia Histoi-iam Slavorum Meridionalium, 
vol. xiv., Agram, 1883 ; and an anonymous Hungarian account in Magyar regestdk a 
hicsi cs. levdtdrbdl. No. 162. I have also consulted the Hungarian chroniclers Pray 
and Turocz. Of quite modern books I may mention that exhaustive but ill-digested 
Servian compilation Despot Guraj Brankovlc, by C. Miyatovid (Belgrade, 1880) ; the 
scholarly Chronica Bomdnilor, by Sincai din Sinca ; Kiss's Hunyadi Jdnos utolso 
Jiadjarata, with its excellent maps, and Fraknoi's masterly Carvajal Jdnos bibornok 
magyarorszdgi KSvetsegei, 1448-1461. For the general course of Hungarian history 
I have, of course, followed the great national historian Horvath (Magyarorszdg tdr' 
Unelme). For my information as to Capistran I am indebted to P. Gu^rard, S. Jean 
Capistran et son Temps, and Cataneo's Vita di S. Giovanni da Capistrano. 


Karamanla might at any moment bring the galleons of Venice to 
the assistance of the sorely distressed but ever vigilant Tekfur,^ 
and the experience of ten centuries seemed to demonstrate that 
that phoenix of politics the Greek empire was always capable of 
rising rejuvenescent from its own ashes. But from the moment 
when the crescent supplanted the cross on the dome of St. Sophia 
the whole situation completely changed. It was now no longer a 
part but the whole of Christendom that was in immediate danger. 
Muhammad II had solemnly sworn that as there was only one 
God in heaven, so there should be but one lord on earth, and his 
deeds were as tremendous as his words. The rapid tide of Turkish 
conquest spread irresistibly in every direction. Only two years after 
the death of the last imperial Palaeologus the whole Balkan peninsula 
was already too small to hold his conqueror. The Danube alone 
separated him from the rest of Europe, and what was the Danube 
to the master of many millions of warriors ? 

The chief pastor of the Christian church was the first to sound 
the alarm and rally the nations, against the infidel. When, after 
the death of Nicholas V, the cardinals met together to elect his 
successor, each member of the sacred college vowed that if he were 
raised to the chair of Peter ^ he would use all his might to recover 
Constantinople and purge Europe of the Turk, and when (8 April 
1455) the aged Alfonso Borgia was chosen pope, under the title of 
Calixtus III, he immediately hastened to redeem his promises, 
solemnly protesting that he was ready to sacrifice all the treasures 
of the church — nay, life itself — for the holy cause. A bull, issued 
six months after his accession, preached a new crusade throughout 
Christendom, and soon special legates appeared in all the courts of 
Europe to stir up princes and peoples against the common foe. 

The prospects of a holy war at that moment were decidedly 
gloomy. To the dejected catholic, faith and hope seemed to have 
died out of the world, and the voice of the vicar of Christ was as 
the voice of one vainly crying in the wilderness. * The spirits of 
our princes waver,' exclaims Aeneas Sylvius, * the kings slumber, 
the nations languish, and the bark of the fisherman, assailed by 
dark tempests, is nigh to sinking.' England lacerated, and France 
prostrated, by civil war, had enough to look to at home. Poland 
was embroiled with the Tartars. The emperor, intent on his pri- 
vate interests, procrastinated indefinitely. Spain was split up into 
many different kingdoms. Naples and Aragon promised fleets 
that never came, and Burgundy talked bravely but did nothing. 
Hungary alone remained, and it was upon her that the chief, if not 
the sole, hope of Cahxtus now rested. 

For the last two hundred years Hungary had been indisputably 
, 2j^i.xj=KupJoy, the title given by the Turks tp the Greek emperor* . . 

* rrakn6i, CarvajalJdnos, &c. ... - , . -.'.:.. ^. j 

'189^ ' BY MUHAMMAD II ^37 

the dominant power of south-eastern Europe. Her own territories 
extended from the shores of the Adriatic to the delta of the Danube, 
and she exercised the rights of a suzerain over Bosnia, Servia, and 
Wallachia. Long and vahant had been her resistance to the might 
of Islam, and she still continued, though the strain grew more 
grievous every year, to keep the adversary at arm's length. Un- 
happily the apostolic kingdom^ was, at this time, a house very 
much divided against itself. The interminable foreign wars, 
frequent dynastic disputes, disintegrating minorities and inter- 
regnums of the last seventy years had enormously increased the 
power of the great feudal nobles, and they used it almost as 
mischievously as their Polish neighbours. The executive, always 
weak in an elective kingdom, was now more than ever vacillating. 
The reigning monarch, Ladislaus V, a trivial and cowardly boy, 
was entirely in the hands of evil and alien counsellors, who taught 
him to hate his fatherland and endeavoured to govern in his name, 
though strenuously opposed by the leading magnates, most of whom 
were men of singular ability, but all, with one illustrious exception, 
hopelessly selfish and impracticable. No wonder, then, if the pope 
regarded the state of Hungary with grave and growing misgivings. 

We learn with heartfelt grief [wrote Calixtus,'' September 1455] that 
our glorious Hungary, so full of good works and good- will, so long the 
shield and buckler of Christendom, lies in confusion and disorder, head 
and limbs alike being crazy and feeble. Thus our faith will be deprived 
of its surest prop unless her leaders give each other the right hand of 
fellowship and return to the paths of true peace and charity. 

And there was still one man in Hungary who was able and 
willing to save her in her own despite. This was the famous John 
Hunyady, for six years regent and all his life long the indefatigable 
defender of his country, one of whom it is the simple truth to 
say that he was an ideal hero, a consummate captain, the purest 
of politicians, the humblest of Christians, and the noblest of men.'' 
The exploits of Hunyady against the Turks, though by no means 
so widely known as they should be, are nevertheless familiar 
enough to be left unnoticed here. Suffice it to say that it had 
been the ambition of his life to expel the Turk from Europe, and 
once he had even got so far as to persuade the emperor John 
Palaeologus to entrust the towns of Selymbria and Mesembria to 

* The title given by Pope Sylvester II to Hungary on the occasion of sending the 
famous silver crown to St. Stephen, the first Christian king of the Magyars, 1000. 

' Fraknoi. 

" The highest tribute to Hunyady's practical ability by an impartial outsider is 
given by Chalcocondylas, who, after describing him as avrip ytvufievos apicrros is ra 
irivTa, thus proceeds : ' He was a man who "did everything with all his might, was 
always prompt in extremities, and always at hand when most wanted.' He adds that 
even HunyadyVrivals admitted th&t his government waa'equally vigorous and secvfre. 


Hungarian garrisons,^ so as to make them the outposts of western 
Christendom. But the terrible catastrophe of Varna (1444) had 
annihilated these fair hopes, and such a chance never presented 
itself again. The intrigues of Austria, the apathy of the western 
powers, the jealousy of his colleagues, and the treachery of his 
enemies left the great captain little time for foreign conquests. 
It was as much as he could do to hold his own in Hungary itself 
and keep the wolf from the door. But the fall of Constantinople 
had brought the brave old man once more into the saddle. In the 
following year, at the urgent request of George Brancovich, despot 
of Servia, whose territories were now reduced to the pleasure gar- 
dens surrounding his capital,* he crossed the Danube with a little 
army equipped entirely at his own expense, scattered to the winds, 
at Krusevacz, the 30,000 picked troops left behind under Feriz 
Beg to hold Servia, and chased the sultan himself through Bul- 
garia till Muhammad, having received reinforcements, assumed the 
offensive, when the Hungarian captain-general fell back on Belgrade, 
and there stood at bay till he heard that the sultan had retired to 
Adrianople, and from thence to Stambul, when he disbanded his 
host likewise. But Hunyady knew the Turk too well to imagine 
that he would tamely submit to such a reverse, and from Belgrade 
he wrote a letter to the emperor Frederick, urging him, as the head 
of Christendom, to make haste and quell the infidel while there 
was yet time. In 1455, when the sultan again invaded Servia and 
captured the precious gold and silver mines of Novoberdo, the in- 
sistence of the captain-general became more and more urgent. At 
the diet of Gyor (June 1455) he publicly declared that with 
100,000 men behind him for three weeks he would undertake to 
drive the Turk headlong out of Europe, and offered to contribute 
100,000 ducats towards the equipment of such a host. By his 
advice the diet addressed a solemn memorial to the new pope. 
' All of us,' this document ran, * are now convinced that it is pos- 
sible to drive the Turk out of Europe ; but if help come not speedily 
that hope must be abandoned.' But Calixtus needed no prompting. 
He had already set all the machinery of diplomacy in motion to 
arouse Europe from her apathy. He had appointed one of his 
most capable and resolute ministers, the Spanish cardinal Juan 
de Carvajal, to preach a new crusade in Germany, Hungary, 
Poland, and the circumjacent states, and had given him as his 
spokesman the wonder-working, evangelising Observantine friar 
and reformer John Capistran, whose burning zeal, soul-piercing 
eloquence, and heroic austerities had already set half Europe in a 
ferment. On the feast of our Lady's nativity the pope himself 
fastened on the breast of Carvajal the little red cross on a white 

* Frantses, ^ipovMiv^ lib. ^ • Eagusa chronicle. 

1892 BY MUHAMMAD II 239 

field which was to be the symbol of the new crusade. On 20 Sept. 
the legate set out with a numerous and splendid retinue. At 
Venice they stayed some days, and by the pope's command exhorted 
the senate to co-operate with a fleet ; but the signoria, true to its 
mercenary traditions, declined to participate in an enterprise which 
promised so much risk and so little profit.^ Passing thence through 
Austria, where the emperor accepted the cross from the hands of 
the cardinal and promised to take part personally in the crusade, 
Carvajal (22 Nov.) reached Vienna, where he was received with 
great splendour by the young king of Hungary and Bohemia, whose 
favourite resort it was. Ladislaus V expressed his willingness to 
satisfy all the desires of the holy father, and the legate, striking 
while the iron was hot, persuaded him to summon a diet to Buda, 
which met accordingly on 6 Feb. 1456. On the 14th, after high 
mass, the cardinal legate solemnly decorated Capistran with a cross 
which he had received for that express purpose from the hands of 
the pope, and the impassioned monk, like a second Peter the Hermit, 
forthwith began publicly preaching the new crusade. He was 
warmly supported by Hunyady, who had come up to the diet at the 
head of a goodly company, with the fugitive hospodar of Wallachia 
in his train. ' We cannot express in words or writing,' wrote the 
cardinal legate, ' how rejoiced and comforted we are by the promise 
of the lord governor ^^ (in whose name we have great confidence) 
that he will equip 7,000 horsemen against the Turk . . . Under 
this Macchabaeus of our times . . . God will certainly give the 
victory to his people.' ^' Equally enthusiastic in his praises was 
Capistran. ' 'Tis John, called Hunyady,' wrote he to the pope, 
* who is to be the salvation of Christendom. He has offered to 
provide 10,000 horsemen at his private expense.' '^ The contagion 
of the old hero's enthusiasm affected for a time tne court and the 
diet. The young king wrote a letter of thanks to the pope for the 
privilege of such counsellors as Carvajal and Capistran. Already 
the legate saw in the spirit young Ladislaus, * like a second David, 
slaughtering, in the triumph of his youthful innocence, the unre- 
generate heathen ; ' and so numerous were the volunteers who 
sought to be enrolled beneath the banners of Hunyady that 
Carvajal rather feared a deficiency of victuals than of warriors. 
The debates waxed more and more warlike. Ladislaus offered 
to raise 20,000 men if Italy would contribute 2,000, Aragon 
10,000, Burgundy 20,000, while Hunyady confidently promised 
that with such a host behind him he would not leave the Turk a 
spot in Europe whereon to lay bis head — nay, that the recapture 

• Fraknoi. 

'» Though no longer regent, Hunyady was often called, by courtesy, Dominua 

"Eaton*. '^ Ibid, 


of Constantinople would only be the first step towards the recovery 
of the holy sepulchre at Jerusalem. Yet all this fine fervour 
evaporated in empty words. After a two-months' session the 
diet decided indeed for war against the Turk, but postponed opera- 
tions till after harvest time, because the general failure of the crops 
in the preceding year had caused a great dearth of corn and fodder 
in all the Danubian provinces.^^ 

The very day after the dissolution of the diet the terrifying news 
reached the Hungarian capital that Muhammad II was already on his 
way to besiege Belgrade with an army which the popular imagination 
magnified to 400,000 men,^'' but which even at the most moderate 
computation could not have been very much less than 150,000. 
The news was only too true. The Turkish annalist tells us that 
ever since the reverse of Krusevacz, the sole thought, day and 
night, of the * throne-sustaining sultan ' was how he might best 
'humble the pride of the enemy of the faith {i.e. Hungary).''-^ 
Throughout the winter of 1455-6 he had been assembling round 
Adrianople, from every part of his domains, with as much energy 
and circumspection as he had displayed before the siege of 
Constantinople, an army which, if not absolutely transcending the 
* bounds of computation,' •*' was certainly the mightiest host that 
had ever followed the green banner of the caliph. Cannon of every 
sort and size, including twenty monsters twenty-seven feet long, the 
like of which had never been seen before, with mortars for hurling 
huge round stones, even more .te;:rifying than cannon-balls,^^ were 
dragged from Adrianople to Belgrade at infinite trouble and expense. 
Camels, oxen, and buffaloes innumerable from Bosnia and Anatolia 
carried ammunition and provisions, while beasts of lighter burden 
were harnessed to wooden, iron, and brazen cars ' whereby,' 
adds the chronicler, ' the biggest guns were drawn with marvellous 
ease.' Of mills for grinding corn, ovens for baking bread, and 
vessels for divers uses there was no end. Nay, it was said that they 
were also bringing with them legions of dogs to eat the corpses of 
the Christians. They came, we are told, not as if to besiege a 
fortress, but to conquer a kingdom. The destination of this 
vast array was kept a profound secret, but in the spring of 145G the 
sultan took the command and led his army straight towards 
Belgrade. He had resolved, once for all, to put an end to the in- 
solent interference of the Magyars by utterly subduing Hungary, 

" Katona, Horvath. 

" It is difficult to get at the real number of this host. The Hungarian and Eou- 
manian chroniclers put it down at 400,000 sans phrase. That it was something quite 
extraordinary is plain from the description of Hunyady himself, who never exaggerates, 
and was used to fighting armies of 100,000. He says of the Turkish host, Nunqtmni 
ociilus hominis. talia vidit nee viente cogitare potest. • 

'5 Said Eddin. '« Ibid. 

" So, at any rate, thought Tagliacotius, who Jiad practical experience,of both. . 

1892 BY MUHAMMAD II 241 

and the first indispensable step towards such subjugation was the 
capture of the strong fortress which was the key of the Danube 
and the gate of central Europe. At the tidings of his devastating 
approach a panic fell upon the Danubian princes. The hospodar 
of Wallachia and the despot of Servia took refuge in Hungary 
with their wives and children. The hospodar of Moldavia sent salt 
to Muhammad II, and promised an annual tribute of 2,000 ducats.'** 
The little republic of Ragiisa had ah-eady placed herself unreservedly 
beneath the aegis of the crown of St. Stephen.'^ But in truth 
Hungary herself had never been so sorely in need of assistance. 
No sooner did the king hear of the approach of the sultan than, 
utterly forgetful of his duties and his promises, he lied by night 
rom Biida to Vienna, where he remained till all fear of danger 
was over, leaving his kingdom to take care of itself.^" A hunting 
party was the pretext of this disgraceful flight,-' and its immediate 
consequences were disastrous. A paralysis seemed to fall upon the 
whole country. The citadel of Buda was left absolutely defence- 
less for more than a month. The nobility shut themselves uj) in 
their castles and country houses and refused to stir. The legate 
was in despair. The ruin of Hungary seemed inevitable and 

This kingdom [he wrote to the pope] is on the eve of a terrible disaster, 
for neither with its own resources nor yet with the aid of the empire can 
it bring together forces sufficient to cope with the Turk. Our only hope 
is that God will listen to the prayers of your holiness and move the 
hearts of the princes to send their fleets. So pressing is the peril that 
the delay of a day or even of an hour may bring about such a defeat as 
shall make all Christendom weep for evermore. 

The frail, uncertain life of a single old man was all that stood 
between Hungary and utter ruin at this critical moment, for it was 
upon the aged shoulders of Hunyady that the crushing burden of 
supporting the sinking monarchy solely rested. Though no longer 
regent, his authority as captain-general of the kingdom and 
voywode of Transylvania was still considerable, and without hesi- 
tating a moment he hastened to the frontier. His first care was 
to throw 6,000 veterans into Belgrade under his brother-in-law 

" Sincai din Sinca, Chronica Romdnilor. 

" Kagusa ch»onicle. 

-• Thurocz, Katona, Horv&th. 

^' This flight was deliberately planned by Count Czilley, Hunyady's mortal enemy 
and the chief adviser of the king. Czilley was well aware of the enormous superioi'ity 
of the sultan's forces, and was also equally sure that Hunyady would go against him 
in any case. He therefore regarded the defeat and death of the elder Hunyady as 
certain, and had already laid his plans for removing the sons, Ladislaus and Matthias, 
as well. 



Michael Szilagyi and his own eldest son Ladislaus,'*^ who inherited 
his father's military genius and though still a mere youth held, as 
ban of Dalmatia and Croatia, the fifth highest dignity of the realm. 
Then he resolutely set about collecting a relief army. The obstacles 
which he encountered at every step might well have daunted the 
bravest. The shameless indifference of the Hungarian nobility 
and the invincible sluggishness of the Transylvanian burgesses 
confounded his bQst efforts. Of the thousands of gentlemen who 
held their lands by military tenure, and were bound by honour and 
duty alike to defend their country by force of arms, only some 
half-dozen of his personal friends, with a handful of horsemen,^^ ap- 
peared at his summons. What little support he did get was not 
from his own countrymen but from the large-hearted zeal of the 
cardinal legate and the unfaltering enthusiasm of the crusading 
monk. Carvajal followed the captain-general all the way to 
Szeged, in South Hungary, to stimulate the people by his pre- 
sence and superintend the formation of the crusading host. He 
burned to take an active part in the w^ar and lead the crusaders 
personally against the enemy ; ^^ but Hunyady persuaded him to 
return to the capital to counteract the intrigues of his enemies, 
urge the king to action, and keep in touch with the German princes. 
Capistran, however, was regarded by Hunyady as indispensable. 
' Come hither to me,' wrote the hero to the saint, * that the power 
of God may sustain the efforts of man.' From the very first 
moment when they met together these two single-minded enthu- 
siasts had been mutually attracted to each other, and the desire to 
rescue, Christendom from the infidel was the ruling passion of 
them both. 

Capistran came accordingly with a handful of Polish and 
German crusaders, and preached ^^ so effectually in the villages 
of South Hungary that within a few weeks he had gathered 
60.000 followers around him. An army, indeed, it could scarcely 
be called, for a sorrier band of warriors surely never came together. 
We are told by one who saw these crusaders ^^ that they were 
all men of low degree, or rather no degree — rustics, beggars, 

" The judicial murder of this promising young man within a year of his heroic 
father's death is one of the foulest blots on Hungarian history. The second son, 
Matthias, was left at court as a sort of hostage, and ascended the Hungarian throne as 
Matthias I, a few months after the events now recorded. 

'^ Tagliacotius. ■* Fraknoi. 

-^ Capistran must have been a wondrous preacher. We are told that his delivery 
was 80 touching that even those who did not understand his words shed tears of re- 
pentance when they heard him. At Brescia in 1451 his arrival drew such multitudes 
that the magistrates had to reprovision the town to save the population from starva- 
tion, and the throng in the cathedral was so great that many were nearly crushed to 
death (Gu^rard, S. Jean Capistran). 

'■'* Behem : Arm und nackcnd leut Die daz crcuz heten gnummen. The anonymous 
Hungarian calls them mcchanici. 

1892 BY MUHAMMAD II 243 

mendicant friars, hermits, day labourers, and such like. Not a 
sword or a lance was to be seen in the hands of any of them. 
Slings, cudgels, pitchforks, hatchets, and axes were their only 
weapons. Yet this motley throng, fired by the zeal and enthusiasm 
of Capistran, was animated by the spirit of martyrs and heroes,^^ and 
was ready to follow to the death the withered little old man whose 
frail body was worn to a skeleton by ceaseless fastings, watchings, 
and journeyings, and whose feeble arms leaned heavily on the tough 
oaken staff on which he had carved the name of the Redeemer. 
Hunyady, however, was far too experienced a general to trust entirely 
in this mob of inspired ragamuffins, though too fervent a Christian 
himself to despise religious enthusiasm in others. After a month of 
incredible exertions he contrived to get together about 12,000 men- 
at-arms and 1,000 cavalry as the nucleus of a regular army, and at 
his camp at Szalanka, at the confluence of the Drave and Theiss, 
the raw recruits, who came in with irritating slowness, were 
drilled and exercised day and night. Moreover he hastily im- 
provised a fleet by appropriating all the riverine craft from Buda 
to Szeged that he could lay his hands on and converting some 
two hundred of them into ships of war. These he provided with 
parapets of the hardest wood, coating them with fire-proof metal 
plates and manning them with the pick of his army. He was still 
in the midst of his preparations when a messenger reached him 
from Szilagyi, the commandant of Belgrade, requesting instant 
relief, as the hardly pressed garrison could hold out only forty- 
eight hours longer. 

The fortress of Belgrade, or Nandorfehervar, as the Hungarians 
call it, lay on an isthmus about seven furlongs in length, at the 
confluence of the Save and Danube. The place was so strong by 
nature as to be impregnable, under ordinary circumstances, in the 
hands of a skilful conimandant and a determined garrison. A deep 
and swift current, full of dangerous whirlpools, washed on two sides 
the base of the almost precipitous promontory whereon the city 
was built, and on the land side it was defended by steep rocks and 
treacherous morasses. And art had done her best to supplement 
nature. The city was surrounded by a line of circumvallation 
6,000 paces in circumference, and the citadel, which stood on a 
rock in the midst of the city, with which it was connected by a 
little wooden bridge, was of enormous strength. On arriving oppo- 
site the city the sultan at once held a council of war as to the best 
mode of reducing it. Karaja Pasha, the beglerbeg, or governor- 
general, of Anatolia, whom all the Greek chroniclers agree in de- 
scribing as the ablest captain in the Turkish host, strongly dis- 

-'' Chalcocondylas, -whilst dubbing them \l/t\oi, adds significantly ov vdw Kararppoviiv 
ytyv6iJL(voi xy ^offiAt'ws [i.C. the sultan] arpai^. 

It 2 


suaded an assault. He reminded the young sultan how his father, 
Murad II, had beseiged the town in vain for six months in 1440, 
and to prevent the repetition of such a blunder he advised his master 
merely to surround the place with a corps of observation, but not 
commence active siege operations till the whole region between the 
Save and Drave had been thoroughly subdued and the city conse- 
quently isolated. But the sultan, eager to revenge the defeat of 
Krusevacz, would listen to no counsels of delay, and the majority of 
the captains supported him.^* So the sappers and miners set to 
work forthwith ; the artillery was mounted, and cannon factories con- 
structed, from which enormous pieces of ordnance were turned out. 
The fleet too had also arrived from its winter quarters at Widdin. 
It consisted of two hundred vessels (sixty of which were large war 
galleons) in three divisions, one of which guarded the course of 
the Danube, while the second occupied the mouth of the Save and 
the third was anchored immediately opposite the fortress, so as to 
blockade the squadron of small vessels belonging thereto. The 
camp extended in three huge lines across the whole neck of the 
isthmus, a distance of about nine thousand paces. Thus Belgrade 
was so closely invested, both by land and water, as to seem inac- 
cessible. The whole plain in front of the city, as far as the eye 
could reach, was covered with tents of every shape and hue, the 
larger and loftier ones marking the quarters of the various pashas, 
while high above all towered the pavilion of the padishah, with 
the green banner floating on its summit. Gorgeous upright 
standards marked the divisions of the vast array. Everything had 
been done for the comfort of the soldiers. The commissariat was 
excellent. Of corn and provender there was no lack. Feasting and 
merrymaking was the order of the day. The mills regularly ground 
the wheat, barley, and rye, and whole villages of ovens converted 
the masses of meal into bread and biscuits every morning. The 
temper of the troops was admirable, and the sultan swore that 
he would not only be the lord of Belgrade on the tenth day after 
the cannonade began, but also that before two moons had waned 
he would make his triumphal entry into Buda over prostrate 

In the beginning of July the cannonade (the sound of which is 
said to have been carried by the south wind as far as Szeged, a 
distance of nearlj' a hundred miles) began, and continued incessantly 
for twelve days, by which time wide, yawning breaches in the walls 
were apparent everywhere. The defence was heroic, but the utmost 
efforts of the garrison seemed only able to postpone the inevitable 
catastrophe. Their exertion was mostly labour lost, for the cannon- 
balls continually dispersed and scattered the materials they had 

=» Said Eddin. 

1892 • BY MUHAMMAD II .245 

laboriously brought together to fill up the breaches and repair the 
ramparts. In the Turkish camp no doubt whatever was felt as to 
the result. It was at this juncture that Szilagyi's messenger 
managed to steal through the Turkish lines to the camp of Szalanka 
and inform the captain-general of the urgent need of the fortress. 
Hunyady at once resolved to attempt the apparently hopeless task 
of relieving it. His forces were miserably, desperately inadequate. 
His men-at-arms were scarcely as numerous as the sultan's body- 
guard, and the sixty-thousand ragged nondescripts who followed 
Capistran counted for next to nothing in his strategical calculations. 
But the extremity of the danger and the magnitude of the stake 
at issue admitted of not a moment's hesitation, and a lifelong expe- 
rience had taught the hero that well-directed valour may always 
hope to triumph over adverse circumstances. To attempt a rescue 
by land, however, was a sheer impossibility. The little band of 
warriors would have been massacred before they could have reached 
the gates of the Turkish camp. There was nothing for it but to 
descend the Danube with the flotilla and force a way into the city 
by water, while the bulk of the crusaders under Capistran simul- 
taneously marched along the riverbank. So Szilagyi was advertised 
beforehand of the approach of the relief force and directed to hold 
the forty small ships belonging to the town in readiness for a com- 
bined attack. 

On 14 July Hunyad}' set out on his adventurous quest under 
cover of a moonless night, and his vessels in battle array, -^ favoured 
by the swift current, were borne swiftly down stream towards 
Belgrade. The captain-general, with that peculiar combination 
of daring and discretion which had always characterised him, on 
this occasion also left as little as possible to chance. In his flotilki, 
collected haphazard and equipped on the spur of the moment, he 
had but little confidence ; so, by way of reserve, he had caused to be 
constructed, on a plan of his own, an enormous vessel which 
brought up the rear, and after filling it with provisions and ammu- 
nition embarked on it with his staff and cavalry. Thus this float- 
ing monster not only obviated the troublesome necessity of a whole 
fleet of lighters but acted at the same time as a reserve force and a 
flag ship. Along the shore, parallel with the fleet, marched the 
crusaders headed by Capistran, ' the sight of whom inspired visible 
confidence everywhere.' ^" His banner, a huge crucifix, was borne 
before him by one Peter of whom we only know that he was of 
noble birth and held it as the highest honour to be the standard- 
bearer of the saint. The Turks had fastened their ships together 
by huge iron chains, forming a sort of bridge stretching right across 
the river. On the approach of the diminutive Christian fleet they 
set up a loud derisive shout, but at the same time serried their 

" Chalcocondylas. " Tagliacotius. 


ranks and prej^ared for boarding. Hunyady, on coming in sight of 
the fortress, had disembarked from his argosy with his cavalry, so 
as to interpose between the Turkish fleet and camp and at the same 
time prevent the fugitives from the fleet escaping ashore. With 
loud cries of * Jesu ! Jesu ! ' ^' the Christian flotilla fell upon the 
Turkish fleet, and Szilagyi's forty ships issuing from the town at the 
same instant, the action became general. For five hours the battle 
raged. It was a hand-to-hand melee, and for a long time victory 
was doubtful. The garrison, in an agony of suspense, prayed assi- 
duously to Heaven, while Capistran with clasped hands and uplifted 
eyes incessantly invoked the name of Jesus, or running hither and 
thither ' with all the vigour of a robust youth,' stretched out his 
crucifix against the enemy. At length the Hungarians prevailed, 
and, bursting asunder the iron chains, forced their way into the 
town. The Turkish fleet was annihilated. Three of the largest 
galleons sank with all their crews ; four more were captured ; a few, 
with their crews liors de combat, contrived to reach their old moor- 
ings ; the rest, disabled and driven ashore, were burnt next day by 
order of the sultan to prevent them falling into the hands of the 

On entering the city Hunyady found the garrison utterly de- 
jected. They were as men who had already felt the chill of death. 
His presence, however, somewhat restored their confidence. 

What fear ye ? [the brave old man is reported to have said.] Is this 
the first time you have seen the Turks ? Are not these the very same we 
have so often put to flight, and who have sometimes put us to flight also ? 
Why should their familiar aspect disturb you now ? Surely you know 
by this time what manner of men they are ! Be of a stout heart then, my 
dear sons. Put your trust in Christ. Did He not die for us ? And should 
we, then, account it a hardship to die for Him ? Be valiant, then, and 
strive manfully. If God be with us the foe will prove a coward. What 
more need I say to you when you have already proved the truth of my 
words so many times beneath my banner ? 

Then he refortified the camp, admitted the pick of the crusaders 
to man the walls, enlisted all the able-bodied inhabitants as re- 
serves, and patiently awaited the general assault, which was now 
every day expected. 

From 14 July (the day of the naval engagement) totheSlstthe 
Turks battered away incessantly at the walls of the city. By the end 
of that time the larger part of the ramparts was level with the 
ground,^^ though fragments of the undermined bastions and a few 
tottering towers still remained standing.^^ The day on which the 

"' Ibid. =2 chalcocondylas. 

^' Tagliacotius and Kritoboulos. Compare also the official report of Hunyady: 
hi tantum enim ipstivi castriim per ictus hombardarum destruxit quod ipsum castrum 
non est castrum sed campus, quia usque ad terram murtis est destructus. 

" Tagliacotius. 

1892 ^ BY MUHAMMAD II 24:7 

sultan had vowed to take the city had now arrived, and from early 
dawn^'"' he made elaborate preparations for the assault. The sudden 
death of the valiant and experienced Karaja Pasha,^*^who was killed 
by a bullet while reconnoitring the fortress, threw a gloom at first over 
the Turkish camp, and was interpreted by the deeply afflicted sultan 
as a very evil augury ; but Muhammad inspired his troops with 
fresh confidence by a spirited harangue, in which he declared, 
amidst unbounded enthusiasm, that he would lead the attack in 
person at the head of the lions of combat,^^ the invincible janissa- 
ries. Accordingly, shortly after vespers,^^ when the fierce heat of 
the day ^^ had somewhat abated, the sultan gave the signal, and the 
janissaries, drowning with their shouts of * Allah ! Allah ! ' the din 
of the horns and kettledrums, rushed headlong into the city through 
the three great breaches which yawned open before them, quite 
outstripping their master, who was with difficulty restrained by his 
suite from following them. The janissaries found the whole space 
between the outer walls and the citadel deserted and the ramparts 
unmanned, for Hunyady had commanded his men to allow the 
enemy free access into the town, and both those with him in the 
citadel and those who guarded the city walls were to lie in ambush 
till the trumpet sounded, when they were to rush forth simulta- 
neously upon the scattering Turkish forces. 

The ruse succeeded. The janissaries, meeting with no opposi- 
tion, imagined that the town was already theirs, and fell to plunder- 
ing it, when, at the preconcerted signal, the crusaders, led by 
Capistran, appeared behind them on the walls, while ' the hellish 
Janko,' as Said Eddin politely calls Hunyady, issuing forth from 
the citadel at the head of his men-at-arms, caught them suddenly 
between two fires. A terrible struggle ensued. The Turks, though 
taken at an advantage, were as ten to one and armed to the teeth, 
whilst most of their antagonists were scarcely armed at all. A 
hand-to-hand melee went on in every street, but the fight was fiercest 
on the narrow bridge ^° leading from the citadel to the town, where 
Hunyady*' commanded in person, and on the bastions, which were 

" Chalcocondylas antedates the assault to the morning, but he was not an eye- 

•• Chalcocondylas calls him &pi(TTos ruv eV rals fiaxriXiws Ovpats ; Kritoboulos, ' one 
of the most notable of men in valour, capacity, and virtue.' 

»' Said Eddin. =» Tagliacotius. 

** The heat was suifocating and the men in armour suffered severely. 

*" In hoc siquidem ixnitis ingressu acerrima ptigna coinmissa est, maximusqtte con- 

*' It is well to notice that both the Greek and Turkish annalists imagine that the 
king of Hungary led his troops in person. Said alludes to the 'infernal King Jack,' 
and Chalcocondylas to SSe Xladvtcv \i.c. Hungarians] RaaiXtvs. They might well be 
excused for thinking so. Hitherto the kings of Hungary had always been in the 
forefront of battle. 


defended by crusaders hastily brought across the river on rafts 
by a young Hungarian nobleman, Ladislaus Kanizsai, and fighting 
beneath the eye of Capistran with the steadiness of veterans. 
For hours the Christians more than held their own, contesting the 
narrow streets inch by inch with the janissaries, hurling them again 
and again from the city walls and successfully driving them back 
from the citadel. There, says Said Eddin, the Turkish warriors 
* poured out their life's blood like water in the pla.ce of death, 
and countless heroes tasted the pure honey of a martyr's death 
and were caught up into the arms of the houris of paradise.' 
Prodigies of valour were performed on both sides, but we have only 
space for a single example, as illustrating the boundless confidence 
of the soldiers in Capistran. While the fight was at its hottest 
a sturdy young janissary scaled the top of the highest tower, and, 
waving the crescent banner above his head, called to his hesitating 
comrades to come up after him. At that moment a young Hun- 
garian squire, Titus Dugonics, attracted by the shout, rushed to 
the spot and attempted to tear the flag from the Turk's grasp. 
A desperate struggle began. The youths were so equally matched 
that neither could prevail against the other, and when Dugonics-, 
closing with his opponent, attempted to pitch him into the ditch 
below, the muscular Moslem embraced him with such an iron grip 
that it was plain neither of them could fall without the other. 
In this dilemma Dugonics happened to look up, and beheld Capis- 
tran on the walls, crucifix in hand, urging on his crusaders to 
redoubled efforts. ' My father,' exclaimed the panting youth, * if 
I hurl myself down from the tower with this pagan shall I be 
saved ? ' ' Saved thou shalt be in very deed, my son ! ' replied 
Capistran. ' My blessing follow thy heroic deed and the holy crown 
of martyrdom be thy everlasting guerdon ! ' Dugonics needed no 
more. Tightening his grasp round the Turk, he plunged down 
with him from the top of the tower, and both of them were dashed 
to pieces on the rock below. 

AH night long raged the contest. Hour after hour the Turks 
poured forth fresh thousands into the city from their inexhaustible 
camp, and where one fell a dozen seemtd to spring up instantly to 
take his place, ^^ while the splinters of their darts and javelins 
strewed the ground like straw. The Christians still strove manfully, 
but the fight was evidently going against them. Here and there 
on the outer walls * the spangled banners, like flaming tulip-beds,' '^ 
showed that the Turks, who fought ' like ravening beasts,' *^ had at 
last got a firm footing there, and on the bridge, where Hunyady, 

*'' Wann ainer viel da nieder so kommen zwOff [? ziodlf] hin wider in dises sturms 
•getrang. — Behem. ... 

" Said Eddin. " Tagliacotius. 

1892 BY MUHAMMAD II 249 

after doing all that became a good captain, fought at the head of 
his devoted little band like a common soldier, the distress of the 
wearied Christians was fast becoming exhaustion. It was plain 
that the limits of human endurance had very neai'ly been reached. 
Only Capistran on his lofty watch-tower seemed incapable of either 
fatigue or despair. * Jesu,' he cried, as though he would 
• storm heaven with his supplications, ' Jesu, where are Thy 
tender mercies which Thou hast shown to us of old ? Oh, come and 
aid us, and tarry not. Save, oh, save Thy redeemed, lest the 
heathen say, " Where is now their God ? " ' What followed next is 
best told in the vivid language of Tagliacotius, the. constant com- 
panion of Capistran all through the fight. 

Now when it began to dawn, and the crusaders who were in the 
circuit of the outer camp both saw and heard how the fight on the bridge 
was waxing exceeding fierce, and how the whole plain was filled with a 
vast multitude of Turks ; when, moreover, they saw how the fosses were 
full of the heathen and the numbers of those who entered increased 
incessantly, they began to fear that they would be unable any longer to 
withstand them. Then it was that, taught by the Holy Ghost, they got 
them innumerable osiers, fagots, dried branches, and other combustibles, 
and with one accord setting fire thereto, cast them down, mingled with 
burning pitch and sulphur, both upon the Turks who were in the ditches 
and upon those who were scaling the walls, just as a man might cast one 
large handful at a single throw. None could flee from the face of the 
fire. All who were in the ditches, the multitude whereof no man can 
number, were consumed by the fire ; not one of them remained alive. 
Those who were about to descend into the ditches fell back in terror, and 
those who were in the camp and strove, furiously fighting, to occupy 
the bridge, seeing themselves every way encompassed by the flames 
of an exceeding great fire, gave up fighting, and loudly shouting, strove 
to escape, who, smitten with blind terror and full of confusion, and 
thinking to escape by leaping from the walls, plunged again into the 
fire and were there consumed. But they who feared to take the leap 
were cut down by the crusaders in the open space within the outer 
wall, and they Avho had not yet descended into the ditches, but ministered 
to those who entered with their diabohcal engines, sent up yell after yell 
to heaven, and taking to their heels sheltered themselves in the place of 
the bombards, which was to them as a fortress strong and sure.'*'' 

Thus when the morning dawned not a single living Turk was to 
be seen within the Hungarian camp, but the ditches and the whole 

" According to Kiss {Hunyadi utolso hadjdrata) this last ruse of war was planned 
and carried out by Hunyady himself, who supported it by a fierce sortie from the 
citadel, and no doubt Tagliacotius is over eager to glorify the crusaders. But it is 
probable that this saving expedient occurred to both leaders simultaneously. The 
crusaders too, being much more numerous and less occupied than the men-at-arms 
■would naturally take the lion's share in the simple labour of hurling down the flaming 


space between the outer walls and the citadel were filled with their 
scorched and bleeding corpses. Thousands of them had perished 
there. The janissaries in particular had suffered so terribly that 
the survivors of them were thoroughly cowed, while the sultan's 
body-guard, which had led the attack, was well-nigh annihilated. 
So, after a twenty-hours' combat, the Christian host was able to 
breathe freely once more. 

But the bulk of the Turkish host still remained intact, and a 
second assault was therefore the next thing to be expected. Hunyady 
therefore, ' lest the glory of the day should be turned to confusion,' *^ 
issued a general order that no one was to quit his post on any 
pretext whatever under pain of death. ' He well knew,' says 
Chalcocondylas, ' that the Turk is never so dangerous as when he is 
in difficulties ; ' and the bitter experiences of Varna '•^ and Kossova ^* 
had taught him that the rash depreciation of such a foe was a fatal 
mistake. But now an extraordinary accident confounded the pre- 
cautions of the prudent captain. From early morn till late at 
noon on the 22nd the garrison of Belgrade and the crusaders on the 
opposite bank ^- of the river remained unmolested. Towards evening 
half a dozen of these crusaders, armed with bows and arrows, 
weary of doing nothing, ventured out into the open, and mounted 
a hillock to inspect the Turkish camp, the nearest point of which 
was about 1,500 yards off. A band of spahis, or Turkish light 
horse, espied and swooped down upon them, and although repulsed 
presently returned with reinforcements. At this sight the crusaders 
within Belgrade could also be restrained no longer and, despite the 
urgent remonstrances of Capistran, poured forth en masse, their 
brethren on the opposite bank immediately imitating their example. 
The saint perceiving that his word had, for the moment, lost its 
magic power, and seeing in the exaltation of his followers ' the finger 

** Tagliacotius. 

*'' At Varna (1444), although the Hungarians only numbered 12,000 against 
100,000, the victory was already theirs, when a headlong charge by the young king, 
against Hunyady's express command, ruined the Christian cause. The Hungarians 
were cut off almost to a man. The number of the Turkish slain, however, was no 
less than 34,000. ' May Allah never grant me another such victory ! ' cried Murad II 
as he went over the field. 

■"* Kossova (1448) was the bloodiest battle ever fought between the two nations. 
On the eve of the fight Murad offered Hunyady a six years' truce, an annual tribute of 
100,000 sequins, and all the expenses of the war, which unprecedentedly favourable terms 
the over-confident regent nevertheless haughtily rejected, though he had only 24,000 
against 150,000. The battle lasted two days, but the foolhardy venturesomeness of 
John Szekely, the master of the horse, and the defection of Vlad, hospodar of Wal- 
lachia, again lost Hunyady the day. 13,000 of the Christians, including the flower 
of the Hungarian nobility, perished on the battle-field, but the Turks lost 40,000 and 
were too crippled to follow up their advantage. 

** Part of the crusaders who had not yet entered the city had formed a new camp 
on an island at the junction of the Save and Danube and opposite the fortress, so as 
to be ready at hand on the first emergency. Kiss : Hunyadi utolsu hadjarata. 

1892 BY MUHAMMAD II 25l 

of God,' followed them with his crucifix and his attendant friars, 
whereupon Hunyady, to shield the crusaders as much as possible, 
was forced to order a general sortie, and at six o'clock the whole 
Christian host fell suddenly on the Turkish camp. Here, however, 
they encountered the most stubborn resistance. Thrice the Turkish 
artillery was lost and won, the sultan, ' with no other helmet and 
cuirass than belief in Allah and confidence in the ascendency of the 
star of Islam,' -'^ leading his troops in person and ' illuminating the 
dark day with the flashes of his dazzling scimitar.' ''' Singling 
out the biggest and fiercest of the Hungarian captains, he cleft 
him at one blow from his skull to his breast-bone, and drove the 
Christians back headlong to the very walls of Belgrade. But this 
last rally came all too late. The trembling janissaries refused to 
follow the padishah himself a second time into the ' place of 
corruption.' Their aga, the valiant Hassan Beg, unable to 
endure the taunts of the sultan, rushed into the thickest of the 
fight and died beneath the very eyes of his master, and at last Mu- 
hammad, unsupported, bewildered, severely wounded (Kritoboulos, 
himself a surgeon, tells us it was in the thigh, and deep, but not large), 
and foaming at the mouth with impotent rage, yielded to the tearful 
entreaties of his staff and ' turned his stately steed into the path of 
safety,' -'^ though ' his hand never let go the bridle.' 

By nightfall all was over. The defeat had become a rout, and 
after pursuing the panic-stricken fugitives for eight miles -'-^ through 
the darkness the victors returned and spoiled the camp. It is said 
that the sultan never drew rein till he had reached Sophia, and, 
feeling insecure even there, fled next day to Adrianople after 
massacring those of his troops who had deserted him at Belgrade. 
He had lost more than 50,000 killed and wounded, 300 guns, and 
27 war vessels. ' Never before,' wrote Hunyady to the king three 
days after the battle, * never before has a Turkish sultan been so 
ruinously defeated, and never have the chroniclers recorded a deeper 
humiliation.' He was for instantly following up his advantage, and 
declared that if only Christendom would now loyally unite with 
Hungary it would be an easy matter to obtain possession of the whole 
Turkish realm, as the sultan had lost the sinews of his might beneath 
Belgrade. And indeed under such a leader anything was possible ; 
but unfortunately for Europe the great captain had now run his 
high, heroic course. Popular superstition saw in the twin comets ^^ 
which terrified Europe during that eventful month calamitous por- 
tents, and the deaths of the two Johns in rapid succession seemed to 
bear out the evil forebodings of the astrologers. Twenty days after 

" Said Eddin. »' Id. « Id. 

*' Anonymous in Magyar Begestdk, No. 162. 

** Servian lyetopisi, which say more about these portents th^u about the siege, 


his victory, while all Europe was ringing with his name and bon- 
fires in his honour were blazing in every city in Hungary, Hunyady 
fell sick of the plague which had broken out in the camp, and was 
conveyed for greater comfort to Semlin, where his faithful comrade 
Capistran stayed with him till he died. Old age had scarcely affected 
him, but his naturally robust constitution had been utterly worn out by 
the exertions, the privations, and the anxieties of the last six weeks, 
and left him no strength to resist the disease. His death was of a 
piece with his whole life. Feeling his end approaching, he begged 
Capistran to have him conveyed to the jDarish church, that he might 
there communicate for the last time. The saint assured him that 
the viaticum should be brought to him where he lay. * Not so,' 
replied the dying hero : ' 'tis not meet that the Master should come 
to His servant ; 'tis for the servant to go and seek his Lord.' 
Accordingly they conveyed him to the church, and there at the high 
altar he received the sacrament from the hands of his friend, and 
then expired in his arms (11 Aug. 1456). He had just reached 
his seventieth year. Capistran" only survived him ten weeks. 
All Christendom naturally mourned the death of the champion 
whom the pious gratitude of the age not unnaturally regarded 
as a martyr for the faith ; -'^ but perhaps the most flattering tri- 
bute to his memory is contained in the words of his bitterest foe, 
while still smarting beneath the shame of defeat. It is said 
that when the news of Hunyady's death was first told to the 
sultan, Muhammad long remained silent, with his eyes fixed on the 
ground. At length, raising bis head, he said to those about him, 
' He was my foe, but would that I had not lost him ! His equal 
is not to be found among the subjects of princes.' 

The victory of Belgrade gave Hungarj^ a respite of seventy 
years, but it was a warning rather than a benefit. The narrow- 
ness of the deliverance might have impressed upon the nobles of 
the apostolic kingdom the necessity of unity and concord, for a 
nation whose fate depended upon the issue of a single battle must 
needs be strong at home, and it was too much to expect the 
saving interposition of a great man at every crisis as a matter of 
course. But the lesson was lost upon the Hungarians, and at the 
fatal battle of Mohacz in 1526 the Turk was more than revenged for 
his humiliation at Belgrade. K. Nisbet Bain. 

" Capistran was regarded as a saint in his lifetime, and was venerated as such in 
Hungary immediately after his death. He was not canonised, however, till 1690. 

*' Quern {i.e. Hunyady) congruis iitulis ac diademate decorare decreveramus ; 
Dominus tamcn cxercituuin in coelestibus imvtortali diademate decoravit, qui ut felix 
inter martyres computari potest (Encyl. of Calixtus). 

1892 253 

The Visit of Philip II 

IT is somewhat curious that English historians, in describing an 
event fraught with such tremendous possibihties to Christianity 
as the coming of the Spanish prince to wed Mary of England, should 
have entirely overlooked a source of information which was more 
likely than any other to abound in interesting and trustworthy 
details of the voyage — I mean the contemporary narratives of 
Spaniards who accompanied Philip hither. So far as regards the 
splendid pageantry that marked the new consort's entrance into 
London the English records themselves leave nothing to be desired. 
Darnley's tutor, John Elder, in his letter to his pupil's uncle, the 
bishop of Caithness,^ descends to the minutest particulars, and is 
amply confirmed by the anonymous chronicle of Queen Mary in the 
Harleian manuscripts, whence John Stow derived his information ; 
by Edward Underhyll, 'the hot-gospeller,' ^ and the letters of the 
French ambassador Antoine de Noailles.^ The gorgeous cere- 
monies that attended the marriage in Winchester Cathedral are 
also sufficiently described by these and other authorities, as 
well as in the official account of the English heralds of the time, 
copied from the Book of Precedents of Ralph Brooke, York herald, 
and printed in Leland's ' Collectanea,' edit. 1774, and by the Camden 
Society, 1849 ; "* but the accounts given by English historians of 
Philip's voyage and reception at Southampton appear to rest 
entirely upon a narrative of an Italian named Baoardo, published 
in Venice in 1558, four years after the event, and the letters of 
Noailles to the king of France. Miss Strickland and Mr. Froude, 
both of whom draw upon Baoardo to a large extent for their local 
colour, quote him as an eye-witness of the scenes he describes. 
Whether he was so or not I do not know, although I have been 

■ This curious and rare tract was reprinted by the Camden Society, 1849, and is 
the groundwork of Foxe's and HoUingshed's accounts of the events related therein. 

* Edward Underhyll was one of the gentlemen pensioners, and his quaint narrative 
of the accession of Mary and the subsequent events, now amongst the Harleian manu- 
scripts, was largely used by Strype and others. 

' Ambassades de Noailles. Leyden, 1763. 

* To these may be added the slight but interesting narrative existing in manuscript 
at Louvain, and printed by Tytler in his Edward VI and Mary, and the letters of the 
Venetian ambassador in Flanders to the doge and senate, for which see Calendar of 
State Pajyers (Venetian) of the date in question. 


unable to discover any evidence of his presence, but in any case the 
bitter animus against PhiHp shown in his narrative is so clear that 
it is unfair to accept his statements without ample confirmation. 

Such confirmation seems to have been sought, by Mr. Froude 
at all events, in the letters of the French ambassador, and 
from this material, coupled with the fact that certain prudent 
measures of precaution were suggested by Simon Eenard, the 
emperor's ambassador, in his letters to his master, the historian 
paints his highly coloured picture of Philip as a sulky, sea-sick 
craven trembling at his very shadow, in momentary fear of poison, 
consummating a sacrifice from which his soul revolts. To justify 
this view Mr. Froude depends mainly upon Noailles. It must, how- 
ever, be remembered first, that the French ambassador was not in a 
position to know the exact details of Philip's voyage and reception : 
secondly, that he was the last person in the world to give a fair account 
of them ; thirdly, that the historian has gone beyond his authority, 
even such as it was ; and fourthly, that several witnesses of the 
events described, whose evidence has hitherto been ignored, entirely 
fail to confirm the view taken by Mr. Froude from Noailles and 
Baoardo. Throughout the whole negotiations that had preceded 
the arrangement of the marriage Noailles had been absurdly ill- 
informed and wide of the mark.'' His letters to the king of France 
and the constable teem with ]3redictions and assertions which sub- 
sequent events proved to be quite wrong, and it is easy to see that 
for months previous to the marriage he was entirely hoodwinked 
and out of touch with trustworthy sources of information. In a 
letter to the French adviser of Mary of Lorraine in Scotland, M. 
d'Oysel, dated 29 March 1554, for instance, he speaks of the earl of 
Bedford's departure for Spain as an accomplished fact, and has no 
doubt that he had already sailed from Plymouth to fetch the prince. 
On May 18, after ringing the changes upon this for nearly two 
months, he tells the king that the rumour runs that Bedford is to go 
shortly to Spain, but that the prince will not come until the winter, 
whereas Philip had already left Valladolid at the time on his way to 
England. On 31 March Noailles is quite persuaded that Wyatt's 
life will be spared, and less than a fortnight later he describes his 
execution. On 29 March, again, he says that the bishop of Norwich, 
the queen's ambassador to the emperor, had been summoned to 
perform the marriage, and was to be created archbishop of York for 
the purpose. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, really performed the 
ceremony. Noailles again is quite sure that other Wyatts will arise 

* He was equally at sea at the beginning of Mary's reign, when he vigorously aided 
Northumberland's conspiracy to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne, and repeatedly 
told his master that Mary's cause was an absolutely hopeless one. On the ignominious 
collapse of Dudley, Noailles excused his own want of prescience by saying that nothing 
but a direct miracle from heaven could have brought about such a change. 


and that 50,000 men will be in arms to receive the prince, and in 
April, after writing for weeks of the preparations for the arrival of 
Philip on the south coast and marriage at Winchester, he believes 
it all to be a feint and that the prince will suddenly appear and be 
married in London, On the 29th of the same month he is strongly 
of opinion that Sir James Crofts will be executed on the following 
Monday, whereas that distinguished old soldier lived and fought 
for many years afterwards. Hardly a letter, indeed, from Noailles 
at this period fails to show that the man, having been completely 
outwitted by Eenard's keen diplomacy, was entirely at sea and- 
badly served by his informers. But I go beyond this. Philip had 
anchored in Southampton Water on the afternoon of 19 July 1554, 
and landed on that of the 20fch. On the night of the 20th, after 
the prince had landed, Noailles learnt in London by an imperial 
messenger for the first time of his arrival, and communicated the 
news to the king of France immediately by letter ; and on the 23rd 
he writes — 

J'ai envoye ung des miens a Hamptonne et a Winchestre et despes- 
cheray demain encores ung aultre pour estre mieulx par mesme informe 
de tout ce qui se fera taut a la terre que sur la mer . . . affin de tenir 
advertye vostre majeste. 

It is clear, therefore, that Noailles had no trustworthy person to 
give an exact account of the reception of the prince until the 
arrival of the latter at Winchester, and the description in his letters 
of Philip's voyage and doings at Southampton was merely current 
gossip dressed up to suit the palate of the writer and his master." 
How much impartiality could be exj)ected from Noailles under the 
circumstances may well be imagined. He had been thoroughly 
outmanoeuvred, and French diplomacy had received a greater blow 
than it had sustained for many years in seeing England drift appa- 
rently for good into the arms of Spain. His country was at the 
very moment engaged in a long and costly war with the emperor, 
and he himself had just been detected and exposed for the second 
time in his attempts to suborn and support rebellion in England, 
and was in high dudgeon at being pointedly excluded from partici- 
pation in the marriage festivities. What wonder, then, that after 
slandering the queen for months past he should do as much as 
possible to darken the shadows of the picture of Philip sent for the 
delectation of Philip's enemy '? It were expecting too much to 

" I am of course aware that the ambassador had Eent his brother Fran(,'ois dc 
Noailles to retjuest the queen to stand godmother to his newly born son, but Fran(,'o;s 
only arrived at Winchester from London on the day the queen received news of the 
arrival of the prince off the Isle of Wight, which could not have been earlier than the 19th 
and was back in London again in time for the child to be christened, with the countess 
of Surrey as the queen's proxy, on the 22nd, which would certainly leave him no time 
to go to Southampton to witness the landing. See Ainbassa.dcs de NmUIcs, in. 282. 


suppose that the outwitted diplomatist and supple courtier would do 

Ill-natured, however, as are Noailles's references to Philip, even 
they do not, in my opinion, warrant the distorted picture inferentially 
derived from them. To instance a small matter of which much is 
made by Mr. Froude — namely, the vivid scene of the sea-sick prince 
gulping down beer on the night of his arrival at Southampton, to 
please the English spectators at his public repast — Noailles says 
not a word about Philip's being ill or sea-sick, nor do any other 
•chroniclers of the time, that I am aware of. The only foundation 
for the story seems to be a remark contained in a letter from the 
earl of Bedford and Lord Fitzwalter from Santiago (' Calendar of 
State Papers, Foreign ') to the effect that, as the prince suffers much 
at sea, it will be well to make preparations for him to land at 
Plymouth, or other port on the south coast if necessary.' The 
voyage was a beautifully calm one, and the prince had remained on 
board the ' Espiritu Santo,' at anchor in Southampton Water, for 
twenty hours at least before he landed, and, instead of the dramatic 
scene at his public supper described by Mr. Froude, his repast was a 
private one an(3, according even to Noailles, who is alone responsible 
for the story, after supper, in the presence chamber, Philip told his 
Spanish courtiers that in future they must forget the customs of their 
country and live like EngHshmen, and * when, according to the 
English fashion, a quantity of wine, beer, and ale was brought in 
silver flagons he took some beer and drank it ' — a very simple and 
appropriate compliment to his new country, but even Noailles tells 
the story without a hint of the loathing of unwilling sacrifice with 
which Mr. Froude invests the perfectly natural scene. 

Having thus far spoken of the authorities upon which English 
historians have hitherto based their descriptions of the coming of 
Philip the Prudent, and pointed out a few of what I venture to think 
their obvious shortcomings, I will mention some other contemporary 
narratives which may well, it is true, sin just as much on the score 
of partiality, but at any rate afford a view of the events recorded 
that has hitherto been almost entirely ignored — namely, the view 
taken by those Spaniards who accompanied their prince in his 
voyage to England in quest of his eager but elderly bride.^ 

Amongst the five hundred courtiers and servants, besides 
soldiers, who accompanied Philip to England, several would naturally 

' Mr. Prescott is the only historian writing in the English language who refers to 
Spanish accounts at all, and his reference is confined to a single mention of Cabrera's 
bald and stolid history and one or two quotations from Sepulveda, who appears to have 
derived what little information he gives from one of the narratives now before me. 
Simon Renard's letters to the emperor in the Granvallc papers are naturally also re- 
ferred to by most historians of the period in question, but, important as they are from 
many points of view, they only give a purely official and diplomatic account, and are 
Flemish and imperial rather than Spanish and personal in their interest. 


be able and disposed to put upon record, for transmission to their 
friends in Spain, full narratives of the great events they witnessed — 
events, be it said, which had deeply stirred the public imagination 
of Spaniards who had been taught to believe that the marriage of 
their prince in England would mean not only the mastery of their 
country over France, but the restoration of all Christendom to the 
true faith. These letters, in a period when newspapers were not, 
would frequently be printed and circulated by enterprising book- 
sellers, and no doubt many of such news letters, both in print and 
manuscript, are still hidden in bundles and volumes of miscellaneous 
papers in the public and private libraries in the peninsula. One 
curious manuscript letter, written from Winchester by Juan de 
Barahona to Antonio de Barahona, was found in the library of 
the Escorial fifty years ago, and published in the first volume of 
the * Documentos ineditos para la Historia de Espana ' in 1842. The 
manuscript had belonged to the contemporary chronicler Florian 
de Ocampo, and gives an extremely full account of the voyage, 
reception, and marriage, abounding in curious details of the life, 
dress, and manners of the time. In referring to this narrative 
in the following pages I shall distinguish it as narrative No. 1. 

Many years later there was discovered in the Biblioteca 
Nacional a record which, to Spaniards at least, was much more 
valuable and interesting. It was a printed tract entitled 

Summary and Veracious Eelation of the Happy Voyage made by the Uncon- 
quered Prince of the Spains, Don Felipe, to England, and his Eeception 
in Vineester, where he was married, with his Departure for London ; in 
which are contained the great and marvellous things that happened at 
that time. Dedicated to the Most Illustrious Lady Donna Luisa Enriquez 
de Giron, Countess of Benavente, by Andres Muiloz, Servant to his Serene 
Highness the Infante Don Carlos. Imprinted in ^aragOQa, in the house 
of Esteban de Najera, 1554, at the cost of Miguel de ^'apila, bookseller. 

The author was a lacquey to the unhappy Don Carlos, then a 
child, and his own personal observation is confined to the elaborate 
preparations for Philip's voyage made in the city of Valladolid and 
the journey of the little prince to Benavente, in Castile, to take leave 
of his father. What he saw and heard he relates with a trivial 
minuteness of detail, particularly as to the persons who were to 
accompany Philip and the clothes they took with them, which to an 
ordinary reader would be tedious in the extreme. But although his 
own share in the voyage ended at Benavente, whence Don Carlos 
returned to Valladolid, Muiloz apparently made arrangements with 
some member of the suite — no doubt of similar rank to himself — to 
send him particulars from England, and his account is therefore 
carried down to the departure of Philip and Mary for London after 
their marriage. This is by far the fullest account known, especially 
as to the events prior to Philip's embarkation ; but the writer's 

VOL. VII. — NO. XXVI. & 


position naturally caused him to dwell mainly upon the sartorial 
aspect of things which came under his observation, and he de- 
scribes the splendour and pageantry rather as a spectator than as 
an actor. I shall call Munoz's narrative No. 2. 

About the same time as the discovery of Munoz's letter three 
.other letters, which in my opinion are even more valuable, because 
of the position of the sujDposed author, were found in the Escorial 
library. The first is a printed tract in the form of a diary and is 

Transcript of a Letter sent from England to this City of Seville, in 
which is given a Relation of the Events of the Voyage of our Lord the 
Prince Don Philip, from his Embarkation in the Corufia, a Port of Spain, 
to his Marriage to the Serene Queen of England. 1554. 

The book bears the well-known device, although not the name, 
of the celebrated Sevillian printer Andres de Burgos. In the 
same library was found a manuscript letter taking up the nar- 
rative where the last-mentioned tract ended — namely, after the 
marriage at Winchester at the end of July — and carrying it to 
19 August, when the court was at Richmond. No printed copy 
of this continuation is known to exist, but it is almost certainly 
written by the same hand, and contains many remarks and opinions 
which would probably have been suppressed if the letter had been 
published. A continuation of this, again, was also found in the 
Escorial, written apparently by the same person, bringing the narra- 
tive down to 2 Oct., and is dated from London, where the king 
and queen then were. These three letters, which I shall distinguish 
by the numbers 3, 4, and 5, were published, together with Muiioz's 
narrative (No. 2), by the Society of Bibliophilists of Madrid in 1877, 
under the editorship of Don Pascual de Gayangos. 

In inquiring into the probable authorship of these three 
extremely valuable and interesting letters Sefior de Gayangos gives 
good reason for supposing that they were written by a young 
courtier named Pedro Enriquez, one of Philip's stewards. He is 
known to have had a perfect mania for writing relations of what he 
saw and heard, and has been called the Spanish Tacitus.^ He was 
a brother of the marquis of Villanueva and a relative both of the 
duke and the duchess of Alba, of whose movements he gives a very 
minute account in the above letters. He also identifies himself as 
a steward of the king in one of his complaints of the exclusive ser- 
vice of Philip by Englishmen, and is known to have been one of the 
very few Spanish noblemen who remained with Philip in London, 
His style, moreover, is peculiar, and I have had a former opportu- 
nity of commenting upon it in connexion with a rapid and indus- 
trious piece of historical transcription of his, executed in the follow- 

• Cabrera, Belaciones, and Nicolas Antonio, Biblioteca nova. 



ing year In Ghent ; ^ and I have no doubt that Don Pedro Enriquez 
was the author of the three letters I am speaking of. Few people 
could have had better opportunities of observation than he. He 
accompanied Philip everywhere : his rank and his relationship to 
the all-powerful Alba brought him within the inner circle of the 
court, and the feelings he expresses are those of the nobles who sur- 
rounded the king and not the gossip of the servants' hall or a valet's 
list of his master's finery. With these four letters the Society of 
Bibliophilists printed another by a different author, addressed from 
London at the end of December 1554, giving a very full account of 
the reception of Cardinal Pole ; but, as this does not touch the subject 
in hand, I omit any further reference to it. 

In the British Museum there is a small tract in Italian, appa* 
rently printed in Milan in 1554, called 

The Departure of the Serene Prince with the Spanish Fleet, and his 
Arrival in England, with the Order observed by the Queen in his High- 
ness's Reception, and the most Happy Wedding ; with the Names of the 
English, Spanish, and other Lords and Gentlemen who were present, and 
the Liveries, Festivities, and other Things done at the Wedding. 

It is signed * Giovanni Paulo Car,' and the writer was a servant 
of the marquis of Pescara. A paraphrase or adaptation of the 
letter also exists in the museum, and appears to have been pub- 
lished in Eome in the same year, but it is not signed and contains 
many additional particulars. The contents of these two tracts, again, 
appear to have been blended into a narrative published in the fol- 
lowing year, probably in Rome, in which the person to whom the 
letter is addressed is described as the * illustrious Signor Francesco 
Taverna Cracanz,' and although it is not signed by Car it evi- 
dently is by him, as he speaks of the marquis of Pescara all through 
the narrative as his master. I propose in referring to this narrative 
to call it No. 6. We have thus a mass of contemporary evidence 
from persons who were certainly attached to Philip's suite, by the 
aid of which and the authorities already known a more minute 
and trustworthy account than any hitherto presented of the events 
in question may be constructed. 

Eenard had first broached the subject of the marriage to Mary 
in August 1553, and all the attempts of Noailles to inspire fear and 
hatred of the match in the breasts of the queen and her people had 
only made her more determined to carry out the wishes of her 
heart, and, as she no doubt herself thought, to enhance the happi- 
ness and prosperity of her people. Egmont and his glittering train 
had been snowballed by the London 'prentices when he came 
formally to offer Philip's hand to the queen in January 1554. A 
whirlwmd of passion and panic had passed over southern England 

^ * Chronicle of King Henry VIII of England. Lonijon ; Bell and Sons. 1889. 



at the thought of a Spanish consort ruling in the land, and at about 
the time that gallant Wyatt and his dwindling troop of ' draggle- 
tayles ' were wearily toiling up Fleet Street, only to find that the 
queen's courage and their leader's irresolution had wrecked their 
enterprise, a dusty courier clattered into Valladolid with the pre- 
mature news that Lord Privy Seal, the earl of Bedford, and another 
English lord had started for Spain with the contract that was to 
make Philip king of England. His highness was hunting at um- 
brageous Aranjuez, a hundred miles off, and the messenger, just 
alighting to kiss the hand of poor lame little Prince Carlos, went 
scouring over the tawny plains again, bearing his pregnant tidings. 
The courting had all been done by the emperor through clever 
Benard, and the prince, dutiful son as he was, bent to his father's 
will without even knowing the terms of the bargain by which he 
\yas to be bound for life. The conditions imposed by the patriotism 
of Mary and her council were hard for the most powerful monarch 
on earth to brook for his son. Philip's power was so fenced round 
by limitations and safeguards that it was plain to see the English 
nobles meant his sceptre to be a shadowy one, and the sombre, 
sensitive pride of the prince was wounded to the quick at the light 
esteem in which they seemed to hold him ; but, as Sandoval says, ' he, 
like a second Isaac, was ready to sacrifice himself to his father's 
will and the good of the church.' And he did so gracefully and 
with dignity. No sooner had the courier delivered his message at 
Aranjuez than Philip set off on his return to Yalladolid with his 
gaudy escort of horsemen in their red and yellow doublets. In hot 
haste the old Castilian capital put on its holiday garb to celebrate 
the event ; the great square, standing much as it stands to-day, 
was bravely adorned, and costly hangings covered all one side of it 
where the prince sat to see the jousts, tourneys, cane-play, and 
fireworks, and where he sat, alas ! the next time he saw Valladolid 
on his return five years afterwards to watch unmoved the hellish 
fireworks of the great auto de fe. 

The wedding rejoicings had hardly begun when they were 
changed to mourning by the news of the death of Don Juan of 
Portugal, the husband of Philip's sister Juana, and the narrator 
Munoz breaks off in the midst of his rapture over the splendour 
of Valladolid's joy to relate the pompous grandeur of its sorrow — 
how between the screen and the altar of St. Paul's there were 
three thousand candles of white and yellow wax, and how all the 
solemnity of previous exequies paled before these. In the mean- 
time Philip had sent one of his stewards, Don Gutierre Lope de 
Padilla, to receive the English envoys at Laredo. After waiting 
there for a month with the prince's guard to pay them due honour 
he found that the news sent had been premature and that tlie 
mai:riage treaty had not yet eyen been ratified, and. was not, indeed, 


until Egmont's second visit to England in March. So Padilla found 
his way back again to Valladolid by the end of March, and they 
decided to take the matter in more leisurely fashion in future. 
But in a few weeks came news from the emperor himself that the 
contract was ratified, and then the marquis de las Navas was 
ordered to take the prince's first present to his bride. "We are told 
that the marquis fitted himself out for his mission regardless of 
cost, and his splendour appears to have been equalled by the 
princely gifts of which he was the bearer and the noble hospitality 
extended to him in England.'*^ Philip's offering to Mary consisted of 

a great table diamond, mounted as a rose in a superb gold setting, valued 
at 50,000 ducats ; a collar or necklace of 18 brilliants, exquisitely 
worked and set with dainty grace, valued at 32,000 ducats ; a great 
diamond with a fine large pearl pendant from it [this was Mary's 
favourite jewel, and may be seen on her breast in most portraits]. They 
were [says narrative No. 2] the most lovely pair of gems ever seen in the 
world, and were worth 25,000 ducats. 

Then comes a list of pearls, diamonds, emeralds, and rubies of 
inestimable value and other presents without number for the queen 
and her ladies. Eighty fine horses and fifty hackneys were sent on 
to Coruna to await the prince's coming, and all Castile and Aragon, 
not to speak of Leon, were alive with artificers of the gorgeous garb 
and trappings to fit out the proud nobles who were to follow their 
prince, each, with true Spanish ostentation, bent upon outstripping 
the others in the richness and splendour of themselves and their 
train.' ^ Mmioz, in narrative No. 2, gives a list of the clothes made 
for each of the principal grandees, which it would be tedious and 
unnecessary to repeat here. 

The prince, great as he was, was only first among his peers, 
and if he could be magnificent so could his train, and Alba and 
Medina-Celi, Egmont and Aguilar, Pescara and Feria vied with 
their master in their finery. Each great noble — and there were 
twenty of them — took his train of servants in new liveries, and the 
prince had a Sj)anish guard of a hundred gentlemen in red and 
yellow, a hundred Germans in the same uniform, but with silk 
facings, •' as their custom is to go bravely dressed,' a hundred 
archers on horseback, and three hundred servants in the same gaudy 
colours of Aragon. All this splendid apparatus was a comparatively 
new thing for Spaniards at the time ; the homely, unceremonious 
relations between sovereign and people had only been put aside for 
the pompous etiquette of the house of Burgundy on the coming of 

'" See letter from Lord Edmund Dudley to the council, quoted in Tytler, Edward 
VI and Mary. 

" This was in despite of Renard's recommendation to Philip : Scnlcment sera requis 
qtcc Us Espaignolcz qui suyvront vostre Altcze comporlent les fagons de faire des Angloys 
et soicnt modestes, confians que vostre Alteze les aicarassera parson htnnanite cp.?-. 


Philip's grandfather from Flanders with his Spanish bride to take 
up the sceptre dropped by the dead hand of Isabel the Catholic, and 
the gold of the Indies had since that time poured into Spain and 
spread a thirst for showy pomp even amongst the frank, honest, 
homely gentlemen who had formed a majority of the Spanish 
hidalgo class. The changed taste, however, was new enough still 
to attract the attention of the crowd, who had not yet become 
accustomed to so much splendour. 

All these elaborate preparations being completed, Philip, with 
nearly a thousand horsemen, glittering and flashing in the piti- 
less Castilian sun, left Valladolid on 14 May — not for England yet, 
but far down on the Portuguese frontier, at Alcantara, to meet 
his widowed sister, who had been forced to come out of her bitter 
grief to govern her father's kingdom during Philip's absence. He 
accompanied her five days on her journey to Valladolid, and then 
turning aside to take a last leave of his mad grandmother Juana 
la Loca, bent his course towards Benavente, on the high road to 
Santiago, arriving there on 3 June, covered with dust of travel, but 
gracious, as he could be, to those who had entertained his boy, 
Carlos, who had preceded him. Next day there was a grand bull 
fight in the plaza, which Philip and Carlos saw from Pero Hernandez's 
flower-decked house. The return of the princes to Count Benavente's 
castle was not quite so dignified as it might have been, as one bull 
was so ' devilish ' that it refused to be killed and held the plaza 
victoriously against all comers until the next morning, whereupon 
Philip and his son had to slip out by Pero Hernandez's back door and 
reach the castle by a roundabout way. The next day there was a hunt 
and a tourney, and then after supper the princes mounted on a high 
scaffold, richly dight, to see ' a procession of beautiful and strange 
inventions.' Torches blazed all round them, and each device was 
led by one of the neighbouring squires with twenty pikemen 
and drummers and fifers, each detachment in a separate livery. 
Elephants manufactured out of horses and pasteboard, castles with 
savages inside, a green tabernacle with a lovely maiden borne by 
savages, a model of a ship dressed with English and Spanish flags, 
and, strangest of all, a girl in a coffin complaining of Cupid, who 
came behind on horseback. When the device reached the middle 
of the plaza the god of love was suddenly hoisted on high by a 
rope round his middle, and let off fireworks, to the delectation of 
the crowd. As a relief to this foolery the great Lope de Eueda 
then represented ' a sacred play with comic interludes,' which no 
doubt was better worth seeing than the * conceits and fireworks ' 
that pleased the narrator so much. The next day, after bidding 
good-bye to the son who was afterwards to hate him so bitterly, the 
prince started in the cool of the summer night on his way to the sea. 
At Astorga a splendid reception had been prepared for him, but he 


could not stay and pushed on with all possible speed, news having 
reached him that the earl of Bedford and Lord Fitzwalter were 
already awaiting him at Santiago. There he arrived on the vigil 
of St. John, 23 June, and there as usual golden keys were offered by 
kneeling citizens ; silks and satins, velvets and brocades flaunted in 
the Buh, and in the upper window of a house on the line of route 
sat the two English lords, their mantles before their faces, watching 
the progress of their future king to worship at the shrine of the 
Spanish patron saint, St. James. The next morning Philip sent a 
party of his highest nobles to bring Bedford and Fitzwalter to him, 

being advised of their coming, his highness came out of his chamber 
into a great hall, strangely hung with rich tapestries, and on the lords 
half kneeling and doffing their bonnets the prince received them 
graciously with his hat in his hand. The principal ambassador, a grandee 
and a good Christian, produced the marriage contract, the conditions of 
which his highness accepted before all present. As the contents were 
only known to the prince and his council, we were unable to learn them. 
The English nobles then kissed hands in turn, and as they went out one 
said to the other in his own tongue, ' Oh ! God be praised for sending us 
so good a king as this ! ' The remark was made so quietly that it would 
not have been noticed only that a Spanish gentleman who understood 
their language stood close to them and happened to hear it. 

The envoys had some reason to be pleased with their queen's 
future consort, for after accompanying him to the cathedral the next 
day Bedford received as a gift what is described as being one of the 
finest pieces of gold ever seen, of exquisite and elaborate work- 
manship, chased with grotesque figures, and standing a yard and 
a half high, of solid gold. The narrator (No. 2) says that 6,000 
ducats' worth of gold was employed in the making of it, and the 
handiwork cost more than a thousand. The twenty English 
gentlemen who accompanied the envoys all received splendid gifts, 
although their appearance was already sufficiently rich with their 
'thick gold chains and great copiousness of buttons,' which last 
characteristic of English fashion of the time seems to have attracted 
most of the Spanish observers. Four days were spent in rest and 
rejoicing at Santiago, and then a three-days' ride brought them to 
Coruiia, where there were more rejoicings. Kneeling aldermen at 
the gate presented golden keys, as usual ; a marvellous canopy was 
held over the prince's head ; triumphal arches spanned the way ; 
and the local poet had contrived to evolve the following couplet, 
which was held aloft by five nymphs : 

No basta fuerza ni mana 
Contra el principe de Espana] 

which may be rendered— v,s.J[«jii.j4vl~iij l'--..^-:j3 


; . Force and cunning both in vain 

Strive against the prince of Spain. 

The narrator (No. 2) airs his historical knowledge in describing 
an allegorical group containing a figure of Hercules, whom he speaks 
of as having been 

a king of Spain before Christ, and having built many great edifices in 
the country, such as the Pillars of Hercules at Cadiz and the tower at 
the entrance to the port of Coruua, where there is a marvellous mirror 
showing ships that are far off at sea. 

With all porop, and with a naked sword of justice borne before 
him by his master of the horse, the prince was conducted to the 
shore to see the gallant fleet riding at anchor awaiting him. Drawn 
up on the beach were 600 Guipuzcoan sea warriors, armed with 
lances, and as the fleet and castle thundered out their salutations 
the townsfolk, we are told, feared their dwellings would all be shaken 
down, and ' for an hour and a half neither heaven nor earth was 
visible.' Thence the prince went round by the castle to the little 
dock, where forty Biscay fisher boats were ready with their glistening 
cargoes of fine fish to cast at the feet of their beloved Philip. The 
English ambassadors begged as a favour that the new consort would 
make the voyage in one of the British ships that had brought them 
over, but this was not considered prudent by Philip's cautious council- 
lors, and as a compromise the English envoys were allowed to choose 
from amongst all the Spanish ships the one that was to convey the 
prince. Their choice fell upon a fine merchant vessel commanded 
by the bravest and best of those bold Biscay mariners who are the 
pride of Spain, Martin de Bertondona, and the next morning 
Philip and his court sent to inspect it. A splendid sight it must 
have been with its towering carved and gilded poop and forecastle. It 
was hung, we are told, from stem to stern with fine scarlet cloth, and 
aloft on every available spot were coloured silk pennons. The fore- 
castle was hung with crimson brocade painted with golden flames. 
A royal standard thirty yards long, of crimson damask with the 
prince's arms painted on it, hung from the mainmast, and a similar 
flag from the mizzen-mast. The foremost had ten pointed silk flags 
painted with the royal arms, and there were thirty other similar 
flags on the stays and shrouds. Three hundred sailors in red uni- 
forms formed the crew, and we are assured that the effect of the 
ship was that of a lovely flower garden, as well it might be, and the 
cost of the decorations was ten thousand ducats. The English ships 
were then inspected and admired, and the ship that had carried the 
marquis de las Navas over to England with the jewels was visited, 
and its captain told how the good queen was anxious for her 
consort's arrival, and how she had ordereda thousand gentlemen to 


await him with as many horses, as she thought no horses would be 
brought from Spain. All next day is spent in hunting, and the 
favourite Euy Gomez, preceding his master on his return into the 
town, is saluted by the fleet instead of the prince by mistake, much 
to the latter's amusement. The next day heralds announced that 
everyone was to be examined by the prince's alcalde before embark- 
ing, and that no woman was to go without her husband. Muiioz says 
that 12,000 soldiers were shipped in the hundred ships (some of 300 
bronze pieces) and thirty sloops that formed the fleet, but this 
seems to be an exaggeration, as narrative No. 6 gives 6,000 soldiers 
and as many sailors as going in the main squadron that convoyed 
Philip (consisting of about a hundred sail), and Noailles, who would 
minimise it as much as possible, says 4,000. Don Luis de Carvajal 
remained behind with about thirty sail to take the troops that had 
not arrived (Noailles says 2,000) and bring up the rear. 

On 12 July Philip and his court embarked in a sumptuous galley 
of twenty-four oars, manned by sailors in scarlet and gold with plumed 
hats of scarlet silk, and, amidst music, singing, and daring gymnas- 
tic feats of the mariners, went on board Martin de Bertondona's 
ship, the 'Espiritu Santo.' The next day, Friday, at three in the 
afternoon they set sail, the dense crowd on shore crying to God to 
send the travellers a safe voyage, and in the same breath hurling 
defiance to the French. There was a slight swell and wind until 
next day at dinner, when the weather fell dead calm, * which looked 
as if it might last a month, but raised the spirits of those who were 
depressed by "marine vomitings." ' The next day a delightful fair 
breeze sprang up, and on a smooth sea the splendid fleet ran across 
the bay, sighting Ushant on Sunday. On Wednesday a Flemish 
fleet of eighteen galleons, which was cruising in the Channel, hove in 
sight, and convoyed them past the Needles with some ships of the 
English navy into Southampton Water, where on Thursday, 19 July, 
at four o'clock, the combined fleets anchored amid the royal salute 
from the English and Flemish fleets of thirty sail that were assembled 
to receive them. The English and Flemish sailors had not got on 
particularly well together during the time the two fleets had awaited 
the arrival of Philip. Eenard had complained to the emperor that 
the Flemish sailors were hustled and insulted whenever they set 
loot on shore, and Howard, the lord admiral, had mocked at their 
ships and called them cockle shells,'^ but I can find no contemporary 
authority for the extremely unlikely story of the English admiral 
having thrown a shot across the bows of the prince's fleet to 
compel it to salute the English flag. But Philip was determined 
to gain over the jealous hearts of his new subjects by his courtesy 
and graciousness. Eenard's recommendations and the emperor's 

" Benard to the emperor, quoted in Tytler, Edward VI and Mary. .j 


instructions liad been very definite on the point, and every account, 
Spanish, English, and Itahan, with the sole exception of Baoardo's, 
quoted by Froude, agrees that the prince's demeanour Avas kindly, 
courteous, and frank. Damula, the Venetian ambassador to the 
emperor, writes to the doge,^' saying that on disembarking he 
treated everybody with great graciousness and affability, without 
any pomp or royal ceremony, mixing with people as a comrade, and 
Cabrera, speaking of his arrival, says — 

Some of the English were inclined to be sulky, but the king won 
them over with his prudence and affability, and with gifts and favours, 
together with his family courtesy. [Our narrative No. 6 specially 
mentions the prince's cortesia e gentilezza di parlarc.^*] 

As soon as the anchors were down the English and Flemish 
admirals went on board to salute the prince, and the marquis de 
las Navas put off from Southampton with the six young noblemen 
who were to be the new king's lords-in-waiting (Noailles). The 
prince dined and slept on board, and the next day there came off 
to him the emperor's ambassador, the marquis de las Navas, 
Figueroa (the ancient ambassador with the long white beard), Pes- 
cara, and the earls of Arundel, Derby, Shrewsbury, and Pembroke (?). 
Noailles was probably wrong as regards the last-named nobleman, 
as the Spanish narratives agree that he arrived at Southampton 
from the queen next day, with a splendid escort for the new 
sovereign. He was also wrong in asserting that the king was 
invested with the garter on board his vessel, for it appears to have 
been given to him in the barge before he stepped on shore by 
Arundel, probably assisted by Sir John Williams — Lord Williams of 
Thame '' — to whom one of our narratives says the prince gave the 
wand of chamberlain, whilst the other narratives say the office was 
conferred on * the man who brought him the garter.' The future 
consort received these high personages on board the ' Espiritu Santo ' 
cap in hand, and after presenting them to his principal courtiers 
went on board the splendid barge awaiting him, accompanied by the 

" 22 July, Calendar of State Papers, Venetian. 

'* Soriano, the Venetian ambassador in Madrid, says that the gentle courtesy he 
adopted in England was continued after his return to Spain, and that whilst main- 
taining his natural gravity and dignity his kindness and graciousness were remarkable 
to all persons. Michaeli, the Venetian ambassador in London, who had sided with 
Noailles in his opposition to the match, is emphatic in his testimony of Philip's affa- 
bility whilst in England, and says that his conduct towards his wife was enough to 
make any woman love him, ' for in truth no one else in the world could have been a 
better or more loving husband.' These and many other similar contemporary assur- 
ances prove that Philip acted all through the business like an honest, high-minded 

'^ He died in 1559, and a magnificent alabaster monument, with the recumbent 
figures of himself and his wife, exists in fine preservation in the chancel of Thame 
ehurch, c^ which he was a liberal benefactor. 


English nobles and by Alba, Feria, Euy Gomez and four chamberlains, 
Olivares, Pedro de Cordoba, Gutierre, Lopez de Padilla, Diego de 
Acevedo, Egmont, Horn, and Bergues. No sign was made to the 
rest of the fleet, and the mass of courtiers only obtained leave to 
land after the royal party had approached the shore. No soldier 
or man-at-arms, however, was to land, on pain of death, for not only 
had Philip learnt from Eenard the agony of distrust of the Spanish 
arms felt by the English people, but he had received news of his 
father's reverse in the Netherlands and urgent orders to send him 
all the troops and money he had or could obtain. The Spanish 
fleet were not even allowed to enter the port of Southampton, but 
after some delay, and great discontent of the Spaniards at what they 
considered such churlish treatment, were sent to Portsmouth to re- 
victual for their voyage to Flanders. After the presentation of the 
chain and badge of the garter Philip stepped on English soil, and 
the first to greet him was Sir Anthony Browne, who announced in 
a Latin speech that the queen had chosen him for her consort's 
master of the horse, by whom her majesty had sent him the beautiful 
white charger housed in crimson velvet and gold that was champing 
the bit hard by. The prince thanked his new grand equerry, but said 
he would walk to the house prepared for him ; but Browne and the 
lords of the household told him this was unusual, and the former 
' took him up in his arms and put him on the saddle,' and then 
kissing the stirrups walked bare-headed by the side of his master. 
All the English and Spanish courtiers preceded them, and amidst 
apparent rejoicing they slowly passed through the curious crowd 
to the church of the Holy Eood. The prince must have looked an 
impressive figure with his erect bearing, his yellow beard and close- 
cropped yellow head, dressed as he was in black velvet and silver, 
his massive gold chains and priceless gems glittering in his velvet 
bonnet and at his neck and wrists. Browne was no unworthy 
pendant to his prince. He was dressed in a suit of black velvet 
entirely covered with gold embroidery and a surcoat of the same 
with long hanging sleeves. '•"' When the prince had returned thanks 
for his safe voyage he was conducted to the lodgings prepared for 
him, which we are told were beautifully adorned, particularly two 
rooms, a bedroom and presence chamber hung with gold-worked 
damask with the name of King Henry on it ; but none of our 
narrators say anything about Baoardo's story of the dismay caused 
by the words Fidei defensor. All the English archers and the 
guard and porters about the prince wore the flaming colours of 
Aragon, and the Spanish attendants and courtiers looked on with 
jealous rage at the clumsy attendance on him of the English ser- 
vants. The dinner and supper were private, but the meals were 

" Probably the dress in which he is represented in the magnificent painting of 
him belonging to the marquis of £zet«r at Burghlej (Nd. 236, Tudor Exhibition). 


ostentatious, ceremonious, and too abundant for the Spanish taste. 
On Saturday, the next day, the same programme was gone 
through : to mass in the eame order as before, the Spanish courtiers 
being obhged to leave before the service was over, in order to banish 
the idea that they were in official attendance on the prince, who 
came out surrounded by Englishmen only. It rained so hard that 
his highness, who had no hat or cape, had to borrow them of an 
Englishman near him, although the church was just opposite his 

Southampton is described in glowing terms. It is said to be a 
beautiful port with three hundred houses, which were filled to their 
utmost capacity by the courtiers and the four hundred Spanish 
servants who landed the day after the prince. The queen at Win- 
chester had learnt post haste of the landing of her future husband, 
and an active interchange of messengers was soon scouring back- 
wards and forwards through the pitiless rain of the next three days. 
Early on Saturday morning the earl of Pembroke arrived from the 
queen with an escort of two hundred gentlemen dressed in black 
velvet with gold chains and medals, and three hundred others in 
scarlet cloth with velvet facings, all splendidly mounted. Then 
Egmont posts off to kiss the queen's hand, and meets Gardiner 
coming to Philip with a costly diamond ring from her majesty. 
The next day twelve beautiful hackneys come from the bride to her 
affianced husband, and after that the well-beloved Euy Gomez is 
despatched with a ring and to thank her, and this interchange of 
courtesy and compliment is thus kept up until all things are ar- 
ranged for the journey to Winchester. Before they left South- 
ampton, however, better news came from Flanders. The French 
had not followed up their victory at Marienberg, and the im- 
perialists could breathe again. The six hundred jennets that came 
from Spain were therefore disembarked and remained in England, 
as well as Philip's own horses, ' which,' says Pedro Enriquez (No. 3), 
* the master of the horse took to his own stable ; not a bad beginning 
to try and keep them altogether in the long run.' On Sunday, the 
day before he left Southampton, Philip dined in public for the only 
time there. He was served with great ceremony by the English, 
but Alba, although he took no wand of office in his hand, insisted on 
handing his master the napkin, and the Spanish courtiers looked 
on with ill-disguised rage at what they considered the clumsy 
service of their successors. The courtier who wrote narrative No. B 
bursts out at this point with his complaint — 

My lady Doiia Maria de Mendoza was quite right when she said we 
should be no more good. We are all quite vagabonds now and of no use 
to anyone. We had far better go and serve the emperor in {]jjd war^ 
They make us pay twenty times the value of everything we buy. , 


The next morning in the pouring rain the royal cavalcade set 
out for Winchester 3,000 strong. The nobles and gentry had been 
flocking in for days with their retainers in new liveries ; Pembroke's 
escort, with 200 halberdiers of the guard and as many light-horse 
archers, dressed much as are the beefeaters of to-day, guarded 
the prince's person, the Spanish guard, to their chagrin, being still 
on board the ships. On the road 600 more gentlemen, dressed in 
black velvet with gold chains, met his highness, and when nearing 
Winchester six of the queen's pages, beautifully dressed in crimson 
brocade with gold sashes, with as many superb steeds, were en- 
countered, who told his highness the queen had sent the 
horses to him as a present. But not a word anywhere of Baoardo's 
sensational story, embellished by Mr. Froude, of the breathless mes- 
senger from the queen, the terror-stricken prince, and the gloomy 
resolve to consummate his sacrifice even if he got wet in doing it. 

Philip was surrounded by the English nobles Winchester, 
Arundel, Derby, Worcester, Bedford, Eutland, Pembroke, Surrey 
Clinton, Cobham, Willoughby, Darcy, Maltravers, Talbot, Strange, 
Fitzwalter, and North, and by about fifteen Spanish grandees, whose 
names will have less interest for English readers. He was 
dressed, when he started, in a black velvet surcoat adorned with 
diamonds, leather boots, and trunks and doublet of white satin 
embroidered with gold ; but this delicate finery had to be covered by 
a red felt cloak to protect it from the rain. Notwithstanding this 
it was too wet for him to enter Winchester without a change, so he 
stayed at a ' hospital that had been a monastery one mile from the 
city,' and there donned a black velvet surcoat covered with gold 
bugles and a suit of white velvet trimmed in the same way, and thus 
he entered, passing the usual red-clothed kneeling aldermen with gold 
keys on cushions, and then to the grand cathedral, which impressed 
the Spaniards with wonder, and above all to find that * mass was as 
solemnly sung there as at Toledo.' A little crowd of mitred bishops 
stood at the great west door, crosses raised and censers swinging, and 
in solemn procession to the high altar, under a velvet canopy, they 
led the man whom they looked upon as God's chosen instrument to 
restore their faith in England. Then, after admiring the cathedral, 
Philip and his court went to the dean's house, which had been pre- 
pared for his reception, in order to allay the maiden scruples of the 
queen with regard to his sleeping under the same roof with her 
at the bishop's palace before the solemnisation of the marriage. 
After Philip had supped, and presumably was thinking more of 
going to bed than anything else, the lord chamberlain '^ and the 
lord steward '^ came to him, it being ten o'clock at night, and said 
the queen was waiting for him in her closet, and wished him to visit 
her secretly with very few followers. He at once put on another 
''Sir John Gage. '* The earl of Arundel. 


gorgeous suit, consisting of a French surcoat embroidered in silver 
and gold and a doublet and trunks of white kid embroidered in 
gold, 'and very gallant he looked,' says Muiioz's informant (No. 2). 
The party traversed a narrow lane between the two gardens, and 
on reaching a door in the wall the lord steward told the prince he 
could take with him such courtiers as he chose. Philip did not 
seem disposed to run any risks, and construed the invitation in a 
liberal spirit, taking into the garden Alba, Medina-Celi, Peseara, 
Feria, Aguilar, Chinchon, Horn, Egmont, Lopez, Acevedo, Mendoza, 
Carillo, and others. They found themselves in a beautiful garden 
with rippling fountains and arbours, which reminded them, they 
say, of the books of chivalry. Indeed nothing is more curious 
than the grave seriousness with which all the Spanish narrators 
refer to England as the land of Amadis and of Arthur and his 
knights, and their attempts to identify localities and characteristics 
of England with the descriptions they have read of the land of 
romance, which they firmly believe to be England and not Brittany. 
The prince and his party entered by a little back door and 
ascended a narrow winding staircase to the queen's closet. She 
was in a ' long narrow room or corridor where they divert them- 
selves,' surrounded by four or five aged nobles and as many old 
ladies, the bishop of Winchester being also with her, and the whole 
party, we are told, was marvellously richly dressed, the queen her- 
self wearing a black velvet gown cut high in the English style with- 
out any trimming, a petticoat of frosted silver, a wimple of black 
velvet trimmed with gold, and a girdle and collar of wonderful 
gems. She was walking up and down when the prince entered, 
and as soon as she saw him went quickly towards him and kissed 
her hand before taking his. In return he kissed her on the 
mouth 'in the English fashion,' and she led him by the hand to a 
chair placed by the side of her own under a canopy. The queen 
spoke in French and her future husband in Spanish, and they thus 
made themselves well understood. Whilst they were in animated 
converse the lord admiral (Lord William Howard), 'who is a great 
talker and very jocose,' risked some rather highly flavoured jokes, 
which the free manners of the time apparently permitted. The 
two lovers sat under their brocade canopy chatting for a long time ; 
but this probably seemed somewhat slow to the bridegroom, who, 
after asking the queen to give her hand for all his Spaniards to kiss, 
as they loved her well, begged to be allowed to see her ladies, 
who were in another room. The queen went with him, and as the 
ladies approached two by two he kissed them all ' in his way ' 
with his plumed cap in his hand, * so as not to break the custom of 
the country, which is a very good one.' Whether the queen thought 
it good on this occasion is not clear ; but when her lover wanted to 
leave directly the extensive osculation was over she would not let him 

1892 THE VISIT OF PHILIP 11 271 

go, but carried him off for anothei: long talk with her. * No wonder/ 
says the narrator {No. 2), * she is so glad to get him and to see what 
a gallant swain he is.' When he had to leave her she playfully taught 
him to say ' Good night,' and he made this the excuse for going to the 
ladies again to say it to them ; but when he reached them he had for- 
gotten the outlandish words, and had to come back to the queen 
to ask her, 'whereat she was much pleased,' but probably less 
so when he found it necessary to go back once more to the 
ladies to salute them with *God ni hit.' Car, the marquis of 
Pescara's servant (narrator No. 6), in describing this interview 
says that the queen's governess told the prince she thanked God 
for letting her live to see the day, but asked his pardon for not 
having reared a more beautiful bride for him. According to one 
of the Italian variants of the same narrative the queen is still less 
complimentary to herself, and in reply to Philip's thanks to her after 
the marriage says it is she who is grateful to him for taking an old and 
ugly wife '^ {hrutta e veccJiia). The courtier's narrative (No. 4) speaks 
of the queen in somewhat less unfavourable terms and says — 

Although she is not at all handsome, being of short stature and rather 
thin than fat, she has a very clear red and white complexion. She has no 
eyebrows, is a perfect saint, but dresses very badly. 

This narrator is very critical about the ladies' dresses and is 
quite shocked at some of the English fashions. He says — 

They wear farthingales of coloured cloth without silk ; the gowns 
they wear over them are of damask, satin, or velvet of various colours, 
but very badly made. Some of them have velvet shoes slashed like 
men's, and some wear leather. Their stockings are black, and they show 
their legs even up to the knees, at least when they are travelling, as 
their skirts are so short. They really look quite indelicate when they 
are seated or riding. They are not at all handsome, nor do they dance 
gracefully, as all their dancing only consists of ambling and trotting. 
Not a single Spanish gentleman is in love with any of them -° . . . 
and they are not women for whom the Spaniards need put themselves 
out of the way in entertaining or spending money on them, which is a 
good thing for the Spaniards. 

When the same narrator reaches London he speaks with some- 
what more experience, but his opinion is not much modified. He 
says, when speaking of the vast numbers of ladies that served the 
queen — 

Those I have seen in the palace have not struck me as being hand- 
some ; indeed, they are downright ugly. I do not know how this is, 

" In the narrative signed by Car (British Museum) the queen is described in this 
interview as ' chatting gaily, and although she is a little elderly she displays the grace 
befitting a queen.' 

^^ Don Pedro Enriquez was wrong here. One of the greatest of the Spanish 
nobles, count de Feria, had fallen madly in love with Catharine Dormer, one of the 
queen's maids of honour, and soon afterYrards privately married her. 


because outside I have seen some very beautiful and attractive women. 
In this country women do not often wear clogs and wraps, as they do in 
Spain, but go about the city and even travel in their bodices. Some of 
them walk in London with veils and masks before their faces, which 
makes them look like nuns, who do not wish to be known. Women here 
wear their skirts very short, and their black stockings are trim and tightly 
gartered ; the shoes are neat, but are slashed like men's, which does not 
look well to Spanish eyes. 

Philip, "sve are told, slept late next morning, and as soon as he 
was up the queen's tailor brought him two superb dresses, one 
made of very rich brocade profusely embroidered with gold bugles 
and pearls, with splendid diamonds for buttons, and the other of 
crimson brocade. His highness went to mass in a purple velvet 
surcoat with silver fringe and white satin doublet, and then after 
his private dinner went in great state to see the queen. She 
received him in the great hall of the palace, with the courtiers 
ranged on a raised platform on each side. The great officers of 
state preceded her, and she was followed by fifty ladies splendidly 
dressed in purple velvet, * but none of them pretty,' and having met 
her consort in the middle of the hall she led him to the dais, where he 
stood in sweet converse with her for some time. But fickle Philip 

* went, as usual, to talk to the ladies, and we, about twelve of us, 
kissed the queen's hand.' ' We ' also seem to have been talking to 
the ladies before that, but do not appear to have got on very well, as 

* we could hardly understand each other.' Then Philip v/ent to 
vespers and the queen to her chapel, and after supper they met 
again, and Figueroa privately read the emperor's abdication, which 
made Philip king of Naples, and all the ambassadors except 
Noailles paid homage to the new sovereign, who received them 

The wedding ceremony next day is fully described by the English 
authorities already mentioned, and the narratives before us, although 
extremely minute in detail, do not vary much from the accepted 
accounts. The ancient cathedral was all aflame with splendid 
colour, and the world has rarely seen so gorgeous and so rich a 
company as was there assembled. All the pomp that regal 
expenditure could buy in an age of ostentation was there. All the 
impressive solemnity that the Koman church could give to its cere- 
monies was lavished upon this. The queen, we are told, blazed with 
jewels to such an extent that the eye was blinded as it looked upon 
her ; her dress was of black velvet flashing with gems, and a splen- 
did mantle of cloth of gold fell from her shoulders ; but through the 
mass that followed the marriage service she never took her eyes off 
the crucifix upon which they were devoutly fixed. Her fifty ladies 

*' Baoardo, quoted by Mr. Froude, says ' he raised his hat to nobody,' but these 
narratives often mention his being uncovered. 


were dressed in cloth of gold and silver, and * looked more like 
celestial angels than mortal creatures.' Philip matched his bride 
in splendour. He too wore a mantle of cloth of gold embroidered 
with precious stones, and the rest of his dress was the white satin 
suit the queen had sent him the day before, and he too was a blaze 
of jewels. The earl of Derby, who preceded the queen with a sword 
of state, appears to have greatly impressed the imaginations of the 
Spaniards, as several references are made to his power and splen- 
dour. He is spoken of as the ' king of Mongara (Man), who wears 
a leaden crown,' and it is easy to see that much of the interest in 
him is caused by the supposed identification of his kingdom with 
scenes of the romances of chivalry. 

After the ceremony the king and the queen walked through an 
immense crowd to the palace side by side, and entered the great 
hall,^^ which the narrator (No. 2) calls the ' hall of Poncia,' for the 
wedding banquet. A high table eight yards long was placed on a 
dais, and at it sat the king and queen, the latter being on the right 
and in a finer chair than her husband. Gardiner sat at the end of 
the high table, and on the floor were four other tables, where the 
nobles to the number of 158 partook of the feast. Before the king 
and queen stood Lords Pembroke and Strange with the sword and 
staff of state, and all the stately ceremony of saluting the dishes 
as they are brought in and doffing bonnets to the throne even in 
the absence of the queen is set forth with admiring iteration by the 
form-loving Spaniards. Their jealous eyes too do not fail to 
notice that the queen takes precedence in everything. Not only 
has she the best chair, but she eats from gold plate, whilst her 
consort eats from silver. This, they say, is no doubt because he is 
not yet a crowned king, and it will be altered later. All the tables 
are served with silver, except gome large dishes ; and great side- 
boards of plate stand at each end of the hall. The buffet behind 
the high table had over a hundred great pieces of gold and silver 
plate, with a ' great gilt clock half as high as a man ' and a fountain 
of precious marble with a gold rim. There were four services of 
meat and fish, each service consisting of thirty dishes,'-*^ and 

" Narrator No. G says, ' The hall, which is beautifully hung with cloth of gold and 
silk, measures forty of my- paces long and twenty wide.' 

^' Underhyll (Harleian Manuscript, 425, f. 97) gives a very quaint account of his 
share in this banquet. ' On the maryage daye the kynge and quene dyned in the halle 
in the bushop's palice sittynge under the cloth of estate and none eles att that table. 
The nobillitie satte att the syde tables. Wee [i.e. the gentlemen pensioners] weare 
the cheffe sarueters to cary the meate and the yearle of Sussex ower captayne was 
the shewer. The seconde course att the maryage off a kynge is gevyne unto the 
bearers ; I meane the meate butt nott the disshes for they weare off golde. It was 
my chaunce to carye a greate pastie of a redde dere in a greate charger uery delicately 
baked ; which for the weyght thereoff dyuers refused ; the wyche pastie I sentt unto 
London to my wyffe and her brother who cherede therewith many off ther frends. 
I wyll not take uppon me to wrytc the maner of the maryage, off the feaste nor off 


minstrels played during the feast, whilst the solid splendour and 
pompous ceremony appear to have impressed all the Spaniards 
with wonder not unmixed with envy. It is indeed here that the 
jealousy of the courtier narrator (Nos. 3, 4, and 5) first bursts out. 
The only Spaniard who was allowed to serve the king was Don 
Inigo de Mendoza, son of the duke of Infantado, who was cup- 
bearer, and four yeomen of the mouth, who helped, but 

as for any of the prince's own stewards doing anything, such a thing was 
never thought of, and not one of us took a wand in our hands, nor does it 
seem likely we ever shall, neither the controller nor any one else, and they 
had better turn us all out as vagabonds. 

The earl of Arundel presented the ewer with water for the king's 
hands and the marquis of Winchester the napkin. The ewer, we 
are told (narrative No. 6), contained ' not water but white wine, as 
is the custom here.' 

Then, after the queen had pledged all her guests in a cup of 
wine and a herald had proclaimed the titles of Philij) as king of 
England, France, Naples, and Jerusalem, prince of Spain, and 
count of Flanders, the royal party retired to another chamber with 
the English and Spanish nobles, where the time j)assed in pleasant 
converse, the Spaniards talking with the English ladies, 

although we had great trouble to make out their meaning, except of those 
who spoke Latin, so we have all resolved not to give them any presents of 
gloves until we can understand them. The gentlemen who speak the 
language are mostly very glad to find that the Spaniards cannot do so. 

When all was ready the ball began, but as the English ladies 
only danced in their own fashion and the Spanish courtiers in 
theirs the latter were rather left out in the cold until the king and 
queen danced a measure together in the German style, which was 
known to both. After dancing until nightfall supper was served 
with the same ceremony as dinner, and then more talk and gallant 
compliment, and so to bed. 

The next day the king alone was visible, and dined alone in 
public, and on the succeeding day the same ; but on the third day 
(Saturday) the queen heard mass in her private pew and received 
the duchess of Alba, who had arrived from Southampton after the 
marriage. The reception of this proud dame was ceremonious 
enough for anything, but from the bitter complaints of her kinsman, 
who probably wrote three of the letters before us, it is clear that 
she, in common with the rest of the Spanish nobles, was deeply 

the daunssyngs of the Spanyards thatt day who weare greatly owte off countenaunce 
specyally King Phelip dauncynge when they dide see me lorde Braye, M' Carowe 
and others so farre excede them ; but wyll leve it unto the learned as it behovithe 
hym to be thatt shall wryte a story off so greate a tryoumffe.' The Louvain chronicle 
(Tytler) says : ' The dinner lasted till six in the evening, after which there was store 
of music, and before nine all had retired.' 


dissatisfied with her position in this country, so different from 
what they expected. The duchess was conducted to the palace by 
the earls of Kildare and Pembroke and all the court, and when she 
entered the presence the queen came almost to the door to meet 
her. The duchess knelt, and the queen failing to raise her courtesied 
almost as low and kissed her on the mouth, * which she usually does 
only to certain ladies of her own family.' She led the duchess to 
the dais and seated herself on the floor, inviting her guest to do 
likewise, but the latter begged her majesty to sit on the chair before 
she (the duchess) would sit on the floor. The queen refused to do 
so and sent for two stools, upon one of which she sat, whereupon 
the duchess, instead of accepting the other, sat beside it on the floor. 
The queen then left her stool and took her jDlace on the floor also, 
and finally after much friendly wrangling both ladies settled on 
their respective stools side by side. The queen understood Spanish 
but spoke in French, and the marquis de las Navas interpreted to 
the duchess, who only understood Spanish. When the earl of Derby 
was presented to the duchess he greatly shocked her by offering to 
kiss her on the mouth, according to the universal English fashion, 
and she drew back to avoid the salute, but not quite in time, although 
she assured the Spaniards that the earl had only managed to kiss 
her cheek. But the chagrin of the proud, dissatisfied Spaniards 
was growing deeper as they saw their hopes of domination in 
England disappear. The men-at-arms and body guard, cooped up 
in their ships at Portsmouth and Southampton, forbidden to land 
under pain of death, were becoming restive ; the courtiers and their 
followers, scoffed at and insulted in the streets and waylaid and 
robbed if they ventured into the country, were forced to put up 
with everything silently, by order of the king, but they could relieve 
their minds by writing to their friends in Spain an account of their 
sorrows. Writing from Winchester, narrator No. 2 says — 

After all this weary voyage these people wish to subject us to a certain 
extent to their laws, because it is a new thing for them to have Spaniards 
in their country, and they want to feel safe. The Spaniards here are not 
comfortable, nor are they so well off as in Castile. Some even say they 
would rather be in the worst stubble field in the kingdom of Toledo than 
in the groves of Amadis. 

The courtier who wrote No. 8 is even more emphatic. He 
says — 

Great rogues infest the roads and have robbed some of our people, 
amongst others the chamberlain of Don Juan de Pacheco, from whom 
they took 400 crowns and all his plate and jewelry. Not a trace has been 
found of them, nor of the four or five boxes missing from the king's 
lodgings, although the council is sending out on all sides. The friars 
bave had to be lodged in the college for safety and bitterly repent having 



But dissatisfied as' the Spaniards were there was still sufficient 
novelty in their surroundings during their stay at Winchester in 
the last days of July to keep them amused. The wonderful round 
table of King Arthur in the castle where the twelve peers are still 
enchanted, and their names written round in the places where they 
sat, claims the wondering attention of the visitors. The curious 
beer made with barley and a herb, instead of wheat as in Flanders, 
is discussed, and the strange habit the ladies — and even some gen- 
tlemen — have of putting sugar in their wine and the never-ending 
dancing going on amongst the ladies of the palace excite remark. 
On the last day of July most of the lords and squires had gone home 
for the present ; the Spaniards were distributed about Winchester and 
Southampton ; the admiral of Spain was under orders to take a part 
of the fleet back again, and the bulk of the Spanish troops were only 
awaiting a fair wind to take them to Flanders, and the king and queen 
with a small suite set out for Basing, the lord treasurer's ^ house, 
fifteen miles off. Most of the accounts before us end at this point, 
but the two interesting letters to which I have given the numbers 4 
and 5, written respectively from Eichmond and London, show clearly 
the gradual exacerbation of the dislike between the Spanish and 
English as time went on, in spite of the diplomatic attempts to 
connect Philip's name at every opportunity with acts of clemency 
and moderation. 

On 19 August, which is the date of the letter from Eichmond, 
the royal honeymoon seems not entirely to have waned. 

Their majesties are the happiest couple in the world, and are more 
in love with each other than I can say here. He never leaves her, and 
on the road is always by her side, lifting her into the saddle and helping 
her to dismount. He dines with her publicly sometimes, and they go to 
mass together on feast days. 

This letter from Eichmond gives the following curious account 
of the lavish scale on which the royal establishment was main- 
tained : — 

All the rejoicings here consist only of eating and drinking, as they under- 
stand nothing else. The queen spends 300,000 ducats [a year ?] in food, 
and all the thirteen councillors and the court favourites live in the palace, 
besides the lord steward, the lord chamberlain, the chancellor, and our 
people with their servants. The ladies also have private rooms in the 
palace, with all their servants, and the queen's guard of 200 men are also 
lodged there. Each of the lords has a separate cook in the queen's 
kitchens, and as there are eighteen different kitchens such is the hurly- 
burly that they are a perfect hell. Although the palaces are so large 
that the smallest of the four we have seen is infinitely larger, and certainly 
better, than the Alcazar of Madrid, they are still hardly large enough to 

«< This was the marquis of Winchester, not, as Sefior Gayangos supposes, Sir 
Edward Peckham, who was treasurer of the Mint. 


hold the people who live in them. The ordinaxy [daily '?] consumption of 
the palace is 100 sheep (which are very large and fat), twelve large oxen, 
eighteen calves, besides game, poultry, venison, wild boar, and a great 
nimiber of rabbits. Of beer there is no end, and they drink as much as 
would fill the river at Valladolid. 

The writer is very indignant at the scant courtesy paid to his 
great kinsfolk the Albas, and at the fact that they have had to 
put up with lodgings that are considered below their dignity even 
in the villages. 

It is not enough [he says] to deprive them of their office, but they 
must needs give them bad quarters as well. . . These English are the most 
ungrateful people in the world, and hate the Spaniards worse than the 
devil, as they readily show, for they rob us in the town itself, and not a 
soul dares to venture two miles on the road without being robbed. There 
is no justice for us. We are ordered by the king to avoid disputes and 
put up with everything whilst we are here, enduring all their attacks in 
silence. They therefore despise us and treat us badly. We have com- 
plained to Bibriesca and the ambassador, but they say it is for hia 
majesty's sake that we must bear everything patiently. 

It was no wonder that under such circumstances these proud 
hidalgos begged to be allowed to join the emperor in Flanders for 
the war. Medina- Celi was the first to revolt at his treatment, and 
no sooner had he obtained leave to go than eighty other gentlemen 
followed him with their suites, and so by the middle of August the 
only Spanish nobles in attendance on Philip were Alba, Feria, 
Olivares, Pedro de Cordoba, Diego de Cordoba, and three gentlemen, 
amongst whom was Pedro Enriquez, the supposed author of the 
letters. The insults upon the Spaniards personally were bad enough, 
but what was more galling even was the disappointment they felt 
at the political effect of the match. Instead of a submissive people, 
ready to bow the neck at once to the new king and his followers, 
they found a country where even the native sovereign's power was 
strictly circumscribed, and where the foreigner's only hope of 
domination was by force of arms ; and this they saw in the present 
case was impossible. Enriquez (if he be the author) says — 

The marriage will indeed have been a failure if the queen have no 
children. They told us in Castile that if his highness became king of 
England we should be masters of France ; but quite the contrary has 
turned out to be the fact, for the French are stronger than ever and are 
doing as they like in Flanders. . . . Kings here have as little power as if 
they were vassals, and the people who really govern are the councillors ; 
they are not only lords of the land, but lords of the kings as well. They 
are all peers, some of them raised up by the church revenues they have 
taken and others by their patrimonial estates, and they are feared much 
more than the sovereign. They publicly say they will not let the king gc 
until they and the queen think fit, as this country is quite big enough for 
any one king. 


Great preparations were made for the entrance of the queen 
and her consort into London. The signs of vengeance had been 
cleared away, and the city was as bright and gay as paint and gild- 
ing could make it. The ' galluses ' from which dangled the fifty 
dead bodies of the London trainbandsmen who had deserted to 
Wyatt at Eochester Bridge were cleared away from the doors of 
the houses in which their families lived, and the grinning skulls of 
the higher offenders were taken from the gates and from London 
Bridge ; but London, for all its seeming welcome and for all its real 
loyalty to the queen herself, was more deeply resentful of the 
Spanish intrusion than any city in the realm, and the few Spa- 
niards who still remained with Philip repaid with interest the de- 
testation of the Londoners towards them. 

We enter London [narrative No. 4] on Saturday next, but, considering 
their treatment of the Spaniards already there, we ought to stay away. 
Not only will they give them no lodgings,^^ but they affront them on 
every opportunity, as if they were barbarians, maltreating them and 
robbing them in the taverns to their hearts' content. The friars brought 
by his majesty had better not have come, for these English are so godless 
and treat them so vilely that they dare not appear in the streets. 

Only a few days before this letter was written from Richmond 
(19 Aug.) two Spanish noblemen of the highest rank, Don Pedro and 
Don Antonio de Cordoba, ventured to walk in the streets of London 
in their habits as knights of Santiago, with the great crimson cross 
embroidered on their breasts, as they are worn in Spain to this 
day, and this attracting the derisive attention of the irrepressible 
London street boy of the period, the two gentlemen were soon 
surrounded by a hooting crowd, who wanted to know what they 
meant by wearing so outlandish an adornment, and tried to strip 
the offending coats from their backs. The affair nearly ended in 
bloodshed, and the Spaniards had to fly for their lives. The very 
few Spanish ladies who came with Philip were as resentful as their 
spouses, and we are told that 

Donna Hieronima de Navarra and Donna Franeisca de Cordoba have 
decided not to wait upon the queen, as there is no one to speak to them 
at court, these English ladies being so badly behaved ; and the duchess 
of Alba will not go to court again, as she has been so discourteously 

With all this grumbling, however, the country itself extorted 
the admiration of the visitors : the books of chivalry, we are told, 
have only stated half the truth. The palaces, rich and splendid 
with the unhallowed sjpoils of the monasteries ; the flowery vales, 
gushing fountains, enchanted woods, and lovely houses far exceed 
even the descriptions in ' Amadis ; ' but there are ' few Orianas and 

" The Spaniards had to be lodged in the halls of the city'guilds. 


many Mavilias amongst the ladies,' and the romancers have said 
nothing about the strange, micouth beings who inhabit the enchant- 
ing land. ' Who ever saw elsewhere a woman on horseback alone — 
and even riding their steeds well, and as much at home on their 
backs as if they were experienced horsemen ? ' And after confess- 
ing the beauty of the country itself the narrator concludes that 
the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and wishes to God that 
he had never seen the place or the sea that led to it. And things 
got worse as time went on. The Londoners themselves were in an 
exaggerated panic, that explains their hard treatment of their guests. 
The author of the ' Chronicle of Queen Mary,' who lived in the Tower 
of London, and faithfully set down from day to day the news he 
heard, reflects the terror inspired by the presence of Philip's suite 
in the capital. We have seen that at the utmost the number of 
Spaniards of all ranks who landed from the fleet did not exceed 
500, of whom four-fifths had left for Flanders and Spain before the 
king entered London, and yet the diarist, writing about this time, 
says : * At this tyme ther was so many Spanyerdes in London that 
a man shoulde haue mett in the stretes for one Inglisheman above 
iiij Spanyerdes to the great discomfort of the Inglishe nation. The 
halles taken up for Spanyerdes.' And again, as showing how complete 
was the panic, fomented, no doubt, by Noailles and the protestants, 
there is an entry of 8 September as follows : ' A talke of XII thow- 
sand Spanyerdes coming more into this realme, they said to fetch 
the crowne.' It is not surprising, with such a feeling as this current 
in the city, that the courtier's next letter, written from London 
on 2 October, should be more despondent than ever. They were all 
ill and home-sick ; some had almost died, and the country did not 
agree with them. 

God save us and give us health, and bring us safely home again. The 
country is a good one, but the people are surely the worst in the world. 
I verily believe if it were not for the constant prayers and processions for 
us in Spain we should all have been murdered long ago. There are 
slashings and quarrels every day between Englishmen and Spaniards, and 
only just now there was a fight in the palace itself, where several were 
killed on both sides. Three Englishmen and a Spaniard were hanged for 
brawling last week. Every day there is some trouble . . . God help us, 
for these barbarous, heretical people make no account of soul and con- 
science ; disobey God, disregard the saints, and think nothing of the pope, 
who they say is only a man like themselves and can have no direct domi- 
nion over them. The only pope they recognise is their sovereign. 

The futility of the marriage from a national point of view 
rankled in the breasts of the disappointed courtiers as much as did 
their personal discomfort. They felt that the trouble they had 
undergone and the humble pie they had eaten had added nothing 
to the power of their country or their sovereign, and their prevailing 


idea was how soonest and best to wash their hands of an ungrateful 
and profitless business in which all their sacrifices had been in vain. 

We Spaniards [says the narrator] move about amongst all these 
Englishmen like so many fools, for tliey are such barbarians that they 
cannot understand us, nor we them. They will not crown the king nor 
recognise him as their sovereign, and say that he only came to help 
govern the kingdom and beget children, and can go back to Spain as 
soon as the queen has a son. Pray God it may be soon, for he [Philip] 
will be glad enough, I am sure, and our joy will be boundless to be away 
from a land peopled by such barbarous folk. The king has forgiven the 
queen 2,250,000 ducats she owed him, and has distributed 30,000 ducats 
a year in pensions to these lords of the council, to keep them in a good 
humour. All this money is taken out of Spain. A pretty penny this 
voyage and marriage have cost us, and yet these people are of no use to 
us after all. 

Bitter disappointment is the note struck all through. The English 
lords who had been so heavily bribed were ready enough to take all 
they could get ; but they were as patriotic as they were greedy, and 
did not sell their country's interests for their pensions. Eenard 
for once had made a mistake. He was ready to assent to any 
conditions the English liked to propose on paper,- trusting to the 
personal influence of Philip on his queen after the marriage was 
effected. But he forgot that the queen herself was a mere puppet 
in the hands of her nobles, as the narrator I have quoted soon dis- 
covered, and, whatever ascendency the young bridegroom might 
obtain over his half Spanish bride, her councillors, from the stern 
Gardiner downwards, were Englishmen before everything, to 
whom the overweening power of the emperor had been held up 
as a terror since their childhood. And so the whole splendid plot 
failed, and the magnificent nuptials had hardly been forgotten 
before Philip, recognising that his sacrifices had been in vain, and 
that he could never rule in England, made the best of an unfortu- 
nate speculation, and with all gravity, courtesy, and dignity left 
Mary to die of a broken heart, alone, disappointed, and forsaken. 

Maetin a. S. Hume. 

1892 281 n^rt 

Pepys and the Popish Plot 

BY the kindness of the Master and Fellows of Magdalene College, 
Cambridge, the writer of this article has been allowed to 
examine the seventeen volumes in the Pepysian library, which con- 
tain copies, in the hands of various clerks, of the correspondence 
that went from the office of the secretary to the admiralty during 
the time that Pepys held that post. It is interesting in the midst 
of these to come upon traces of the tremendous excitement caused 
by the popish plot, which seems to have disturbed the routine of the 
navy almost as much as it agitated the parliamentary and political 

The first allusion to that event in the admiralty letters appears 
in instructions from Pepys to Sir Eichard Piooth, naval commander 
in the Downs, and Captain Griffith, then commanding the ships at 
Portsmouth, dated 25 Oct. 1678, ' past 12 at night.' They are 
instructed to stop and search ' every Vessel great or small ' coming 
within their respective jurisdictions for a certain Jesuit passing 
under the name of Godfrey, who 

lately, that is to say on Tuesday* last, shipt him selfe off from Gravesend 
in a Paire of Oares which putt on b'^ a Pinck bound to y*^ Downes in 
order to the overtakeing of a Certain Shipp called the Assistance, one 
Low Master bound for Lisbone, w'^ w<^^ Low he had been in Treaty the 
day before for passage with him to that Port. He is a Tall, thin-faced 
man, squinting with both eyes, ab* 50 yeares old, with a dark-brown 

There seems to have been some doubt about the accuracy of 
this description, for a later letter asks for a better one of him, 

* and especially whether he did in Fact squint or noe, there 
being a good deale depending upon 't towards the more certaine 
discovery of the s*^ Person.' ^ In both sets of instructions the im- 
portance of the arrest is urged in the strongest terms. At the same 
time Pepys writes to suggest to ' M'' Secretary ' [Coventry] through 

* M'" Thinn ' that similar letters should be sent to the governor of 
Plymouth and the chief magistrate of Falmouth, 

... • viii. 255-7« « 31 Oct. viii. 268. 


But to these places it will be requisit that Letters goe from M'" Secretary, 
for as much as I canot soe properly send any Comands from his Ma*'« 
or my Lords of the Admiralty to the Magistrates there, and therefore doe 
pray that you will moue the Secretary as to them, and let his letters 
be by all meanes dispatch'd away by Expresse.' 

A day later — on the morning of Saturday, 26 Oct. — Pepys 
writes to Mr. Pett at Gravesend — 

I am hereby to desire and streightly to charge you to use the speediest 
& best meanes you can to find out the name of the said Pinck and 
her Master . . . and upon the Returne of the said Pink to know strictly 
all you can inquire out touching the proceeding of the said Person in 
her, and on w* Shipp & where he embarqued on his leaving her, and all 
other Circumstances you can inquire after, that may give us Light who 
he is, and how [he] & his accomplices may be apprehended. Pray alsoe 
examine the Wherryman in all he can informe you in touching this 
matter, and give me an acC thereof particularly by expresse, it being of 
utmost Import to his Ma*ye» Service.* 

The Jesuit proved more than a match for his pursuers. On 29 
Oct. Pepys writes — 

S*" John Berry . . . has this day given me an ace* of his escapeing over 
Sea from Folston, to w'^h place he gott by Horse from Margate, where he 
most craftily putt himselfe on shore out of y® Pincke on w'^'^ he embarked 
in y® Hope, to y^ preventing a considerable addicon w*=*^ might have been 
expected to y^ discoveries of y^ truth of y® Plott now vnder enquiry, had 
this Person been Seized, he being said by M*" Gates ... to be one Father 
Simons, a considerable Listrum* in y^ said Plott, as hee has reported it ; 
Soe as it's much to be pitied that hee has escaped Us, & 'tis as much 
to be feared that many more of his accomplices haue done y« like, th[r]ough 
y*' Gen'' negligence of y^ Off""^ of the Ports.-^ 

From this time a careful watch was kept at the ports for all 
' suspitious persons.' "^ 

Within a fortnight after the escape of the Jesuit the lords of the 
admiralty had decided upon a series of precautions for insuring the 
safety of the fleet and the dockyards against the designs of papists, 
and letters began to carry to commanders special instructions con- 
cerning their conduct * at this perilous Time.' ^ As in 1605, a 
* sudden blow ' was expected, and though the plot had been dis- 
covered the informers were still busy, and the lords — * Jealous of 
popish Conspiracy . . . against y^ Fleet as well as else where ' ** — 
acted under a sense of imminent danger. 

Under date 7 Nov. Pepys announces that all vacancies among 
' y* Standing Officers of his Ma*^*' ships in ordinary at, Chatham ' 
have been tilled up.^ On 16 Nov. a long letter goes to Sir Kichard 

' viii. 258. • * viii. 261. 

* viii. 264-5. See State Trials, yi. 1443 (' Father Simmons, vrhg some time belonged 
to Somerset House '), and 1469. 

• viii. 271 and 275. t tiii. 276, » viiii 344. • * » viii. 276. 


Rooth, describing the precautions he is to take for the protection of 
his squadron against surprise. No leave is to be granted to 

any of the Comanders of the said Ships, their under-officers, or Mariners 
to Ly on Shore by night upon any occasion whatsoever, or to be absent 
from on board by day, saveing upon the indispensable occasions of their 
respective ships, and his Ma*y«^ Service relateing thereto. 

A very strict watch is to be kept on board the ships by day and 
night ; persons from strange boats are not to be allowed to come on 
board by day unless their business be first ascertained ; and by 
night all boats passing by the ships without being able to give a 
satisfactory account of their business are to be seized and their 
crews detained. All the ships are to be kept in readiness for imme- 
diate service.'" A copy of the same letter is also sent to Sir Eobert 
Eobinson, now commanding at Portsmouth. 

These letters were followed up two days later (18 Nov.) by 
instructions to the same commanders to send out 

some of y® Frigotts and other Vessells to cruise to and again at Sea ab* 
y^ Narrow[s], & soe in the Channell Westward, as well upon our owne 
Coast, to speake w*** and apprehend any forreign Vessells that shall be 
found hovering there without giveing a good account of the Busynesse 
whereon they are employed, as upon the Coast of France w*'> such 
Instruc^ons for the method, stations, and line of Cruiseing as upon advise- 
ing w*** some of the Chief of his Ma^y''* Comanders with you, you shall 
judge most proper with respect to the Season of the yeare and the end 
of this their employment for gathering of Intelligence from all English, 
Dutch, or other Vessells to be mett with touching any preparations of 
Navall Force now makeing by France, and of y^ motions of any ships of 
Warr of y* Crowne that shall be found to be abroad, w"* Instruc-^ons 
upon meeting with any Intelligence of y* kind worthy notice, to repaire 
to the first English Port, in order to their sending up instant advice 
thereof by Expresse to me for the Information of his Ma^^® & my Lords of 
the Admiralty." 

The precautions that had been ordered with regard to the 
squadrons at Portsmouth and in the Downs were speedily extended 
to the ships lying in the Medway and the royal dockyards at 
Portsmouth and Chatham. This seemed all the more necessary 
as a short while before a fire had broken out in the King's Yard 
at Portsmouth, which, though it was speedily shown to be the 
result of negligence, was at first believed to be the work of popish 
incendiaries. Concerning this fire Pepys writes thus in his letter of 
18 Nov. to Sir Eobert Eobinson : — 

I hope it will quicken all the officers of his Ma*y^' Ships and Stores in 
their caution against any evills of this kind that may arise from any 
Contrivances of the Papists, w''^ by fresh instances occurring almost every 

"'• viii. 284-6. »• viii. 289-90 and 291. - 


day doth greaten the apprehensions we have now for a long time Laine 
under concerning them.'^ 

A great number of letters relate to special precautions for 
securing what had already proved a ^Yeak point in our defences — 
the Medway and Chatham dockyard. On 19 Nov. Pepys writes 
thus to Sir Eichard Beach at Chatham : — 

This comes by the King's Com'^ to presse you in Generall ... to 
cause all imaginable Vigilance to be used for the preserving strictnesse of 
watches as well in and about the King's Yard for the safety of the Stores, 
as upon the Ships alsoe by day & night, for the preventing any practices 
w'^'' the Papists are said to have this day in designe upon the Fleet. 
Takeing care that the same be done by addic'^ons of Guard or Watch- 
men w"^'' y" shall thinke necessary, 'till this consternation under w<='* we 
all now justly (?) ly, be over, w''*^ I pray God of Heaven send, the whole 
Government Seeming at this day to remaine in such a state of Distraction 
& feare, as noe History I believe can paralel.'"* 

A letter to the same effect was also sent to Portsmouth,'^ and 
the next day (20 Nov.) to the captain of the fire-ship on guard at 
the mouth of the Medway,'' who also received instructions soon 
after to take an account of all ships passing in and out of that 
river, esj)ecially by night. "^ 

On 21 Nov. Pepys writes again to Sir Pdchard Beach at 
Chatham, explaining more in detail the arrangements made by the 
authorities for the security of the Medway. At the end of the 
letter the writer speaks of 

y* great matter of the conservation of his ma*y^^ sliips and Stores under 
■^ch yQ^ and I doe at this day soe greatly Labour, It occasioning me 
(I doe assure you) more distraction in my busynesse by day, and breach 
of my rest by night, than all the difficultyes I ever yet stood under, since 
I had the honour of Serueing his Ma*^^ in the Navy."'^ 

So far these precautions were intended to ' have respect only 
to any Domestick Designes from the Contrivance of Papists,' but 
Pepys asks Sir Eichard Beach at his ' first leisure ' to consider 
* what may be necessary to be further done, for the Security of 
Chatham Eiver in case of foreign Force.' '** As the letters already 
quoted show, the Admiralty was at this time pervaded by the fear 
of a French expedition, and this fear must have seemed justified 
for the moment, when, on 28 Nov., news arrived, through a 'Letter 
from a Person of Quallity ' in Cornwall, that 

there has been for thig three Weekes past a small French Man of Warr 
that has sounded all the depthes of y** Water neere the Shore betwixt y« 
Mount & the Lizard point, where shee continued y^ IB*'^ inst. vnder 
Mullion Clifts, & landed two of her Men to discouer y« Country, '^ 

" viii. 290. '» viii. 296. " viii. 297. 

'» viii, 302. '» viii. 340. " viii. 305. 

'»viii.321. '» viii. 350-1. •- • 


Sir Robert Eobinson is ordered to send a * Frigott or two ' to 

Scower that Coast & bring in this, or any other Vessell w°^ at a time soe 
dangerous as this is, shalbe found Imploying her selfe thus, or otherwise 
houering vpon y° Coast without giveing a good Ace' of her businesse.'-^^ 

However Pepys, writing under date 30 Nov., does not anticipate 
any immediate danger,-' and by 12 Dec. advices are coming in on 
all hands that * little preparacions of any kind ' have * been lately in 
makeing by y® King of France at Brest ; ' -^ thus for this year we 
hear nothing more of a French expedition. Nevertheless the fear of 
invasion left its mark. At first it had been suggested that a military 
guard should be stationed upon each of the three guard ships in 
the Medway, in addition to the hundred seamen already provided 
• — a proposal entirely * grounded upon a Prospect of a forreigne 
Force ' ^^ — but when reassuring reports came in from abroad this 
particular proposal was dropped. It was determined, however, 
to carry out a plan for partially equipping the ships laid up in 
the Medway. Small arms and ammunition were ordered to be put 
on board them,^^ and the opinion of the Navy Board was asked on 
the following proposals : — 

l*t. That the Boates Crew maybe, during this time of danger, borne 
in Constant Pay upon each ship, as that which may be a Reserve of men 
at all times ready to answere any occasion of suddaine Service, and parti- 
cularly for the manning of the Guard Boates. 2^^'^. That an addicofiall 
Number of men either Soldjer or Seamen may be appointed to be borne 
during the- same time upon the Leopard at Sheernesse for her security, 
and the generall benefitt of the Service there. 3*^'^. That 10 or 12 of 
the upper Guns together with Powder and Shott, may be putt & kept 
on board each of y*^ said Shipps.^ ' 

Later on mention is made of a scheme ' for y^ fitting of Posts & 
Crabbs for y® Cables ... to be laid thwart y'' River for y° further 
Security of his Ma*^^^ Ships.' -•' 

Thus it would appear that on the part of the lords of the 
admiralty and their methodical secretary no effort was wanting to 
prevent the recurrence in 1678 of the disaster of 1667. But the 
correspondence also shows that the influence of the new methods 
had not yet penetrated very far, and that delays which might be 
dangerous were still caused by official incompetence. Though the 
earlier arrangements for securing the Medway and Chatham dock- 
yard were approved by the admiralty, and the necessary orders 
signed by the king at any rate by 20 Nov.,^^ on 5 Dec. the arms 
and ammunition for the ships had not been received at Chatham, 
although the ships ' want y*' same, and by y^ want are looked upon 
as exposed to great hazard during this time of danger.' ^^ 

. *> p. 351. . *' viii. 359. - viii. 419. 

. '» viii. 359. . " viii. 386. « 2 Dec. viii. 366. 

« 24 Dec. viii. 457-8. " viii. 428. «« viii. 386, • ' 


The discovery of the popish plot and the panic caused by it 
had also another effect on the navy, of quite a different kind. On 
19 Nov. the secretary to the admiralty writes thus to Sir Eichard 
Eooth, in the Downs : — 

A liberty being now taken of calling in question the Protestancy of 
many Comanders and ofiBcers of the Navy ... for yC" answering me 
herein the fuller, pray sumon all the Comanders on board you, if they 
be in the way, or their L*», where they are not, & sett downe from their 
own mouthes, man by man, the ace" they give of their Eeligion, as to 
Protestancy or Popery, w*^ the time of their Last takeing the Sacrament, 
oathes, or Test, and whether they are now ready to doe it ; with y*^ like 
of w* they can say touching the religion of their L** and each of their 
standing Officers. And truely I thinke it were not a misse that besides 
the answer w'''^ you shall have to give me hereto you doe advise them all 
who have Chaplaines to cause the holy Sacrament to be administered to 
y™ and their Companys the next Lord's day, Giveing you an acc° the 
day after of any of the said Officers that shall refuse to receive the Sacra- 
ment, & y*' names of them y* doe receive it, w<^*> I intreat y" imediatly 
to transmit to me, & to direct alsoe the Com''^ & chiefe Officers of those 
ships or Vessells W'^ shall happen to have noe Chaplaines on b*^ to resort 
on b*^ y*" Ship or some other, there to receive and give the like acco* to you 
the next day.'''^ 

A copy of the same was sent to Sir Eobert Eobinson at 
Portsmouth, ^'^ and very similar instructions to Sir Eichard Beach 
at Chatham, these last applying not only to naval officers but also 
to officers employed in the King's Yard.^' To a few captains who 
were engaged on the king's service elsewhere Pepys wrote direct. 

From this * Generall Inquisition ' both Pepys and his corre- 
spondents expected satisfactory results. 

It is matter of great Joy to us all [he writes to Sir John Kemp- 
thorne] to heare from y" the opinion you have of the Cleaniesse of the 
Navy from people of that profession in Eeligion, it being what I have 
always from the best of my observation thought, and a blessing which I 
hope God Almighty will still preserve to the Navy.'^ 

This expectation was not disappointed, for when the returns 
came in they showed the navy to be remarkably free from pro- 
fessed * papist ' officers. Sir Eichard Eooth did not find one officer 
in his whole squadron unwilling to comply with the law,^ and 
Sir Eobert Eobinson's report was such that his majesty — in his 
official or protestant capacity — was * greatly pleased with ' it.''* One 
commander, reporting that he had no * papists ' among his officers, 
remarked that he found them inclined to ' Fanatichism ' rather than 
popery.'* The total number of ' papists ' returned must have been 

-» viii. 294. »» viii. 295. " viii. 296. 

« 23 Nov. viii. 319. Cf. pp. 320-1. »' viii. 343. « viii. 350. 

»» viii. 378. .. ' 


exceedingly small. The only officers mentioned by name in the 
correspondence as ' papists ' succeeded in exonerating themselves 
from the charge, and eventually took the test. It is true that a 
good many officers had failed to take the required oaths, but this 
was due not to unwillingness to do so, but merely to ignorance 
of the law. 

I findeing much reason to doubt [writes Pepys] by severall Instances I 
meet of it, that though (thanks be to God) we seeme to be very free in 
the Navy from Popery, yet the Law has happen'd to be soe little under- 
stood among our Sea officers & Seamen, that what w*** their being much 
ab*^ on Voyages, & their gener'^ unacquaintednesse w*'* matters y' relate 
to the Shore, a great part of y™ who are in their Judgm*^ & affections 
most hearty Protestants, have yet overlooked their complying w"* the 
law, in giveing the proofes of it by takeing the oathes & Test vf^^ the 
Law does require of them upon their entrance upon every new Employ, 
ment, many (by mistake) thinking they have done enough for all their 
Lives, in their haveing taken them once, and others Satisfying them 
Selves in their readynes at all times to take these oathes when demanded, 
without ever doing of it once for want of being call'd to doe it.^^ 

To meet this common case of neglect to comply with the law 
through ignorance which the ' Generall Inquisition ' had disclosed, 
Pepys supplements his former instructions by letters to Sir John 
Kempthorne, Sir Eobert Eobinson, and Sir Eichard Beach. They 
are to 

publish ... to such well meaning poor Men the penaltyes they are 
exposed to while they continue under this neglect, & the necessity there- 
fore of their takeing the Sacrament as soone as they can, & not omitting 
the very next quarter Sessiones for takeing the Oathes & Test.^^ 

From this correspondence it is clear that as far as the navy was 
concerned the test act had been practically a dead letter for five 
years. Its enforcement would depend very much upon the activity 
of the common informer, and naval officers would, from the nature 

»" viii. 35G. 

" 30 Nov. viii. 358-9. The exact requirements of the test act, which applied, among 
others, to ' all and every person or persons . . . that shall . . . have Command or 
Place of Trust ... in his Majestyes Navy,' were as follows : — 

(1) That on or before 1 Aug. 1673 persons already holding such employments 
should (o) take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy 'in publique and open Court,' 
either in the court of Chancery or the court of King's Bench, or at the quarter 
sessions for their county ; (b) receive the sacrament according to the usage of the 
church of England ; (c) subscribe a declaration against transubstantiation. 

(2) That persons hereafter to be admitted to stich employments should fulfil these 
conditions within three months after taking office. 

(3) That persons neglecting or refusing to comply with the statute should be ipso 
facto incapable of holding office, and persons still holding office ' after such neglect or 
refusal ' should be incapacitated (o) from prosecuting any suit in law or equity, 
(fc) from acting as guardian or executor, (c) from receiving any legacy or deed of gift, 
or, (d) from holding any office hereafter, and should also be required (e) to forfeit 
SOO^ to the common informer (25 Car. II, c. 2). 


of their employment, be out of his way. But the effect of the 
popish plot was to rouse the authorities of the navy to enforce it 
themselves, in order to purge the fleet of popish officers in perilous 

One other point of personal and biographical rather than 
historical interest remains to be noticed. We learn from the 
state trials ^** and other sources that an attempt was made to 
incriminate Pepys himself in the murder of Sir Edmund Berry 
Godfrey through Samuel Atkins, one of his clerks. This attempt 
failed, and when Atkins himself was brought to trial as an 
accessory to the murder he proved an alibi and was acquitted 
by the jury without leaving the box. The admiralty letters show 
that this alibi was prepared by Pepys himself, who took the 
keenest interest in the trial. He appears to have made full use 
not only of his own official position, but also of the king's name. 
For this we shall scarcely blame him, as the conduct of Shaftesbury 
and the lords committee in attempting to extort from the clerk by 
threats evidence against his master was, as one writer remarks, 
worthy of the Spanish Inquisition.^^ 

On 16 Nov. Pepys writes from Derby House to one Captain 
Lloyd, a possible witness to the alibi, asking for his evidence. 

The letter is sufficiently characteristic to be worth quoting.^" 

Derby house, IC"' November 1678, 
S"*, — This comes upon an unfortunate occasion, whereof I doubt not 
but you may have had some notice before your going out of the Eiver, or 
met w*^ it at your comeing into the Downes, relateing to my servant 
Samuel Atkins who has been now a fortnight close Prisoner in Newgate 
upon an Information of being interest'd and assisting in the Murthering 
of S"" Edmund Berry Godfry. Which murther does by the discoveryes 
that have been since made thereof, appear to have bin comitted upon 
Saturday the 12*^ of octob*' at Sumersett House, where the Body is said 
to have remain'd till niunday night, and then carryed thence to the place 
where it was afterwards found. Now for as much as it becomes all of Us 
equally to contribute what we can to discover the just Truth of this 
matter, that neither the Guilt of soe execrable a Murther should be 
Smother'd and want its punishment on one hand, nor the guilt plac'd 
upon an liiocent on the other, and consequently the Blood of one Innocent 
reveng'd by the shedding of anothers, I haue made it my endeauour by 
the strictest and most partiall Enquiryes that I can to find out how 
Atkins spent those three dayes in my absence, I being then at Newmarkett, 
and find (if my Informations be true) that he employed the opportunity 
given him for it by that absence of mine in entertaining him selfe more 
then had I been present he either could or durst to have attempted, Which 
(for the present at Least) I am contented to overlooke his offence to me as 

M vi. 1482. 

»» Eev. J. Smith, preface to Diary, and Memoirs of Samuel Pepys. 

*> viii. 313. - '--'^ **-^' — ^•'-— -^-^v- 


his Master, and apply my Selfe to the inquireing how farr he stands truely 
chargeable, or excuseable in this much more detestable wickednesse that is 
Laid to him of haueing his hand in Blood. And because in this my 
Enquiry I have mett w*^ your Name, as being more or lesse with him 
upon the Saturday, and particularly at the New Exchange, as alsoe upon 
Sunday att the Rose Taverne in Covent Garden at night where there was 
said to haue happen'd a kind of a quarrell between you and another of the 
Company (whose name and the rest of the Company with other Circum- 
stances I forbear to mention to you, because I would have them from y' 
Selfe in order to the proueing by yours the Truth or vntruth of Informa- 
tions I haue had from others) and Lastly upon Munday morning, when 
he and some others are said to haue accompanyed you downe to y^ Water- 
side to take Boat when you went downe Last to yo"* Shipp, I did hold it 
necessary, you being just vpon y'" going to Sea, and consequently not 
capable of being there personally to give in y'' Evidence at this Tryall, to 
give you this acco* of the matter, and desire that you will for Truth's 
Sake onely endeavour to make as perfect a recollection as you can of what 
(if any thing) you are able to remember of the passing any part of these three 
dayes or nights with him, or how, w**^ whom, on what occasiones, where, 
by what Length of Stayes, with what Discourses, Action, accidents, or 
any other Circumstance relateing to your being together, and the proueing 
of the same : Wherein, as I would by noe meanes you should spare the 
mentioning any particular Circumstance that may give Light in this 
matter, though such as might in other Eespects be lesse fitt to be exposed, 
did not the Looseing or Saueing of a man's Life depend vpon the 
knowledge of it, Soe on the other hand, I doe conjure you to assert 
nothing but what you know certainely to be truth. Speaking with 
profess'd Doubtfullnesse of those matters w*'^ you are not sure of; 
Remembering that the being detected in any one considerable Mistake, will 
justly call in question the whole of what you shall say y* is true. And 
w* you shall doe herein, I pray may be dispatch'd imediatly ; It being 
discours'd y* he will be brought to a Tryall vpon Thursday next & send 
me the Result of yo*" Recollections up hither by expresse under yo*" hand 
& Scale, Wittness'd by S"" R'l Rooth & some one other of his Mati<=* 
principall Comanders. And in case there be a Justice of Peace neere 
hand y* can be speedily resorted to, pray make oath to y« Truth of what 
you write before it comes away from you, Sending me alsoe a Copie of 
this my Letf attest'd by y^ s'* Comanders, it being soe Late, y* I fear 
I should Loose the Post, If I should stay for it's being copied now.^' And 
for as much as yo'" Report shall bee noe otherwise welcome to me, whether 
it be for Atkins or ag' him then as it speakes truth, I doe again desire 
y" to lett y* be y'" Rule to goe by, in y*" giveing it, exposeing y® truth by 
as many particulars as y" can, & hasten it hither w*^ all y'' dispatch y' 
may be, for what relates to the busynesse of yo"" Shipp, and Pilot, and any 
other matters relateing to yo"" further p°ceedings on yo"" intend^ voyage 
you may expect to heare from me to-morrow. In the meane time I 
remaine, y^ very humble Serv*. 

To Cap' Loid. Downes. > 

*' The letter is copied into the volume five days after its proper date. 


Three days after, in a letter to Sir Eichard Eooth, Pepys 
announces that he has obtained special leave from the king for 
Captain Lloj^d to come up and give evidence at the trial.''- But 
Captain Lloyd's evidence only covered Saturday, Sunday, and 
Monday morning. To make the alibi complete it was necessary 
to show what Atkins was doing on the Monday night. Accordingly 
on 21 Nov. we find Pepys writing to Captain Lovell, commander 
of the * Katherine ' yacht, urging him to send up at once his 
boatswain and three seamen to give evidence on this point.'*^ It 
appears from another letter that in this he acted ' at y® expresse 
Com*^ of his Ma*^",' and he undertakes that all expenses shall be 

The course of the trial ^^ made the alibi for Saturday, Sunday, 
and Monday morning unnecessary, and Captain Lloyd was not 
called. The alibi for Monday night was proved by ' Vittles,' 
who had been in command of the * Katherine ' yacht on the day in 
question,^*' and his evidence was supported by that of Boatswain 
Tribbett. They deposed that on Monday, 14 Oct., the prisoner was 
entertaining some friends on board the yacht from half-past four 
in the afternoon till half-past ten at night, when he was put on 
shore * very much fuddled.' The sailors, rowing against the tide, did 
not actually land him till half-past eleven.^'' 

J. E. Tanner. 

*= 19 Nov. viii. 293. " viii. 306. "♦ viii. 30G. 

« St. Tr. vii. 231-50. « See viii. 300, ' Capt. Victualls.' 

*' St. Tr. vii. 24G-8. 

1892 291 

Notes and Documents 


The original extent of the ' Chronicle of John Malala ' and the date 
at which he lived have been matters of dispute among scholars 
since the days of Bentley and Hody. The discovery of the Escurial 
Excerpts with their subscription, tsXos rfjs laroplas 'Icodvvov rov 
sttikXtjv MaXsXa Trspl iiri^ovXijs, was held by Mommsen ^ to prove 
that this was in fact the end of the work, and therefore to set the 
question finally at rest. It is plain, however, that this argument is 
not entirely conclusive, and Soteriades, in an able article in the 
Jahrhucher fur classische Philologie,^ pointed out that some frag- 
ments published by Miiller among those of John of Antioch^ 
are completely alien in style to the work of that historian, and de- 
clared his opinion that they were to be attributed to John Malala. 
As one of these fragments records the death of Phokas, it would 
therefore follow that John Malala's work was not completed before 
610 ; much later than this he could not have lived, as it can scarcely 
be disputed that he was copied by the author of the ' Paschal 
Chronicle,' composed in 630, and it is beyond doubt that he is the 
main source of the work of John of Nikiu, an Egyptian chronicler 
who wrote about 695.* But against the ascription of these frag- 
ments to John Malala certain difficulties suggest themselves : 1. In 
the prologue of John Malala's work, preserved in an Old Slavonic 
translation, the author uses words which have been retranslated 
into Greek by Haupt ^ as follows : irdvu KaXhv rjyovfiai, . . . Sltj- 
jstcrOai Kal ifiol to, oXtjOms ysysvij/xsva sv tw fj^spsi koI sv tols ')(p6voLS 
ra)v ^acTLXsmv Kal eh to, wrd fjbov slcrsXdovra, Xsyco 8% uTrb rijs 
^aacXsias rov Ztjvwvos koX twv fisr^ avrbv ^aa-cXsva-avTcov, words 
of which the only natural meaning is that from the reign of Zenon 
onwards the author was able to obtain information from living 
witnesses of the events. Moreover in the same prologue he gives 
■a list of his authorities, of which the latest is Eustace of Epiphaneia, 

> Hermes, vi. 381. 

* Neue Folge, Suppl.-Bd. xvi. p. 3. 

' Fr. 219 (Fragm. Hist. Grace, iv. 622) ; Fr, 217 a, b, 218 b-f. (id. v. 85). 

* His work exists in an Ethiopic version, which has been translated into French by 
Zotenberg. * Hermes, xy. 235. 

u 2 


whose work ended in 502. 2. In the Tusculan Fragments, published 
by Mai,^ which appear manifestly to be part of the work of John 
Malala," Justinian is styled 6 Bsa-ii-oTrjs y/jiiov, an expression which was 
only used of living sovereigns. 3. The writers who ordinarily follow 
John Malala, viz. the Paschal chronicler, John of Nikiu, and 
Theophanes, have, after the death of Justinian, scarcely anything 
which bears the impress of his style. The change which aj)pears 
in the works of these three writers at this point is indeed most sig- 
nificant. John Malala deals largely in natural calamities and 
physical phenomena ; accordingly we find that during the thirty- 
eight years of Justinian's reign Theophanes records thirty-one 
events of this sort, whereas during the forty-five years between the 
death of Justinian and that of Phokas he narrates but three. 
Again, the pages of the ' Paschal Chronicle ' between Justinian's 
death and the time when its author becomes a contemporary authority 
are almost a blank, while John of Nikiu after the reign of Justinian 
relates scarcely anything except Egyptian events, on which he had 
other sources of information. There is, therefore, at least a strong 
primu facie case for supposing that the Chronicle of John Malala 
was not continued much beyond the point to which the existing 
epitomes extend. Among the numerous scholars who have written 
on this subject not one appears to have noticed a passage in the 
Syriac historian John of Ephesos which seems to settle the ques- 
tion within very narrow limits. In one of the fragments of the 
second part of this author's ' Ecclesiastical History,' published by 
Land, is an account of the earthquake of Antioch in 526, for which 
he refers to a certain John of. Antioch.* That this is not the author 
whom we know by that name scarcely needs demonstration, for the 
sober style of that historian is as far as possible removed from the 
florid narrative of the Syrian bishop. On the other hand, if we turn 
to the account of the same event in John Malala (also a native of 
Antioch) we find that it agrees with that of John of Ephesos 
almost as closely as a Greek narrative could agree with one in 
Syriac More than this, the same fragment which contains the 
narrative of the earthquake contains records of seven other similar 
events, of which every one is to be found in John Malala, and 
that frequently in almost identical language. John of Ephesos has, 
indeed, several details which are not to be found in the Greek writer, 
but it is admitted that our present text of John Malala is only 
an epitome, and a more complete text may often be recovered from 
Theophanes and other authors, who had before them not, I believe, 

• Spicil. Rom. t. ii. pt. 3, pp. 1-28 ; Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. Ixxxv. p. 1808 ft. 

* This view is maintained by Dr. Patzig in a pamphlet to which I shall again refer, 
but I had previously come to the same conclusion. 

■ Er. II. D, in Van Douwen and Land's translation, Syriac te^^ JiQ^d, Anecd. 
Syr. ii. 299. .vi J-r/j /.ir-.m-i * 




the original work of John Malala, but a fuller epitome than any 
of those which we at present possess." Among the portions omitted 
by the epitomist were no doubt the dates, for the frequent occur- 
rence of such phrases as sv avrm hs rS x/joi/w without any date having 
been mentioned makes it clear that the work was originally a chrono- 
graphy, like that of Theophanes. I place the two accounts side by 
side for comparison, enclosing the portions derived from Theophanes 
in square brackets and giving the narratives of John of Ephesos in 
the Latin translation of Van Douwen and Land. 

Kegno lustiniani '" regis ineunte 
. . . ab Oriente stella magnae hastae 
similis apparuit, capite hastae de- 
orsum verso, quae formidolose 
movens radios longos et unicuique 
conspicuos emisit ; vocant earn 
Graeci cometen. Qua visione paver 
magnus omnes invasit. 

Anno 837 Antiochia subito om- 
nibus partibus flagravit, ita ut ma- 
ior pars urbis mox flammis absu- 
meretur, quippe ira Dei, qui eam 
de vastatione et exitio impendenti 
praemonuerat. Itaque incendium 
repentinum sex fere menses in om- 
nibus vicis urbis saeviit. Plurimae 
in ea animae una cum reliquis ejus 
aedificiis perierunt. Nee tamen 
quisquam invenit, unde incendium 
natum esset. Nam summae, quinta 
et sexta, contignationes primae 
flagrarunt, unde incendium in om- 
nia vicina se prorupit.^' 

Igitur lustiniano ''^ septimum 
annum regnante,'^ scilicet anno 
837, Antiochia magna quinta vas- 
tatione eversa est. Hora enim 
septima facta est eversio atrocior et 
tristior quam quae narrari possit. 
Nam ira caelestis adeo vehemens 
et acris fuit, ut, quicumque e vi 
crudeli motus et eversionis atrocis 

ev 8k ry apxi? ''^^ avrbv ySao-iAct'a? 
SirjXdev iv rrj avaToXrj ^ojScpos acrrrjpf 
ovofiaTi KOfnJTr]<i, 6s t'X^" OLKTCva 
7r€fnrov(rav i-Trl to. koltu), ov cXeyov 
ctrai TTOiywviav ' koI i<f>o/3ovvTO, 

AvTio)(€ia. ifiTrprja-iMov fiiyav yevea-6ai 
VTTO OeiKT)^ opy^s * ooTis i/XTrprjcTfios 
irpoefirfvva-i rrjv tov ©eou fJieXXovcrav 
ea-ecrOat ayavaKTrjcriv ' eKavOrj yap oltto 
TOV fxaprvpiov tov dyiov ^T€(f>d.vov Iws 
TOV TrpaiTiapiov tov (TTparrjXdTOV. 
iyivovTO oe kol fieTO. ravra cyxTrprjcr/xot 
TToWoi €ts OLa(f)6pov? yeiTovia? t>}s av- 
T^s TToAcw? [iTTi p.rjva'i e^],''^ koI tKav- 
Or](rav iroXXol oTkoi kol a7ru>XovTO 
TToXXal ij/v)(aL Koi ovSets cyiVaxTKf 

TTodiV TO TTVp dvr^TTTfTO ' [cK yap TWV 

Kipa/xwv Twv Trej'TacTTeywv aviXdfx. — 
/3avev] . 

TW Sc €/38o/Aa) CTCl T^; aVTOV 

ySao-tXeta? cTra^ci/ viro 6€0fiT]VLa<i 'Av-' 
Tio;^€ia ly fieydXr} to TrifXTTTOv avT^s 
ira.Oo'i iv firjvl Maiw [<Spa ^] UTraTctas:' 
OXvfiptov, [Traces dveirjyriTov,] ttoXvs 
yap rjv o (j>o/3o<; o tov ®€ov yevofievo^ 
Kar eKeivov tov Kaipov, wore [tttoj^- 
vat a-)(c8ov Trdaav t^v ttoXiv koi] tous 
(rvXXr](f)6€VTas vtto twv oiKoBofjLTjfJidTtiiv 

" We have two more or less complete epitomes, viz. the Oxford and the Escurial 
besides the Tusculan Fragments, the portion contained in Cod. Paris 1336, part of which 
was published by Cramer {Anecd. Paris ii. 231), the Old Slavonic translation, and some 
unpublished fragments in a manuscript at Tours. • . - . 

" Justin is the emperor meant. , . 

" The Syriac means ' and so it devoui'ed all the men in the vicinity.' . i 

'-' These additions occur also in John of Nikiu. 

" The common mistake is to be noted ; it was really the eighth year. 




evaserant, eos ignis torreret et con- 
flagraret, et scintillae volitantes, 
quocunque inciderant, ibidem in- 
oeiidium excitarent atque humus 
ipsa sub cineribus aestuans et ar- 
dens omnia inflammaret. Itaque 
etiam fundamenta cum toto aedificio 
sublata subsiluerunt et hiaverunt, 
et subversa ac post ruinam igne 
consumpta sunt. Quicunque autem 
evaserant . . . cum fugere vellent, 
ignis obvius torruit et conflagravit. 

Atque flamma saevissime lam- 
bens arsit iravehementi ; e caeloquo- 
que pluviae instar flammae cecide- 
runt, imo tota urbs omnibus modis 
subversa, collapsa, exstincta et igne 
consumpta veluti fornax flagrans 
flammavit praeter paucas domos, 
quae solae in extreme monte vicino 
relictae sunt. Hae penitus con- 
cussae et labefactatae et ipsae alio 
die subversae sunt ^** reliquasque 
succenderunt. Neque ulla domus, 
uUa ecclesia, ulla aedicula, ulla 
maceria horticulana relicta est 
quin hiaret, scinderetur, collabe- 
retur. Keliquae in pulverem pro- 
fusum redactae incendio perierunt. 
. . . Sed ecclesia magna a Con- 
stantino Victore exstructa . . . re- 
stiterat erecta quamvis rimosa ; 
attamen die septimo et ipsa igne 
funditus incensa subito in rudus 
collapsa est. 

Ceteris ecclesiis idem obtigit, 
quae a funesto terrae motu salvae 
emersae tandem igne repentino ve- 
il ementissima ira correptae fun- 
ditusque subversae sunt. In eadem 
urbe Antiochia incolae perierunt 
. . . sicut scribit loannes Antio- 
chenus carum rerum auctor . . _. 
millia CCL. numero. Multi enim 
propter festum in urbera convene- 
rant. Sed tertio die post urbis 

iv Trj yfj KOL Trvpt/caucrTOvs yevc'cr^ai,''* 
Koi CK Tov a.ipo<; 8e (TTnvOrjpas irvpos 
(f)dLV€(rOaL ' ^'' Koi CKatoj/ws oltto aa-rpa- 

TT^S TO €Vpi(TK6fJi€VOV Kttt CKO^Xa^C TO 

c8a0o9 t:^; yr]<i kol eKepavyovvTo ol 
defjiikiOL KovcfutppLivoi vtto tu)V (Tuar- 


wCTTe Ktti Tois i^tvyoviTW virrjvra to 


Koi rjv iSciv Oavfia <f>o/3€pov koX 
Trapdoo^ov, Trvp ipevyoficvov ofi/Spov, 
ofji/Spos KafjiLvwv ^oySepwi/, <^A.of cis 
v€Tov Xvofievr], kol veros ws <f>Xj6^ 

Koi CK TOVTOV 'Ai/Tto;^€ia axprjCTTO^ 
iyivero ' ovk e/icti/t yap ct firj to. Trpos 
0/30S fJiovov TrapoLKOVfieva oiK-q/xaTo, 

ovKefjieive 8c ovre ayios otKOS cvktyj- 
ptov 7} fxovacrTTjptov r] oAAou ayiou 
TOTTOV dSidpprjKTOS.^^ 

TO. yap aAAa crvveT€Xc(T$r](Tav cis 
TO TravTcXcs ' rj Sk fjieydXrj iKKXtjcria 
'AvTto;(€t'a? rj KTLcrOuua vtto KtovoTTav- 
TLVov TOV ficydXov ySacriXecos . . . ■ 
to-Tr; €Trl r}fjiepa<s ^ . . . - kol avrr] 
{/TTo TTvpos Xr](f>6eL(ra KaTt}vi)(dr) cws 

Kat eTcpoi 8e oiKot p.r) ttctttw/cotcs 
VTTO TOV irddov^ TOV OHkov vtto TOV 
7rvpb<s BL€Xv$7](Tav ecos dtfieXioyv. 

Koi a.7ru)XovTO iv avrw tw (f>6/3(o a^t 
;!(iXiaS(DV Sia/cocrt'cDJ/ irevT-qKOVTa. 

TJv yap rf fieydXr) eopTTj XpicrTOv tov 
®€0V r]fi(Ji)V rj T^s dvaXiyi^cws. Koi ttoXv 
TrXrjOo^ Tjv Twv ^ivoiv iTnSrj/j.TJo'av . . . 

■* Irt (wvras uirb tV yi]v irvp Ik tvs yris i^e\6hv KaT(<p\el(v (Theoph.) 
'^ irvp iK rod ovpavov KaT^ipx^To KdOairep a-irivOrjpfs (ibid.) 
'^ The destruction of these houses is mentioned by John of Nikiu. 
'^ Ka\ iras oIkos koI iKK\r]<ria KaTtireaov (Theoph.) 




ruinam, nempe die dominica, crux 
lucida ab occidente in caelo ap- 
paruit. Quo spectaculo turbati 
homines superstites unani fere 
horam crucem intuiti sunt, cla- 
mantes ' Kyrie eleison.' . . . De- 
inde autem patuerunt misericordia 
et gratia Dei. Quatenus enim in- 
cendium se proruperat, XXX. vel 
XL. diebus viri, feminae, adoles- 
centes, et infantes vivi inventi sunt. 
. . . Per omnes eos dies noctesque, 
imo ad sesquiennium, terrae motus 
perpetim continuavit. 

Anno 850 Pompeiopolis urbs 
subito demersa est. Ea non solum 
. . . eversa est, • sed in ea factum 
est etiam portentum horribile. Solo 
per mediam urbem subito fatiscente 
et hiante ipsa dimidia una cum 
incolis in hiatum horribilem ac tris- 
tem visu immersa est. Viva igitur, 
ut scriptum est, in inferos descendit. 
Quicumque autem in fossam . . . 
inciderant, in intima terrae immersi 
omnes simul ex terra per multos 
dies tristissima voce vivos implora- 
runt. . . . Qua re cognita rex mul- 
tum auri misit, si homines obruti 
servari possent. Cum vero ne una 
quidem anima ullo modo iuvari et 
servari potuisset, aurum incolis 
superstitibus . . . datum est ad re- 
liqua urbis reficienda. 

Itemque anno 851 '^ Antiochia 
sextum subversa est. Nam duobus 
annis post quintum excidium, lus- 
tiniano rege, mense Thesrin pos- 
teriore, die XXIX., feria IV. hebdo- 
madis, hora X. Antiochia sextum 
subversa est. Eo die per unam 
. horam vehemens fuit terrae motus. 
Quo defluente, murmur ingens, 
vehemens, et terribile vocis tauri 
ijaugientis simile ortum . . . ita 
ut aedificia post excidium refecta 
omnia subverterentur, moenia et 

iBcL^^drj yap kol dXX.a Ttva fivcrn^pia 
Tov (juXavOptiiTTOv 0£ov " (.yKvoi yap 
yvvalK€<; 8t' ct/cocnv ■fjp.epwv rj kol rpid- 
Kovra dvrjXOov (Tvv vy}TTLOi<i dySAayScis 
KOL lt,-q(Tav fi€Ta twv t€;(^€'vtwi' c^ av- 

T(t>V . . . TT; 8c TpLTT] r/fiipo- fl€Ta r^v 
TTTwo-tv i<j>avr] iv tw ovpavw 6 TifJ-ios 
CTTttvpo? . . . Kara to dpKTwov fiipo^ 
TTJi avTrj<; ttoAcws ' Kat TravTts Oeacrd- 
fievot avTov i/xuvav KA,at'ovTcs Koi 
tv^ofiivoi lirX jxiav uipav. lykvovTo 
0€ . . . KoX aAAoi (xeKTfiOL -TroWoi ws 
CTTt ;(povov iviavTov xat /at/vwv c^. 



€v avTit) oc T(j) "xpovio f-irauev xnro 
diop.-qvia'; iv Trj Mvaia no/u.7n/tov- 


T^s yap Ktvr/crcws yfvofX€vr]<; e^at- 
^)'7/s iaxia-Or) rj yrj Kal i)(a(i}6rj to 

rifJiKTV T^S TToAcw; '* flCTOLTWV olKfjTOpWV, 

Kai Tjcrav vtto Tr]V yrjv Kal to r]\o<: 

atiTWV i<f>€p€TO TOtS 7r(.pl(Tw6ii(TL 

[f3o(i)VTO)v iXerjOrjvai], 

Kal TToXXo. f.(f)iXoTifir]craTo o auTos 
/3acnX€v<; eis rrjv iKxoia-tv tov Trcpto-w- 
Orjvat Tovs ovTas vtto ttjv yrjv, McravTw^ 
Sk Kal Tots t,y](Ta(TL Kal rfj ttoXci cis 

^vvtfir] Sk kv avTw tw Kaipw [p-f]vl 
Noe/A^pto) kO', Stpa y, r/fJicpa S', lv8. ^] 
vno 6iOfJir]VLa<i Tradelv AvTto^^etav to 
eKTOV avTrj^i Traces [/Acra Svo Itt] tov 
irpuiTov avTrj<: ^^d6ov^^ 6 8c yeyovws 
O'etcr/xos KaTi(7\€U^^ ctti /Jbtav wpav, Kal 
[xcto. tovtov (SpxryfJM'i (fyo^epo^, uxttc to. 
dvav€(D$€vra KTLcrfiaTa vtto tmv irptarjv 
yevofi€vu)v <f>o(3(DV KaTaTrecreLV kol to. 
TCi)(r] Kai TLvas iKKXrjcrias. [xat ck Tutv 
fxr] 7reo"OVT(DV 7^aAa^ajv KTicrfiaTUiV iv Tci 
7r/3WT(j) o-£to-/x.(3 KaTrjve)(6r](Tav vvv]. 

'* 5top(So76T(ra fiiffov koX rh ^(Uffv Karetr66t} (Geo. Mon.) 

" Thi3 should be 840. The numbers iu Jo. Ep^^ ftje very corrupt. 

•• Kal iytvero fffKTfjLhs fxiyas (Theoph.) \ '. '' 




portae urbis, imprimis ecclesia 
magna et ceterae ecclesiae et mar- 
tyria aliaeque domus, quibus proxi- 
mus terrae motus pepercerat, omnes 
praeter paucas collaberentur. Clade 
excidioque urbis Antiochiae cognitis 
oppida urbi circumiecta omnia 
maxima tristitia et anxietate con- 
fecta sunt. 

Atque vici circumiecti . . . 
omnes X. millium spatio eruti 
sunt. . . . Multi incolae occisi 
sunt. . . . Eorum autem qui vivi 
evaserant plerique ... in alias 
urbes fugerunt, alii in monte urbi 
opposito e stragulis et indumentis 
tegetibusque sibi tentoria fecerunt, 
in quibus hieme dura habitarent. 
Nam . . . terrae motum hiems 
dura subsecuta est. . . . Qui autem 
in ipsa urbe remanserant, magno 
moerore lamentati sunt, iidem ra- 
mos oleaginos portantes pedibus 
nudis nivem transierunt atque . . . 
in nivem procubuere, luctu tristi 
fletuque vehement! exclamantes, 
* Kyrie eleison.' . . . Sed, dum illi 
precabantur, Christiano cuidam 
fideli species oblata est, quae eum 
iussit cuivis incolae Antiocheno 
stiperstiti dicere ianuis . . . haec 
inscribenda esse : ' Christus vobis- 
cum. Statote.' 

Anno 852 Laodicea funditus 
diruta est a porta Antiochiae ad 
vicum ^' ludaeorum. Hominum 
autem, qui quidem numerati sunt, 
septem millia quingenti perierunt. 
Multi ludaei, Christiani pauci \iri. 
. . . Ceterum Deo iuvante ne una 
quidem ecclesia subversa corruit. 
. . . Rex autem magnam misit pecu- 
niam, qua et Laodicea reficeretur. 

Anno 854 terra movit, quo motu 

TO, 8c (TV/ifioLVTa rjKova-drj kol iv rats 
oAAttts TToAecrt Kai ^ ' iraa-ai 7re.v$ov(Tai 

tiraOi 8e koX fieprj Toiv Trcpi^ ttJs 

TTOACWS* TtXcVTWO-t Sc iv aVT(3 T<3 

cr€t<TfJi(o a)(pL \f/V)(ji)v TTCVTaKicrp^tXt'cov. 
ol ok TreptfTco^cvTCS TroAtrai [Ic^uyoi/] 
CIS Tots aAXas TToAcis, (ftavepol 8k iv 
Tois op€(Tiv [iv KaAv)3ais] wkovv. 

[ycyovc Sk kol x^i/jlwv /Ae'yas koX 
fiapvTaTO<s ' kol iXirdvevov ol ctTro/xci'- 
vavTCS TravTCS dwTToBrjTOL xAat'ovrcs kol 
piTTToyrcs cavToi's irprjvels cts tois 
;^t'ovas, Kpd^ovres to, 'K.vpie, iXerjfrov,' 

{XiTavtvovTUiV hk TrdvTOJV Kq,l rpefiov- 
Twv) ^^ i(fidvr] iv opdfxaTi tlvl Oeotre/Sei 
dvdpMTTW, wcrrc ctTrctv Tracrt tois vttoAci- 
<f)$eLa-LV, Lva iir ly pdyj; wa lv f.l<i to. viripOvpa 
avrwv' ' Xpio-Tos ficO' -^[xlov ' o-t^c.'] 

iv 8e Tw avrw ^ovw (rvve/3r] TraOiiv 
vTTo (reicTfiov Aao8i/cciav . . . Karrj- 

Vi.)(6ll Se VTTO TOV (f>6/3oV TO ^fXtCTV Trj<i 

avrrj'i ttoAcws xat at avvayuiyal twv 
'lorSat'coi' ' dvdiXovTO 8k kv auTw t<3 
^o/?(j) ^(tAiaScs cTTTtt rjjXKrv, 'EySpaitov 
TC ttA^^os koX )^L(7TLavu)v oAt'yoi* ai 8k 
c/c/cAr^crtai T^s avTrj<i ttoAccos cyLtctvav 
dppaycts, TrepLcrwOeia-aL VTTO ®iov. 6 8k 
auTos ;8ao-tAcus i)(apL(raTO tois AaoSt- 


p.r]v\ '%€7rTefifipi(a lv8, t, iyivero 

-' ravra fj.a6ov<Tai of vXriffid^ovaai itSKfis (Theoph.) 

** These words come from George the Monk. 

" The reading of this word is not clear in the Syriac. 


urbs Cyzicus subversa et magna ex o-€io-/aos iv Kv^tVo) koI to i^fiia-v rrj^ 

parte coUapsa est. avr^? TroAew? cttco-c^"* 

Eodem anno tempore vespertino cVi 8k rrjs avrrj? ySao-iXeta? [Iv8. $'] 

ab occidente apparuit stella magna i(jidvr] doTrjp /At'yas koI (f)o/3cp6<; Kara 

et horribilis . . . quae magnum to 8vtik6v fj-ipo?, ttc/attcoi/ ctti rrjv dvot 

fulgur sursum emittebat : ex hoc, dxTtva Aevxr/v,^^ 6 8e -^apaKry^p avrov 

quod et ipsum valde splendebat, ao-rpaTras dTreTrefiirev. 
exibant parvi radii ignei. . . . 

Graeci earn cometen vocant. Eun- ov eXeyuv Ttves clvat XafiiraBiav. 

dem in niodum per XX. dies orta e/xeivc Sc ctti 17/Aepas k iKXdfnrwv, koI 

est OCulisque mortalium se obtulit. iyevovro Sk dwSpiai /cat Kara. ■ttoXlv 

Postea multi . . . multa viderunt Srjp.(ynKol cf>6voi /cat dXXa iroXXa 

bella, terrorem evagatum, sitim, dTretA^s TmrXrjpwfiiva. 
pluviae inopiam, atque series de- 
vastationum in urbibus factarum. 

A later fragment of John of Ephesos (II. 1) also shows consider- 
able resemblances to the work of John Malala ; but on this I do not 
insist, as the portions in which they occur all relate to events in the 
neighbourhood of Constantinople, and John of Ephesos, who resided 
in that city, may have got his information from some civic records 
similar to the extracts published by Cramer,^*' and it is plain that 
some such records must have been used also by John Malala. The 
passages which I have given are sufficient to show beyond a doubt 
that the resemblance between the two authors is not accidental. If, 
therefore, it be not admitted that John of Ephesos copied John 
Malala, it will be necessary to suppose that he copied another John 
of Antioch, otherwise unknown, and that John Malala copied either 
this John or John of Ephesos himself. Such an assumption should 
clearly not be made without very cogent reason, unless indeed some 
evidence can be produced of the existence of such an historian. A 
passage in Evagrius may perhaps be brought forward as providing 
the evidence required, but I believe that his testimony, when 
properly examined, will be found to tell strongly in favour of the 
view that the John referred to is no other than John Malala. 
Evagrius relates the fire and earthquake of Antioch in the following 
terms : — 

VTTO Tots avToi<s 'lova-Ttvov ^ovoLS ifJLTrpr](Tfji.OL T€ o-v;^x'ot /cat Setvoi Kara ttjv 
Avtl6)(ov yeyovaa-Lv, u)(nrep rjyovfJL^voi twi/ yeyevrjfxcvuiv Iv avrrj (fio/SepiDrdTiav 
KXovuyy /cat irpooifiiov Tot? TraOrjfiacn '7rapi)^6ficvoi. Mcto, yap ySpa^V Ttva 
Kaipov, iv TO) i/386fno tTCi t^s avrov ySafriActa?, fxr)vt Sc/cdru), dvd tov 'Aprc/xiVtov 
firjva T]TOL Wdiov, k& avrov rip-^pa Kar avro Trj<s fie(Tr]fJ.^pia<; to crraBepiDTaTOv, 
T^s c/CTr;s r]fiipa<i tj}? KaXofievrjs eySSoftdSo?, )8pao-/i,os Kat cr€i(Tpo<s c;rcA^ovT€s rij 
iroAct fiLKpov Trdo'av dvarpeij/avTei Kar^yayov ' ots /cat Trvp clttcto oicnrep ttjv 
(rvfi<f}opa.v fi€T' avT(x)v BiavufJidfievov. '^A yap e/cetvot ov /caTcAaySov, to rrvp 

** (Tdtrfihs fiiyas eh oKov rhv K6crfjLov Utrrf irrwOrjvai rh T^fiiffu ttjs Kv^'KOV (Theoph.) 
" Tctj iavTov d/CTij/as affTpavTovdas (ibid.) 
^ Anecd, Paris, ii. 110 ft. 

^, l.^l^f*^ 


d/A^ivc/xo/xcvov i^vOpaKLae re koL dTrcrc^pwo-c. /cat oaa fikv t^s ttoXcws ttcttov- 
^cv, oo"ot T€ Tov TJ-upos Ktti Twv (TeKTfJiwv tpyov yeyovacTiv, ws to cikos {nrfOern, 
oTTOta re TrapdSo^a /cat Aoyov Kpetrrw cvfi/Se/SrjKe, iripnrai)Ci<; atjirjyqTai 
'Jwdwr; tw prjTopi u>Bi Trj<; l(TTopLa<i KaraXrj^avTL. 

Now, if this last statement represents the ahsolute fact, it is 
plain that John the Ehetor cannot be our John Malala (Malala is 
similar in meaning to Khetor ^'), for the latter, as we know, brought 
his chronicle down to 565.^* But Dr. E. Patzig, in a pamphlet 
entitled ' Unerkannt und unbekannt gebliebene Malalasfragmente,' ^ 
has produced very strong reasons for believing that the two authors the same, and that the 18tli book of John Malala is a later 
addition, a result at which I had arrived before I saw his work. 
As, however, the pamphlet is not very accessible in England, and as 
Dr. Patzig has not made his case nearly as strong as he might have 
done, I will give briefly the reasons which have led me to this con- 

In the passage quoted above the resemblance to the narrative 
of John Malala already given is remarkable. The passage in 
Evagrius is only a short compendium, and is naturally written in a 
more classical style than that of the Syriac-speaking chronographer ; 
hence actual quotations cannot be expected. Still there are no 
details in Evagrius which are not to be found either in the epitome 
of John Malala or in Theophanes, and the coincidences are' not a 
little striking : we have only to compare biairsp 'q'yovusvov . . . Trpool- 
fiiov Tols TraO^/xaat. Traps^ofisvot with octtls Trposfirjvvas rrjy rov ^sov 
fMsWovaav sasaOat ajavd-KTrjaiv and with the ra Trpool/xia rrjs rov 
@sov 6pyf]s and avrrj sysvsro ap'^r) oahivcov of Theophanes, fiiicpov 
nraaav dvarpsyjravrss Karrjjayov with TTTtodrjvat a^sBov iraaav ttjp 
'TToXtv, and to rrvp s^rjvOpaKwa-s rs Kol arrsrst^puxrs with eKspavvovvro 

01 6sfls\L0t . . . ilTTO TOV TTVpOS T£(f>pOVfJ,SVOL. 

Moreover Evagrius shares the mistake of John Malala in placing 
the earthquake in the seventh year of Justin, and also, like him, 
inserts this date between the account of the fire and that of * the 
earthquake, although the two events happened in the same regnal 
year and the same indiction. Soteriades, indeed, believes that John 
the Khetor is the historian known to us as John of Antioch. The 
latter was, however, a sober political historian and did not write 
turgid {irspiiraOois) accounts of earthquakes ; and, even if we concede 
that he might have devoted some space to the great earthquake of 
526, an examination of the passages in which Evagrius mentions 
John the Ehetor affords, I think, convincing proof that he is not refer- 

*" Malala is also written Malela, and therefore probably represents the common 
Syriac title 'Malilo' = X(57ioj, which is often equivalent to pi\rwp when an ecclesiastic 
is referred to. 

*' He gives the length of Justinian's reign. 

** Abhandlung zu dent Jahresberichte der Thomasschule zu Leipzig, 1891. 


ring to our John of Antioch. The events which he relates on the' 
avowed authority of John the Ehetor are five in number — (1) the 
translation of the bones of Ignatius, (2) the earthquake of Antioch 
in 457, (3) the murder of Bishop Stephen of Antioch, (4) the 
buildings of Mamraian in Antioch and its suburbs, (5) the fire and 
earthquake of 525-6. Now it is hardly necessary to point out that 
these are not the kind of events which John of Antioch records, 
and in the case of 1 and 4 I have no hesitation in saying that 
he cannot have recorded them. Moreover, if Evagrius had such a 
valuable historian before him, it is not credible that he should have 
used him only for such unimportant facts as these. On the other 
hand, the pages of John Malala teem with such occurrences, and it 
should be noted that every one of these relates to the local aifairs of 
Antioch, on which John Malala is particularly well informed, 
whereas John of Antioch, in spite of his traditional name, shows no 
special interest or knowledge. Moreover, three of these events are 
actually found recorded in the extant portions of John Malala. 
For the reigns of Marcian and Leo the epitomes are especially 
scanty; consequently we have no means of comparing John's 
account of the earthquake of 457, which, in the epitome, is no 
more than a bare statement of the fact, with the narrative of 
Evagrius ; it may be noted, however, that both authors give the 
month and day of the month, and the year of the city ^^ era ; and 
both say that it happened at daybreak on a Sunday ; ^' both also 
state that Leo sent large gifts to the citizens personally and for the 
rebuilding of the city. The murder of Bishop Stephen, again, is 
related in similar language by the two historians, John Malala 
having s(T<f>d'yr] . . . els KoXdfua o^vvdivra vtto tov KXijpov rov 
ISlov, and Evagrius ov TracBss ' Avrio-^scov Ka\d/xois BLsyeiptaavro 
Icra Sopaaiv o^vvOelaiv. 

It follows, then, that, if we deny the identity of John Ehetor 
and John Malala, we must hold that there were two men who 
were both named John, were both described by a similar title, 
both lived at Antioch, both wrote histories, both gave special 
attention to events of no political importance, such as natural 
calamities, local affairs, and translations of relics, both recorded 
the earthquake of 457, with the month and day and year of 
Antioch, both mentioned the gifts of Leo to the city after that 
event, both described the peculiar manner in which Bishop Stephen 
was killed, and in the description used the expression /cdXafioc 
o^vvdsvrss, both narrated in similar language the fire and earth- 
quake of 625-6, both wrongly placed the earthquake in the seventh 
year of Justin, and both wrongly supposed that the fire and the 

** The variation in the numbers (an easy corruption) is of no importance. 
*• lia<paov(ri\s Kvp'.aKrjs (Jo. Mai.) ; Kvpias kmKaTa\afiov(rr]s rjfiepas (Evagr.) 


earthquake occurred in different regnal years. On this ground 
alone, then, it seems impossible to resist the conclusion that the two 
authors are identical. But, further, the passages in which John 
Khetor is mentioned by Evagrius are not the only ones in which a 
use of John Malala can be detected; Evagrius 3, 37 (latter half), 
43, 44, containing the accounts of the fortification of Dara, the 
rebellion of Vitalian, the invasion of the Huns, the earthquake of 
Ehodes, and the Trisagion riots, are derived from John Malala, as 
must be apparent to any one who compares them with the correspond- 
ing narratives in that author, though Dr. Patzig does not seem to 
have noticed the fact. It is not possible to hold that John drew from 
Evagrius, as he has many details which do not occur in that author, 
whereas, with the exception of a single statement in chapter 44, 
which, as he says himself, he derived from Severus, there is nothing 
in Evagrius which is not to be found in John Malala. The same 
is probably the case with the first four chapters of book iv., though, 
here Evagrius has several details which do not occur in our present 
text of John Malala. It would hence appear that from 502, at 
which point Eustace of Epiphaneia stopped, as far as 526 John Malala 
was the chief authority followed by Evagrius, and the fact that 
Evagrius has gone to him for his account of Vitalian's rebellion is 
very strong evidence that he was not -acquainted with our John of 
Antioch, for the latter has a much fuller account of that event, of 
which he seems to have been an eye-witness. The edition of John 
Malala used by Evagrius, from which the eighteenth book, or the 
greater part of it, was absent, might possibly have been an epitome ; 
but, considering the date of Evagrius, it is more probable that the 
work of John Malala' originally ended with the death of Justin, or 
rather with the year 528,^^ at which point is inserted a reckoning up 
of the time from the creation,^^ followed by the expression iv Bs 
Tols ;^po2/ois TovTOLs, 0)9 TTposLTTov, which does uot, I belicve, occur 
elsewhere in John Malala, and that the author, like Marcellinus, 
afterwards added the events of his own day down to the death 
of Justinian. If, however, the statement of Evagrius be insisted 
on, and the identity of the two Johns rejected, the case for the 
identification, of John Malala with the author mentioned by John 
of Ephesos becomes all the stronger ; for, as we can hardly suppose 
that the latter used an authority for the earthquake of 528 and the 
earthquake of Laodikeia different from the one which he uses for the 
earthquake of 526, the author whom he followed must have continued 
his work later than 526, and cannot, therefore, be the same as John 
Rhetor ; hence we shall have to postulate not only one but two 
unknown Johns of Antioch. 

" The statement of Evagrius cannot, of course, be pressed to mean that the earth 
quake was absolutely the last event recorded by John. 

^' Such a chronplogical recapitulation occurs elsewhere only at the birth of Christ 


Seeing, then, how great are the difficulties raised . by any other 
hypothesis, I hold it to be certain that the three Johns were one -and 
the same person. This author must, then, have written before John 
of Ephesos wrote the second part of his * Ecclesiastical History.' 
Now the third part of this work was written during a series of years 
of which the earliest that can be demonstrated is 581 ; the second 
part was, therefore, completed before that year, and the chronicle of 
John Malala must have been finished some considerable time earlier, 
as we have to allow time for John of Ephesos to write his second 
part. It is scarcely necessary to point out how well this agrees 
with the conclusion, already shown on other grounds to be probable, 
that the work ended with the death of Justinian. From the ex- 
pression by which that emperor is designated in the Tusculan Frag- 
ments it would follow that the greater part of the eighteenth book was 
added during Justinian's reign, and the work would then naturally 
have been completed immediately after his death in 565. This, it 
may be mentioned, is essentially the same view as that maintained 
by Mommsen, though he does not show any knowledge of John of 
Ephesos, nor does he take any note of the confirmation derived from 
the Tusculan Fragments and from Evagrius. 

E. W. Beooks. 


Great importance is rightly assigned to the first instances of ' a 
constitutional opposition to a royal demand for money,' ' of which 
the two alleged earliest cases are * the opposition of St. Thomas to 
the king's manipulation of the danegeld [1163], and the refusal by 
St. Hugh of Lincoln to furnish money for Eichard's war in France 
[1197].' ^ These two precedents are always classed together : Dr. 
Stubbs writes of St. Hugh's action — 

The only formal resistance to the king in the national council proceeds 
from St. Hugh of Lincohi and Bishop Herbert of Salisbury, who refuse 
to consent to grant him an aid in knights and money for his foreign war- 
fare ... an act which stands out prominently by the side of St. Thomas's 
protest against Henry's proposal to appropriate the sheriff's share of 

And Mr. Freeman repeats the parallel : — 

Thomas . . . withstands, and withstands successfully, the levying of 
a danegeld. ... As Thomas of London had withstood the demands of 
the father, Hugh of Avalon withstood the demands of the son. In a 

' Stubbs, Const. Hist. (1874), i. 510. ' Ibid. -p. 577. 

' Select Charters (1870), pp. 28-9. So too preface to Kog. Hoveden (1871) : 'It 
may be placed on a par with St. Thomas's opposition to Henry II in 11(J3 ' (iv. pp. xci- 
xcii). .So also Early Plantagenets (l^l&), p. 126, and Const. Hist. i. 510. 



great council . . . [he] spoke up for the laws and rights of Englishmen 
... no men or money were they bound to contribute for undertakings 
beyond the sea.* 

Having already discussed the earlier instance,' and advanced 
the view that the Woodstock debate [1163] did not relate to 
danegeld at all^ but to an attempt of the king to seize for himself 
the aiixilium vicecomitis (a local levy), I now approach the later 

* This occasion,' we read, * is a memorable one : ' "^ it is that of 
an * event of great importance,' ^ of ' a landmark in constitutional 
history.' * No apology, therefore, is needed for endeavouring to 
throw some further light on an event of such cardinal importance. 
But, to clear the ground, let us first define what we mean by 
* opposition to a royal demand for money.' However autocratic 
the king may have been — and on this point there is not only a 
difference of opinion but a difference in fact corresponding with 
his strength at any given period — there were limits set by law or 
custom (or, should we rather say, limits, both written and unwritten ?) 
beyond which he could not pass. ' Domesday,' for instance, was a 
written limit : if the king claimed from a manor assessed at ten 
hides the danegeld due from twenty, the tenant need only appeal 
to ' Domesday ' {poneret se super rotulum Winto7i'). Or, again, if from 
a feudal tenant owing the forty days' service the king were to 
claim eighty days, he would be transgressing unwritten custom as 
binding as a written record. But outside these limits there lay a 
debatable ground where that elastic term aiixilium proved con- 
veniently expansive. It was here that the crown could increase its 
demands, and here that a conflict would arise as to where the limit 
should be placed, a conflict to be determined not by law, but by a trial 
of strength between the crown and its opponents. We have, then, 
to decide to which of these spheres the action of St. Hugh should be 
assigned, whether to that of the lawyer appealing to the letter of 
the bond or to that of the popular leader opposing the demands of 
the king, though they did not contravene th6 law. If one may use 
the terms, for convenience sake, it was a question of law or a ques- 
tion of politics ; and only if it was the latter had it a true consti- 
tutional importance. 

The two chief accounts of the Oxford debate are found in Koger 
Hoveden and the * Vita Magna St. Hugonis.' As they are both 
printed in ' Select Charters,' I need not repeat them here. There 
is, however, an independent version in the ' Vita ' of Giraldus 
Cambrensis, which it may be desirable to add : — 

* Norm. Conq. v. 675, 695. 

* English Histobical Eeview, v. 750. 

« Early Plantagenets, p. 126. ' Const. Hist. i. 509 

* Ibid. p. 510, and pref. to Rog, Hoveden, iv. pp. xci-xcii. 


In Anglicanam coepit [rex] ecclesiam duris exactionibus debacchari. 
Unde collecto in unum regni^ clero, habitoque contra insolitum et tarn 
urgens incommodum districtiore consilio, verbum ad importunas pariter 
et importabiles impositiones contradictionis et cleri totius pro ecclesiastica 
libertate responsionis, in ore Lincolnensis tanquam personae prae ceteris 
approbatae religionis authenticae magis communi omnium desiderio est 
assignatum (vii. 103-4). 

Gerald's editor impugns the correctness of these statements, on 
the grounds that the assembly was not clerical merely and that the 
bishop did not speak on behalf of the whole church. But the pas- 
sage seems to me to refer to a meeting of the clergy in which it 
was decided that St. Hugh should be their spokesman at the 
council. Of the other objection I shall treat below. 

According to Hoveden, Eichard asked for either (1) three 
hundred knights who would serve him, at their own costs, for a 
year, or (2) a sum sufficient to enable him to hire three hundred 
knights for a year at the rate of three shillings a day. The ' Vita 
Magna,' however, implies that the former alternative alone was laid 
before the council. The grounds on which St. Hugh protested are 
thus given by our two authorities : — 

Eespondit pro se, quod ipse in hoc voluntati regis nequaquam adquie- 
sceret, turn quia processu temporis in ecclesiae sviae detrimentum redun- 
daret, turn quia successores sui dicerent, ' Patres nostri comederunt uvam 
acerbam, et dentes filiorum obstupescunt ' (Hoveden). 

Scio equidem ad militare servitium domino regi, sed in hac terra 
solummodo exhibendum, Lincolniensem ecclesiam teneri ; extra metas 
vero Angliae nil tale ab ea deberi. Unde mihi consultius arbitror ad 
natale solum repedare . . . quam liic pontificatum gerere et ecclesiam 
mihi commissam, antiquas immunitates perdendo, insolitis angariis sub- 
jugare (' Magna Vita '). 

Two points stand out clearly — one, that St. Hugh took his stand 
on the prescriptive rights of his church, rights infringed by the king's 
demand ; the other, that he spoke for himself alone, not for the 
church, still less for the barons, and least of all for the nation. 
Our authorities, however, are so vague that they leave in doubt the 
precise point ' taken ' by the saintly prelate. Mr. Freeman, we 
have seen, confidently assumes that he ' spoke up for the laws and 
rights of Englishmen ; ' Miss Norgate holds that he ' took up the 
position of Thomas and Anselm as a champion of const itutional 
liberty,' ° whatever that may mean ; even Dr. Stubbs claims that 
he ' acted on behalf of the nation to which he had joined himself.' '° 

I venture to think that the clue to the enigma is to be found in 
quite another quarter. In the chronicle of Jocelin de Brakelond 
we find a most instructive passage, which refers, it cannot be 

" England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 350. 
^^ Early PUmtagenets, 1^.126, . 


doubted, to this same episode. The story is told somewhat 
differently, but the point raised is the same. King Eichard, we 
are told, demanded that knights should be sent him from England, 
in the proportion of one from every ten due by the church 'baronies.' 
The servitium dehitum of St. Edmund's being forty, the abbot was 
called upon to send four.^^ That the principle of joint equipment, 
which had been adopted under Henry II, was resorted to on this 
occasion is the more probable because a few years later (1205) we 
find King John similarly demanding quod novem milites per totam 
Angliam invenirent decimum militem, bene paratum equis et armis, 
ad defensionem regni nostri. 1 admit, however, that it is not 
mentioned in the other versions of our episode, and Jocelin speaks 
only of the demand upon the church fiefs. But the point is that 
when the abbot consulted his tenants as to sending the four knights 
required, they protested that they were liable to pay scutage, but 
not to serve out of England. ^^ Now this is a locus classicus on the 
institution of scutage. Its bearing I shall examine below, after 
finishing the story. The abbot, we read, finding himself in a strait, 
crossed the sea in search of the king, who told him that a fine 
would not avail ; he wanted men, not money.'^ 

Surely we have here the key to the position taken by St. Hugh. 
When he claimed that his fief was not bound ad servitium, militare 
. . . extra metas Angliae he cannot have referred to the pay- 
ment of scutage, for that had been paid by his predecessors and 
himself without infringing the liberties of -their church.'* He must, 
therefore, have referred not to ' money,' but to personal service 
outside the realm. But was this exemption peculiar to the church 
of Lincoln ? If we find the same privilege existing at St. Edmund's 
and at Salisbury, may we not infer that the church contingents were 
only bound to serve in person for ' defence, not defiance,' '^ and that 
we have here the perfect explanation of the fact that scutage, as 
commutation for service, is an institution, when it first appears, 
peculiar to church fiefs? The medieval dread of creating a pre- 

" Precepit rex Ricardus omnibus episcopis et abbatibus Angliae ut de suis baroniis 
novem milites facerent decimtim, et sine dilacione venirent ad cum in Nonnanniam, 
cum equis et armis in auxilium contra Begem Franciae. Unde et abbatem oportuit 
responderc de iiii militibus mittcndis (ed. Camden Soc. p. G3). 

'- Cumque sunvnoneri fecisset omnes milites sicos, et eos inde convenisset, respon- 
derunt feudos suos, quos de Sancto Acdmundo tenucrunt, hoc non debere, nee se nee 
patres eoruvi unquam Angliam exisse, set scutagium aliquando ad praeceptum regis 
dedisse (Ibid.) 

'* Abbas vero in arcto posito, hinc videns libertatem suorum militum periclitari, 
ilUnc timens ne amitteret saisinam baronie sue pro defectu scrvicii regis, sicut con- 
tigerat Episcopo Lundonensi [? Lincolnensi] et multis baronibus Angliae, statim trans 
fretavit, et . . . in primis nullum potuit facere finem cum rege per denarios. Dicenti 
ergo se non indigere auro nee argento, sed quatuor milites instanter exigenti, &c. {ib.) 

" In quibus conservandis sive exhibendis hactcnus fere per tredecim annos a rectis 
praedecessorum meorum vestigiis non recessi {Magna Vita). 

" Adpublicam rem tuendam {Abingdon Cart. ii. 3). 



cedent preyed on the abbot as on the saint. From the council of 
Lillebonne to the Bedford auxilium (1224) it was always the same 

Creiment k'il seit en feu toruez 

Et en costume seit tenu 

Et par costume seit rendu. 

It was in this spirit that Hugh of Avalon, I take it, made his 
stand: other prelates might waive the point, in consideration of 
the king's necessities, but he, at least, would never allow a standing 
exemption to be broken through, and thus impaired for all time. 

His attitude, we are told, proved fatal to the scheme, compelling 
the king and his ministers to abandon it in impotent wrath. But 
perhaps his biographer exaggerates the defeat, for the bishop of 
Salisbury, we know, had to purchase the king's pardon for his 
action by a heavy fine, while the abbot of St. Edmund's had to 
compromise the matter by the payment of a large sum.'^ It seems 
probable that similar compromises would be arranged in other cases 
where the request was not complied with. 

If, then, I am right in the solution I offer, St. Hugh must have 
taken the narrowest ground, and have acted on behalf of ecclesias- 
tical privilege, and only incidentally even for that, his protest 
being limited to his own church.'^ And, further, it follows that, 
like St. Thomas, he was acting strictly on the defensive. To say 
that his action affords ' the first clear case of the refusal of a money 
grant demanded directly by the crown, and a most valuable pre- 
cedent for later times,' '^ is, I submit with all respect, to set it in a 
quite erroneous light. In 1197, as in 1163, the crown was trying to 
infringe on well-established rights, and St. Hugh, like St. Thomas, 
resisted that infringement, so far as his own rights were concerned, 

'* Qiuxtuor viilites stipendiarios optulit abbas. Qtcos cum rex rccepissct, apud cas- 
telluvi de Hou misit. Abbas autem in instanti eis xxxvi viarcas dedit ad expensas 
xl dierum. In crastino autem veturunt quidam familiarcs regis, consulentes abbati 
ut sibi caute provideret, dicentes tverram posse durare per annum integrum vel am- 
plius, et expensas militum excrescere et miiltiplicari in perpetuum dampnum ei et 
ecclesiae suae. Et ideo consulcbant ut, antequam recedcrct de curia, finem faccrct cum 
rege, unde posset quietus esse de militibus predictis post xl dies. Abbas autem, sano 
usus cansilio, centum libras regi dedit pro tali quictantia (Jocelin, p. 63). It is note- 
worthy that thirty-six marcs would represent just three shillings a day. (for forty days) 
for each knight, the very sum named by Hoveden. In 1205 the pay named in John's 
writ was two shillings a day (home service), but both these sums are largely in excess 
of the eightpence a day paid, as we have seen, under Henry II, the discrepancy being 
incomprehensible, unless the higher wage implied a larger following. 

" Dr. Stubbs held [1870] that he acted ' not on ecclesiastical but on constitutional 
grounds ' (Select Charters, p. 28), though he subsequently [1871] doubted whether ' the 
grounds of the opposition' were 'ecclesiastical or constitutional' (Pref. to Hoveden, 
IV. p. xci), and even admitted that ' the opposition of St. Hugh was based not on his 
right as a member of the national council, but on the immunities of his church ' {Const. 
Hist. i.57B). 

" Hoveden, iv. xcii. . . . . . • 



just as he would have resisted an attempt of the crown to deprive 
his see of a manor, of feudal services, or of goods. The crown 
might take its pound of flesh, but more than that it should not 
have; never, through any action of his, should his church be 
deprived of its prescriptive rights.'" J. H. Round. 


Professor Loserth, of Czernowitz, who eight years ago esta- 
blished beyond the reach of controversy the literary dependence of 
Hus upon Wycliffe, and who has edited a number of texts (in- 
cluding no less than five volumes of Wycliffe himself) bearing upon 
the religious movement derived from him both in England and 
Bohemia, has lately put forth a valuable paper on the relations 
between the two branches of the reforming party,' upon which I 
should like to offer a few notes and observations, not by way of 
exhausting the interest of that article, but for the purpose of adding 
what I can of illustration and sometimes of correction. 

There has been some discussion as to the channel by which 
Wycliffe's works reached Bohemia. In 1884 Dr. Loserth wrote — 

Ebenso unrichtig ist die Behauptung Enea Silvio's, dass ein Mann 
aus vornehmem Hause Nameiis Faulfisch die ersten Exemplare Wiclif- 
scher Schriften nach Prag iiberbraclit babe. Es ist dies bekanntlich eine 
Verwechslung mit jenem Nicolaus Faulfisch, der in Gesellschaft mit einem 
anderen Studierenden eine Urkunde nach Prag brachte, in welcher die 
Universitat Oxford am 5. October 1406, die Rechtglaubigkeit Wiclifs be- 

Had Aeneas Sylvius made the statement attributed to him, he 
would undoubtedly have been in error, since it can be shown that 
some of Wycliffe's writings were read at Prague before the end of 
the fourteenth century, and possibly within a few years of Wycliffe's 
death in 1384.^ And we have Jerom of Prague's express statement 
that he transcribed Wycliffe's ' Dialogus ' and ' Trialogus ' during 
his stay in England, and took back the books with him,* probably 
in 1401 or 1402.^ But as a matter of fact Aeneas said not a word 
about Faulfisch' s bringing the first copies of Wycliffe's works : he 
said simply — 

" Aniiquas immunitates perdendo. 

* Mittheil. des Instit. filr Oesterreich. Gesch.-ForscJi. xii. (1891), pp. 254-69. 

- Husund Wiclif (1884), pp. 79 f. Compare Dr. Loserth's introduction to Wycliffe, 
dc Ecclesia (1885), p. xvii. 

* Loserth, Hus und Wiclif, pp. 78 f. ; Mittheil., ubi supra, p. 257 ; cf. Lechler, 
Johann von Wiclif (1873), ii. 112 f., 135. 

* H. von der Hardt, Corp. Act. et Deer. Constant. Concil. iv. (1699), col. 635. 

* Loserth, Hus und Wiclif, p. 82. 


vir quidam gen ere nobilis, ex domo quam Putridi Piscis vocant, apud 
Oxoniam Angliae civitatem literis studens, cum Joannis Wiclevi libros 
offendisset, quibus de realibns universalibus titulus inscribitur, magnopere 
iUis oblectatus, exemplaria secum attulit. Inter quae de civili iure, deque 
divino,'* de ecclesia, de diversis quaestionibus, contra clerum pleraque 
volumina, veluti pretiosum thesaurum, patriae suae intulit J 

Aeneas Sylvius makes this statement at the beginning of his 
account of the rise of the Hussite movement, and I have no doubt 
that it was the first notice of WycHffe's works being brought into 
Bohemia of which he was aware ; but his language, it will be seen, 
is not chargeable with the mistake which has been read into it. It 
has, indeed, a remarkable confirmation in the fact that there exists 
a manuscript (Cod. palat. Vindobon. 1294) of three works of Wycliffe, 
the ' De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae,' ' De Dominio Divino,' and * De 
Ecclesia,' — two of which appear in Aeneas Sylvius's list — containing 
a note stating that the ' De Veritate ' was ' corrected at Oxford on 
the feast of the Purification 1407 by Nicolas Faulfiss and George of 
Knyehnicz.' * It is singular that in the English translation of 
Dr. Loserth's book, where this note is quoted in another connexion,^ 
its bearing upon Aeneas Sylvius's testimony is not observed, 
although, as I took occasion to point out in my preface to WycHffe's 
first book ' de Civili Dominio,' it raised a strong presumption in its 
favour.^" I am glad, therefore, to see that Dr. Loserth now accepts 
the fact that Eaulfisch brought at least the works contained in 
that manuscript back with him to Bohemia.^' He adds that later 
chroniclers have, by a plain confusion of his name with that of 
Jerom of Prague, made out of this Nicolas a Jerom Faulfisch and 
asserted that he was the first to bring Wycliffe's writings to Prague : 
in other words, they knew that Jerom of Prague and that a certain 
Faulfisch were Bohemians w^ho had studied at Oxford, and it was 
tempting to make Faulfisch the surname of Jerom and to identify 
the two.'^ But neither the statement about the ' first ' writings nor 
the confusion with Jerom is attributable to Aeneas Sylvius. 

Dr. Loserth furnishes some fresh particulars respecting Pdchard 

" Or clc civili, de iurc divino, Aen. Sylv. Opera (Basle, 1571), p. 103. 

' Aen. Sylv. Hist. Bohem. xxxv. (Helmstiiclt, 1C99), p. 49. 

"* De Eccl., intr. p. xvii ; De Domin. Div. (ed. E. L. Poole, 1890), pref. p. x. 

9 Wiclifand Hus (1884), p. 101, note. 

"> Wycliffe, De Civ. Dom. i. (1885), pref. p. ix. 

" Mittheil., ubi supra, pp. 258 f. I notice that Dr. Loserth speaks of Kenmerton 
(now Kemertoh) as a village in Worcestershire instead of in Gloucestershire. It be- 
longed, of course, to the old diocese of Worcester. The story to Avhich he refers in con- 
nexion with Faulfisch (p. 259) was of a bishop, not an archbishop, and a cook {Docuni. 
Mag. Joh. Hus, ed. Palacky, 1869, p. 729). On pp. 2G0, 263 'Herford' should be 
' Hereford ; ' and on pp. 263, 266 ' Covling ' is a mistake for ' Cooling.' 

'- Shirley varied the operation and made Jerom andNicolas brothers{Fasc. Ziz.,18o8, 
intr. p. Ixxxii, note) ; he was aware of the note in the Vienna MS. 1294. But this 
dichotomy reminds one of ' Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite ' in 1 Chron. xx. 5. 

X 2 


Wyche, a narrative of whose trial for heresy was printed, from a 
copy taken from a Prague manuscript and kindly supplied by him, 
in this Review, vol. v. (1890), pp. 531-544. I notice that he 
follows '^ Lechler, who, indeed, expresses himself with r<^serve,'^ in 
making Wyche l)urned in 1431. But Lechler knew only the royal 
writ of 15 July 1440, printed by Foxe,'"' forbidding pilgrimages to 
the place of his execution, and he connected his death with other 
recorded measures taken against heretics in 1431.'*"' There is, how- 
ever, evidence of the year, the day, and even the hour of Wyche's 
•burning. The Brute chronicle says that it took place on the Friday 
before Midsummer in the nineteenth year of Henry VI ; '^ but, as 
this would be near eleven months after the writ referred to. Stow, 
who used the manuscript, naturally corrected * xix ' into ' xviij ' and 
adopted the correction in his ' Annales ' (ed. 1631, p. 378 b). The 
eighteenth year is established by the express statements of Gregory's 
chronicle,'^ and by the record in a ' Short English Chronicle ' of the 
time which states (with a mistake in the name) that ' in this yere 
was Sir Robert White, some tyme vicorye of Depfford, and anoj^ere 
seculer man, dampned for heresye, and brent at Toure Hill in a 
mornyng at vij of the cloke ' ^^ — that is, to combine the notices, on 
Friday, 17 June 1440 ; so that the gatherings at the place of execu- 
tion were put down within a month. 

A letter to Hus purporting to be from an Englishman named 
Richard has long been known,^*' but the signature ' Ricus [sic'] 
Vuychewitze,' from its Bohemian ring, led Lechler 2' to suspect his 
nationality. A newer text, however, printed by Constantin von 
Hofler,'^^ gives ' Richardus Yitze ; ' and it is clear, as Dr. Loserth 
remarks, that the longer form is made up out of * Wyche ' combined 
with a gloss ' Wicze ' to help Bohemians in the pronunciation. 
The further change of cz into tz will not surprise those who are 
familiar with the handwriting of the time. One manuscript has 
' Richardus Wigleph,' ^^ which is a manifest attempt to make an 
unknown English name intelligible by a bold identification with 
another which was very well known and, in an abbreviated form, 

'* Mittheil., ubi supra, p. 2G9. 

'* Johann von Wiclif,u. 351 ; cf. p. 320. 

'* Acts and Monuments, ed. 1855, iii. 703. 

>8 Cf. Fabyan's Chronicles (ed. Ellis, 1811), p. G02. 

»• Engl Chron. of Bich. II, &c. (ed. J. S. Davies, Camden Society, 185G), p. 56. 

'* Coll. of a Citizen of London (ed. J. Gairdner, Camden Society, 187G), p. 183. 

'" Three Fifteenth-Cent. Chron. (ed. J. Gairdner, Camden Society, 1880), p. G3. 

^ Joh. Hus Hist, et Monum. (Nuremberg, 1558), i. f. ci. 

" Joliann von Wiclif, ii. 351, n. 3. 

-- Geschichtschrciber der Hiisitischen Bewegung, ii. [Font. Ber. Austriac., Scr. iv, 
1865), pp. 210 ff. There was no reason why the editor should have changed the 
infimus sacerdotum in the signature into infirmus saccrdotum. If this was the read- 
ing of his manuscript, he should have corrected it. 

-' Mittheil., ubi supra, p. 260. 


not very dissimilar. The letter was written in London on 8 Sep- 
tember : in Hofler's edition it bears no date of year ; but the old 
text gives 1410, which is certainly right. Hus's reply, addressed • 
simply to ' Eichard,' has been printed both by Hofler (pp. 212 ff.) 
and by Palacky.^'' 

Of greater interest is the fact that in this same year, and on 
the same day as Wyche — Dr. Loserth has omitted to call attention 
to this latter coincidence — Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, also 
wrote, from his castle of Cooling, in Kent, a letter, which Dr. Loserth 
now prints for the first time,'^^ to members of the reforming party 
at Prague, "^"^ to Wok of Waldstein, or in his absence to Zdislaw of 
Zwierzetica. If, as the editor thinks, this letter of 8 Sept. shows 
knowledge of the events at Prague following the burning of Wycliffe's 
books from 27 July to G August, it certainly affords remarkablc_ 
evidence of the brisk intercommunication between the Wycliffites at 
home and in Bohemia. The allusion, however, need not, perhaps, , 
be pressed so closely ; in any case it need not refer to any events 
later than Zdislaw's excommunication on 18 July.^^ Dr. Loserth 
observes that Oldcastle's letter contains no mention of any trouble 
impending over the English Lollards at the time ; and yet, he says, 
die Prozesse gegen ihn hegannen 1410, in demselben Jahre also von 
icelchem . . . das Schreihen Sir Johns datirt ist.^^ This is not 
quite correct. The archbishop of Canterbury had on the previous 
3 April laid the church of Cooling under an interdict on account of 
the unlicensed preaching of one John, a chaplain, who, we may 
take it, was maintained by Oldcastle and probably lived in his 
house ; but immediately afterwards, 5 April, in order to permit the 
marriage of Oldcastle's daughter with Sir Thomas Broke, the inter- 
dict was suspended for three days, oh revercntiam nohilitatis utri- 
nsqne personae, and not much later — the date is not given — was 
relaxed altogether.^^ Lechler, to whom Dr. Loserth refers, has 
quite rightly said that the interdict was imposed ohne audi nnr ein 
Wort der Riige wider den, Lord selbst hint werdenzn lasseu.^^ There 
are, indeed, no reasons for believing that any measures were taken 
against Oldcastle personally so long as Henry IV lived.^' 

The question arises. How was the intercourse between the re- 
formers in England and Bohemia carried on ? Both Wyche and 
Oldcastle say expressly that they received tidings from brethren, 
coming unmistakably from Prague, who informed them of the 
progress of the reforming movement there. Can we point to any 

"* Dociim. Mag. Joh. Hus, pp. 12 ff. " Mittheil., ubi supra, pp. 266 f. 

-* The subscription is per Johannem Oldecastellis, summi dc Cobham, wher^ \ 
take summi to be a scriptural ei-ror for dominum {sumi for dnm). 

-' Docum. Mag. Joh. Hus, pp. 397 ff. -'* Mittheil., ubi supra, p. 263. 

■-■'• Wilkins, Concil. Magn. Brit. iii. 329-31. 

'0 Joh. von Wiclif, ii. 81. »' Cf. ibid. pp. 80, 82. 


particular persons who brought news and letters from the one 
country to the other ? The general fact that many Bohemians 
came to England after the marriage of Eichard II with Ann of 
Luxemburg in 1382 is of course well known,^^ and there were Czech 
students at Oxford from an earlier time onwards.. Dr. Loserth has 
before now called attention to the endowment by Adalbert Eanconis 
in 1388 of a fund for the benefit of Bohemian students in arts or 
theology at Paris or Oxford.^^ But when we come to ask for the 
names of individual students we can only cite Jerom of Prague, 
Nicolas Faulfisch, and George of Kniehnicz. And conversely we 
hear of no English Lollard by name in Bohemia until the later 
stages of the Hussite movement. It is, therefore, of some interest 
that Dr. Loserth has discovered that a certain Scotsman, Quintin 
Folkhyrde, wrote Lollard tracts which were carried out to Prague in 
1410, possibly by the hands of the same bearer as the two letters 
• of 8 Sept. of Wyche to Hus and of Oldcastle to Wok of Waldstein. 
The tracts, four in number, which are preserved in a Prague manu- 
script, are introduced by the words, Hec sunt nova Scocie anno 
1410 Pragam portata. Est quidam armiger, nomine Quintinus Folk- 
hyrde, id est, pastor populi ; qui insurgit in causa Dei manu forti, 
equitando per patrias et palam publicando in materna lingua ista que 
secuntur.^* They proceed in the first person. To Dr. Loserth's 
account of their contents I am able to add a fact which shows the 
popularity they obtained in Bohemia ; namely, that they were 
translated into Czech and may be found in the Vienna manuscript 
4916. The knowledge of this book I owe to Herr Ferdinand 
MenSik, of the imperial library at Vienna, who kindly showed it to 
me in January 1889, and interpreted enough of it for me to be 
able to identify it with confidence with the work described by Dr. 
Loserth.^^ It belongs to the early part of the fifteenth century, and 
contains besides letters of Hus in Czech, &c. Dr. Loserth is pro- 
bably right in taking the second letter to be addressed to the bishop 
of Glasgow, though * Glatonensi ' in the Latin is puzzling, and * Glo- 
coveskemo ' in the Czech more puzzling still. All attempts which 
I have made to track Quintin Folkhyrde (if Folkhyrde be really a 
surname) in Scotland have failed. 

Dr. Loserth concludes the article which has furnished the 
text of these remarks of mine by printing a second letter from 
Oldcastle, addressed to King Wenceslaus and dated from London 

=« Cf. Leehler, ii. Ill ff. 

** Hus unci Wiclif, p. 55 ; Mittheil., ubi supra, p. 255. 

*• Mittheil., ubi supra, p. 261, n. 2. 

"* The first sentence agrees with that quoted from the Latin (but without naming 
the year 1410). The subscription to the last letter also agrees, as do the addresses 
of all the letters. 


on 7 Sept. ; the year Dr. Loserth gives reasons for believing to be 
1413. It affords farther evidence of the intercourse between 
England and Bohemia, since Oldcastle speaks of having heard by 
letter from Hus and others of the king's continued attachment to 
the reformers. . Eeginald L. Poole. 


Gn 16 Sept. 1503 Burchardus records in his diary that Alexius 
Celadenus or Celadonius, bishop of Gallipoli, delivered a discourse 
to the cardinals about to enter into conclave for the election 
of a successor to Pope Alexander VI. Et fait tediosa et longa 
oratio. Burchardus's most recent editor, Thuasne, states that this 
oration exists in manuscript in the Bibliotheque Nationale, and adds, 
Bien qu'il ne soit pas depoiirvu d'ltne certaine habilcte, vu la difficidte 
dii sujet, sa lecture confirme pleinemcnt les epithetes de Burchard. He 
omits to observe that, granting that the discourse may have been 
too long for the cardinals, the longer the better for us, inasmuch as it 
contains an account of Pope Alexander of almost unique value, not 
merely as the judgment of a contemporary, but as delivered in 
public before an audience of contemporaries, whose station in 
the church had brought them into almost daily intercourse with 
the deceased pope, and before whom any serious misrepresentation 
would have been impossible. It is incomprehensible how he should 
have failed to reprint an historical testimony of such importance, 
having it under his own eyes. Fortunately the omission can be 
repaired by favour of a circumstance unknown to him and to all 
other writers on the Borgias — the existence of the oration in print. 
It was printed, no doubt immediately after its delivery, without 
specification of place or the printer's name, but, as would appear by 
the type in Eome, and the only copy known to have occurred 
hitherto has just been purchased by the British Museum. 

No startling novelty is to be looked for in the remarks of 
Celadenus, although some minor facts of interest come to light. 
Their value consists in the full confirmation of the sane and impar- 
tial view of Alexander taken by the bishop of Peterborough, and 
their refutation alike of the modern Eoman catholic apologists who 
have endeavoured to rehabilitate the pope's moral character and 
of the depreciatory estimate of him as a sovereign formed by Villari, 
Gregorovius, and other modern writers of liberal prepossessions. 
Celadenus is, on the one hand, obviously acquainted with the exist- 
ence of crimes and grave scandals, which ho cleverly avoids enu- 
merating, by assuming their universal notoriety. The remainder of 
his oration, moreover, is full of oblique reflections upon the defurct 
pope, and exhortations regarding the choice of a successor which 


would be nonsensical if the late pontificate were not regarded as 
utterly disastrous in a spiritual point of view. At the same time it 
sufficiently attests the impression which Alexander had produced 
upon his contemporaries. The vastness of his designs, the vigour 
of his actions, a certain geniality and magnanimity in his nature, the 
promptitude of his resource and the persuasiveness of his eloquence, 
above all his astonishing fortune, still awe the speaker's imagina- 
tion and make his criticism almost a panegyric. It may be added 
that the circumstances under which the discourse was delivered 
were singularly conducive to impartiality. The fortunes of the 
house of Borgia still hung in the scale, too unpromising to tempt a 
flatterer, nor as yet sufficiently depressed to encourage a libeller. 
Celadenus's oration must reflect the general sentiment with a fidelity 
unusual in compositions of its kind. The portion immediately 
concerning Alexander YI is as follows : — 

Nascitur Alexander Valentiae regni pulcherrima et nobilissima sede 
sub Alfonso Valentinorum et Aragonum clarissimo ac potentissimo Eege, 
Borgiarum familia spleiidida ut audio et illustri. Patriis deinde moribus 
a parentibus educatus et institutus, Bononiam in Italiam ad bonas artes 
et leges sacras capessendas transmittitur, sub cura et opere avunculi turn 
Cardinalis Valentini postea Callisti tertii papae, a quo rogatus et non 
minus sua sponte motus Nicenus, quern honoris et reverentiae gratia 
nomino, tunc Bononiae legatus, ad bonos eum mores et studia saepissime 
hortabatur. Ab avunculo vero in pontificatum assumpto post paulidum 
in sacrum Cardinalium senatum asciscitur, et Valentinae ecclesiae prae- 
sulatu donatur. Brevi deinde tempore elapso in procancellarii magistratu 
Francisco Condelmerio Cardinali Eugenii quarti nepoti succedit, quumque 
prius senator magnam sibi autoritatem vel adhuc iuvenis comparaverat, 
Cancellariae magistratum adeptus plurimum iam in curia valere incepit- 
Et ut erat ad haec maxime accommodato ingenio in creandis sui temporis 
pontiticibus quos sibi profuturos prospiceret, plurimum iis opere exhibe- 
bat, unde nunquam presbyter e diacono praesul est factus. Legationes 
utriusque Hispaniae prius et deinde regni quoque Neapolitani ornandae 
diademate Reginae lohannae gratia gessit. Multos suae gentis Hispanique 
nominis auxit, et in primis domesticos, quibus modo magistratus aulicos 
modo sacerdotia condonabat. Pontificatum vero quasi expectatum et pro- 
curatum adeptus, tam magna atque ampla ab ipso statim ingressu agitare 
incepit ut et Alexandri nomen relicto pro more Roderici sibi indiderit, 
et orbem ipsum cliristianum quomodo undique commovere potuisset 
consilium cepisse a quibusdam iudicaretur ; et sane non modo contiguas 
sed partes quoque remotissimas movit. Novitati ac magnitudini rerum 
usque adeo studuit ut nihil magis appetiisse videatur quam quomodo 
ostendisset nihil sibi vel a legibus vel a natura vel a Deo denegatum 
fuisse. Et plane siqua fortuita vis in rebus humanis est, et ea quam for- 
tunam prisci, nobis pio vocabulo permissionem Dei vocare licet, reperitur, 
tam secunda et perpetua usus est ut nihil eo fortunatius existimes fieri 
potuisse, quo fiebat ut non secus quam ex sententia cuncta sibi successura 
susciperet. Siquid vero adversi passus fuisset, cum de prosperis despe- 


raret, de repente plus quam vel ipse optare potuisset consequebatur. Nau- 
fragio facto plurimis bonorum comitumque amissis ipse evasit. Pestilentia 
correptus adhuc juvenis praevaluit. Per vim fulguris tecti praegrandis et 
alti et duorum oneratissimorum tabulatorum ruinis senex oppressus et 
capite ac corpore concassatus intra iioiium et vigesimum diem ad divae 
Mariae de populo quam praecipue venerabatur solvendi voti gratia est 
lectica evectus. Ita et maris et terrae et cceli discrimina superabat. In 
convivando splendidus, in aedificando magnificus fuit, ut ex aedibus eius 
nondum pontificis et ex urbana Nepesina Vuentana et aliis arcibus et 
turri ex ejus cognomine in aedibus Vaticanis et templi sanctae Mariae in 
praesepe sive Majoris laquearibus colligere licet. Ingenio quidem tam 
aeri et callido fuit ut et alios ante se ad pcntificatam iuverit et post 
modum se quoque ipse vel adversantium suflragiis valuerit evexissc. 
Animo vero ad vastitatem magno. Cum suis, etsi plurimum eis indul- 
serit, sui tamen iuris fuit, in eos alioquin adeo beneficus ut plures ipse in 
Cardineam dignitatem provexerit quam alius annis totidem in praesulatum 
vocasset. A subiectis timeri quam amari malebat : ignarus credo ut 
homo amore imperia et diutius retineri et facilius gubeniari, timore prae- 
propere admodum corruere. Memoria tam tenaci erat ut in signandis 
libellis quas supplicationes vocant vel minimas particulas annis non paucis 
interlapsis memoraret. In re divina tam concinnus et aptus ut nee iis 
cederet qui hoc unice profitentur, unde cerimoniis quoque intentissimus 
erat. Ad risum tam multus et facilis, ut sicut animos sibi conciliabat.'ita 
maiestatem quam retinere nitebatur, paulisper plerumque relaxaret. Ser- 
mone fuit usque adeo suavi et blando, ut sicut nihil sibi denegari efficiebat, 
ita, in tanta dignitate pontificia praesertim, minus decorum servaret. Quid 
plura? adeo et sermone et ingenio confidebat, ut videi-etur non quid 
aggrediendum sed quid cupiendum cogitare. Unde tantam auri vim in 
pontificatu collegit, quantam nee ipse fortassis si viveret rationem rcddere 
l^osset. Forma etiam oris proceritateque corporis, ut nostis, egregia fuit. 
His autem naturae fortunaeque dotibus quomodo usus fuerit, quid apud 
vos attinet dicere, qui bene et fortasse melius nostis ? Habet enim hoc 
etiam infelicitatis principatus, quod in excelso positus nihil celare potest. 
Illud certe utilitatis ab Alexandro Pontifice provenisse facile affirmaverim, 
quod cum annis XI vixerit, et multa et varia gesserit, immensamquo 
pecuniam in bellis gerendis et aliis diversis sumptibus erogaverit, ad 
extremum vero annum agens quartum et septuagesimum, dum graviter 
aegrotaret, factorum conscientia punctus contrito dolentique animo ad 
lachrymas ut audio fusus, sacrosanctum communionis corpus sua spontc, 
dilutis prius diligentissima confessione peccatis, petierit, et alia sacramenta, 
singilatim quaesita perceperit : satis et vos quid nunc agere debeatis, et 
successorem a quibus abstineat quaeque agere debeat docuisse videtur. 
Pro quo et pro charitatis debito oro omnes atque obtestor ut eum piis 
crebrisque precibus Dei clementiae commendemus. Nos miseros mortales 
vere infelices atque insanos, qui quanto plus vivere cupimus, tanto plus, 
insanire velle videmur ! Ecce Alexandrum tam prospera valetudine in 
toto corpore hominem, non imbecillem, non decrepitum, sed longioris 
vitae spe plenum, eaque animo concipientem vel gerentem quae vix annis 
pluribus compleri potuissent, quatriduana febris e medio abstulit et sors, 
de repente extinxit. Me me miserum ! quega paulo ante sublimem in 


sede ilia majestatis vectum, stipatum militibus, vivacem vultus et vigoro- 
sum, vix intueri vel suspicere proni proclivesque homines vel propius 
accedere audebant, eum diebus his humili feretro iacentem, turpem, puti- 
dum, et usque ad horrorem deformem, peropposite sublimis ego e primis- 
gradibus inferiorem inspexi, sed nee id prae horrore potui diutius sus- 

Alexius Celadenus was a Spartan of noble birth, as appears bj his 
epitaph, and he implies in this oration that he had enjoyed the 
favour of his illustrious countryman Cardinal Bessarion. He had 
been made bishop of Gallipoli in 1494, and is frequently mentioned 
by Burchardus as participating in ecclesiastical ceremonies. He 
had previously delivered a funeral oration on Alexander's predecessor 
Innocent VHI, a copy of which is in Earl Spencer's library; another 
was formerly in the possession of Count Bossi, the translator of 
Eoscoe. He was translated to Molfetta in 1508, and died bishop 
of that see in 1517, aged 67. He was buried in the church of 
St. Augustine at Rome, with an epitaph describing him as geminae 
lingitae orator et interpres aciitissimus, SLud' religione ct Sanctis semper 
openbus admirdbilis} 

R. Garnett. 


On 16 Jan. 1588-89, Hieronimo Lippomano, Venetian ambassador 
at Madrid, enclosed the following report on Persia in a despatch to 
his government. The report was compiled by Giovanni Battista 
Vechietti at the command of Pope Gregory XIII, who sent Vechietti 
to Persia for the purpose. At Aleppo, Vechietti heard that Pope 
Gregory had died ; his successor renewed the commission at the 
instance of the Cardinal de' Medici, and Vechietti continued his 
journey. The report contains a minute account of the kingdom of 
Persia, its forces, and its revenues, and a statement regarding the 
island of Ormuz. A copy was presented to the king of Spain ; and 
the ambassador's secretary, Marchesini, succeeded in surreptitiously 
obtaining a transcript, which Lippomano sent to Venice. He 
begged the government to use all vigilance in preserving the docu- 
ment secret, as the suspicion that the contents were known to 
others would seriously injure the person who had communicated it. 

Horatio F. Brown. 

Lettera. Sacra Cattolica Real Maestd. 

Havendo io a dar relatione alia Maesta Vostra del negotio trattato da 
me in Persia, lasciate adietro le cose superflue faro un breve ristretto delle 
piu important!, et degue di esser sapute da lei ; distinguendo il mio 
ragionamento in quattro capi. II primo sara esporre, con che commis- 
sione io fui mandato a quel Re, et che risposta ne habbia ritratto ; II 
secondo deHg si^io Jiel quale ho trovato, et lasciato quel Regno ; II terzo 
' Forcella, tpm, v. p. 35. 


delle Fortezze di quel Principe ; II quarto et ultimo, clie possono 
importare alio stato di Ormuz i movimenti di li\ : Et cosi dal prime 
cominciando dico clie sua Santita sentendo tra Turchi et Persianj 
esser grandissima guen^a, et raccontandosi tra noi quei success! diver- 
samente, die non si sapeva di certo qual di questi dui Principi ne 
andasse con la migliore, si dispose mandar persona a posta al Ee di 
Persia, per intendere in clie termine egli si trovava, et offerirgli in caso, 
ch' egli havesse animo di seguitar la guerra, die egli liaverebbe fatto ogni 
opera, perclie i Principi Cristianj si collegassero insieme a danni del 
turco, movendogli le armi contra da quelle bande. Fatta questa delibera- 
tione commise questa impresa aj cardinal de' Medici hoggi Gran Duca 
di Toscana mio Signore, perclie egli la incaminasse, et ne havesse cura. 
Dal quale essendo io stato proposto a questa espeditione, pr6so il breve 
credentiale di sua Beatitudine, mi partii da Roma alia volta di Messina, 
dove imbarcatomi mi condussi in Alessandria d' Egitto, et di quindi in 
Cairo ; di dove attraversando tutto I'Egitto, gionsi in Siria ; passando per 
mezo la Cittii, di Damasco, et di Aleppo ; et di la passando oltre al fiume 
Eufrate gionsi in Caraemed citta posta sopra la Riviera del fiume Tigre, et 
di quindi per I'Armenia Maggiore pervenni in Van ultima fortezza de 
Turchi frontiera de Persiani ; di donde ultimamente mi transferi in Tauria, 
dove stava la Corte alii xj. di Giugno, 1586, etmi presentai dinanti a quel 
Re ; dandogli il Breve, et esponendogli la mia Ambasciata ; la quale fu da 
lui lietamente, et con molto piacere udita. Rispose al Papa una cor- 
tesissima lettera, die io serbo meco, tutta in lettere d'oro, fuori, die la 
sottoscrittione di quel Re medesimo in inchiostro per maggior modestia. 
La conclusione della quale e ch' egli non fara gia mai pace co '1 Turco, 
perclie oltre alia diversion di Religione, ne e stato gravemente offeso, et 
dissegna altamente di vendicarsi, et tanto piu spera poterlo fare, quanto 
intende questi buoni aiuti, che '1 papa gli va procacciando. Di die Io 
prega a fare ogni opera, assicurandolo, ch'egli dal suo lato co '1 Principe 
suo Figliuolo fani incessantemente la guerra con dugento mille soldati a 
cavallo ; la qual proferta cosi magnifica, stimo io anzi essere stata fatta 
a pompa, die perche egli possa mover cosi gran numero di gente. Mi 
disse oltre a cio, che alcuni anni innanti, gli era stato mandato dalla 
Maest^ Vostra' un Ambasciatore, quasi con le medesime commissioni 
portate da me ; il quale era stato da lui molto ben espedito, et che in 
compagnia liaveva mandato alia Maesta Vostra uno Ambasciatore da sua 
parte, del quale si meravigliava, che non haveva alcuiia nova ; come 
anco mostrava meravigliarsi, che la Maesta Vostra in tal tempo, che egli 
guereggiava, non haveva mosso I'armi contra Turchi, come il suo Amba- 
sciatore gli haveva dato intentione : il qual Ambasciatore intesi poi in India 
esser stato un certo fra Simone Portughese dell' ordine di S*" Agustino ; il 
qual imbarcatosi in Cochino co' 1' Amb""^ Persiano sopra la nave Bonviaggio, 
non si era mai piu saputo nova di lui. Et venendo al secondo capo di cio, 
che io ritrovai la citta di Tauris in mano de' Persiani, et liberamente 
per quella andare, et negotiare, come in casa propria ; ma la Fortezza era 
in potere de' Turchi : di donde con I'artellarie et archibuggi infestavano 
la Citti\, et molto spesso stretti dalla fame, o da altri accidenti mossi usci- 
van fuori a depredare per li borghi vicinj ; et venendoli i Persiani all'in- 
contro si facevano spesse scaramuccie, con danno, et morte di ciascuna 


delle parti. Percioclie I'anno 1585, del mese di settembre i Turchi 
havendo con grosso essercito preso Tauris, et fabricatovi una grandissima 
Fortezza in meno spacio di 40 giorni, lasciatovi tre mille Giannizzari 
a guardia de' piu valorosi, et fornitala a bastanza di vittovaglie fino 
air anno avvenire si tornarono in Turcbia ; havendoli costretti i Persiani 
per forza di arme a lasciar la cittti con gran mortalita loro. In questo 
niezo i governatori d'alcune citta principali, et parenti di un certo Emircan 
Vice Ee di Tauris della Nobilissima famiglia de Turcomanj, il quale 
un' anno innanti il Principe baveva fatto morire a grandissima ragione, 
sdegnati della sua morte gli presono I'armi contro. valendosi dello scudo 
del Principe Zaccaria 4*° et ultimo figliuolo del Ee, die bavevano con 
arte tratto dalla lor parte, b6ncbe contra la volunta del fanciullo ; et fatto 
un grosso essercito si mossero dalle bande di Casbino, dove si erano 
ragunati [raduniti] in verso Tauris. Ma il principe cio sentendo con molta 
fretta, et diligenza, raccolte quelle piu genti die pote, li ando incontro ; et 
presso a Sultania gli si fecce innanti. E Sultania citta lontana da Tauris 
giomate otto, et da Casbino quattro ; et tutto cli' egli fosse molto inferiore 
di gente, volse nondimeno combattere, et prevalse la giustitia, et il 
valore al nuniero de' ribellj, bavendone una grandissima vittoria del iiiese 
di Maggio 1586, sendo morti parte delli ribelli, et altri posti in fugga, 
altri presi, et il Fratello per quanto si disse posto preggione. Et ricon- 
ciliatosi i presi, et ricevutili in gratia a 4 d' Agosto del medesimo anno, 
se ne torno in Tauris per cacciare i Turcbi dalla Fortezza con essercito, 
cbe a mio giudicio, non passava il numero di diecimille soldati a cavalio, 
benclie Persiani dicessero molto piu ; nel qual tempo io gia mi trovavo 
in Tauris. A prender questa Fortalezza bavevano non pocca difficcolta, 
sendo essi iiiespertissimi di questa maniera di combattere ; et se bene ba- 
vevano dui grandissimi pezzi d' artiglieria, cbe tiravan una grossa palla di 
pietra, fatti fare dapoi, die i Turcbi, lasciorno la citta, non li sapevano 
iiianeggiare. Pure sendo comparso un certo Indiano comincio a servir- 
sene assai bene, et fatto alquanto di spianata, commando il Principe a 
suoi, cbe dessino I'assalto : Ma furono da' Turcbi ributtati valorosamente 
con morte di molti Persiani, mostrando alia prova, cbe in questo genere di 
guerra vagliono pocco. Segui questo assalto a quattro di Settembre, et 
in tanlo veiine novella cbe I'essercito turcbesco veniva. a soccorer la 
fortezza, et non bauendo il Ee soldati a bastanza a resisterli, diede 
licentia al Populo, cbe in qualunque maniera si mettesse in salvo : Per oiide 
alii 8 di Settembre tutti i Taurisini uscirono fuori della citta con quel 
cbe potevan portare, lasciandola vota, et ando la maggior parte di loro in 
verso Casbino, nel qual tempo io ancora fecci il somigliante. II Ee, et il 
Principe con I'essercito rimasono in Tauris aspettando nova piu certa, et 
inteso, ch' erano molto presso, et cotantiin numero, cb' essi non haueuano 
forze da stargli contro, disfatti i due pezzi d'artiglieria, perclie non venis- 
seroin niano di nemici, lasciata la citta a 15 di Settembre si partirono 
verso Genge citta posta presso a' Siricam dal mar Caspio non molto 
lontana, et da Tauris giornate sei in circa. Tal cbe i Turcbi pacifica- 
mente et a lor salvo entrarono nella dishabitata citta : Ma il principe 
restando con la Corte a Genge, per osservar da quel luogo i movimenti de' 
Turcbi, due mesi dapo fu una notte ammazzato da un suo barbiere per 
opera di alcuni di quel grandi parenti del morto Emircan, et particolar- 


mente di un di quelli, clie havendolo vinto, et preso in battaglia, 
gli havea benignamente perdonato, et lo .teneva seco. Di quel caso 
reiettando la colpa sopra il Barbiere, mostrando, clie per ingiurie 
private I'liavesse morto. Et il misero Ee, il quale sendo vecchio, et 
privo del lurae degl' occhj, et in cosi strani tempi trovandosi, et impo- 
tente a prenderne vendetta, altro non puote fare, che dolersi, et sofifrire. 
Seguito questo ne mandorno noue al Principe Aba secondo genito ; il 
quale ha in governo il Regno di Corazan, ma son pin anni, che lopossiede 
come Signore, non havendo mai in queste guerre, mandato in soccorso del 
morto Fratello, ne denari ne gente, perche venisse a pigliare il governo del 
suo stato. Rispose il Principe non esser suo honor farlo prima, che getti 
i turchi di Tauris, et che egli haverebbe armato un grosso essercito, co '1 
quale quanto prima si sarebbe messo in camino : intanto il Re, et egli 
insieme haverebbon potuto proveder alle cose occorrenti. Credesi, che la 
cagione di non venir fosse, perche egli temesse di quel medesimi, che 
havean morto il Fratello, s'egli vi andava disarmato, et che haveva in 
animo di andar vi con essercito per potersi vendicar di loro, o almeno assi- 
curarsi da novi movimenti. Vdita questa risposta sostituirono in luogo del 
morto Principe Abataleb terzo in ordine tra fratellj, il quale era appresso 
il padre, et puo hora haver anni xvj. Dopo cio, se ne ando il Re, et il 
Principe con tutta la Corte in Casbino. Ma in questo tumulto alcuni 
della fattione de' ribelli con inganno si fecero padroni di due citta principali 
del Regno di Eragh, I'una chiamata Casciano, et I'altra Fezol sotto titolo 
pero di Governatori del Re, ma in effetto facendo quel, che loro ben 
veniva, et il misero Re e costretto a soffrire tutto. I Turchi in tanto 
se ben feccero forza di passare innantj, come in Ardouil, et in Emedan, 
non li era nondimeno riuscito il dissegno, et con morte di molti di loro, 
erano stati respinti a dietro : Si intendea bene, che tre giornate 
lontano di Tauris haveano preso un commodo Castello, chiamato Tur- 
coman posto su la strada, che va a Casbino, et I'havevano molto ben 
afforzato per esser sicuri da quella banda dalle scorrerie de' Persiani : La 
qual cosa io non aflfermo, ne nego. Et in questo stato lasciai io questo 
Regno il mese di giugno 1587, nel qual tempo mi parti alia volta di 
Ormuz, havendo attraversato tutta la Persia, et vedute le piu principali 
citta di lei, Casbino, Casciano, Hispaedan, et Sciras. Ne altro di certo 
e passato a mia notitia. 

Le Forze del Re di Persia, come quelle di ciascun Principe, si possono 
distinguere in tre cose ; Ne' luoghi, ne soldati, et ne denari. In quanto a 
luoglii egli e molto sfornito, perche di Fortezza naturale pocco altro vi e 
di consideratione, de montagne asprissime, et dense de' passi stretti, et 
difficili, in particolare dalla banda di Tauris contra ai Turchi. Et queste 
malagevolezze ha il Turco superate nella presente guerra, havendo anco 
occupato alcuni luoghi importanti de' Georgiani del paese di Servan, et 
deir Armenia Maggiore. Di Fortezze artificiali e questo Re molto pfornito, 
non vi havendo io visto altre citta cinte di mura, che Caseian, et His- 
pahan, et queste mura cosi deboli, et basse, clie senza aiuto di artiglieria 
sarebbono molto agevolmente prese ; Et due Fortezze, che vi hanno con 
alcuni pocchi Moschetti, o Falconetti, che vogliam dire, sono anzi per re- 
sistere a battaglia di mano di un' empito subitano de' ribelli, o di simil 
cose, che a giusti esserciti, et spetialmente Turcheschi, ■ che sappiamo 


quelle, che in questo genere sanno fare Turclii ; percioche queste mura, 
et queste Fortezze non sono di maggior diffesa, contra esserciti formati, 
clie la polvere contro al vento. II numero de' soldati che lia il Be di 
Persia e molto difficile da ritrovare, perche il popolo non e adoperato nel 
mestier dell' armi, se non fosse in estrerai casi ; ma i soldati sono una 
particolar razza di gente, come erano gi{\ in Egitto i Mamaluclii, et come 
sono hoggi i Giannizzari in Turcliia, et questi sono cliiamati in lingua 
Turcbesca chesilbasi, che viene a dire testa rossa, perclie sogliono per lo 
piu portare in testa una scuffia, che essi chiamono Zagh di color rosso. 
Questi chesilbasi, compartiti in tutte le citta et castella di Persia, hanno 
alcuni terreni publici assegnati per lor paga, et per lor vivere, chi piu, et 
chi meno, secondo il merito, et grado. Et cosi distribuiti stanno sotto 
alcuni particolar capi, et essi occorrono con loro soldati cola dove sono 
chiamati. Et tut to, che difficil cosa sia saperne il certo, et determinate 
numero, puosi nondimeno da quel, che altre volte e stato, argomentare 
pocco piu, o meno quello, che puo' essere. In questa guerra, non ha mai 
havuto il Principe in campagna piu di 30 mila soldati. Vero e, che non 
ne sono venuti da tutte le parti, ne del Regno di Corazan, che e uno de' 
maggiori, et piu ricchi Eeami della Persia, mai ha permesso il Principe 
Abbas, chene venga alcuno. Rarissimi son venuti da Chirmon, et pocchi 
del Regno di Sciras. Di maniera, che si puo' credere, che facendo le 
debite diligentie, non se ne potesse armare oltre a GO mila, et io non ne 
ho dubbio alcuno, et non parra questo numero pocco, se si awertiar, che 
30 mila di costoro son bastanti a star a fronte di 100 mila Turchi, et 
rimanerne al di sopra come si e visto piu volte alia prova, che maggior 
essercito non hebbero quando cacciorno Turchi da Tauris, et si ha per 
cosa certissima che il campo turchesco arrivava a 200 mila de quali erano 
intorno a 140 mila combattenti ; et gl' altri guastatori, vivandieri, et 
artiggiani, che seguono il campo, et fermamente si crede di costoro, 
esserne stati in quell' anno in tre o quattro battaglie tagliati piii di 80 
mila dair armi Persiane. La loro militia e quasi tutta a cavallo. 
I cavalli sono assai belli, et di forte nervo, et ne hanno diversi, et divitia. 
Gl' huomini son valorosissimi et destriferitori, cosi con la spada, come con la 
lancia, et con 1' arco, et in questa guisa di battaglia sono senza fallo molto 
superiori a Turchi. Archibusi non usano molto ; et questo e pivi perche non 
lo curano, che perche non ne habbino, o non vi sian Maestri da fame quanti 
volessero. D'artiglierie, non ne hanno, ne sanno usarle, come s'e detto ; et 
essendo in cio da Turchi molto avantaggiati, manda il Re chiedendo al 
Gran Duca mio Signore, huomini espressi, da comporle, et adoperarle, 
et da edificar fortezze, et da espugnarle. De' denari questo Re puo 
dirsi anco povero, che ricco, non solo in tempo di queste ribellioni, che 
li impedisce le rendite, riducendolo fino a strettezza tale, che conviene torre 
a credenza i panni et drappi per vestirne la Corte, et mai volentieri gli 
erano dati da mercanti ; ma ancor fuor di questa difificolta, perche il Re 
non ha vene d'oro, ne di argento ; et la maggior sua richezza consiste 
nelle sete delle qualj cosi in drappi, com non lavorate, ne va fuori del 
Regno grossa summa, d'onde gli viene grande entrata. Alcune altre 
mercanzie ancora escono di Persia, che se bene da per se importeriano pocco, 
pure tutte insieme rilevan molto ; come tapeti, libri turchini, azzuro ol- 
tramarino, pietre bezzare, mana, archiafioni, cavalli, stagni, rame, grani, 


et biadc, frutte et altre cose da mangiare, delle quali vive non solo la 
citta di Ormuz, ma ne passano ancora a Goa, Cocliino, et a tutta la India. 
Ma esso ha bisogno all' incontro di molte cose di fuori : panni, ciambellottj , 
et mocaiari, che gli vengono di Turchia, si come gli vengono di India, et 
Ormuz, telle, zuccari, et speciarie. Vsasi ancora in Persia come tra Noi, 
i Popoli a certe occasioni, fare alcuni donativia' loro Ee, ma non per6 
con quella magnificentia che fanno i Nostri. II Ke non ha nel suo Eegno 
alcuna dogana, o dritto, per le robbe, che entrano, et escono. Le sue 
rendite sono terreni. Ne ha alcuni suoi proprij, di donde trae grani, risi, 
biade, et gottoni,'de' quali ne ha quel paese gran copia, et e quasi il 
vestir commune di ciascuno. Ha I'entrata della Cecca, et le arti tutte le 
pagano un tanto ; come lavoratori di sete, gottoni, et di arme, raffinatori 
di zuccaro, et simili, et i beni stabili di ciascuno pagano al regno ogni 
anno qualcosa. Ha oltre cio nel Regno di Corazan, minere di 
stagno, di ferro, et di rame, e questa di rame e ricchissima : Una 
minera di turchine, di lapiz lazarj, del quale si compone I'azzuro oltra- 
marino da noi tanto stimato, et in molto uso in quel luoghi. Queste sono 
I'entrate di quel Ee, delle quali malagevolmente si potrebbe accertare a 
dime il numero certo. Ma per non restar di mostrarne quella relazione, 
ch' io ne ho potuto trare ; dico, che tutto il regno e diviso in sette regni 
principali, et ciascuno di essi in molti piu piccol Eegni, et distinti, come 
veggiamo Eegno di Castiglia haver sotto di se Granata, Toledo, Leone, 
Murscia, et similj : I'uno c detto Eragh di cui e capo la citta di Hispachan 
del qual mi dissero che cavava il re 32 mila tomani, che e 700 niila 
ducati a X realj I'uno. L'altro e chiamato Agiam, di cui e capo Sciras 
et e il proprio Eegno di Persia, da cui ha preso il nome tutto il paese, 
come la Francia da quella parte ove siede Parigi, et dicono che e della 
medesima entrata. 11 terzo e- Corazan di cui e capo Heri grande et 
famosissima citta. II quarto Ader baigian di cui e capo Tauris ; et questi 
due sono di molto maggior rendita, che li due primi. Gl' altri tre, 
chiamati Hiponderon, Chirmon, et Ghiluse di cui e capo Hemedan, 
posson esser tanto piu ricchi di quei due primi, quanto dichiamo, che gli 
dui altri gli avanzano ; in modo, che a quella rendita possino I'uno per 
l'altro agguagliare, et dicendo, che quel Ee habbia in tutto di rendita a 
tempo di pace cinque millionj d'oro, possa di pocco errare. Le spese sono 
molto piccole.perche la militia e pagata da' terrenj, come si e detto ; et la 
Corte ancora e di pocco costo, perche i Signori che "vi stavano sono alcuni 
governatori de' Eegni, et delle Citta, quando uni, et quando altri lasciando 
a' loro governi luogotenenti, che vivono di certi terreni publici, et utili, che 
da I'officio. Tal die della sua Corte, non viene a pagare altri, che i cor- 
teggianj, die servono la sua persona, ne questi sono di molto numero. 
Resta la spesa del mangiare, et del vestire ; et questa ancora e piccola, 
sendo in quel paese pocco dehtiosj, et molto piu parchi nell 'uno, et 
nell' altro, Tal die quel Ee quando non sente guerra puo parere di starsi 
assai ricco. Li confini di quel Eegno sono, Dalla parte di Persia verso 
tramontana i Tartarj piu da temerne, che da sperarne, sendo a una stessa 
legge il Turco. Da ponente stendendosi verso il mezzo giorno la Maestii, 
Vostra CO '1 Eegno d' Ormuz ; et da leuante verso tramontana il Ee delle In- 
die chiamato da nostri Mugur, che fin' hora non li mostra segnale, ne di 
ftmico, ne di nemico. Ma da questo lato vi trameza il piccol Eegno di 


Candaclior posseduto da un parente di questo Ee : et da poneute et 
traraontana non molto lontano dal mar caspio, stanno in un angolo i 
Georgianj cristiani di Eeligione, valorosissimi soldati, et divotissimi della 
Corona di Persia, se ben sono Signori liberj. Questi lian fatto in suo servitio, 
et fanno tuttavia da lor confini mortal guerra col turco con perdita di 
qualche parte del loro stato, et della lor piu principal fortezza detta Tiflis ; 
la quale il seguente giorno, che noi uscimmo di Tauris, si dice che venne 
amb** con nova, che si era ricuperata, mentre il Turco era volto a Tauris, 
presentando in testimonio di cio due mille teste de' nemici, il che io credo 
fusse vero, hauendolo inteso oltre agl' altri da alcuni armeni fede degni 
et miei couoscenti ; et de' confini con turchi basto il detto di sopra : Et 
hoggi mai passo all' ultimo capo, havendo mostrato li confini per maggior 
facilita, et chiarezza di esso. La citt^ di Ormuz, capo non solo di quel 
piccol Eegno, che nel golfo di Persia si contiene, ma in cui solo egli 
consiste, et con la cui riputatione si mantiene ; perche qui e la Fortezza ; 
qui stanno i soldati ; qui habitano i Portughesi, et da qui si cavano le 
rendite, che vengono al Fisco ; il rimanente, come di pocca importanza, 
et di meno consideratione si lascia quasi sotto la cura di quel Ee Moro : 
Ee solo di nome vano, etsenza soggetto, perche egli di quelle rendite viva, 
et habbia qualche sembianza di governare. Questa Citta per piccola, ch' ella 
sia e populosa