Skip to main content

Full text of "The English historical review"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 

















The Eably History op Babylonia. By Sir Henry H. Howorth, 

K.G.I.E.,M.P 1,209 

The Campaign of theMetaubus. By Bernard W.Henderson 417, 625 
Bosnia before the Turkish Conquest. By W. Miller . . 643 '^ 
Notes on some Chronological Questions connected with the 

Persecution of Diocletian. By the Bev. Professor Gwathin 499 
The Beginnings of Wessex. By Sir H. H. Howorth, K.C.I.E., M.P. 667 
The Chronology of Theophanes in the Eighth Century. By 

Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L 288 ^^ 

Indictions at Eome, 726-775. By E. W. Brooks .... 503 "'' 

Hasting. By Wilbur C. Abbott 489 

The Date of King Alfred's Death. By W. H. Stevenson . . 71 
The Great Commendation to King Edgar. By W. H. Stevenson 505 
Sylvester II and Stephen I of Hungary. By Lewis L. Kropf . 290 «^ 
Oxfordshire Traces of the Northern Insurgents of 1065. By 

F. Baring 295 

The Conqueror's Footprints in Domesday. By F. Baring . .17 
The Annals of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Vendome. 

By Miss Bose Graham 695 

Vacarius : A Correction. By Professor Liebermann, LL.D. . 297 
The Forged Bull to St. Augustine's, Canterbury. By /. H. 

Bound . .298 

An Unpublished ' Eevocatio ' by Henry II. By /. ^. Herbert . 507 
The Mohammadan Calendar. By Lewis L. Kropf and Stanley 

Lane-Poole 700 

The Eevenue of Henry III. By /. H. Bound . . . .78 
The Parlement of Paris. By Professor Prothero, Litt. D. . . 229 
Decrees of the General Chapters of the Friars Minor, 

1260-1282. By A.G. Little 703 

Note on a Manuscript of Year-Books, Edward II and III, in the 

Bibliotheque Nationale. By /. ^. Twemlow . . .78 
An Account of the Kising of 1381. By G. M. Trevelyan . . 509 
A Fifteenth-Century Assessment of Wages. By Miss Ellen A. 

McArthv/r 299 

' Member of Parliament.' By James Gairdner, LL.D. . . 708 
The Protector Somerset and Scotland. By A. F. Pollard . 464 



A Manuscript Treatise on the Coinage written by John Pryse 

IN 1558. By IF. ^. /. Archbold 709 

Lady Katherine Grey and Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford. 

By W. L. Button 802 

Bishop de Quadra's Letter and the Death of Amy Robsart. 

By James Gairdner, LL.D 83 

Prices at Woodstock in 1604. By Miss Ellen A. McArthur . 711 
An Assessment of Wages for the County of Norfolk in 1610. 

By /. C. Tingey 522 

Star Chamber Proceedings against the Earl of Suffolk and 

others, 1619. By A. P. Perceval Keep 716 

The Cossacks in the Early Seventeenth Century. By H. 

Havelock 242 

The Belief of the Poor by the State Regulation of Wages. 

By Miss E. M. Leonard 91 

The Journal of Prince Rupert's Marches, 5 September 1642 

TO 4 July 1646. By C. H. Firth 729 

A Royalist Account of the Withdrawal of the King's Forces 

PROM Taunton, 18 Dec. 1644. By the Rev. James Coleman . 807 
Thubloe and the Post Office. By C. H. Firth .... 527 
Autobiography of Archbishop King. By the late Rev. J. W. 

Stubbs, D.D 809 

Alleged Fighting in Line in the First Dutch War. By 

Samuel R. Gardiner, D.C.L 583 

The Administration of the Navy from the Restoration to the 

Revolution. By /. R. Tanner. Part II., continued . . 26 
Correspondence of Richard Cromwell. By Mrs. R. Bum . 93 
John de Robethon and the Robethon Papers. By /. F. Chance 55 
Corrections to James Macpherson's 'Original Papers.' By 

J. F. Chance 588 

British Converts to Catholicism in Paris, 1702-1789. By /. G. 

Alger 823 

A Jacobite Letter, 1749. By Robert S. Rait .... 124 
The British Colony in Paris, 1792-1798. By J. G. Alger . . 672 
An Unpublished Letter on the Action at Valeggio, 80 May 

1796. By /. Holland Rose 741 

Nelson and the Neapolitan Republicans. By F. P. BadJiam . 261 
The Lost and the New Letters of Napoleon. By J. B. Bye . 473 

Reviews of Books 125, 827, 650, 744 

Correspondence 192 

Notices of Periodicals 195, 402, 611, 819 

List of Recent Historical Publications . . 202, 409, 618, 826 
Index 838 



The English 
Historical Review 



The Early History of Babylonia 


n^HE discoveries which have been made in Babylonia in recent 
X years have been so remarkable, and the results have been so 
inaccessible from their having been published in special memoirs and 
in technical journals, that an attempt may perhaps now be made to 
put together the latest information on the subject into a connected 
narrative. It must be remembered that we are dealing with an 
intricate and difficult matter, in which, from the very nature of the 
evidence, much is uncertain and speculative, and much is only 
tentative. We have as yet mere glimpses of a landscape, the 
details of which time and opportunity will doubtless enable us to 
fill up, but at present our statements must be accepted as merely the 
detached tesserae of a mosaic pavement, whose pattern and whose 
motive can only be suggested. Not only so, but we must also 
remember that in these very early times history is really archaeology. 
The Euphrates and the Tigris, which s|)ring not far from each 
other, form two great loops in the course of their journey. They 
approach within a few leagues of each other near Babylon, and 
expand above and below into two ovals, differing remarkably in 
their appearance and products. The country enclosed by the upper 
loop is stony and rugged, and traversed by more than one chain of 
momitains. To it the name Mesopotamia properly belongs. That 
mcluded in the lower one is a flat alluvial plain, in which there is 
a continuous struggle between the marshes and the enclosed land. 
The latter country is picturesquely described by Maspero, who says : 

It must have presented at the beginning very much the same aspect of 
disorder and neglect which it offers to modern eyes ; a flat, interminable 



waste, with an apparently limitless horizon broken only by clumps of 
palm trees and acacias, intersected by lines of water gleaming in the dis- 
tance, then long patches of wormwood and mallow, endless vistas of 
bumt-up plain, more palms and more acacias, and so on. . . . Through 
this plain the Euphrates flows with unstable and changing course between 
shifting banks, which it shapes and reshapes from season to season. The 
slightest impulse of its current encroaches on them, breaks through them, 
and makes openings for streamlets, the majority of which are clogged up 
and obhterated by the washing away of their margms almost as rapidly 
as they are formed. Others grow wider and longer, and sending out 
branches are transformed into permanent canals or regular rivers, navi- 
gable at certain seasons. . . . The Euphrates and its branches do not at 
all times succeed in reaching the sea ; they are lost for the most part in 
vast lagoons to which the tide comes up, and in its ebb bears their waters 
away with it. Reeds grow there luxuriantly in enormous beds, and some- 
times reach a height of from thirteen to sixteen feet ; banks of black and 
putrid mud emerge amidst the green growth and give off deadly emana- 

This land of reedy marshes and deep alluvium is really the child of 
its two bounding rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris. They have 
deposited and are still depositing its rich soil, which is constantly 
encroaching on the Persian Gulf. The climate of this famous plain 
is an unequal one. The winters are pleasant and temperate, but 
the summers are fiercely hot, the thermometer reaching 120° in 
the shade, and the kind of dwellings built by its earliest inhabitants 
show that in their day, as now, the summer heats must have been 

The country originally contained hardly any products of value 
beside its rich soil and the wild animals in its reedy coverts, wild 
cattle, deer, boars, lions, &c., and the fish in its rivers. The palm 
trees which now so mark its landscape are said by Hommel not to 
have been indigenous, but imported ; and so were apparently all the 
things necessary for civilisation and culture — stone and metal, wood 
and pitch, corn and olive trees. The country had clearly to be 
reclaimed in every respect, just as much as a western clearing in 
America has, and as we know it in later times it was the direct 
product of human labour, foresight, and skill. 

"What its early inhabitants succeeded in doing with these gifts we 
can gather from the description left us by Herodotus of the condition 
of Babylonia in his day, which no doubt preserves a picture of a 
much older time. He tells us how, like Egypt, the land was inter- 
sected by canals (which were no doubt as necessary for drainage as 
for irrigation purposes), and that it was the most fruitful in grain of 
all known countries. While the fig, the olive, and the vine did not 
grow there, the return from sowing grain was two or even 
three hundredfold. The blade of the wheat and barley plants, he 
says, was often four fingers in breadth, while millet and sesame grew 



to a great height. Oil they made from the sesame plant (as the present 
inhabitants still do). Palm trees, he tells us, grew all over the flat 
country, and supplied the people with bread, wine, and honey. We 
may, in fact, compare this description with that of the Lombard 
plain, with its fields of maize and rows of mulberry trees. 

Who, then, were the people who converted this land of reeds 
into a land flowing with abundance ? At the earliest times to 
which we can carry our story at present the country was occupied 
by an apparently small race of men with prominent aquiline noses, 
projecting but not slanting eyes, and fleshy cheeks. They shaved 
their faces, and as delineated on the monuments greatly resemble the 
figures on the reliefs found at Palestrina. They were apparently 
of very dark complexion, if not black. Professor Sayce has pointed 
out that in the bilingual hymns and elsewhere the primitive race of 
southern Babylonia are called sometimes * blackheads ' and some- 
times * blackfaces,' ^ They spoke a language whose vocabulary and 
grammar have a great afiinity with those of the Turks and 
Mongols, from whom they differed so much, however, in physical 
features that it is possible the language was not originally theirs, but 
was in a large measure adopted from conquerors or otherwise. This, 
however, is a matter upon which it is not convenient to dilate at 
present. When we first meet with them in actual documents they 
were already fairly homogeneous. Whether they were the original 
inhabitants of the plain or not we do not know. We find them 
there, as I have said, at the verge of human history, and find them, 
too, fully equipped with the weapons of civilisation, including the 
knowledge of letters. When they settled in the country the first 
inhabitants found ready to their hands one product which was of 
supreme value. Although the Babylonian plain did not produce 
a stone as big as a nut, the mud which formed its soil was one of 
the best materials possible for making bricks. The author of 
Genesis reports how the survivors of the Flood, having reached 
this very plain, said one to another, ' Go to, let us make bricks and 
burn them thoroughly ; and they had brick for stone, and pitch 
had they for mortar ' (Gen. xi. 3). The clay the inhabitants mixed 
with straw and moulded into bricks of different shapes, the greater 
number being about a foot square and four or five inches thick, while 
others were triangular, so as readily to make up into cylindrical shafts 
or pillars, arches or vaults. Some of the bricks were merely dried in 
the sun, and others were burnt, the former being mainly used for the 
solid platforms and mounds upon which the great temples and palaces 
were built. The different layers of unburnt bricks were consolidated 
by having a mixture of clay and water poured into their interstices, 
while the burnt bricks were similarly bound by interposed layers 

' Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaology, v. 155, 



of reeds mingled with bitumen, which was apparently derived from 
Hit, on the Euphrates. 

With the unburnt bricks they built up huge soHd platforms, 
whose enormous size and cubical contents have been the wonder of 
all observers. These platforms were buttressed, and were also in 
certain cases carefully drained by means of water conduits of baked 
bricks running down the sides, and had their surface protected by a 
plaster of mixed clay and straw or of bitumen. On these platforms 
were built temples and palaces, whose thick walls of crude sun-dried 
bricks were generally faced with burnt bricks. As they had no 
stone the architects were obhged to design their buildings under 
certain disadvantages, and had recourse to size and to the simpler 
features which lend themselves to effect in brick architecture. They 
could not use external solid pillars and architraves, for they had no 
stone. For this reason, therefore, they could have no stately 
porticoes or large halls. The lines had to be straight and the 
forms rectangular. The only real variety was produced by recessed 
panels, by applied pilasters, crenellated walls, and the abundant 
use of towers. A curtain wall surrounded the principal buildings, 
both temples and palaces, secluding and protecting them. Such a 
wall the Greeks called pcribolos, and the Arabs still call haram. The 
walls of the houses were thick and seldom if ever pierced. It was more 
important in the fierce sun of August in these latitudes to exclude 
heat than to give access to light. The main sources of light were 
apparently the doors, which opened into shady courtyards. The 
making of vaults and arches was known, and a fine arch has recently 
been discovered at Nuffar in a very early part of the buildings. 
Vaulted passages then afforded, as they do still, cool retreats. The 
rooms were generally long and narrow, and the walls were free 
from applied sculpture or ornament, and probably covered with 
hangings. The arrangement of the interior of the palaces and 
larger houses was very much that of eastern palaces in our own 
day. The dwelling rooms wxre arranged round courtyards or 
halls, the biggest one answermg to the modern khan, where the 
chief held his receptions and performed his public duties. Harems, 
or women's quarters, were detached and separated from the rest of 
the building. Then, as now, they consisted of a series of chambers 
ranged round a more important room ; a similar series of rooms 
formed the selamlih, or men's quarters. The interior fittings of the 
buildings were made of cedar and cypress wood, which were imported 
in large quantities. With these were constructed the floors and 
roofs, the arcades, the pierced screens and doors ; which seem to 
have existed, as they do now, in great profusion in eastern houses. 
The general asjject of the streets and houses was doubtless very 
much that of a modern eastern town. The necessity of excluding 
the sun necessitated also narrow streets with monotonous walls on 


either hand, except where the bazaars with their gay-coloured wares 
were exposed. Each class of wares had a cluster of booths or shops 
of its own, the handicraftsmen working, as they still do in the East, 
in full view of their customers. The streets were crowded with 
asses and humped oxen, and the quays with curious boats, whose 
descendants still survive and to which we shall refer presently. 
The flat roofs of the houses were probably the retreats then, as now, 
where people passed the cool evenings in kiosks and summer-houses, 
and the chief deodoriser was the sun, who then, as now, distilled 
from the wasted products of the old towns all the noxious perfumery 
of an eastern street. 

The most imposing buildings in the towns were, no doubt, the 
temples, of which perhaps the oldest and stateliest in Lower 
Babylonia was that whose ruins have been recently explored by the 
Americans at Nuffar. These temples, as well as the palaces, were 
orientated differently from what they were in Egypt ; the angles and 
not the sides faced the cardinal points. The recent excavations at 
Nuflfar and at Tell Loh have enabled us to recover the general plan 
of these temples, and to confirm the account of them given by 
Herodotus. They were planted, as I have said, on vast platforms 
whose sides were furnished with flights of stairs, and were made 
up of a series of concentric rectangular courts, with their walls 
pierced with gates, and enclosing the actual temple itself, which 
consisted of a sanctuary or a gronp of sanctuaries, each devoted 
to a god or goddess. 

The chief feature of these temples was the ziggurat, or great 
tower, of which the Tower of Babel was a famous example. These 
towers were built up in stages or stories, each story being a 
miniature copy of the one below it, all being solid. Herodotus, who 
lived only a short time after the great temple of Babylon was 
destroyed by Xerxes, tells us that it consisted of eight such stages, 
the ascent to the top being by a sloping path winding round the 
tower. Halfway up, he tells us, was a resting-place, with seats. 
On the topmost story was the temple or sanctuary, and inside 
it a richly adorned couch of great size, with a golden table by its 
side. He says there was no statue in the place, nor was the 
chamber occupied at night by any one but a single native woman 
who, as the priests declared, was specially chosen by the god from all 
the women of the land, and was visited by the god, who came down 
and slept upon the couch. Below and within the same peribolos, or 
precinct, he tells us, was a second temple, in which was a figure of 
Jupiter (i.e. of Bel), made of solid gold, sitting on a golden throne, 
and with a golden table in front of it.'- 

The temples of Babylonia were so famous that each of them bore 
a specific name, by which it was known and apostrophised. The 

* 0]}. CU. i. 188, 1S3. 


ziggurats, or pagoda towers, were similarly distinguished. Thus the 
great temple of the god Inlil at Nippur was called Ekur, i.e. the 
mountain house, ' while the ziggurat there was noxaed Imkhnrsag (the 
mountain of heaven) or t-Sagash (the high-towering house).' It 
was in digging down through several layers of debris in the mounds 
which have gathered about this temple that Dr. Peters and his 
friends came successively upon buildings lying on each other, as the 
process of decay and renovation compelled, each marked by inscribed 
bricks or other monuments containing royal names, and eventually 
in the lowest layers came upon the inscriptions to which we shall 
presently refer. 

Before doing so we must first define more precisely the district 
we are dealing with. It was very limited in area, as were the 
theatres on which many famous and heroic chapters of human 
history were enacted. It is probable that at this time the alluvial 
plain of Lower Babylonia did not extend much further seaward 
than the mounds of Abu Shahrein. In the opposite direction it 
was limited roughly by the mound which runs from Hit, on the 
Euphrates, to Samara, on the Tigris, and which was afterwards 
known as the Median rampart. The whole country was con- 
sequently little larger than Holland, which is also a land of canals 
and reclaimed marshes. 

While the flat alluvial plain of Chaldea thus formed a homo- 
geneous whole when measured by its physical aspects, politically 
this was not so. It has been argued by German historians that in 
the earliest times to which our records go back the whole country 
consisted of as many separate states as there were cities, each 
being independent of its neighbour, having its distinct god and its 
own ruler. It is possible that this may have been the case in the 
very earliest times, but we have no direct evidence of it. At the 
earliest time about which we can speak with any certainty it would 
seem that the country was divided into two states or communities, 
each comprising a number of cities, among which there was a 
certain union or hegemony. The ruler of some particular city 
held the position of supreme chief, and the governors of the other 
cities treated him as their feudal superior and overlord. Appa- 
rently all the gods of all the cities in each district were worshipped 
by the people in that particular district, and temples were dedicated 
to them indifferently by the same rulers. 

The two communities were known in later times when they 
became united together as Akkad and Shumer. Neither of these 
names occurs, however, in the earliest inscriptions. Still the 
districts to which those names were applied had been already 
differentiated, and they were then apparently distinct and rival 
communities under separate and hostile rulers. It would seem 
that they then bore the names of Ivish and Kiengi or Kengi respec- 


tively. The former took its name from the town of Kish, which 
was its capital. Kish, which was known as Kishu in later times, 
was long ago identified by George Smith with the mound of Haimar, 
situated fourteen kilometres to the north-east of Babylon, where a 
dedicatory inscription of a ruler named Khammurabi, mentioning 
a temple restored by him at Kish, was found. This inscription 
and others of the same king, who belongs to the first dynasty of 
Babylon, and mentioning (not the building but) the restoration 
and completion of temples, &c., at Kish, prove what an old place 
it was. 

Among its temples two are especially famous. One was known 
as Khursag Kalama, or, as Jensen and Hilprecht read it, Ursag 
Kalama, i.e. the Mountain of the World. We are especially told in 
an inscription containing a list of temples that it was the temple of 
Kish.^ The ziggurat, or tower, of this temple was called Ekur-Magh, 
i.e. the house of the great mountain.^ A second temple at Kish 
whose restoration is often mentioned by Khammurabi, already 
named, was, according to George Smith, called E Biti IJrris, while 
Hommel read the ideographs as £ Miti Urzag. Of the ziggurat 
of this temple it is specially said that its summit reached unto heaven. 
Many attempts have been made to fix the site of the biblical tower 
of Babel, and latterly it has become the fashion to identify it with 
the so-called * Illustrious Mound,' situated at Borsippa, and now 
represented by the Birs-i-Nimrod. I would suggest that it is far 
more probable that it was this very tower of Kish, which may be 
styled the mother of Babylon, one of whose gates was called the 
Kissian gate. It will be remembered that it is expressly said of the 
tower of Babel (thus reminding us of the great ziggurat of Kish) 
that its top was intended to reach unto heaven (Genesis xi. 4). 

It is quite clear from the inscriptions that the town of Kish 
gave its name to a wide district, including several other towns, such 
as Babylon itself, called Tintir by the early Chaldeans, Sippara, 
&c. It was apparently synonymous geographically with the 
Akkad of later days, i.e. the northern, part of the Chaldean plain. 
How far it extended northward we cannot at present say, but it no 
doubt extended at least as far as the Median rampart already 
named, and in all probability its dominion extended also over 
Mesopotamia proper. Name for name Kish seems to be identical 
with the Cush of the tenth chapter of Genesis. Cush is there 
made the son of Ham and the father of Nimrod, thus confirming 
the opinion that the primitive race was black. South of Kish, and 
comprising southern Chaldea, was a second state or community, 
which at this time was known as Kengi, to which we shall turn 
presently. The two communities were continually at feud with 
each other, and their boundary was not well defined. 

* Eawlinson.. Inscriptions, 2, 61, 15. ■* Delitzsch, Wo lag das Faradies ? 120. 


Habitually associated with Kish in the early inscriptions is a 
place whose name has been very doubtfully read as Gishbanki, 
translated ' the Country of the Bow ' by Oppert. This name led 
Hilprecht to identify it with Harran, which by some Arabic writers 
has been described as lunate in shape. The identification has been 
sharply criticised by Noldeke and Winckler, and does not seem to 
be sustainable. The reading of the characters as Gishbanki is most 
doubtful. The first character, Gish or Ish, is merely the determi- 
native of wood, and the last one that of town. Mr. Pinches has given 
some reason for thinking the name ought to be read Ukh or Upe. 
He has given me a note on the subject. As early as 1886, in his 
* Guide to the Nimrud Central Saloon in the British Museum,' he 
read a certain character as Upe or Upia. This character differs 
only slightly from that read Gishbanki by others, and with that 
read Udbanki by Thureau Dangin, and he is disposed to identify 
both these names with Upe, which is to be recognised in the name 
of the town afterwards called Opis. Scheil, on the other hand, who 
has described two tablets of a patesi of Gishbanki, tells us they were 
discovered, in April 1894, in the district of Djokkha, west ofWasith 
al Hai, in al Balayeh in Irak — that is, about halfway between Bagh- 
dad and Bussora.* This seems an improbable site for the place, 
and I am disposed to conclude with Mr. Pinches and "Winckler that 
it was Upe or Opis. Its people were perhaps mixed with Semites, 
and perhaps also the advance guard of the Semites who were coming 
in at this time from the north. So much for northern Chaldea. 
Let us now turn to its southern neighbour. 

This district was known to its early inhabitants as Kengi, 
represented in the inscriptions by the characters Ki in gi, meaning, 
according to Hilprecht, respectively land, canal, and reed, so 
that it is a descriptive term meaning the land of canals and 
reeds. Kengi, as we shall call the district, was as thickly planted 
with settlements as Belgium. Two of the most famous of these 
were situated on the Shatt en Nil, a canalised river channel which 
leaves the Euphrates a little above the ruins of Babylon and rejoins 
it a good deal further down. According to P. Delitzsch this channel 
was famous in very early times, and was known as Ka khan di or 
Gu khan di to the primitive inhabitants of Babylonia, and Arakhtu 
to the Semites, and he makes it the origin of the Gikhon, one of the 
four rivers of Paradise. 

On its banks were two famous towns. One was the Erech of the 
Bible, the 'Op^x of the Septuagint, the Urikut of the Talmud, and 
was known to the later Greeks as Araka and Orkhoe. It remained 
prosperous until the time of the Seleucidae, and Strabo and Pliny 
speak of it as a seat of Chaldean learning even in their time. Its 

* See Maspcro, Eccueil, xix. 03. 


ruins are still known as Warka, and are six and a half miles in 

To the primitive inhabitants of Chaldea it was known as Unu ki 
or Unuk, ' the place of settlement,' which name Professor Sayce has 
identified with the Enoch of Genesis, built by Cain in commemora- 
tion of his eldest son. It was one of the very earliest settlements in 
Babylonia. It was the especial seat of the worship of Ana, or the sky. 
Here also was specially cultivated Nina or Ishtar, and in it was the 
great temple of E Ana, the House of Heaven, where Ishtar had her 
most famous shrine. Erech was associated with some of the earliest 
legends of the country. Here Gilgamish slew the bull which Ana 
had created to avenge the slight offered by him to Ishtar, and it was 
here in Erech suburi, i.e. ' Erech the shepherd's hut,' that he 
exercised his sovereignty." It was also the great necropolis of 
Babylonia, and whole mountains of coffins are still to be found 
there, whence Eawlinson aptly compares Dis the lord of Warka or 
Erech, the city of the dead, and Dis the king of Orcus or Hades. 

While Erech or Unuk was the chief secular city of the earlier 
kingdom of Kengi, Nippur was its religious metropolis. This, like 
Erech, was situated on the Shatt en Nil, which in fact traversed 
it. Its ruins are still called Nuffar by the Affej Arabs, in whose 
country it is situated. Originally it was apparently named Inlilki, 
i.e. the city of Inlil or Illil, the lUinos of Damascios (which ought to 
be read "IWlXos), the god of the nether world and of the world of 
ghosts, and identified by the later Babylonians with their supreme 
god Bel. The female form of this god was known as Lilatu to 
the Semites. The Jews called her Lilith, and the prophet Isaiah 
makes her haunt the ruined mounds of Idumaea (Isaiah xxxiv. 14). 
Inlil among the early Chaldeans had a complementary female 
goddess in Ninlil, the lady of the ghost world, also known as 
Nin Khursag, the mistress of the mountain, as Ninvkigal, and as the 
mother of the gods. There was something especially imposing in 
the position of Inlil. It was he who consecrated the sovereign who 
dominated over Kengi, and it was by the will of Inlil that its 
several rulers claimed to govern. At Nippur was situated Ekur, 
* the Mountain House,' the great and famous temple of this god 
Inlil. Hilprecht tells us that out of the midst of the collapsed 
walls and buried houses which originally encompassed the temple, 
which was situated on the eastern bank of the Shatt en Nil, there 
rises a conical mound to the height of 29 metres above the plain 
and 15 above the mass of the surrounding debris. It is called to 
this day Bint el Amir (' Daughter of the Prince ') by the Arabs, 
and covers the ruins of the ancient Ziggurat. 

It is from this site that the most recent light has reached us in 
regard to some of the very earliest records of human history. 

" Sayce, Ilibbert Lectures, pp. 184-5. 


This has resulted from the excavations of the Americans, who, 
under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania, have, since 
the year 1888, been busily exploring on this famous site. The 
excavations have been mainly superintended by Dr. Peters and 
Mr. Haynes, and have resulted in most valuable discoveries, 
including about thirty-two thousand clay documents.^ Professor 
Hilprecht, to whom has been assigned the task of editing them, 
which he has commenced in most skilful and praiseworthy fashion, 
tells us they consist of syllabaries, letters, chronological lists, historical 
fragments, astronomical and religious texts, inscriptions relating to 
buildings, votive tablets, dedications, inventories, contracts, &c. 
' Most of the early rulers of Babylonia,' he tells us, * who were known 
to us only by name, and fourteen whose very names had been lost, 
havebeenrestored to history by this expedition. . . . Of especial value 
are the hundred and fifty fragments of inscribed sacrificial vessels 
and votive objects belonging to three kings of the oldest dynasties 
of Ur and Erech, hitherto unknown, which promise to cast entirely 
new light upon the chronology of a difficult period.' 

Besides these literary remains there have also occurred there a 
number of interesting antiquities, inter alia a great many terra 
cotta coffins, and a quantity of seals and cylinders in hard stone, 
several belonging to kings and governors, thousands of enamelled 
and plain vases of clay of all sorts, playthings, weapons, weights, 
gold and silver ornaments, objects in stone, bronze, and iron, several 
very ancient intaglios and bas-reliefs, and many human skulls. 

Besides Erech and Nippur the district of Lower Chaldea con- 
tained other towns, such as Ur, Larsa, Lagash, Eridu, &c., which 
will occupy us later on. 

The great point we wish to emphasise at present is that the 
monuments point unmistakably to the Chaldean country having 
in these early times been divided into two rival communities, 
Kish and Kengi. This evidence of the monuments is amply con- 
firmed by the language. It has long been known that the speech 
of the primitive inhabitants of this district falls into two main 
dialects, besides subsidiary ones. Professor Sayce was, I believe, the 
first to show that the texts contain older and newer forms of one 
tongue, the latter showing the language in a stage of decay. 
Haupt discussed the matter in a masterly way, and proved beyond 
doubt the existence of two forms of the speech, one in a much purer 
and less sophisticated condition than the other, and he respectively 
named them the Akkadian and Shumerian dialects. His conclu- 
sions were so far completely accepted, but his further conclusion 
that the purer and older form of the language was to be found in 
the north of the district, and the more altered and sophisticated in 

' See Nippur; or, Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, by John Punnett 
Peters. 2 vols. New York. 1897. 


the southern, was sharply criticised, and was, in fact, contrary to all 
probabilities. Oppert and Hommel stoutly maintained the con- 
trary, and their view is now generally, if not universally, held. To be 
more precise, the so-called Shumerian dialect of Lower Chaldea is 
considered to have been the purest and oldest. Mr. Pinches tells 
me that Shumer is also represented by the characters read * mat 
Erne lag,' which, he says, apparently means * the land of the pure 
tongue.' The so-called Akkadian, on the other hand, which was 
spoken in Upper Chaldea, was the daughter and the more 
sophisticated type, the two at one time representing geographical 
rather than chronological facts. One of the names given to one 
of the two dialects was not very fortunate. The term Akkad seems 
to be unknown to the earliest inscriptions ; Shumer is less objection- 
able, but is nevertheless ambiguous : and I prefer to speak of the 
dialects of Upper and Lower Chaldea, or of Kish and Kengi. 

When we examine the nature of the differences which separate the 
northern dialect from its sister, we shall find that they were, in fact, 
due to the influence of some Semitic tongue. Professor Sayce speaks 
of this dialect as ' largely affected by Semitic influence ; not only 
has it adopted Semitic words, but Semitic idioms as well. These 
Semitisms, moreover, are partly popular, partly literary in origin.' 
A curious fact remains to be told in regard to this influence of 
Semitic upon the northern dialect. In the syllabaries when a word 
is recorded in that dialect it is sometimes qualified by a couple of 
ideographs, meaning ' the language of women.' Mr. Sayce, who 
explains this as the result of intermarriage with Semites, says : 

In northern Babylonia, where Semites and non- Semites intermingled 
from an early period, there would have been reasons in plenty for such an 
appellation. Semitic wives would not have spoken Sumerian with the 
same purity as their non- Semitic husbands ; while, on the other hand, the 
dialect of the Sumerian wife would have been regarded by her Sumerian 
husband as essentially a feminine idiom. 

It would be, of course, very interesting to know when this 
Semitic influence upon the primitive Chaldean tongue began, or, in 
other words, when we can first find traces of the Semites. The 
tendency of recent discovery has been to push back this period 
considerably, but our indices are all relative ; we have no chrono- 
logy at this time. Hommel, our best authority on such a point, 
who has discussed it largely from the linguistic side, has long 
urged that the Semites must have been in the Mesopotamian valley 
from very early times. The early inscriptions unfortunately give 
us little or no assistance in solving the problem, since they are all 
written ideographically and not phonetically. As a safe tentative 
conclusion I would suggest that originally the whole country 
occupied by the primitive stock of Chaldeans formed a homogeneous 


community under one ruler, and that it is to this state of things 
the statement in Genesis refers where we read that Cush begat 
Nimrod, and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech, 
and Akkad and Calneh (perhaps, as the Talmud tells us, a name 
for Nippur), in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth 
into Assj-ria, and built Nineveh and llehoboth Ir, and Calah and 

The unity of this old community was presently broken by the 
invasion or incorporation of Semites in its northern parts, who 
partially affected its speech and induced a separation. That this 
did not affect the physique of the race we may gather from the 
early bas-reliefs, apparently representing a struggle between the 
people of Ivish and Kengi, in which the conquerors and the con- 
quered are undistinguishable, both being very different from any 
Semites known to us. 

Before we discuss the struggles between the rulers of Kengi and 
Kish, which constitute the earliest history we can at present 
reach in these parts, we will say a word or two on the subject of 
chronology, on which we are disposed to disagree with Hilprecht. 
Of real chronology at this period we, of course, possess none. All we 
can do with our present knowledge is to group our rulers according 
to their probable succession, and thus to reach something like a 
relative chronology for them. The plan adopted by Hilprecht of 
calculating dates by the rate of accumulation of rubbish in certain 
places seems most unsafe and unsound, and especially does 
this become so when hundreds and even thousands of years are 
postulated not from the existence of a succession of archaeological 
remains, but from the existence of a certain number of feet of 
rubbish over or under a certain layer. The fact is, when a sharp 
revolution takes place in a town, by its being either burnt down or 
destroyed, the accumulation of rubbish, as we know in the case of 
Rome and London, becomes at once prodigious, and there is a great 
accession to the depth of ruin not by the gradual increase of 
materials but j)t'/- salt urn. It is better to confess that at present we 
know nothing or next to nothing of the absolute chronology of our 
earliest records. We can merely assert of them that they take us 
back at least to the fifth millennium u.c. When we turn to relative 
chronology, Hilprecht's knowledge and skill and ingenuity have 
enabled him to piece together his materials in a way which, 
although tentative in parts, cannot well be gainsaid. For this 
purpose he uses in the first place the character of the inscribed 
writing, a subject on which he is facile princeps as an authority ; 
not only the general fact that linear characters precede and are 
older than wedge-shaped ones, but also that certain characters were 
introduced at certain dates and do not occur earlier. The evidence 

- Gen. X. 8-12 (ll.V.) 


of art supplements that of the writing. The relative order in which 
the objects of different rulers occur in the excavations is another 
guide. With these methods Hilprecht has enabled us to focus our 
lantern a considerable distance further back into the fogs that 
shroud primitive history. 

One other thing must always be remembered in dealing with 
these early records — namely, that personal names, being in almost 
all instances written with ideograms and not phonetically, it is and 
must remain uncertain what their real sound was until some good 
fortune preserves them to us in a phonetic form. They must be 
accepted, in fact, only as tentative. 

The beginnings of history in the Euphrates valley, so far as 
yet recovered, point, as I have said, to a struggle between the rulers 
of Kish and Kengi. According to Hilprecht the earliest record he 
has found from Nippur mentions a king whose name he reads 
provisionally as Inshagsagana, meaning, he says, * lord of the king of 
heaven.' He styles himself lord of Kengi and king of some place 
whose name is broken off,^ and dedicates some white calcite vases 
to the god Inlil, i.e. the special god of Nippur, from the spoil of Kish, 
* wicked of heart,' Like the other rulers of Nippur, he probably 
styled himself j^atesi of the god Inlil. The title jMtesi is compared 
by Maspero with the Egyptian ropait, and its bearer combined the 
religious functions of high priest, pastor, or guardian of the god 
with those of a civil ruler. 

Another ruler, whose name and that of his realm are lost, reports, 
in a longer inscription, also inscribed on fragments of calcite vases, 
how he had conquered Kish and how he had had a successful 
struggle with Enne Ugun, king of Kish, and leader of the hordes of 
Gishbanki (? Upi). The name of this ruler of Kish is only read pro- 
visionally. Winckler reads it In bil ugun. The king himself was 
apparently captured, his city burnt, and his statue of shining 
silver, &c., dedicated to Inlil. 

Another ruler of Nippur, who, according to Hilprecht, belonged 
to about the same period, was called Ur Inlil {i.e. the man of the 
god Inlil). Ur Inlil is mentioned on more than one monument. 
On one we have a dedication of a vase to the goddess Ninlil by a 
certain Aba Inlil, who is styled dainkar (probably, according to 
Hilprecht, the administrator of the temple). This dedication was 
made * for the life of Ur Inlil, patesi of Nippur.' On another tablet 
a certain Ur Mama, damkar of Inlil, presents a vase to the goddess 
Nin din dug, i.e. the goddess sometimes called Bau. On another 
Ur Inlil himself dedicates a similar vase to the same goddess. 
Similar vases were dedicated to Ninlil and Inlil by two officials of 
the temples for the lives of their mother, wife, and child. They 

* Hilprecht thinks there are traces of the word Kalama, which is very probable. If 
so, the second title would be ' king of the world.' 


were apparently brothers ; one was called Urunabadabi, who calls 
himself samj (? priest) of Inlil, and the other Ur Simuga, the 
scribe of the ada of the temple of Inlil. * The son of the ada ' 
dedicates another vase to Inlil and Ninlil, also for the life of his 
wife and child. 

The most interesting relics of this period, however, are two slabs, 
one of them certainly and the other probably dedicated by the ruler 
Ur Inlil, which seem to be the first efforts of art hitherto recorded 
from Babylonia. The designs on these polished limestone square 
slabs are incised in the fashion of the designs on ivory at a later 
time, and the tablets were intended to be pegged against the wall or 
to the ground, as labels of the objects dedicated and of their donors. 

One of these slabs, which is unbroken, shows two rows of figures. 
In the upper one Ur Inlil, who is naked, stands before a seated 
god and goddess, who face each other (the god is not named, 
but is doubtless Inlil; the goddess is Nin din dug), and offers 
a libation from a vessel with a spout. The god, who is bearded, 
wears an elaborate headdress or tiara. The same group is reversed 
on the left, and between the two sets of figures there is an inscrip- 
tion. On the lower section are a goat and a sheep, followed by two 
men, one carrying a vessel on his head and the other a stick ; the 
two figures are naked to the waist and, like that of Ur Inlil, have 
their faces and heads shaved. The goat, according to Professor 
Cope, shows a greater resemblance to the wild goat of Eastern 
Persia and Afghanistan than to the ordinary Persian one. The 
sheep also is most like that of Eastern Persia, the Ovis Vignei, an 
ally of the domestic sheep. 

On the second stele the upper section seems to have repeated 
the scenes already described, while in the lower we have a gazelle 
feeding, and behind it a man is drawing a bow. Hilprecht 
remarks on the graceful drawing of the figures and the know- 
ledge shown of animal movements. 

The successes gained by the rulers of Kengi against those of 
Kish were apparently short-lived, for we find another king of Kish, 
Ur Shulpauddu {i.e. the servant of Shulpauddu '"), presenting several 
inscribed vases to Inlil, lord of lands, and to his consort, Ninlil, 
mistress of heaven and earth. In these inscriptions he apparently 
altered his own earlier style to one of greater importance. Several 
inscribed calcite fragments found at Nuflfar bear his name. 
Whatever the actual results of the king's campaign, it would seem 
that it was presently followed by a complete conquest of * Kengi.' 
This was the work of a king whose name is read as • Lugalzaggisi ' 
by Hilprecht, and who styles himself son of Ukush, 'patesi of 
Gishbaoki' (or Upi). He is commemorated in 'an inscription 

'• The name is read Ur Dun-rig-fi by Mr. Pinches {Journal of the Royal Asiatic 
Society, 1896, p. 819). 


of 132 lines, carved over 100 times on as many large vases, which he 
presented to the old national sanctuary of the country in Nippur.' 
In this inscription he styles himself king of Unuk (i.e. Erech), ' king 
of the world ' {lugal kalama), ' priest of Ana ' {i.e. heaven), * hero of 
Nidaba, son of Ukush, patesi of Gishbanki or Upi, hero of Nidaba, 
looked upon by the faithful eye of Lugal kurkura ' {i.e. of Inlil), 
' great patesi of Inlil, unto whom intelligence was given by Enki, 
chosen by Utu, the high minister of Enzu, the Shakkakkii of Utu, 
the fosterer of Innanna. A son begotten by Nidaba, he who was 
nourished with the milk of life of Ninkhursag, servant of Umu, 
priest of Erech, a slave brought up by Nin a gid ga du, mistress of 
Erech and the great abarraku [?] of the gods.' This inscription 
shows what a great place was filled by the Gods in the ideas of 
these early people and their ruler. 

Hilprecht styles this king one of the greatest monarchs of the 
ancient east, and his conquests the first signal success of the 
invaders from the north, and yet his very name has been entirely 
forgotten. According to his own inscriptions Inlil invested him 
with the kingdom of the world {nam-liigal kalama), straightened 
his path from the lower sea {i.e. the Persian Gulf) to the upper 
sea {i.e. the Mediterranean, or perhaps Lake Urmia), granted him 
dominion from the rising of the sun to the setting of the same, and 
caused the lands to rest in peace. 

On his conquest of Erech he converted it into the temporal 
capital of his wide dominion, as Nippur was its chief sanctuary, and 
the great conqueror proceeded to confer various favours on other 
old towns of Lower Babylonia — namely, on Ur and on Larsa (* Ur 
like a steer he raised up to heaven ; Larsa, the cherished town of the 
sun god, he irrigated with joyful waters '), while he specially favoured 
his own ancient land or city of Gishbanki or Upe, and also Ninab, 
which he claims to have cherished as if it had been a shorn lamb. 

The cities of Ur and Larsa, which are mentioned here for the 
first time, had also a famous rule in Babylonian history. The 
former is now represented by the ruin heaps of Mugheir, which were 
explored by Loftus, and it has generally been identified with the 
Ur of the Chaldees of Genesis, which may, however, be Urfa. 
Ur was the great seat of the worship of the moon god in Lower 
Babylonia. He was worshipped there under the name of Nannak or 
Nannar, and also as Ur, and was called the first-born of Inlil. He 
was afterwards identified with the northern moon god, Sin, and was 
often treated as the father of the gods. The name Ur or Uru 
means * the town ' par excellence. Unlike all the other cities of early 
Babylonia, it was situated on the right bank of the Euphrates, but 
some distance from where the river now flows ; it was apparently a 
frontier fortress on the Arabian march. 

Larsa or Larsam is generally identified with the Ellasar of 


Genesis and the Greek Aapd^cov or Adpicraa. By the primitive 
inhabitants of the country it was called Ararma, and this name 
was expressed by the characters Utu-unu, probably meaning ' sun- 
abode,' or the Dwelling of the Sun, and is now marked by the ruins 
of Senkereh. The earlier name Utu for the sun was replaced by 
the Semitic Babylonians by that of Shamash. 

Ur and Larsa are often associated together as twin cities, and 
they seem to have early formed a separate principality. They were 
at all events subject to some other princes, probably belonging to 
the same line as the one last named, and who, like him, have left 
memorials upon broken sherds of calcite vases at Nippur. One of 
these was called Lugal kigub nidudu, and in one of his inscriptions 
he apostrophises the god Inhl, the lord of lands, for having added 
lordship to kingdom in his person, and for having established Erech 
as the seat of his lordship and Ur as the seat of his kingdom, and 
he accordmgly dedicated a vase to him. Another ruler of the same 
line was Lugal-kisal-si, or Lugal si kisal, who occurs, says Hilprecht, 
in such close connexion with the last-named ruler on one fragment 
that he is disposed to treat them as father and son. A third prince 
probably belonging to the same stock is named in an inscription 
from Tell Loh recently published by Heuzey, in which we read how 
the god E sugir or E-girsu had appointed Lugal kurum zigum 
as patesi of Shirpurla (or Lagash). 

The rulers here named, who controlled the cities near the 
Euphrates, apparently overlapped partially in time with another set 
of early rulers, whose remains have been found at Tell Loh, and whose 
story we must reserve for another notice. It is not impossible that 
the latter represent the descendants of the old race of kings, who 
were displaced from the rest of Kengi for a while by the dynasties 
last mentioned, which had their headquarters at Erech and 
Nippur. Hilprecht, on palaeographical and other grounds, distinctly 
puts them later than the rulers of Nippur. "With our present know- 
ledge we can say no more, for we have hardly any evidence of 
relations between them, 

Henry H. Howorth. 

1898 17 

The ConqiLeror s Footprints in Domesday 

ATTENTION was long ago called to the connexion between 
the movements of the two armies before the battle of Hast- 
ings and the wasted manors in that Eape mentioned by Domes- 
day, but the principle deserves to be carried further. It need not 
be confined to manors absolutely wasted, and may well be applied 
to "William's march on London. We know that he harried the 
country as he passed — Domesday gives us for most manors the 
value just before and just after the Conquest — and we ought by 
these signs to be able to track his footsteps.' It is worth trying, for 
the account left by his chaplain, William of Poitiers, is meagre, and 
Freeman's commentary in part doubtful. 

We start at Romney, William's first point from Hastings on 
his way to Dover. After each manor named shall be placed first 
the value in pounds T.R.E., secondly that of 1067, and thirdly 
that of 1086 ; where several entries are combined the number is 
noted in square brackets.^ We go five miles east to Burmarsh 
(20— lo— 30), then ten miles to Folkestone (120—40—145). 
Here part of the army seems to have stopped, for besides this 
large depreciation four neighbouring manors ^ were together 
valued T.R.E. 49L, later 20Z. Seven miles further bring us to 
the gates of Dover. Here William stayed for a week, and accord- 
ingly we find the record of great destruction, the value of ten 
manors ^ lying north and east of Dover being T.E.E. 157|Z., later 
only 43Z. Then he moved northwards. The main body marched 
apparently to Patrixbourne (18 — lo — 19) and Bekesbourne (12 — 
7 — 12), but were stopped by William's illness for a day or two, 

• Ellis, i. 314. Wore. Chron. : ' He . . . hergode ealne thone ende the he overferde 
oth thaet he com to Beorhhamstede.' 

' Identifications are taken from the various county Domesdays, Larking's Kent. 
Moody's Hants, Airey's Beds, Bawden's Bucks and Herts, Mowat's Notes on Oxf. 
Dom., Lyson's Berks, and the maps in Furley's Weald of Kent, Manning's Surrey and 
Tlie Sussex Extension. As they can easily be found, references are not generally given. 

» Posting (10—5—14), Saltwood (Hythe) (16-8—29), Newington (12-3— 12), 
Eastwell (D. B. 13 b. 2) (11— 4— 8). 

* Ewell (12—5—10), Shebbertswell (8—2—8), Colred and Popeshall (11— 2— 11), 
Waldershare (7J— 3— 7), ' Pesinges ' in E. Langdon (5— 0—6), Mongeham (22— 10— 
26), Norbourn (80—20—76), ' Gollesberge ' (12— i— 9|). Small manors near larger ones 
are not always mentioned either here or latei'. 



during which they moved east of Canterbury to Littlebourne 
(25—20—32), Preston-^ (10—6—14), Sturry (50—45—50), and 
Chislet (53 -40— 78.) The whole country between Canterbury 
and the south coast is ravaged, but amid the general destruction 
there are some notable exceptions. The archiepiscopal estates, 
Adisham (40/.), Wingham (77/.), Bishopsbourne (20/.), Ickham (22/.), 
Westgate (Estursete) (24/.), Chartham (12/.), Petham (17/.), and 
Stigand's private manor of Barham <= (40/.), do not lose a shilling. 
Were they spared to conciliate the church or to tempt the arch- 
bishop at a critical moment ? Barham suggests the latter ; Salt- 
wood was not spared a few days earlier, nor Orpington a few days 
later, though both were Canterbury manors. The fact points to a 
certain discipline in William's soldiers, and tends to confirm the 
chaplain's account of them before they started.^ 

The figures round Canterbury, compared with those near 
Dover, show that, in spite of his illness, William did not halt for 
more than a day or two, but pressed on, as his chaplain tells us, 
for London.'* Avoiding the old Roman road through Rochester, 
the army concentrated ^ at Lenham (28 — 16— 28). Twelve 
miles further a group of four manors,'" T.R.E. 36/., later 21/., 
west of Maidstone, seems to mark the next camp. Another 
ten miles bring them to Seal " (Lasela) (30 — 16— 24), eight 
more past Cudham (20— 16— 24) and Chelsfield (16—12—25) 
to Orpington [2] (17—9—27), and so by Elthara (16 — 12—20), 
Lewisham (16 — 12 — 30), and Camberwell (12 — 6 — 14), within 
striking distance of South wark, to a camp at Battersea (80 — 30 — 
75). The damage recorded in Kent exactly fits our other infor- 
mation. East of a line through Faversham and Ashford the whole 
country (except Thanet) is ravaged, most near Dover, where William 
stopped longest, less by Canterbury, where he halted, but not so 
long. West of this line I find no considerable reductions in value 
besides those noticed ; '"^ as William presses forward the damage is 
confined to the line of daily halting places. 

■ D. B. 12 b. 2. 

• Ibid, y a. 2 : ' Tenuit Stigandus sed non erat de episcopatu.' 

' Duchesne, p. 197. ' Rapina interdicta ' (' ad Portum Divae '). 

' P. 20.5 : ' Noluit indulgere sibi moras ibi agendo.' Carmen, 1. 623 {yfon. Hist. 
Brit. p. 8G8) : ' Per spatium mensis cum gente perendinat illinc ' (? Dover or Canter- 
bury) ; but may we translate ' through tJie month,' i.e. till 1 or 2 Nov. ? Nothing else 
will fit the other evidence. The Senlac dead were buried 15 Oct. ; if William himself 
slept only four nights (' quinque dies,' Carmen) at Hastings, one near Komney, and 
seven (' octo dies,' W. Pict.) at Dover, he would be taken ill 28 or 29 Oct. 

» The right from Ospringe (20—15—20) and Eastling [2] (13— 7— 10). The centre 
from Chilham (40— 30— ? 80). The left from Folkestone by Braboume (20—13—21), 
Pluckley cum Pevington (20— 13— 21), Stelling (15—8—14), Crundall, and Elmsted. 

'• Addington (8— 5— G), Birling (12—6-12), Ditton (8—5—8), Ryarsh (8— 5-G). 

" Larking, p. 43, app. La Sela was the old name (Hasted, i. 334). 

'- Except • Assetune ' (?), Darenth, and Gillingham. Small manors of 60s. or lesa 
are in general neglected, and all reductions of only 20s., 30s., or even 40s. 

1898 IN DOMESDAY 19 

We have now tested the Domesday evidence, and may follow it 
where other information is vague or lacking. From Camherwell a 
loop of damage runs twenty miles south to Bletchingley and 
Westerham,'^ touching five-and-twenty manors, together T.E.E. 
305/., afterwards 187/. These are not, as near Dover, scattered 
over a broad district, but lie only a mile or two apart in a line, 
though a looped line, and mark, no doubt, the track of a foraging 
expedition. It was obviously politic not to eat up all the nearest 
food first ; if mere ravage had been intended to draw out the Lon- 
doners, the raid would hardly have been carried straight away for 
twenty miles. But William did not stay long before London. He 
could not cross the river, and after burning Southwark he appa- 
rently marched to Mortlake (32 — lo — 38), and thence by Combe 
and Maiden (together 11— 6— 11|) to Molesey [3], Ditton [2], and 
Walton [2?] (together 34 — 20 — 43). He does not, however, seem 
to have followed the river any further, but to have struck south 
fifteen miles to Guildford,'"* where we find damage at Shalford 
(16— 9— 20),Bramley (40— 30— 60), and Godalming(25— 20— 30). 

From Guildford he turned west past Compton and Wanborough 
(15 — 9—15) to Farnham (55 — 30 — 47), then into Hants to Crondal 
[3] (24i— 12— 32) and Warnborough (12—6—10) ; next toNateley 
and Basing (together 14^ — 9^ — 19), raiding, perhaps, to Strath- 
fieldsaye (15 — 12 — 15); thence to Ellisfield, Nutley, Farle}^, and 
Dummer (together 33 — 14 — 25) ; so to Micheldever (60 — 40 — 93), 
and thence by Sutton Scotney [2] (12 — 8 — 10) northwards to Hurst- 
bourn (36 — 26 — 40). At this time'-^ we may probably date the 
surrender of Winchester, and perhaps the fleet sent him reinforce- 
ments from Fareham."^ There had been time to enlist fresh troops 
since Hastings, and a strong left wing now appears marching through 
Alresford (40— 20— 57), Easton (34 — 12—34), Headbourn Worthey 
(25 — 10 — 15), before the gates of Winchester, Crawley (35 — 28 — 
42), Clatford (20— 15I-2O), Fifield (5-21-5), to the west of 
Andover, Tidworth (10 — 5 — 10), and so probably through the 
eastern edge of Wiltshire to Lambourn (49 — 33 — 44) in Berkshh-e. 
The right and now weaker column goes from Hurstbourn by Upton 
(4—2—4) and Easton Crux (6—3—6) to Highclere (12— 7— 11). 

'^ Tooting, Merton, Ewell, Cuddington, Banstead, Woodmansterne, Chipslead, 
Merstham, Gatton, Nutfield, Bletchingley, Chivington, Godstone (Wachelstead), 
Oxstead, Tandridge, Titsey, Limpsfield, Westerham ; then back by Woldingham, Til- 
lingham, Farley, Chelsham, Beddington, Wallington and (Carsh)aulton. 

'* Perhaps by (Ash)stead (10—6—12), Gomshall (15— 10— 20) and Albury (10— 
5 — 9) ; but the last two could be raided from Guildford. 

'* Carmen : ' Post alio ' (from E. Kent) ' vadit . . . Guincestram misit.' 

'" Through Fareham (18— 10— 16), Wickham (IO--4— 7), Bishops Walthara 
(31— loi— 30), Droxford (26— 20— 26), Exton (16 — 12—20), Warnford (22-14—22), 
West Meon (20— 16— 30), and East Meon (60— 40— 60). Thence to Alresford is an easy 
march. A party seems to have met them from Farnham by Hartley Maudit (8 — 3—7) 
and Farringdon (15— 12— 21). 



Except on this line I find no considerable losses in Surrey or in 
northern Hampshire. The damage runs in a crooked but continuous 
line. It does not spread wide. From Battersea William seems to 
have pressed steadily forward ; destruction fell on the line of daily 
halting places, but he did not seriously injure the country on either 

From Lambourn the left or main column sweeps round the 
north-western border of Berks '^ through Shrivenham, Farringdon, 
and Longworth to Sutton Courtney, near Abingdon, and so appa- 
rently by '* Whittenham (20 — 15 — 20), across the river at Walling- 
ford.'^ The right wing marches from Highclere on a smaller 
curve ^'^ by Wantage and Hendred, and thence, it seems, by ^' Aston 
(12—6—10) and "Basildon (25— 20— 25) to the old crossing of the 
Ickneild way from Streatley to Goring. 

Freeman makes William receive the submission of the Saxon 
leaders a few days later at Great Berkhampstead, and then march 
straight to London, but Domesday tells us a rather different story, 
which agrees better with the authorities. For a moment we lose the 
scent in the enormous manor of Bensington, for which we have no 
figures, though Dorchester (16 — 13 — 17), a little to the west, seems 
touched. The next traces are in two directions : (a) a long march 
to the north at Thame (20— 16— 30), Bledlow (20—12—22), and 
Kisborough (10 — 5 — 16) ; (b) two marches to the east, where, near 
Slough, we find twelve manors'^ valued T.K.E. 150/. and later 
61^/. It seems probable that the main body marched north, keep- 

" By Lambourn (57 b. 1) (49—33—44), Ashbury (59 b. 1) (35—20—40), Shriven- 
ham (57 b. 2) (35— 20— 45) and Watchfield (59 a. 2) (15— io-14i), Coxwell [2] (57 b. 2) 
(24-18—24) and Coleshill (63 a. 1) (7—2—5), Faringdon (57 b. 2) (16—12—21) and 
Eaton Hastings (61 a. 2) (10—5—9), Longworth (Ordia,58 a. 1) (30—20—25), Hanney 
(60 a. 2) (10—8—14), Steventon (57 b. 2) (25-20— 22), and Sutton (57 b. 2) 
(30—20—50). '8 D. B. 60 a. 2. 

•' W. Pict. 208 : ' Transmeato flumine ... ad oppidura Guarengefort pervenit.' The 
crossing is a puzzle. There is no damage either round Wallingford at Sot well (59 b. 2), 
Brightwell (58 a. 2) and (56 b. 2), Cholsey (Clapcot, 61 b. 1, is doubtful), or at ' Garinges ' 
(158 a. 1 ; ' Wareford,' 59 a. 1, is now Garford) ; there can have been no camp at either 
place. Benoit distinctly puts ' Walengeford ' on the south bank. Perhaps the army 
crossed and camped in Bensington, while William himself lodged at Wallingford. Gul. 
Gem. p. 288 : • ad urbem W. gressum divertit, transmeatoque vado fluvii legiones ibi 
castra metari iussit.' But this camp may have been further on. 

» By Winterboum (58 a. 1) (6— 2|— 4), Brightwaltham (57 a. 1) (6—3—5), Farn- 
borough (59 a. 2) (9-6—1), Charlton by Wantage (57 a. 1) (8—4—8) and Ardington 
16—12—16), Hendred (57 b. 2 and 64 a. 1) (14—9^-19). Also further east by Pease- 
more (62 b. 2) (6—3—5), Beeden (58 b. 2) (11—6—8), and Hodcot in Ilsley (61 a. 1) 
(6 — I J— 3) to Aston or Basildon. 

»' D. B. 60 a. 2. « Ibid. 57 a. 1. 

« Taplow (8—3—8), Hitcham (5—1—4), Wobum (10—6—15), Bumhara (10—6— 
10), llorton (0— 2^-6) Iver (Evreham) (12—5—22). And in Middlesex Hayes 
(40— 12— 30), Stanwell (14-6—14), Harmondsworth (25—12—20), Bedfont [2], and 
Feltham (20—8—13). Windsor (15-7—15) seems to have been raided across the 
river. It is just possible that a detachment may have marched straight from Molesey 
to Windsor and crossed there. 

1898 IN DOMESDAY 21 

ing west of the Chilterns, which would protect their flank, while a 
force was detached either eastwards from Goring or south-west 
from Bledlow to camp near Slough, and cover the road from Lon- 
don through Henley between the hills and the river to Wallingford, 
by which William could betaken in the rear. 

From Bledlow, whether it arrived there direct or by way of 
Slough, the main column marched on north through eastern 
Lucks, following the line of the present railway to Buckingham 
through Ellesborough and Stoke (Mandeville) (together 28 — 16 — 
26), Weston (15—8—15), Aston (? Clinton) (20— lo— 18), Wad- 
desden (30— 16— 30), Hardwick (16— lo— 15), Claydon [2] (9— 
4—8), Padbury, Tingewick, and Thornborough together (30 — 20— 
30). We do not find damage in Bucks west of this line,^^ nor in 
Oxfordshire. Then it turned eastwards by Beachampton, Woolver- 
toD, Loughton, and Linford [2], near Stony Stratford (together 
32^ — 21 — 31), and so to Hanslope (24—20 — 24), Sherrington 
(10—7—10), Olney (12—7—12), and Lavendon [6] (13—4), at 
the northern corner of the county. A right wing moved from 
Eisborough more to the east by Buckland (10 — 3 — 8), Wiginton 
(Herts) (6 — 2 — 4), Aston Abbots, Cublington, and Mentmore 
(together 30—19—28), and Linslade (10— 5— 10) to Brickhill [2] 
(15 — 9 — 12) and Simpson (8 — i — 6), near Fenny Stratford. 

In Bedfordshire the scent is confused by a number of valua- 
tions of the type T.E.E. aL, 1067 a-W., 1086 a-bL, but from Olney 
the left wing appears to have marched due east from Turvey and 
Stagsden to Potton, and so through the corner of Cambridgeshire *^ 
by Morden [2] (26 — 18 — 26|) and Meldreth, where six entries are 
together valued 58f — 26^ — 47 f, throwing off a column which 
made a circuit nearly reaching St. Neots and Cambridge,^*^ while the 
right wing from Fenny Stratford marched further south from 
Apsley Guise to Stotfold.'^^ In any case if William marched north 

^* At Haddenham, Dinton, Edgecott, Marsh Gibbon, Steeple Claydon, or in the whole 
hundreds of Tichessele (except Kinsey by Thame) and Essedene (except Oving), where 
valuations of the type a, a-i, a-1 do not suggest ravage. In Oxfordshire some forty 
manors, which alone have triple valuations, are all untouched except Shifford (10 — 5 
— 7) and Dorchester [2] (27 — 21-47), opposite Longworth and Wallingford, and 
Banbury [2] (4G^ — 39I — 44). In the east, adjoining Bucks, Hardwick, Fringtord 
Stratton, Bicester, Chesterton (159 b. 1), Wendlcbury, Ambrosden, Merton, Stanton St. 
John, all tend to the type ' valet et valuit aZ.' 

" The line seems to be Turvey (4 — 2 — 4), Stagsden (5 — 2 — 5), Elstow (10 — 2 — 5), 
Harrowden (6—2—?), Cardington [3] (IO-7— 9|), Sandy (18— 13— 17), Potton 
(13-5—12), Mfcldreth (8—2—6 an* 14- 6— 10), Whaddon (6— 1|— 5 and 4^'— 3-4-'), 
Wendy (10—6—8), Barrington (16—8—12). 

*« Willington (6—2—7), Barford [2] (13|— 6— 19), Blunham [3] (19—12—15), 
Tempsford (12i -8— 10|), Eoxton [2] (19i— 7— 13), Eaton Soccon [4] (31^— 13J— 24^), 
Caxton (14— 6— 11), Toft [2] (9— ij— 6)i'Eversden (16— 6— 9), Harston (10— 4§-8), 
Trumpington (5— 1|— 4), Duxworth (8—5^—7^). 

" Apsley (10—5—8), Millbrook (5-1^—3), Ampthill (4—2—4), Silsoe and Pullox- 
hill (24—13—18), Campton (3^— 1_8), Conthill (19- 14— 18), Langford (15— 10— 15), 
Stotfold.(20— 12— 25). 


through East Bucks, and south through East Herts, he must have 
crossed Bedfordsliire somewhere. 

The army now enters Hertfordshire, where we find abundant 
signs of ravage on the eastern side. They are roughly contained 
in an inverted triangle, of which the base runs from the north- 
east corner of the county to Hitchin, and the apex lies to the south 
at Enfield, the army concentrating as it nears London. The left 
and larger wing leads us from Meldreth through Barley [3] 
(9_3^_6|), Barkway (6—3—6), Westmill [2] (34— 20— 29), 
and Standon (34 — 16— 34) to Stanstead (20 — 10 — 17), close to 
Hertford. From Westmill it throws out a column by Great 
Munden (16 — 12 — 16), Bennington (14 — 6 — 12), Braintfield and 
Tewin (together 9 — 3^ — 7). The right wing from Stotfold ap- 
parently marched by Eadwell (10 — 2 — 5) and Bygrave (12 — 8 — 
10), Clothall (10—5—7), Willian (12— 4— 10), Wymondley " (3 - 
1—3), Aston (20— 14- 18), Knebworth and Ayot (12— 5— 10 and 
5 — I — 3) to Hertingfordbury (10 — 6 — 8). "We do not find damage 
in the western hundreds of Essex, Uttlesford, Clavering, and 
Harlow. If the exact tracing of the march has been too fanciful, 
it is at least clear that there is a great semicircle, or rather 
horseshoe, of damage between West Bucks and Oxfordshire on 
the one side and Essex on the other, the base lying between 
Wallingford and Hertford.^ From the hills south of Hertford the 
Normans looked down on the London plain, with the city some 
fifteen miles in the distance, and here, if we are to reconcile the 
chaplain with the English authorities, 'within sight of the city,'^° 
at Little Berkhampstead (5 — 2^ — 5) — not, as is generally said, at 
its greater namesake — William received the submission of the 
capital. We follow the signs of the army to camps at Enfield (50 — 
20—50), Edmonton (40— 20— 40), and Tottenham (26 -10— 25). 

Domesday confirms the chaplain's details ; will it allow of the 
fight before London, for which there is some positive authority ? " 

-•' Hitchin (4—2—6), Offley (15—8-11), and Hexton (16— ii— 17^) seem to mark 
the path of some stragglers from Beds. 

-' In mid-Herts we do not fi much damage. There is some on a line south 
from Beds by Streatley [2] (11— 4— 8) and Caddington [Beds] (5—^—2), Flamstead 
(12—9—11) and St. Albans (24—12—20). Kensworth, Caddington [Herts], Letch- 
worth, Redborn, Sandridge show little or no loss. I doubt if Kimpton (15—12—12), 
Gaddesden (25—20—20), Mimms (10—8—8) are due to the ravages of 1066. 

*• W. Pict. 205. ' Statim ut Londonia conspectui patebat ' . . . No one would say 
this of Great Berkhampstead (24— 20 — 10), thirty miles off. Nor does a place in the 
N.W. comer of the county suit Florence, who says William wasted ' Kent . . . 
Middlesex, and Hertfordshire till he came to Beorcham.' The figures too with 
Tring (25— 20— 22), Hemel Hempstead (25— 25— 22| and 2.5-22^-221), Langley 
[Abbots] (15—12—14) and [King's] (8—4—2), and even Caishoe (30—24—28) contrast 
strongly with Enfield, Edmonton, and Tottenham; it is twenty miles to Harrow 

" Gul. Gemet. p. 288; Carmen, 1. 663 ff. There was, of course, no siege; a 
skirmish was the atmost foundation for all the fine writing in the Carmen. 

1898 IN DOMESDAY 28 

The cavalry might easily be pushed forward from Hertford, though 
hardly from Great Berkhampstead, thirty miles from the city. 
The * Carmen,' however, says distinctly that the attack was directed 
from Westminster. Can it have been made by the force left at 
Slough ? It would not disagree with the figures to suppose that this 
force, after ravaging the south-western corner of Middlesex as far 
as Hampton (40 — 20 — 30), moved slowly north ^^ along the western 
border to Harrow (60 — 20 — 56), still near enough to cover the road 
from London to Henley, but drawing closer to the army in 
Bedfordshire. They may well have prepared some battering rams, 
and, as William marched south through Hertfordshire, may have 
advanced and won a skirmish with the Saxons near Westminster. 
This would not happen under the chaplain's eye. They certainly 
did not take up a position at or near Westminster, for we find no 
great damage in that direction. ^^ 

It remains to deal with the depreciations in West Sussex and 
South Hants. These were clearly due to the fleet. We find 
damage running up (a) from Brighton and Rottingdean (or 
Newhaven), and (b) from the river mouth at Shoreham. On the 
Arun (c) the damage is comparatively small, but (d) from 
Chichester harbour the whole rape (and also the north-west part of 
Arundel rape) was raided, for nearly every manor shows a loss.^^ 
While William marched through Surrey and Hants the fleet seems 
to have lain at Chichester, to act as a base in case of need. 

Our figures have traced William's movements from Hastings to 
the surrender at Berkhampstead, but they have more than a 
topographical interest. They bear evidence in favour of the 
chaplain's accuracy, but strongly against the ' Carmen.' They are 
fatal to Stigand. His su'omission at or near Wallingford is seen to 
have preceded the general surrender, not by two or three days, 
which might be compatible with honesty, but by two to three 
weeks, and we can no longer doubt that he deserted the falling 
cause. They give also some test of William's numbers. It is 
obvious that a large army, living, as his did, on the country it 
passes through, must move on a wide front. It cannot march in 
several divisions one behind another, for the rear would starve. 
Now up to Hurstbourn William seems to have moved on a front 

=- Through Northbolt (12~s— 10), Kuislip (30—12—20), Harefield (14—8—12), 
and in Herts Eickmansworth (20— 12— 20|), Caishoe (30—24—28). 

« Chelsea (9-9—9), Westminster (12— 10— 10 and 6—1—3), Kensington 
(10 — 6 — 10). The two last are signs of passage, not of a long camp. 

»' (a) Brighton [3] (28|— 21— 36), Patcham (100— 50— 80), Ditchling 
(80— 25— 72i), Plumpton (25—15—25), Barcombe (12—6—8), Iford (50— 20— 42), 
Eodmill (60—20—87), Ovingdean, Bevendean, Eottingdean (13—9—16). 
(b) Shoreham (25— 16— 35), Kingston (15—5—14), Finden (28— 20— 28), Claphara 
(8—4—6), Steyning (28— 20— 25), Wiston (12—4—12), Wapingthorn (5—1—4), 
Thakham (14— 10— 14). (c) D. B. 25 a. (d) Ibid. 23, 24. 


that was far from wide, and his camps seem fairly concentrated. 
The evidence suggests that he had nothing like 50,000 men when 
he marched from Canterbury, probably not half that number. 
There would be losses on the road, but he seems to have been con- 
siderably reinforced in Hampshire. The Domesday evidence does 
not favour the idea that he deliberately set himself to waste the 
country far and wide. In West Kent, Surrey, and Hants the belt 
of damage is comparatively narrow ; if pure devastation had been 
his object he could surely have made it much wider. In North- 
Eastern Bucks also, in Sigelai and Muselai hundreds, where the two 
columns were ten miles apart, many manors between them are 
untouched.'"^ It would not suit him to create between himself and 
Normandy the desert which Wace makes Gyrth suggest as the best 
obstacle to his advance. Indeed, he cannot have had much time 
for mere devastation ; he could hardly have covered some 350 miles 
between Canterbury and Berkhampstead within seven weeks, if he 
had allowed his troops to be scattered for wide-spread ravage. The 
destruction on the line of march was enough to strike terror of his 
presence, and was, perhaps, the more ruthless with that special 
object. The Chronicle need not be taken to mean more than this. 
Let us now divide the valuations into two groups. Taking (1) 
the ravaged manors noticed above, and (2) the larger manors, which 
were not touched, we get these totals : ^ — 

(1)37 in Kent . 643—313—657 (2) 38 of Ode's .371—350—404 
24 m Hastings 150— i8-152 1 46of Archbp.^s 753—748—1191 
24 Chichester 37 403—238—445 \ 25 in Arundel 193— 183— 202 

40 in Surrey . 570— 325— 617 
20 in Hants . 415—223—441 
31 in Bucks . 350— 201— 383 

152without) 2881 1300 2498 
Hastmgs ) 

20 in Surrey . 240— 232— 250 
44 in Hants . 550—548— 596 
30 W. Bucks . 215—191— 200 

157 without) 
the Archbp. | 

1569 1504 1652 

(1) 25 W. Berks 374—247—862 (1) 14 in Camb. 131— 63— 110 
29 in Beds . 280— 136— 230 22 E. Herts . 253—134—224 

90 (ravaged) in W. Berks, Beds, Camb., and Herts . 1038 580 926 

* E^. Dunton, Stewkley, Winslow, Swanbourn, Horwood, Whaddon, Stoke, 
Woughton, Stantonbury. 

" Besides smaller entries I have excluded from both colomns (1) forty cases 
(excluding the archbishop) where the value in 1086, in all 1,1072., exceeds so much 
(50 per cent.) that T.B.E., in all 685Z., as to suggest change of size ; also a dozen 
similar reductions ; (2) valuations (except in W. Bucks) of the type a, a-b, a-b ; 
in Kent, Surrey, and Hants they are very few; (3) some doubtful cases, e^. 
Chilham, Kent; (4) from Hants the Isle of Wight and the S.E. hundreds of 
Egheiete, Fordingbridge, Bodbridge, Bodedic, and Bovre. 

*' D. B. 23 and 24 a. to Mundreham. The increase in 1086 is mainly at Silleton 
(16i.) and Hertinges (201.) Borne is excluded. Arundel (ool. 2) represents 24 b. and 
the adjoining hundred of Bredford in Bramber. 

" Of these 24 ' in demesne ' were valued 452 — 469 — 781, and reddiderunt 935/. 
The Rochester manors [13] give 93 — 93—158. 

1898 IN DOMESDAY ^ 25 

Outside the line of march the immediate effect of the mere 'jar 
of conquest ' on the value of land in the south-east seems to have 
been very slight. These counties bore the first, though not the 
heaviest, brunt of the struggle, yet few manors lose 10 per cent, of 
their value, while to far the greater number exactly the same value 
is assigned for 1067 as for 1065. We may well doubt whether 
instances of heavy loss — say, more than 20 per cent. — in other coun- 
ties were not in all cases due to some special cause rather than to 
mere general depreciation, for primitive agriculture would not be 
much touched by autumn war, unless the corn plough-teams and 
live stock were actually destroyed. The ravaged manors in Kent, 
Sussex, Surrey, and Hants had fully recovered by 1086. If this 
was so even round Hastings and Dover, what must have been 
the treatment of the Northern manors, still waste after twenty 
years ? There not only the cattle, but most of the men, must 
have been slaughtered or driven out of the country. The 
difference in value of both 1 and 2 between 1065 and 1086 is very 
small. If the valet represented the net value to the lord, the 
rent obtainable from a farmer, then the figures suggest that, 
whatever change there may have been in the position of the 
villani, their services cannot practically have been much in- 

In Berks, Bucks, Beds, Cambridge, and Herts recovery seems 
less complete. This may or may not be connected with another 
feature. In Berks we find a number of valuations of the type 
T.R.E. al., in 1067 a-bZ., and also in 1086 a-bZ., or occasionally 
20s. more. All over the county, well out of William's path, we 
find such manors scattered quite promiscuously, so far as one can 
see, amongst other manors which show no variation. In Western 
Bucks the type is nearly universal, but the reduction small, 
generally 20s. In Beds and Cambridge the type, easily traced in 
the summaries by Mr. Airey and Dr. Walker, is common, and the 
reductions often large, but scattered, as in Berks, amongst other 
manors which do not fall. In the face of the figures for Kent, 
Surrey, and Hants ^^ it is difficult to think that this type is due 
either to mere decay or to William's march. Whatever be the 
explanation of these entries, they prevent us from carrying 
column 2 beyond Hants and Bucks. 

F. Baring. 

'' In these counties the type is rare. I notice in Kent Sh olden (11 a. 1) 
(15— li— li), Swanton (11 a. 2) (10— li— 2), Titenton (13 a. 2) (12—6—7) ; Surrey, 
Balham (36 a. 2) (6—1—2) ; Hants, about a dozen, five in Manebridge hundred. 


T/ie A dmiiiistratioii of the Navy from 
the Restoration to the Revolution 

Part II.— 1673-1G79 {continued) 

C~ OMPLAINTS of the want of money, though less frequent and 
insistent than in the earher years of Charles II, still continued 
under the new administration which began in the summer of 1678. 
In December the lords commissioners addressed an urgent com- 
munication to the lord treasurer, representing it to be 

of utmost importance to his majesty that some immediate provision be 
made of a weekly sum of money for the discharge of tickets, because of 
the disorder wherein the seamen concerned in the payment of the tickets 
at this time are, to the threatening the pulling down of his majesty's 
office, and the embezzlement or spoil of all the books and papers there, 
besides the yet more public effects thereof, to the dishonour of his 
majesty's service, and discouragement of seamen against the next 

In the following February an attempt was made * to lessen the 
growing charge in the navy ' by ' reducing the number of the 
persons employed therein, both at sea and in the yards.' '°" The 
principal officers were asked to make an estimate of the workmen 
that could be spared out of the yards, * upon a supposition if 
moneys could be ready to discharge them,'"" and apparently 
these were discharged.'" Other economies were also practised. 
On 4 April 1(574, Pepys writes to Captain Bridgeman : '•'- 'The 
intent of the king and my lords of the admiralty at present 
seems to be to bring down the charge of the navy as low as they 
can, so that it is not to be expected that many ships will for some 
time be kept abroad or any new ones set forth.' As ships came in 
they were at once paid off and laid up,"' and it was decided to 
undertake no new works ' until his majesty hath in some measure 
got over the delit which remains on him upon the old.' "* Mean- 
while the official correspondence for 1673-4 contains frequent 
references to the shortness of money. The ' Swan ' was delayed at 
Plymouth in January 1673-4 * from the unwillingness of the 

'""' Admiralty Letters, ii. 399. (15 Dec. 1C73.) 

"» Ibid. iii. 130. (Pepys to the principal officers, 27 Feb. 1G73-4.) 

"• Ibid. ". J6id. p. 143. 

"» P. 179. See also p. 188. •' P. 182. "• P. 186. 


tradesmen to trust bis majesty further.' "' To a modest request 
from the company of the ' Nonsuch ' for some of their pay, Pepys was 
obliged to say, ' I know not whether the treasury of the navy be at 
present in a condition to help them to any,'"'^ and a petition from the 
* Pearl ' was only met with an undertaking to * lay the same before 
his majesty and my lords.' ^'^ To the master attendant at Sheer- 
ness, who appears to have complained of his accommodation, Pepys 
could only offer a distant prospect of satisfaction. 

I am very sensible (he writes on 24 Nov. 1674) of the in- 
conveniences you must undergo till you have provision made on shore for 
your quartering, which all in good time I hope the king will be in con- 
dition of treasure to remedy ; in the meantime I must recommend it to 
your patience to bear with them as well as you can."^ 

On 24 Nov. 1675, Pepys writes to one of his subordinates at Ports- 
mouth, 'I do not see any great probability of the king being 
able to enlarge salaries ; ' '^^ and in February 1676-7 he notes that 
the wages then due to the * Queenborough ' yacht * is said to be 
thirty-five or thirty- six months in arrear.' ^^° 

The grant for building and equipping the thirty new ships 
did not affect arrears, nor does it seem to have improved the 
king's ordinary credit. On 22 Dec. 1677, Pepys reports from Sir 
John Kempthorne that ' the brewer at Portsmouth doth absolutely 
declare he will not provide any beer for the Eupert and Centurion 
till he is better assured of his payment than he now is.' '^^ But in 
the beginning of the next year the vote of funds for preparations 
against France somewhat relieved the financial pressure. The Poll 
Bill finally passed on 20 March, 1677-8, and on the following day 
Pepys writes with an unusual access of cheerfulness, ' I do not 
despair but if money do competently come in, the work [of 
equipping the fleet of ninety ships] may be done ... so as may answer 
his majesty's and the parliament's expectations and the occasions 
of the kingdom.' ^'^- But the improvement was only of short 
duration, for at the end of the year it was decided to ' split ' the 
declaration of victuals, wages, and wear and tear for the ensuing year, 
and to ' require the present execution but of one moiety thereof,' 
in consequence of the ' straitness of his treasure under which his 
majesty now lies.' '^^ The letter reporting this to the navy board 
also alludes to the ' backwardness ' of the victuallers in completing 
the contract of the current year, they having made declaration to 
Mr. Speaker ' of their total inability to carry on the service unless 
they might be better supported with money.' A few days later, in 
another letter to the navy board, •'^^ Pepys refers to one of the most 

"* Pp. 49, 51, 52. "" p. 64. '" P. 396. 

"« P. 401. "s iv. 293. '-» V. 341. 

»2> Adm. Letters, vi, 277. '" Ibid. p. 471. '=' 2 Dec. 1678, viii. 364- 

'" 8 Dec, viii. 403. 


wasteful consequences of a want of money, ' the mighty charge which 
has so long lain uix)n our hands for want of money wherewith to 
discharge the ships.' 

During the last sLx mouths of his secretaryship in particular 
the anxieties of Pepys on the score of funds seemed to have 
thickened round him. On 11 Jan. 1678-9 he refers to ' the great 
debts due at this day upon the score of sick men ' presented to the 
king, and adds, ' I do hope in God some provision will be shortly 
made for the reUef thereof.' ''^'' On 26 Feb. he again alludes to 
the ' difficulties ' the king ' is now under in his treasure.' '* On 
6 March he recurs to the victualling. 

Extremely afflicted I am (he writes to Sir R. Robinson) '*^ to observe 
the frequent notice you have of late taken to me of the delays wherewith 
his majesty's ships are supplied by the victuallers, an evil which, how- 
ever, they may think themselves justifiable in from those failures of payr 
ment which they say (I know not how truly) they lie under. I am sure 
the whole service must perish, if by one means or another it be not 
effectually remedied. 

' I fear in matters of money,' he writes in another place,'*" * my 
assistance will go but a very little way, that being a business which 
at this time (God knows) moves everywhere very slow, and particularly 
in the navy.' Allusions of this kind are frequent '"^ right down to 
the close of his term of office, and in his last letter addressed to 
the navy board on ordinary business, written 14 May 1679, only 
three days before he informed them of his resignation, he refers to 
the * little appearance of the sum of money that has been so long 
wanting, and now grows daily more and more so, for the payments 
of arrears of wages to seamen, and easing his majesty of the great 
part of growing charge lying upon him.' '^^ 

Notwithstanding the shortness of money in the navy, the official 
correspondence contains few complaints of the victualling depart- 
ment during this period until 1677, when they begin again with 
their former frequency and insistence.'^' Quite early in their official 
career the admiralty commission had attempted to take the vic- 
tualling in hand. On 8 Aug. 1673 they wrote to the principal 
officers : '^^ — 

In order as well to the remo\ing the occasions of the disputes 
frequently arising between yourselves and the contractors for the 
victualling of his majesty's na\7 touching the constructions of their 
present contract,"' as to the better providing for the benefit of his 

•» Adni. Letters, ix. 21. '-• p. 86. '-' P. 108. 

'» 8 March 1678-9, p. 116. 

'* See Adm. Letters, ix. 160, 212, 219, 270. >* ix. 275. 

'*' See Enoush Histokical Revxkw, xii. 37. '" Adm. Letters, ii. 57. 

'** Probabljr the contract of 1672. See English Histobical Rbvibw, xii. 39. 


majesty's senice therein for the time to come, we have thought it 
expedient that the said contract be entirely re-viewed. 

The principal officers were accordingly requested to obtain from 
Sir Jeremy Smith, the comptroller of the victualling, a report on 
the defects of the existing contract, and the way in which it had 
been discharged by the contractors, and to remit this, with their 
own * opinion thereupon,' to the commissioners for their further 
consideration. In particular, their attention was called to two points 
which had been lately argued before the commissioners by the vic- 
tuallers and the principal officers : — 

(1) ' The antiquity, ground, and consequences of the present practices 
by them avowed of making good to the pursers (at their discretions) some 
part of their victualling warrants by money instead of provisions,' and 
(2) * How far the victuallers of the navy are chargeable with, and what is 
to be added to the means his majesty is already at the charge of for 
preventing that insufiferable evil which you lately declared his majesty 
being exposed, &c.,and daily suffering under, through the combinations of 
the victuallers and pursers in being obliged to the allowing victuals (and 
wages also, as some of your number asserted) to four or five hundred 
men on a ship, where there are not at the same time forty attending on 
board — a miscarriage of so much moment as calls no less for a strict 
account to be given us of the ground of it for the time past, than a most 
effectual provision for the preventing it for the time to come. 

It is interesting to find these abuses alluded to in a curious 
paper of about the same date ^^* ' offered by Captain Stephen 
Pine (formerly a purser) to the Lord of Dartmouth,' a copy 
of which is among the Pepysian * Miscellanies.' '^^ Under the 
title ' The Expense and Charge of his Majesty's Naval Victuals 
Considered and Eegulated ' Pine explains in detail the working 
of the existing system, under which the purser receives from 
the victualler a proportion in money. The king's allowance 
of victuals to each man for seven days was as follows : 7 lbs. of 
biscuit, 7 gallons of beer, 4 lbs. of beef, 2 lbs. of pork, f of a sized 
fish, 1 quart of pease, 6 ounces of butter, and 12 ounces of cheese.'^" 
It was the custom of the purser to leave one- eighth part of the 
victuals on shore, and receive the value from the victualler in 
money, on the ground that the ' necessary money ' allowed by 
the king * to provide necessaries, viz. wood, candle, platters, cans, 
spoons, &c., for boiling the meat, and the seamen's use in eating 

^^ Pepys describes it as ' about 1673 or 1674.' 

•« iii. 723. 

'^'' This allowance does not appear to have been altered. It is practically the 
same as was described by Monson (Churchill's Voyages, iii. 347), and was provided 
for in the victualler's contract of 1637 (Cal. State Papers Dom., 1636-37, p. 452). See 
also Hollond's Discourses of the Navy {N. R. S. publications, vol. vii. p. 153) in 1659. 
It also corresponds with the allowance given in Battine's Naval Calculations in 


thereof, is not sufficient to defray the cost and charges of the said 
necessaries.' In serving out their allowance to the men he would 
make an ' abatement of one-eighth part less in weight and measure 
than the king allows ' in the biscuit, beer, butter, cheese, and pease. 
The beef, pork, and fish, not being served by weight, were not sus- 
ceptible of this treatment, but here the purser was able to recoup 
himself by the victuals of absentees when the ship was in harbour, 
and * by men being sick on board before put ashore, who seldom then 
cat the sea-victuals.' Pine argues that the excuse offered for this 
arrangement is inadequate, and it really enriches the victualler and 
purser at the king's expense. The king's allowance of 6d. ^xt 
mensem for ' necessary money ' is sufficient if properly managed. 
One of the reasons alleged for its insufficiency is the seamen's extra- 
vagance in wood and candles. In future let the necessary money 
l)as8 through the hands of the captain, and let him be responsible 
for checking an unreasonable consumption. This will * extinguish 
the seamen's exorbitancies, the purser being generally the object of 
their emulation, but the captain of their awe ; the former they 
delight to abuse, the latter they dare not.' On these grounds Pine 
concludes that the 8(/. extra per mensem ' lately allowed ' over and 
above the Gd. fixed by the victualling contract for * necessary money ' 
is a * needless extravagant charge to the King.' To the second of 
the two abuses referred to Pine only alludes in passing, but he 
appears to admit its existence. 

As for that suppos'd practice (he says) '^^ of Pursers entering men 
in their sea-books some days before their being really in the ship, and also 
not discharging them till some days after gone from the ship, the like as 
to those that die or run away, which hath not only been a wrong to the 
king, and a gain to the Purser in the victuals, but the like also of the pay, 
if this chance to escape the Commander's knowledge, no more of this to 
be said at present. 

Pine's remedy for these abuses is peculiar to himself. He dis- 
misses the idea of greatly increasing the pursers' salaries, and 
making them officials instead of traders, on the ground that they 
have ' been so accustomed to trade for themselves, and found so 
much advantage thereby ; ' and he also rejects the plan of esta- 
blishing a ' cheque ' over the purser, because this will involve ' a 
certain charge upon the king for the salaries of all such cheques, 
and the benefit by them unto the king uncertain,' and also because 
' it hath been observed that when cheques have been employed, such 
understanding hath been between pursers and them that the thing 
was still the same and worse.' Instead of this Pine proposes to 
throw the ultimate responsibility upon the commander, the only 
incorruptible officer in the ship. He suggests that the pursers shall 
be abolished, and the stewards, who hitherto had been paid out of 

'»• P. 724. 


the pursers' own pockets, should receive an official status and 40s. 
a month over and above the king's pay to an able seaman. The 
commanders, for their * further encouragement,' in consideration of 
the new duties thrown on them by the necessity of supervising the 
proceedings of the stewards, were to receive an addition to their pay 
of 3^. a month, which would enable them each to keep a clerk, who 
would not only keep the victualler's book of the receipts and issues 
of victuals, but also the sea-book of entries and discharges of men, 
* and what other service the clerk may be useful for to the com- 
mander, as buying the ship's necessaries, messages to the victualling 
office . . . and the like.' The cost of the clerk would be not more 
than half the captain's increased pay, and the other half would go 
to himself. Pine calculated that the cost of this new method in 
increased pay to the stewards and captains would be saved by the 
discontinuance of pursers on ships lying- up in harbour, where they 
were quite unnecessary. 

To Pepys's copy of Pine's paper are appended notes and criticisms 
by the earl of Dartmouth. Most of these are on points of detail, 
but it is clear that he was opposed to Pine's suggested reform on 
grounds that appear intelligible enough. 

'Tis too troublesome and small a matter (he writes) for the com- 
manders to be charged with finding necessaries, as fire and candle, &c. ; 
'tis true he may now better restrain the extravagancy of the seamen for 
the purser, but if he comes once to do it for himself he will become the 
object of their hatred. . . . Notwithstanding what is said here, a purser 
is absolutely necessary, nor is it practicable in the English fleet that the 
commander should undertake the victualling ; I appeal to those that will 
seriously consider both our captains and the nature of our common men ; 
yet I wish the pursers were better regulated. 

It is not possible to ascertain from the Pepysian papers how far 
the action of the commissioners of the admiralty in 1673 remedied 
the abuses complained of. The contractors referred to must have 
been those of 1G72 — Lyttelton, Ashburnham, Josiah Child, and the 
two Gaudens. In 1677, however, the unsatisfactory character of 
the contract again attracted attention. On 23 Jan. 1676-7, 
Pepys wrote to the contractors to give them notice of the king's 
intention to revise the arrangements with them, and a similar 
notice was sent to Sir Denis Gauden, as victualler for Tangier, 
and Sir Thomas Clutterbuck, as victualler for ships in tho 
Mediterranean.^^^ The ultimate result of the negotiations was a 
new contract, made from 1 Jan. 1677-8, with 'William Brett, 
Samuel Vincent, and John Parsons, of London, Esquires,' ' men 
esteemed to be of so solid fortunes, and bound to his majesty under 
terms so strict, as that his majesty, my lords of the admiralty, 
and we the officers of his navy, have great assurance given us that 

"» Adm. Letters, v. 325. 


his majesty's service shall be no more liable to any disappointment 
upon the score of victualling.' '^" This contract, bearing date 
31 Dec. 1677, is copied into Pepys's volume of 'Naval Prece- 
dents.' '*' As it deals with the details of the victualling at length, 
it throws some light on the administrative methods of the 

The victuallers undertook * well and sufficiently ' * to serve the 
victualling ' of all mariners and soldiers on board the king's ships, 
or ships hired by the king, either in harbour or at sea. Every 
man was 

to have for his allowance by the day one pound averdupois of good, clean, 
sweet, sound, well-bolted with a horse-cloth, well-baked and well-con- 
ditioned wheaten biscuit ; . . . one gallon, wine measure, of beer, of such 
a standard as that every guile '^^ of 20 tuns of ironbound beer shall be 
brewed with 20 quarters of very good malt, as good as generally is to be 
bad at the place where the said beer is brewed, and a sufficient quantity 
of very good hops, to keep the same for the time of its warranty, and 18 
quarters of the like malt, with the like quantity of the like sort of hops 
to every guile of 20 tuns of woodbound beer for sea, and the harbour beer 
to be good, sound, wholesome, and of sufficient strength ; . . . two pounds 
averdupois of beef, killed and made up with salt in England, '^^ of a well- 
fed Ox, not weighing less than 5 cwt. for what shall be killed ... in the 
port of London, and 4^ cwt. in any other of the ports hereafter mentioned, 
for Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays ; or instead of beef for 
two of those days one pound averdupois of bacon, or salted English pork, of 
a well-fed hog, not weighing less than three-quarters of a hundredweight, 
and a pint of pease (Winchester measure) therewith each of the said 
days ; and for Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, every man besides 
the aforesaid allowance of bread and beer, to have by the day the eighth 
part of a full-sized North Sea cod, of 24 inches long, or a sixth part of a 
haberdine, 22 inches long, or a quarter part of the same sort, if but IG 
inches long ; (provided that the haberdine that shall be thus spent on his 
majesty's ships, consist not of more than a fish of one size on board any 
one ship), or a pound averdupois of well savoured Poor John, together 
with two ounces of butter, and four ounces of Suffolk cheese, or two- 
thirds of that weight of Cheshire. 

In the case of vessels saiUng ' to the southward of the latitude 
of 39° N.' it was allowable for the contractors to vary the diet : — 

In lieu of a pound of biscuit, a pound of rusk of equal fineness ; in heu 
of a gallon of beer, a wine quart of beverage wine, or half a wine pint of 
brandy, with which last all ships going to Guinea or the East or West 

'** Adm. Letters, vi. 22fl. '«• p. 416. 

'** A ' guile ' is a brewer's vat, but the term was also used for the quantity pro- 
duced at any single brewing. 

"* ' Irish meat is very unwholesome, as well as lean, and rots our men ' {Naval 
Minutes, p. 1H\). See also HoUond's Discourses, where the writer argues that to 
serve Irii-'h beef was ' to the great discouragement of the seamen, who were forced to 
starve in a cook's shop — I mean to feed upon Irish beef in a place and time of plenty ' 
(p. 177). 


Indies shall be supplied for half the proportion at least of the drink they 
shall be ordered to take in ; in lieu of a piece of beef or pork with pease, 
three pounds of flour and a pound of raisins (not worse than Malaga), or 
in lieu of raisins, half a pound of currants, or half a pound of beef suet 
pickled ; in lieu of a sized fish, four pounds of Milan rice, or two stock- 
fishes of at least 16 inches long ; in lieu of a pound of butter, or two 
pounds of Suffolk cheese, a wine pint of sweet olive oil.^^^ 

The victuals thus provided were to be passed from time to 
time by the navy board, who appear to have exercised a general 
supervision over their quantity and quality. The victual was to 
continue fit for use 

during the space of six months from the time of its being received on 
board . . . for all that shall be declared to be spent on this side the Canary 
Islands, or latitude of 27° N. latitude, and twelve months for what shall 
be issued to be spent to the southward of that place or latitude. 

In the case of victuals supplied by the victuallers being found 
defective at sea, and flung overboard, they were to make the defect 
good without charge, on a certificate ' under the hand of the com- 
mander and master, or two other warrant officers ' of the ship. 
The victuallers were also to supply the pursers with * necessary 
money ' — 

ninepence for every man j^er mensem in each ship bearing 60 men and 
under, and sixpence in every ship carrying above 60 men, and two 
shillings to every ship for loading charges by the month, together with 
the accustomary allowance for drawage, being fourpence per tun for 
every tun of beer the purser or steward indents for, and ten groats ^;<?r 
mensem for addz-money, viz., for so long time as the said ship shall bo 
victualled for sea-service. 

They were also to allow for the ' ordinary and extraordinary men 
in harbour ' * after the rate of 12d. per man a month.' But it was 

' ' ' This variation of diet does not seem to have been popular among tlie men. In 
Captain Boteler's Six Dialogues about Sea Services, printed in 1685 but written 
earlier, the ' Admiral,' who having been just appointed to the ' High-Admiralship ' is 
occupied throughout the book in remedying a robust ignorance of naval matters by 
conversation with a ' Sea-Captain,' suggests that it would be better for the health of 
the mariners if the ordinary victualling were assimilated ' to the manner of foreign 
parts.' ' Without doubt, my Lord,' replies the Captain, ' our much, and indeed exces- 
sive feeding upon these salt meats at sea cannot but procure much unhealthiness 
and infection, and is questionless one main cause that our English are so subject to 
calentures, scarbots, and the like contagious diseases above all other nations ; so that 
it were to be wished that we did more conform ourselves, if not to the Spanish and 
Italian nations, who live most upon rice-meal, oatmeal, biscake, figs, olives, oyl and 
the like, yet at least to our neighbours the Dutch, who content themselves with a far 
less proportion of flesh and fish than we do, and instead thereof do make it up with 
l)ease, beans, wheat. Hour, butter, cheese, and those white meats (as they are called).' 
To this view the admiral assents, but ' the difficulty consisteth,' he remarks, ' in 
that the common seamen with us are so besotted on their beef and pork as they 
bad rather adventure on all the calentures and scarbots in the world than to be 
weaned from their custcmavy diet, or co n-.u:h as to lose the least bit of it ' (p. 84). 
VOL. Xlll.— NO. XLIX. D 


permissible under tlie contract for the victuallers to deliver the 
necessaries themselves, instead of their money equivalent. The 
pm-sers are in all cases to * indent ' for the victuals delivered to 
them before the ship goes to sea. 

The contract of 1677 contains a series of special provisions 
relating to the supply of water and water-casks, which appear to be 
directed to previous delinquencies on the part of the contractors. 
They are to allow each ship * four hogsheads with eight iron hoops 
on each, the said hoops to be hammered hoops of good substance 
and well wrought, and not milled hoops, for water cask ; with one 
bundle of wooden hoops and another of flags, for every 100 men a 
month ; ' but ships going to Guinea, or the West or East Indies, 
are to be supplied with more than this proportion, ' by five tuns for 
every 100 men for each month,' and ships going to the southward 
of 39^ N. latitude are to have double. The cask furnished for foreign 
voyages is to be ' as good as those used in merchant ships on the 
same voyages,' and the contractors are to supply more than the 
proportion thus fixed, without extra payment, if ordered to do so 
by the navy board, provided that the cask supplied in the whole 
year to all the ships does not exceed the limits fixed by the 
contract. The water-cask delivered by the victuallers shall be 
delivered full of ' such good, sweet, fresh water as is commonly 
made use of at the ports where the said cask are issued,' but they 
are to be paid for freight and labour what shall be 'judged reason- 
able ' by the navy board. 

The arrangements for issuing the victuals were somewhat 
complicated, and appear to have been designed to prevent pursers 
having command of cash. Victuals to be spent at sea were 
to be issued by the warrant of * the lord high admiral, or lords 
of the admiralty for the time b2ing,' or of three or more of 
the navy board, or of * the commander in* chief of a fleet or 
squadron,' or of ' the particular commander of any ship in cases 
not admitting of the time requisite for procuring any of those 
before recited.' Victuals to be spent in harbour ' by the extra- 
ordinary ' were to be issued on the warrant of * the clerk of the 
check of the port where the same is to be issued,' and * by the 
ordinary ' on that of ' the clerk of the check and master attendant, 
where any is.' The victuals named in the warrants are to be 
delivered by the contractors in kind, unless the captain or master 
of the ship ' shall under his hand certify . . . the incapacity of 
his ship to receive the same,' in which case, * and that only,' they 
are to be allowed to make up the warrant * by such credits as shall 
be readily answered unto them ... at the very next victualling 
port where the same shall 'be demanded,' unless the ship so 
victualled be intended for foreign service, ' in which case, and that 
only, the purser shall receive from the said victuallers ready 


money ' for so much of the victualling as the navy board shall ' by 
warrant under their hands ' direct. 

Victuals thus issued by warrant were to be delivered at the 
ship's side within twenty-four hours after demand, without charge 
to the king. The ship's company were to assist in the unloading 
of the hoys and lighters, and the king was liable for demurrage 
if these were detained above five * working days ' in delivering sea 
victuals, and one day for harbour victuals, ' from the time of their 
arrival to the king's ships.' The master of the hoy or lighter was 
entitled to a receipt from the purser or steward ' for the just 
quantity of victuals delivered by him.' For the purpose of this 
delivery of victuals, however, the king's ships were required to be 
' within the limits of the ports from whence the said victuals are to 
be sent,' 

which limits are as followeth, viz. : From Milford unto any place within 
St. Anne's Head ; from Bristol unto Kingroad or Hungroad, or any other 
place where the king's ships usually anchor at ; from Plymouth unto 
the Sound, or any other part of the harbour within the Ramhead and 
Mewstone where ships usually anchor at ; from Portsmouth unto Spithead, 
Stokes Bay, or St. Helen's Pioad ; from Dover unto Dover Road, and into 
the Downs ; from London unto the Buoy of the Nore, and up to 
Chatham ; from Harwich into the Rolling Grounds and Oasely Bay ; from 
Newcastle unto any place within the bar ; from Leith unto Brunt Island 
or within five leagues of Leith to any other place of safety ; from Kinsale 
unto any other place within the Old Head ; from Tangier into the boats of 
the ships which are to be victualled, the said boats lying at the Mole at the 
time of loading, and the crews of the said boats assisting in the taking in 
of the said victuals ; and from Lisbon to the common and usual places 
where merchant ships take in their goods, not further distant from 
Lisbon than Bell Isle. 

If the contractors were required to deliver victuals beyond these 
limits, they were to be entitled to reasonable freights. 

The victuallers undertook to keep ' a constant store or staple of 
sea-provisions ' to answer emergencies, for 4,000 men for two months 
of twenty-eight days each — for 2,700 men at the port of London, 
and for 1,300 men at the port of Portsmouth. This distribution 
might be altered from year to year by the navy board by a declara- 
tion made for the following year by or before 15 Oct. in the year 
preceding, 'or the former distribution to stand; ' but the victuallers 
were not to be required to supply from this magazine more than 
once in one year. In addition to this ' staple,' they were to 
provide ' such further quantities of sea-provisions in any of the 
ports whose limits are before mentioned, and in such proportions 
in each port as shall be yearly declared ' by the navy board for the 
following year by or before 15 Oct. in each year ; and again, 
* what further quantities shall at any other time in like manner 
be required ' at fourteen days' notice by an additional declara- 




tion made any time before 31 Dec, and at twenty-eight days' notice 
if made within the victualling year itself. The victuals provided 
under these ' declarations ' were to be provided m such manner 
that the king's ships would not be forced 'to stay above 48 
hours (wind and weather permitting) for any part of the provisions 
in any of the ports so annually declared for ; ' provided that warrants 
for the victualling of each ship be sent to the contractors at the 
same time as the ship is ordered to be fitted for sea, and that they 
receive notice from the captain of the ship, ' or any master 
attendant or clerk of the check,' when the ship is * in areadiness 
to receive ' the victuals. If any * extraordinary occasion ' should 
arise, the victuallers undertook, over and above the ' staple ' or 
reserve for 4,000 men, to supply additional victuals at the afore- 
said ports after twenty-eight days' notice in writing from the navy 
board up to the value of 60,000/., provided that ' this credit ... is 
not to be given . . . more than once in any one year.' 

The * charges of wastes and losses of all victuals ' within the 
limits of the ports were to be borne by the contractors, except in 
cases where they were able ' by the oath of two credible persons ' to 
* charge the occasion of that waste or damage upon the king or his 
officers ; ' and waste arising at sea was also to be borne by them if 
it was ' other than the ordinary waste,' and due to the badness of the 
cask the victuallers themselves had supplied. 

The arrangements in the contract for keeping the victualling 
accounts were very elaborate. The victuallers were to ' bring ' 
quarterly or half-yearly to the navy board an account of the victuals 
issued by them during that period, ' together with the several 
warrants by which they issued tho same, and the indents or receipts 
of the respective pursers or stewards,' which ' for more certainty' were 
to be after a set form of words.'^'* They were also to send duplicates 

'" 'I , purser of his Majesty's ship , do acknowledge to 

have received of R. B., S. V., and J. P., victuallers of his Majesty's Navy at the port of 

, a compleat proportion of good and wholesome sea-victuals for 

men days, beginning the day of and ending the 

day of in the manner following, viz. — 




Whereof :— 
III water- 
cask . 
lu UnUe. 
Ill money 
By credit 


Beef IPorke Pease Fish 



Pieeesj n 

O Sised Lbs. 





^«' Sy 

with which victuals, money, and credit before mentioned, I doe oblige myselfe to 
victuall (according to his Majesty's allowance) the said number of men for the said 


of these indents to the comptroller of the victuallmg, ' viz. within 
seven days after its date for what shall be delivered in London, 
Harwich, Dover, and Portsmouth, and three days after their . . . 
receiving any from remoter ports.' With these materials before 
them the navy board were to ' forthwith examine and make up ' the 
victualler's account. In addition to this, a general account of all 
issues was to be stated every twelve months, in which were to 
Ic ' expressly included ' all extraordinary demands to be made 
by the victuallers * upon the account of any service by them 
done, or charge or loss by them sustained or otherwise within 
the preceding twelve months,' and the navy board and the auditors 
of the imprests were empowered ' from time to time upon their 
passing the accounts ... to give and make allowance for all such 
extraordinary services.' The accounts having been thus adjusted, 
any balance due on either side was then to be paid. 

The victuallers were authorised by their contract to * have the 
use and occupying of his majesty's brewhouses, bakehouses, mills, 
granaries, and storehouses, as well at the Tower hill as at Dover, 
Portsmouth, Eochester, and Kingsale in Ireland, with all the 
grounds, profits, or commodities to them or any of them belonging or 
appertaining,' on condition that they kept them in good repair and 
paid ' such rents as were heretofore paid his majesty ; ' but * one 
convenient room ' was to be reserved at each place * for the use of 
such person as his majesty, or the lord high admiral, or lords 
commissioners for executing the said office for the time being, shall at 
any time hereafter see fit to appoint for the inspecting or otherwise 
attending to the business of the victualling.' 

In case of provisions duly provided by the contractors according 
to declaration, and then not used ' by reason of the sudden discharge 
of the mariners or otherwise,' the loss was to be borne by the con- 
tractors unless the amount exceeded victuals for 4,000 men for two 
months ; in that case the king was to allow the contractors three- 
half -pence a man jjc/- diem on the victuals then left upon their hands 
over and above this limit, but he was to have the option of pur- 
chasing them at the ordinary contract rates. These were fixed at 
' 6d. a day for harbour victuals and 7|rf. a day for sea-victuals ; but 
' for every man's allowance to be spent ' to the southward of the 
Canary Islands, or of 27° N. latitude, 8d. a day, as also for victuals 
put on board at Tangier or Lisbon. This fixed payment was for 
whole proportions, as ordinarily served on board ships victualling 
for sea. 'Broken provisions' were only to be issued 'upon 

time.' The indent was to be dated ' in words at length, and not in figures,' by the 
purser who was to sign it, and ' the provisions which are therein mentioned to be 
upon credit, shall be repeated at the bottom or on the back side of the said Indent, 
and against each of the said species the true quantity thereof which was not delivered 
in kind, but remains to be made good by credit.' 



extraordinary accidents,' under special warrant, and then they 
were to be charged according to the following tariff : — 

For the Seas to the i For Gulnny, East and VTcst 

For the Harbour 

Northward of tlie Indies, Tangier, Lisbon, 
Canarys, or 37 degree and for Ships Victualled iu 
[nfc] of Nortli Latitude , the Mediterranean 

Bread, per lb. . 




Beer, per tun . 

£1 Is. dd. 

£2 lis. 3d. 

£2 lis. 3d. 

Beef, per 4-lb. piece . 




Pork, per 2-lb. piece 




Pease, per bushel 

3s. id. 

is. 5d. 1 55. 

Fish, sized 




Butter, per lb. . 



Cheese, per lb. . 



2|d. and I farthing. 

Beveridge, per tun . 

. . • • 


i-lO 5s. Od. 

. : 6/- 

Rice, per lb. . 

• • • . 

. 2\d. and i farthing. 

Oyle, per lb. . 

. Sid. 

In the matter of payment the king makes promises with some- 
thing more than his usual zeal. For ' the better encouraging ' the 
victuallers * to undergo the said service ' they shall * have and receive 
infallibly (by God's assistance), the last day of every month . . . out 
of the money payable upon receipt of his majesty's exchequer by the 
commissioners or farmers of his majesty's Great Customs . . . the 
sum of £467, which is the sum that the harbour victuals of his 
majesty's ships in ordinary will probably amount unto ; ' and for 
the annual declaration for sea and petty warrant victuals * by 10 
equal monthly payments without any imprest advanced, and October 
to be reputed the first month of the ten.' Supplementary declara- 
tions were also to be paid monthly in so many equal portions as 
there remain months in the year unexpired after the supplementary 
declaration was made. Victuals issued from the * staple ' or reserve 
were to be paid for on demand. Eemains at the end of a voyage 
were to be fetched away by the contractors, who were to allow 
the king for them three-quarters of the price originally paid. 
These might be served out again to ships in ordinary by consent of 
the navy board, but in no case to ships in sea-victuals. The contract 
was to begin from 1 Jan. 1677-8, and was to continue indefinitely, 
with a year and a quarter's notice on either side. During its 
continuance the contractors were to have a monopoly, since * no 
other persons ' (except as provided in the separate contract for the 
Mediterranean) were to * intrude or meddle with ' the victualling, 
unless through their failure. 

An important clause in the contract, and apparently a novel one, 
provided that 

forasmuch as the said [contractors] are to bear the over prices, waste, and 
losses of all victuals, and all charges incident thereunto, his majesty doth 
agree that they shall have one servant or deputy (if they think good) in 
each ship that his majesty setteth out unto the seas, to be entered by the 


clerk of the check into victuals and wages, as one of the ship's company, 
in the capacity aforesaid, and to be well used and entreated, to the end 
that if they think fit he may see to and direct the orderly stowage and 
expending of the provision of victuals, and witness such wastes and losses 
as shall fall out at sea. 

They were also empowered by another clause, 

as often as the want thereof shall appear to the lord high admiral, or 
lords commissioners appointed for executing the place of lord high 
admiral, or the principal oflficers and commissioners of the navy ... to 
impress such labourers and artificers, and also such carts, ships, hoys, 
lighters, boats, and other vessels for the land and water carriage, as his 
majesty's service shall from time to time require, they paying unto each 
of them such hire, wages, and freight, as shall be at the same time com- 
monly given for the same by other merchants and tradesmen. 

Th6 elaborate provision in the contract for the proper packing 
and weighing of the victuals is curious. No beer was to be issued 
but in such casks as have been measured by a sworn ganger ; and 
flour casks are to be * wind and water tight.' The contractors under- 
took that their beef and pork * shall always hold out such weight as 
that every 28 pieces of beef cut for 4-lb. pieces, took out of the 
cask as they rise, and the salt shaken off it, shall weigh 100 lb. 
averdupois weight ; and every 56 pieces of bacon or salted pork 
cut for 2-lb. pieces, and took out of its cask and shaken as in the 
beef, shall weigh 104 lb. neat averdupois.' In case of shortness 
of weight, the purser shall be empowered to make allowance to 
the seamen in money, and the contractors shall * make present 
satisfaction to the purser without delay in the next victualling 
port where it shall be demanded.' The contractors also agree to 
supply only 4-lb. and 2-lb. pieces, ' and that at no time there shall 
be any unusual pieces put up with the other flesh, or apart for the 
use of the ships' companies, such as leg bones, shins of oxen, or 
the cheeks of hogs, or ox-hearts ; ' ^^"^ and undertake to allow the 
navy board * at all times to survey the flesh slaughtered for the use 
of his majesty's navy before the same be cut into mess-pieces, and 
to refuse such thereof as shall be found unfit ... by leanness, 
or unfirmness, or measliness in the pork, or any other bad quality 
in the flesh.' 

Although the Mediterranean victualling is not included in the 
contract of 1677, it was provided that after 31 Dec. 1678, 
when Sir Thomas Clutterbuck's contract expired, '^^ this also would 
be taken over by the ordinary victuallers at the rates of the 
ordinary contract. But for this purpose, instead of 1 lb. of 

"" Cf. complaiats of this in Hollond's Bhcoumcs (N. 11. S. vii.), 178. 

'*" The contract with Sir Thomas Clutterbuck, dated 31 Dec. 1674, is entered in 
Naval Precedents (p. 455), as also a supplemental contract (p. 473), by which it was 
amended, on 19 Feb. 1676-7. 


biscuit they were to supply 1 lb. of rusk, 'equal in fineness 
to the biscuit that is to be issued in England ; ' instead of one 
gallon of beer, ' one quart of good, well-conditioned beverage wine of 
Naples, Provence, Turkey, Zanto, or other places whose wine is of 
like goodness, without mixture, and of such strength as that it shall 
be able to preserve the water from stinking when three times the 
quantity of the wine shall be added to it in water, together with so 
much water as shall be commonly mixed with the said wine 
at the time when it is used by the seamen ; ' instead of 1 pint of 
pease, 1 pint Winchester measure of * figolas ; ' instead of a piece 
of beef, 3 lb. of flour and 1 lb. of raisins * not worse than 
Malaga,' or in lieu of raisins, ^ lb. of currants, or ^ lb. of ' beef 
suet pickled,' for one day in each week, * the captain of the ship 
approving thereof ; ' instead of an eighth part of a sized fish, ^ lb. 
of Milan rice, or a fourth part of a stockfish at least 16 inches 
long, or 1 lb. of * well savoured Poor John ; ' and one quarter 
and half a quarter of a pint of sweet olive oil, in lieu of 2 ounces of 
butter and 4 ounces of Suffolk cheese. The rate at which these 
victuals were to be supplied was fixed at 8d. a man per day. In Sir 
Thomas Clutterbuck's contract the rate was 8|rf. In case of 
disputes arising between the victuallers and the king's officers 
concerning matters for which the contract did not provide, the 
contracting parties pledged themselves to abide by 'the ancient 
practice of the navy in that case, the said practice to be reckoned 
from before the eighteenth year of the reign of his late majesty 
of blessed memory.' 

The credit of this improved contract of 1677 was claimed by 
Pepys,'^** and if the victuallers failed to carry out their engagements 
it was certainly not for want of precision or minuteness in the legal 
instrument by which they were bound. But Pepys also notes '^^ 
the fatal connexion between unpunctual payment and a bad supply. 

Bad payment of the victuallers and other contractors (he writes) has 
always been made use of and prevailed in excuse for every failure of 
theirs wherein the service suffered ; and yet has entitled them to get 
payment afterwards, when those failures and the consequences were slipt 
out of mind, or at least might be extenuated ; or the heads of the king's 
officers full of other business, or otherwise tempted not to make the most 
of them, and in the meantime under those necessities of the king's 
service anything is accepted instead of good, because the service must be 
suppHed, and better was not to be had. 

Pepys himself appears to have expected much from the new- 
contract. In a long letter of 19 Nov. 1677, written to Sir John 
Narborough in the Mediterranean/'^" he speaks of the 'great 

••» • I was the first that took the pains to bring the victualling contract to what it 
now is ' (Naval Minutes, p. 61). 

'** ^*^' P- 95. '»» Adm. Letters, vi. 228. 


assurance ' given by the new contract ' that his majesty's service 
shall be no more liable to any disappointment upon the score of 
victualling,' and meets Sir John Narborough's complaints of * the 
want of necessary money to the pursers, as also for beverage wine 
and allowance for the sick and wounded,' and the ' ships being 
pestered with the pipestaves, through victuallers' agents at 
Tangiers his refusing to discharge the ships of them,' by urging 
that these ' are but several branches of that greater defect about 
the victualling of the navy, which his majesty and my lords of the 
admiralty do look on as thoroughly provided against by their 
coming to a new contract.' But an administrator of Pepys's 
experience of the methods of the navy can scarcely have been sur- 
prised to find his own expectations in this matter unfulfilled. The 
first serious complaint of delay is dated 11 March 1677-8 ; *^' on 
13 May we hear of the badness of the victuals supplied '^^ — ' the 
serving of the king's ships with shanks, which,' saysPepys,'-^^ ' (as I 
remember) have always been excepted against, and yet if my 
information be true, no less than 21 leggs was found in 68 pieces 
of beef lately delivered on board the Cambridge, and bread so 
mouldy as that within 5 or 6 days' time the poor men were 
forced to cut away above one-third of it before it was fit to be 
eaten, by reason of its mouldiness.' On 26 July there was a 
further complaint of delay, and of the * ill quality of the brandy ' 
supplied ; ^^* on 7 August Pepys writes to the navy board •''* that he 
is ' extremely sorry to meet with such daily complaints touching 
the badness of the provisions sent on board his majesty's ships,' 
and refers to a letter just received from one of the captains, * com- 
plaining of the badness not only of his beer but his other pro- 
visions, and setting forth the very ill effects thereof upon the 
healths of his njen.' At the end of the year, in another letter to 
the navy officers, Pepys refers to the ' backwardness ' of the 
victuallers as ' that great point which gives both you and me so 
much pain,' ''" and again as ' matter of mighty affliction ' to 
himself. '-^^ 

In the year following matters were even worse. In March 
1679 Sir Eobert Robinson's fleet for the west was delayed * many 
days ' at Portsmouth, which led Pepys to declare : * I know not how 
possibly to lament enough the wretched state his majesty's service 
must be in while it lies under this uncertainty of being supplied 
with stores and provisions ' at this port, and to admit at the same 
time ' the yet greater uncertainty of . . . meeting with any despatch 
at Plymouth.' ^'^^ On 26 March the victuallers are informed that 
* his majesty and my lords of the admiralty ' have * taken solemn 

"' Adtn. Letters, vi. 422. "^ Jbid. vii. 151. 

'^' P. 153. '" P. 391. '" Adm. Letters, viii. 15. 

'*« Ibid. viii. 365. '" Ibid. viii. 370. '" Ibid. ix. 140, 142. 


notice of the great delays daily met with,' notwithstanding the 
* frequent soUcitations ' of the navy board, and that they have 
appointed a meeting at eight o'clock in the morning * expressly for 
receiving what satisfaction ' the victuallers * shall be then prepared 
to give them in reference to ' the * said delays.' '-^^ What the result 
of this desperate measure was we do not know, and Pej^ys went 
out of office in May ; but it is clear from many of the references 
in the ' Admiralty Letters ' that the main cause of the trouble was 
want of money, and this was not removed. 

The period 1673-9 witnessed certain attempts to effect an im- 
provement in naval discipline. An abuse of very long standing had 
been the taking of merchants' goods in the king's ships. This had 
been noticed by Slyngesbie in 1660 as an abuse * lately much 
practised,' which made it easy for the officers to sell the king's stores 
under the pretence that they were merchandise ; to waste time in the 
ports which ought to be spent at sea ; to so fill the ship's hold 
*that they have no room to throw by their chests and other 
cumbersome things upon occasion of fight, whereby the gun decks 
are so encumbered that they cannot possibly make so good an 
opposition to an enemy as otherwise they might ; ' and lastly, to 
defraud the custom-house.'^'' The first complaint of the practice in 
the 'Admiralty Letters' is under date 14 Aug. 1674,"^' when 
Pepys observes that the matter has come under the notice of the 
admiralty commission * by common report,' and notes that the 
abuse had grown to such dimensions that the captains not only 
took in and transported merchants' goods, but published before- 
hand * their purpose of so doing upon terms of freight and other 
conditions.' In a later letter '""^ he complains of the difficulty of 
obtaining mformation such as would enable the admiralty to convict 
offenders, and remarks that the merchants themselves* tempted the 
captains to violate their instructions, 'with pretence of want of 
shipping and perishableness of their commodities, to take in their 
goods at under freights.' The king was disposed to take severe 
notice of offenders,"-* and on 3 Nov. 1674 we hear that the 
captain of the ' Deptford ' ketch was removed from his post for an 
aggravated form of this offence, the king being greatly ' moved ' 
thereby."'' Soon after instructions were sent to the consul at 
Genoa, and later to the other principal Mediterranean ports, to 
report any such irregularities as might come under their notice.'" 

In August 1675 a particularly flagrant case of breach of 

'*» Advi. Letters, ix. p. 151. 

"" Hollond's Discotirscs of the Navy (N. li. S. vii.), p. 353. Macaulay describes 
the abuse, but is silent concerning the attempts made to remedy it (History of 
Englaml, i. 148). 

'" Adm. Letters, iii. 276. >« Ibid. iii. 860 (21 Oct. 1674). 

'*» Hid. iii. 367. '•' Ibid. iii. 376, 378. 

'" Ibid. iii. 409 (4 Dec. 1674) ; iv. 11 (1 Feb. 1674-5), 182, 184 (12 July 1675), 254. 



discipline came to light.'^"^ Sir William Poole, a captain of good 
reputation, who was in command of the ' St. David,' continued his 
ship six months in a foreign port, * contrary to the express letter 
of his majesty's orders, without one hour spent by the ship in 
the service of the king, from the time of her arrival there to her 
coming thence, while she might have been of so much use, 
either at home or abroad elsewhere.' During the whole of this 
time he was ' attending upon his own occasions,' and he crowned 
his offence by bringing home merchants' goods. These mis- 
demeanours, when * put together,' ' arose ' in the judgment of the 
king and the lords of the admiralty ' to the most exorbitant in- 
stance of contempt of orders and breach of discipline ' that had 
* yet appeared in the navy.' They therefore * concluded that the 
passing by of a misbehaviour like this could be construed no 
other than the delivering up his Majesty's Honour, Service, and 
Treasure (by the example of it) to irrevocable ruin,' and decided in 
spite of Poole's previous character to make his punishment ' in 
some degree exemplary.* He was therefore offered the choice of 
remaining in custody ' until an opportunity shall fall of making 
. . . defence before, and abiding by the censure of a court-martial, 
which (through the want of commanders) cannot be presently 
called,' or of forfeiting to the king the whole of his pay for the 
voyage, and * making good to the poor of the Chest ' out of his 
own purse the value of the frieght of the merchant goods carried 
by him. The delinquent wisely chose the latter alternative, and 
the money being graciously accepted by the king, an order was 
made for his release. 

The measures taken to check this particular abuse do not 
appear to have been entirely successful, for on 28 July 1678 we 
find Pepys writing to Sir John Narborough in the Mediterranean : — 

I hear so much of our commanders making occasions of going into poit, 
and spending their time between one port and another, that I cannot but 
press you to the having great regard to the discovering and curing that 
evil, as being a matter his majesty's honour and service is much concerned 
in, and yet more in the liberty which some are said to take of coming 
home to England with convoys, without, if not contrary to order."'^ 

The absence of captains from their ships without leave ap- 
pears to have given a good deal of trouble during this period, and 
especially towards the end of it. On 1 Oct. 1673 the lords 

'«« Adm. Letters, iv. 233, 243, 246. 

"" Ibid. vii. 361. In connexion with this the names of Sir William Poole and 
Sir John Ernie are mentioned, though only ' upon bare hearsay.' The prohibition 
against transporting merchants' goods did not extend to money and plate (seesiqrra, 
p. 73), but Pepys was disposed to regret this. On 23 Jan. 1676-7 he writes with 
regard to the ' inconveniency which this trade of carrying plate di'aws upon ' the 
service ; ' For every penny that a poor commander gains this way it were better 
husbandry for his majesty out of his own purse to give him twopence ' (v. 327). 


of the admiralty, then new to their work, and full of reforming 
activity, called the special attention of the navy board to the 
liberty daily taken by commanders, * upon the coming m of the 
fleet, to leave their ships, and stay at their own pleasures on shore,' 
in contravention of the 7th article of the lord high admiral's 
instructions, which forbade the captain during the time of his 
commission * to lie any one night from on board ' his ship, without 
the permission of his superior officer. The board were instructed, 
by ' effectual orders to the clerks of the check, and by all other 
ways,' to see that the captains are * pricked out of pay ' for ab- 
sences from on board, and * for the time to come ' to establish it 
as ' a standing rule in the navy ' that captains 

from the day of their first coming to reside on board be subject to the 
musters of the clerks of the check and muster-masters, and their 
absences from on board noted upon the books in the same manner as the 
absences of the rest of the ship's company arc, and their pay thereupon 

until they can justify themselves by showing that they have acted 
under orders.'''** In another letter of the same date, that passed 
between the same correspondents,"^^ the lords speak of * frequent' 
and pressing instances of * the ill consequences of that liberty 
which we find universally taken by commanders of neglecting 
their duties,' and they again urge upon the navy board the 
necessity of insisting upon a strict compliance with the lord high 
admiral's instructions. The effect of the new arrangements was 
not quite what was desired. On 22 October the lords understand 
that their late orders * obliging the commanders of the king's 
ships to give their due attendance on board by subjecting them to 
be mustered by the clerks of the check and muster -masters,' ' is 
liable in the manner of its being executed to be converted to the 
dimmution of the authority of the commanders, in case they be 
exposed to a public call in common with the rest of the ship's 
company.' They therefore explain their original intention to be 
that the clerks should only inform themselves of the captain's 
absence and note it upon the books, without requiring him * to be 
called and pricked, and thereby by the practice of the navy rendered 
liable to be made " Runn " after the accustomary number of 
absences.' "" On 25 May 1675 the lords of the admiralty observe 
* with much trouble ' that their regulations * are already forgotten ' 
owing to neglect on the part of the clerks of the check, comman- 
ders ' appearing daily in the town ' without leave ; and on 9 July 
Pepys himself * spied ' the captain of the ' Lark * * at a distance saun- 
tering up and down Covent Garden.' ''' Three years later com- 

'" Adtn. Letters, ii. 182. '•» Rid. ii. 184. "• Ibid. ii. 250. 

'" Ibid. iv. 110, 178. 


plaints of this kind became very frequent, and so to the end of 
Pepys's administration. On 24 March 1677-8,'^^ Pepys remarks, 
' I must confess I have never observed so frequent and scandalous 
instances as I do this day by commanders hovering daily about the 
Court and town, though without the least pretence for it,' and sug- 
gests that an example should be made of some offender in the 
hope of checking the evil. Three months later (29 June) '"^ he recurs 
almost passionately to the same subject. 

I would to God (he writes to Sir Thomas Allin) you could offer me 
something that may be an effectual cure to the liberty taken by com- 
manders of leaving their ships upon pretence of private occasions, and 
staying long in town, to the great dishonour of his majesty's serAdce, and 
corrupting the discipline of the navy by their example ; ... it seeming 
impossible as well as unreasonable to keep the door constantly barred 
against commanders desirous of coming to town upon just and pressing 
occasions of their families, and of the other hand no less hard upon the 
king, that his gracious nature as well as his service should be always 
liable to be imposed upon by commanders, as often as their humours, 
pleasures, or (it may be) vices shall incline them to come ashore. Pray 
think of it and help me herein, for, as I shall never be guilty of with- 
standing any gentleman's just occasions and desires in this matter, so I 
shall never be able to sit still and silent under the scandalous liberties 
that I see every day taken by commanders of playing with his majesty's 
service, as if it were an indifferent matter vvhether they give any 
attendance on board their ships, so as they have their wages as if they 

The king seems after this to have taken more than ordinary 
notice '^^ of this kind of delinquency, and letters appear in which 
Pepys himself refuses permission, or gives it grudgingly, to officers 
applying for leave ; '^^ but in April 1679 the lords of the admiralty 
are still * resolving most fervently to rectify this evil with all the 
strictness that may be.' '"^ On this occasion they decided on the 
advice of Pepys that, in future, leave should only be granted under 
the hand of the king, or of the lords themselves, ' I having shown 
them,' he writes, ' that whatever is less than that is too little.' 
Unfortunately for this late decision, a disastrous change in the 
administration of the navy was then close at hand. 

The part taken by the secretary of the admiralty in enforcing 
naval discipline in this and other matters, as it appears in the 
'Admiralty Letters,' although it reveals a condition of great laxness, 
places the character of Pepys as an efficient and vigilant official in 
a favourable light. Corruptible as he had shown himself to be in 
his earlier years in certain directions, he had a high sense of the 
honour of the service, and showed himself at once firm and humane 
in his dealings with those who were not in a position to corrupt 

"- Ad7n. Letters, vi. 480, '"' Ibid. vii. 296. 

"♦ Ibid. ix. 97. '" Ibid. ix. 137, 177, 187. ^'^ Ibid. ix. 220. 


him. He was at some pains to keep himself well informed of the 
proceedings of the captains, urging the navy hoard, where it 
appeared to them that captains were * not so steady in their attend- 
ance on and solicitous for the despatch of their ships fitting forth 
as their duty obligeth them,' to * be at the trouble of advertising' 
him.'" Where breaches of discipline were reported to him he took 
the greatest pains to arrive at the facts, often at considerable trouble 
when the delinquencies occurred in foreign ports,'" and his admoni- 
tions to the offenders, though sometimes rather unctuous, are often in 
the best Pepysian style. 

But, in spite of the personal vigilance and efficiency of the 
secretary to the admiralty, there can be no doubt that the discipline 
of the navy during this period was extraordinarily bad, as was ad- 
mitted by Pepys himself. On 3 Feb. 1674, not very long after he 
had taken office, he had noted 

the universal loss of discipline amongst the seamen of England, to 
the degree of their making no difference between his majesty's service, 
where the want of payment of their wages may in some measure give 
excuse for it, and that of the merchants, where they not only have their 
pay certain but their wages excessive, a vice which I pray God grant I 
may see satisfied before it prove too fatal, not only to his majesty's serncc, 
but to the whole navigation of the country.'"^ 

Five jears after, on 15 April 1679, when his tenure of office was 
about to come to an end, he made use of expressions which diftercd 
from these only in being rather stronger. 

I will discharge my part (he writes) towards his majesty and my lords 
of the admiralty, in the preservation of the good discipline of the navy, as 
long as I shall have the honour of serving them in it, by making due 
representations of any violences I see offered to it, whereof (God knows) 
few days together escape without some fresh instances, and as few of 
them without giving me fresh censure and disquiet for mynoncompliance 
with them, even to the rendering my employment as truly burdensome to 
me as others (who know not this) make it the subject of their envy.'*"* 

That this was partly due, as far as the ordinary seamen were 
concerned, to bad payment is suggested by Pepys himself, and is 
consistent with what we know of the period that preceded this. But, 
as the cases already quoted will serve to show, the break- 
down of discipline in the Restoration period not only affected the 
seamen, but also the higher ranks of the service, and it was impos- 
sible to keep the officers up to a reasonable standard of conscien- 
tiousness in the discharge of their duties. In fact, so deeply did the 
disease strike down into the system of the navy, that in 1679 no 
less a person than Sir Eobert Robinson refused to answer concern- 
ing the misdemeanours of one of his captains, when applied to 

'" Advt. Letters, iv. 191. '■» Ibid. v. 281, 329. See also vi. 51. 

«••• Ibid. iii. 78. ■» Ibid. ix. 203. 


by Pepys with a view to a reprimand from headquarters ; where- 
upon that official remarked, with some force, that it was ' very Kttle 
to he hoped that sobriety and good discipUne should ever be sup- 
ported in a fleet where those in chiefest trust are either unwilling 
or afraid of detecting even their inferiors in their misdoings ; ' 'be- 
sides,' he added, ' it goes a great way with me towards the lessening 
the credit of persons in their certifying for the virtues and to the 
benefit of those they would advance, when I find them in other cases 
desirous to conceal the vices of those that are already in employ- 
ments.' '^^ 

There is reason for thinking that the decay of discipline in the 
Eestoration period is associated to a certain extent with the 
practice of appointing ' gentlemen captains ' without experience to 
important commands at sea. The matter is discussed by Macaulay 
with exaggerated picturesqueness ; '^^ Pepys makes allusion to it in 
the 'Diary,' '*'^ and a Eestoration paper printed in Charnock's ' Marine 
Architecture ' '*' very much shocks that author by its * illiberal and 
improper observations ' on the subject. He admits, however, that 
' there certainly appears much truth and solidity in the general prin- 
ciple of them,' though * it might have been wished for the sake of 
decency and propriety he had conveyed his animadversions in some- 
what less vulgar terms.' The writer, Mr. Gibson, * whose opinion ap- 
pears to have been specially asked by government,' traces every kind 
of evil to the year 1660, when ' gentlemen came to command in the 
navy.' These * have had the honour to bring drinking, gameing, 
whoring, swearing, and all impiety into the navy, and banish all 
order and sobriety out of their ships ; ' they have cast their ships 
away for want of seamanship ; they have habitually delayed in 
port when they should have been at sea ; a gentleman captain 
will bring * near 20 landmen into the ship as his footmen, tailor, 
barber, fiddlers, decayed kindred, volunteer gentleman or acquaint- 
ance, as companions,' and these ' are of bishop Williams's opinion, 
that Providence made man to live ashore, and it is necessity that 
drives him to sea ; ' the gentleman captain * destroys his breed of 
seamen by casualties of his own making ; ' and so the author works 
up in a leisurely fashion to his conclusion— that ' the Crown will at 
all times be better able to secure trade, prevent the growth of the 
naval strength of our enemy, with £100,000 under a natural sea 
admiralty and seaman captains, . . . than with three times that 
sum under land admirals and gentlemen captains not bred tar- 
paulins.' And the same point is made by Pepys at the close of the 
period under review. In a letter to Sir John Holmes of 15 April 

'" Adin. Letters, viii. 459 ; ix. 44. '^^ History of England, i. 147-9. 

'^' On 2 June 1663, quoting Coventry, he writes : ' The more of the Cavaliers are 
put in, the less of discipline hath followed in the fleet ; ' and again, on 27 July 1666 
he notes the ' unruliness of the young genteel captains.' '^^ Pp. Ixxiv-xcv. 


1679,'"'' he notes that certain officers whom he had had occasion to 
reprimand were uttering ' small menaces ' against him as ' an 
enemy to gentlemen captains,' and takes trouble to repudiate the 
accusation ; but he appears to agree with the view expressed in the 
House of Commons, that one of the * present miscarriages ' of the 
navy is that ' employment and favour are now bestowed wholly 
upon gentlemen, to the great discouragement of tarpawlings of 
Wapping and Blackwall, from whence . . . the good commanders 
of old were all used to be chosen.' In another letter to the same 
correspondent, dated 18 April,' ^^ he writes of * that distinction so 
much laboured to be kept up by some between gentlemen and 
tarpawling commanders, and the liberty taken by the first of 
thinking themselves above the necessity of obeying orders, and 
conforming themselves to the rules and discipline of the navy, in 
reliance upon the protection secured to them therein through the 
quality of their friends at Court.' Pepys himself was probably an 
impartial witness, for he was denounced by each side for favouring 
the other.'"" 

It is in a way remarkable that it is during the period of these 
complaints against gentlemen captains that we come upon the first 
establishment of an examination for lieutenants. Towards the end 
of 1677 complaints reached the admiralty from Sir John Narborough, 
commandingin theMediterranean, of ' the defectiveness of lieutenants 
in their seamanship.' The king and the lords of the admiralty 're- 
flected ' for some time upon the importance of this information, and 
eventually decided for 

a method to be established for the examining and approving of the fitness 
of persons to take upon them the office of lieutenant before any be 
admitted thereto ; lieutenants having hitherto been brought into the 
navy without either any certain assignment of what is their duty, or any 
enquiry beforehand into their qualifications to perform it when they know 
it, but for the most part by mere sohcitations of friends, or the kindness 
of commanders.'*® 

The result of this was the formal adoption, on 22 Dec. 1677, 
of a regular establishment ' for ascertaining the duty of a sea- 
lieutenant, and for examining persons pretending to that office,' 
which had been drawn up in the first instance by Pepys himself, 
and was adopted by the authorities, apparently without substantial 
alteration.'**'-' This, as copied into the ' Naval Precedents,* '^° points 
out the special importance of a proper qualification for a heutenant, 
inasmuch as the supreme command of the ship might devolve 
upon him through the sickness or death of the captain, and 
then proceeds to lay down formal instructions, of the same kind 
as those already in existence to describe the whole duty of the 

'" Adm. Letters, ix. 206. '»« Ibid. ix. 214. ^" Ibid. ix. 242-3. 

"" Ibid. \i. 231, 2G4. *»^ Ibid. vi. 256. >»• P. 241. 



captain of a ship. Lieutenants are to obey the captain's orders ; 
are not to go on shore without leave ; are to take charge of the 
ship in the captain's absence ; are to keep a journal, and send a 
copy of it to the secretary of the admiralty at the end of the 
voyage ; to inform the captain of all * misdemeanours and neglects ' 
of any of the under officers ; and not to expect any pay until the 
navy board have certified their satisfaction to the treasurer of the 
navy. The establishment also set up a system of qualifications 
for candidates. A lieutenant was required to have served three 
years actually at sea, * after abatement made for all intervals of 
voyages,' and of this one year at least must have been as an 
ordinary midshipman ; he must be under twenty years of age at 
the time of admission to the lieutenancy ; he must produce * good 
certificates ' from the captains under whom he had served of his 
* sobriety, diligence, obedience to order,' and * application to the 
study and practice of the art of navigation ; ' and he was also 
required to produce certificates from three persons — a member of 
the navy board who had served as a commander, a flag-officer, and a 
captain of a first or second rate — ' upon a solemn examination,' held 
at the office of the navy, of ' his ability to judge of and perform the 
duty of an able seaman and midshipman, and his having attained 
to a sufficient degree of knowledge in the theory of navigation 
capacitating him thereto.' If the necessity should arise for con- 
stituting a lieutenant at sea, the appointment was to be made by 
the admiral, but the person selected was first to be examined by 
three of the principal captains, and their certificates, together with 
other evidence of fitness, were to be transmitted to the secretary of 
the admiralty for his inspection. There are a good many illustrations 
of the practical working of this system among the * Admiralty 
Letters.' The candidate's application was made in the first instance 
to the navy board, who themselves summoned the examiners' meet- 
ing.'^' Candidates were sometimes ploughed ; ''■'^ thus, as Pepys 
notes in a letter of 29 March 1678,'^^ it was an encouragement to 
the * true-bred seaman,' and greatly to the benefit of the king's 
service ; * for I thank God,' he says, 'we have not half the throng 
of those of the bastard breed pressing for employment which we 
heretofore used to be troubled with, they being conscious of their 
inability to pass the examination, and know it to be to no purpose 
now to solicit for employment till they have done it.' 

To about the same date as the examination of lieutenants 
(December 1677) belongs another minor reform — an establishment 
for the better provision of chaplains to serve in the navy. The 
first step in this direction appears to have been taken in April or 
May 1677, when the king and the lords of the admiralty resolved 

'*' Adm. Letters, vi. 302-3. The form of summons is copied into the book. 
'"* Ibid. vii. 4. '»« Ibid. vii. 17. 



* that no persons shall he entertained as chaplains on board his 

majesty's ships but such as shall be approved of by the Lord Bishop 

of London.' '" The proposal originated in the first instance with 

Pepys, who designed it to remedy * the ill-efifects of the looseness 

wherein that matter lay, with respect both to the honour of God 

Almighty, and the preservation of sobriety and good discipline in 

his majesty's fleet.' ''^' By the practice of the navy the chaplain 

was borne as one of the ship's complement, and captains were 

encouraged to nominate their own chaplains for the bishop of 

London's approval ; failing such nomination the choice was made 

by him.'^ In the first instance, the archbishop of Canterbury was 

named as an alternative to the bishop of London, but he did not act.'"^ 

On 15 Dec. 1677 the details of this reform in the matter of 

chaplains were worked out much more fully by resolutions adopted 

on the admiralty board.'^'* In future chaplains were only to be 

admitted on board in that capacity, and to enjoy pay in virtue of a 

special royal warrant on their behalf. This warrant was to be 

issued only to such persons as first delivered to the secretary of the 

admiralty, ' for his majesty's satisfaction,' a written certificate, 

under the hand of either the archbishop of Canterbury or the 

bishop of London for the time being, testifying to the * piety, 

learning, conformity, and other the qualifications of the said 

person fitting him for the said charge.' In order to secure the 

appointment of a chaplain on board every ship going to sea, the 

secretary of the admiralty was to * tiraelily signify ' to either of the two 

prelates the names and rates of the ships appointed for the sea, 

the numbers of men to be borne on them, and the names of their 

respective commanders, * in order to their lordships proposing to his 

majesty fitting persons as chaplains ; ' 

provided always that where the commander of any of the said ships shall 
make it his humble suit to his majesty that a particular person who hath 
been at any time within the space of three years before approved of and 
certified for by either of the lords the bishops beforenamed may be 
appointed to the place of chaplain on board his said ship ... in that case 
the said commander shall be gratified in the choice of his chaplain, 

and the royal warrant shall be issued without any fresh approval or cer- 
tificate being required. The establishment was confirmed by James II 

'•• Adm. Letters, vi. 3. 

•" Ibid. vi. 18, 45. See also vi. 19, and Naval Minutes, p. 81. Pepys 
also takes credit for remedying an abuse of long standing by which the ' moneys 
arising out of the seamen's contribution for a chaplain, upon ships where (by 
the remissness or impiety of the commander) no chaplain is provided,' were 
appropriated by the captain himself. By an establishment which in 1677 was already 
of long standing and strictly observed, these were to go instead to the Clerk of the 
Poor at Chatham. On the method of the 'seamen's contribution,' see Hollond's 
Discourses of tlie Navy {N. R. S. vii.), 347-8. This 4d. a month was over and above 
an ordinary seaman's pay {Naval Precedents, p. ICl). 

"• Adm. Letters, vi. 36, 209 ; vii. 143 -4. i»» Jbid. vi. 139. 

•»• Naval Precedents, p. 101. 


on 13 March 1686-7, with thes ubstitution of the bishop of Dur- 
ham for the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London.'^^ 
The general control of the bishop of London over naval chaplains 
was recognised in a quaint and unexpected fashion towards the close 
of 1678. Sir Robert Eobinson's chaplain preached a sermon with 
which Sir Eobert Robinson was greatly pleased, and accordingly he 
sent it up to Pepys for presentation to the bishop of London. Pepys, 
foreseeing, perhaps, the tide of sermons that would begin to flow 
towards Fulham if this one were accepted, did his best for the bishop, 
and that as courteously as might be. 

As for your chaplain's sermon (he writes ^°° in a letter which does not miss 
the more subtle humours of the situation), were it fit for me to give him 
advice, it would be that he would not have it exposed to my lord Bishop's 
perusal and censure till it were fairer writ, and writ more correctly, this being 
done so slightly as to its manner of writing, and with so many blotts, inter- 
lineations, false spelling, and wrong pointing, that I doubt, besides the 
prejudice the author may receive to his credit, the Bishop may think 
himself a little neglected in his having it presented to him in noe better 
Dresse, and with so many errata's. Upon which consideration I shall, in 
friendship to him, and out of respect to you, respite the offering of it to 
my lord Bpp., until upon conferring with your chaplain I hear again 
from you about it, I being mightily of opiniou that he should either have 
it sent him back from me to Portsmouth, there to have it well corrected 
by himself, and got more fairly and legibly wrote, or committed to some 
friend of his own order and acquaintance in town, who may have leisure 
to see it done for him. Nor do I hink the gentleman will receive any 
considerable delay by this means to the satisfaction you and he expect 
from its being published, in regard that it is so busy a time here in 
Parliament, and matters of so much importance there under debate, that 
were the sermon now in my lord Bishop's hand, I cannot expect his lord- 
ship's being at leisure to overlook it till some of those matters be passed, 
and our sitting in Parliament adjourned, which I suppose it may for some 
little time be at Christmas, which is now at hand. In which last con- 
sideration I do upon second thoughts think it best (for saving of time) to 
send it you back again without expecting your answer hereto, forasmuch 
as you may return it up to town again by the very next post, in case the 
author shall think fit to commit it to some friend here. 

The ' Admiralty Letters ' contain a good deal of correspondence 
during this period that bears on one of the important questions of 
the day — the use of the press. The right to press sailors was a 
prerogative inherent in the crown, which had not been called in 
question ; but it was very unpopular, and was not exercised during 
our period except under the pressure of necessity. On 9 June 1677, 
Pepys, in refusing further press warrants, refers to the ' clamour ' 
which would be ' raised upon it, as if the pressing of men and 
interruption of trade thereby were unnecessarily continued,' ^*" and 

»»» Naval Precedents, p. 163. ^"^ Adm. Letters, viii. 432. 

*"' Adm. Letters, vi. 52. See also iii. C6; vi. 330, et passim. 



similar allusions are frequent throughout the correspondence. 
It is clear that when the council decided to press they did so very 
reluctantly, and with public opinion always before their eyes.**" 
The right to press seamen was as a rule reserved for time of war. 
In time of peace it was used very sparingly, and on foreign 
voyages only,*'' nor was it regarded as ' a laudable thing ' to need 
it.*^ It appears to have been allowed twice only during the period. 
In September 1677 the number of desertions was so great that press 
warrants were issued in time of peace to enable commanders to 
repair their losses ; ^^"^ and again at the close of the same year a 
memorial was presented by the lords of the admiralty to the council 
table urging the necessity of a press for the Mediterranean fleet, 
* whose commanders, after all means used for gaining of volunteers, 
do declare their incapacity of manning the said ships (through 
the greatness of the employment and heighth of wages given by 
the merchants at this day) without power of impresting.' ^^ 

Before the pressing of seamen could begin, the case for the use 
of the press had to be considered in the privy council, and a 
warrant to be issued from the council to the lords of the admiralty 
empowering them to give authority by warrant to individual captains 
to make up their complements by this means.'^"^ But other persons 
also received press warrants and were recognised as authorities for 
this purpose. In 1673 men were requisitioned from Watermen's 
Hall, collected by the ' rulers ' of the Hall at the Tower, and shipped 
ofif to the fleet on which they were to serve.'"^* At the same time 
men pressed in the west country were collected at Plymouth by the 
vice-admiral of Devon,2°^ and warrants were issued through the 
navy board to the bargemen for the Thames about Reading, 
Windsor, and Henley, care being taken to place the warrants * into 
the discretest of the hands you can choose for the execution of 
them.' *'° In 1678 we find proposals for a contract for pressing 
allowed by the king and the lords of the admiralty, subject to the 
approval of the navy board, though it is not clear whether it was 
actually signed and put into practice.^'' 

Seamen were liable to press in time of war, but it must not be 
forgotten that artificers and labourers were liable to be pressed 
into the service of the navy in time of peace also. The victuallers 
had been * in all times ' authorised, by virtue of a special clause in 

»- Ibid. vi. 237 ; viii. 124, et lyassim. »' Ibid. iv. 272. 

*•' Ibid. iii. 362. »* Ibid. vi. 178, 181. *•• Ibid. vi. 249. 

»' Ibid. vi. 52, 76, 78. »» Ibid. ii. 11. »» Ibid. ii. 13. 

*'• Ibid. ii. 17. 

*" Ibid. vii. 90. Bj these proposals James Dunbar, owner of the ' Mary ' of 
London, 40 tons, was to be employed ' for the impresting and carrying of seamen for 
his majesty's navy.' He was to be allowed 22 seamen, 6 guns, small arms, ' and 
other necessaries,' and was to receive ISl. a month and a capitation fee of 2s. 6 d 
' for every seaman which he shall so imprest, . . . which shall not be under the 
nnmber of 800 at least.' 


their contract, to press * workmen and carriages of all sorts.' ^'^ 
Under a statute passed at the beginning of the reign ^'^ carriages and 
horses might be taken by warrant of the lord high admiral, or two 
principal oflScers of the navy, or the master or lieutenant of ordnance, 
acting through two justices of the peace in the localities concerned, 
for the transport of timber and other provisions for the navy or 
ordnance by land, at a fixed rate of Is. a load per mile for timber 
and 8d. a ton per mile for other provisions ; and under the same 
statute ships and hoys could be pressed for water carriage at the 
customary freights, the Trinity House arbitrating in case of dispute. 
A commission of 1662 had empowered the surveyor of the navy to 
press workmen, * also stockfish, biscuits, timber, hemp, posthorses, 
&c.,' also * ships, lighters, and carriages to convey the same, at 
reasonable prices.' ^^* In order to carry out the increased shipbuild- 
ing programme of 1677, on 12 May ^^^ the navy board were empowered 
to press a hundred shipwrights for Deptford and Chatham. On 
17 Nov. 1677 ^'*^ the bailifi's of Yarmouth were required by warrant 
from the lords of the admiralty to press certain shipwrights named 
* for the service of the new ships now in building at his Majesty's 
yard at Harwich ; ' and the same thing happened again on 16 Sept. 
1678.'^'^ In May 1679 the king's commands were issued to the rulers 
of Watermen's Hall * to choose and send down to the Mary yacht 
forthwith . . . one hundred able watermen for the rigging and fetch- 
ingabout of the Sandwich to Chatham, where they are to be discharged 
and left at liberty to return to their ordinary occasions.' ^'^ 

But it should be noted that even in time of war there were in 
practice certain important limitations to the action of the press. It 
sometimes happened that the warrants themselves were only 
made to apply in certain cases, as in May 1677, when they applied 
only to ships coming into the river.^'° Again, it was ' a thing 
contrary to all practice, even in time of war, to press men out of 
ships outward bound ; ' ^^^ and this was interpreted strictly, as when 
two men were discharged who had been pressed from a vessel 
bound to London which had put into Plymouth owing to stress of 
weather,^^^ apparently on the ground that the voyage was not 
complete, and therefore the use of the press in this case involved an 
interference with trade. In March 1678 a lieutenant was 
required by Pepys to justify his action 'in pursuing men into 
alehouses,' in excess of the authority conferred by his "press warrant, 
which only allowed him to press from homeward-bound ships.^^* 
Care was also taken to prevent (as far as precept could do it) the 
press being used by the captains in such a way as to interfere with 

'"^ Adm. Letters, vi. 242. 213 14 Car. II, c. 20. 

"'* Cal. State Papers Dotn. 1661-2, p. 521. ^is ^^^^^ Letters, vi. 12. 

"'• Ibid. vi. 225. *" Ibid. viii. 131. -'s Ibid. ix. 264, 267, 

-'» Ibid. vi. 23. '-»> Ibid. viii. 104. See also vi. 293, 309, 325. 

«' Ibid. vi. 356. 

"■* Adm. Letters, vi. 435, TbQ M§. in ^rfor reads ' outward bound,' 


the navigation of the merchant vessels from which the men were 
taken, though it was difficult entu-ely to prevent abuses. In 
December 1678, Pepys refers to cases which had lately arisen in the 
Downs, * to the scandal of the navy,' which he hoped would meet with 
* severe correction,' '"' and he remarks a little later, ' Till this liberty of 
pressing men without consideration to the safety of the vessels they 
press out of be once severely corrected, the king's service can never 
be free from clamour.' '"* To press officers out of a merchant ship 
was admitted to be * contrary to the known practice of the navy.' '^ 

In addition to these traditional limitations on the press, certain 
classes of persons were specially exempted ; protections being 
given from time to time to the coal trade,^^ the fishing trade,'-*^^ 
the government transport service,^^* * the barge crew of his Grace 
my lord of Canterbury.' "^ In 1673-4 a protection was given to 
a vessel employed by the City of London,"" and early in 1678 his 
majesty was * pleased to direct ' by order in council * that no Scotch- 
man shall be impressed into his service.' ^^' Particular persons 
were protected by special warrant ; as certain Swedes on the certifi- 
cate of the Swedish envoy ; ^^^ English sailors by direct action of the 
lords of the admiralty ; -^' a whole ship's company under special 
circumstances ; ^^* and persons who violated such protections were 
called to account before the lords themselves. ^^ On 6 June 1677, 
Joseph Kechman, a shipwright of Eatcliffe, received a protection 
against being impressed as an artificer by special order from the 
king, at the instance of the duchess of Portsmouth, because his 
wife had been nurse to the duke of Eiclimond.^*^ 

The period under consideration ends in May 1679, when 
Pepys was driven from office during the excitement occasioned 
by the Popish plot. In the last letter of his secretaryship, dated 
21 May,'^^ he alludes to the 'reproach' which he is 'no less 
unjustly than unfortunately fallen under in Parliament,' but 
ascribes it to a charge of embezzling navy stores. Meanwhile 
other charges were being made against him, and on the following 
day he was committed to the Tower under the Speaker's warrant, 
and Hayter succeeded to his office at the admu-alty, which was 
vacant through what was in form a voluntary resignation.-^ 

J. E. Tanner. 
{To be continued.) 

«*» Adm. Letters, viii. 373, 375. «* Ibid. viii. 389. «» Ibid. ix. 37. 

^* As appears by inference from vi. 23. -' Ibid. vi. 20 ; vii. 92. 

«» Ibid. vi. 368, 388. »» Ibid. ii. 36. »<• Rid. iii. 109. 

»' Ibid. vi. 412. »» Ibid. iii. 49. »» Ibid. ii. 85. 

«' Ibid. iii. 42. » Ibid. ii. 85 ; iii. 59. »• Ibid. vi. 48. 

»' Ibid. ix. 284. 

*** Ibid. ix. 282. An account of some circumstances connected with this episode 
in Pepys's life has been given by the writer, in an aiticle contributed to the Exglisu 
HisTOBiCAL Review for April 1892, under the title ' Pepys and the Popish Plot.' 

1898 ~ 55 

John de Robethon and the Robethoit Papers 

FOE some years after his accession to the English throne George I 
kept in attendance three of his Hanoverian ministers — Comit 
Bernstorff, Baron Bothmer/ and John de Eobethon. The three 
formed a kind of inner cabinet, advising on all afifairs, domestic 
and foreign. Bernstorff was a wealthy nobleman, of tried ca- 
pacity and long experience in affairs of state ; ^ Bothmer had for 
many years, at the Hague and in London, conducted delicate 
diplomatic negotiations with success ; but it seems to have been 
Robethon who had the most real influence. Various statements 
about this man have been put on paper. Spittler's eulogy I 
quote later. Agnew, in his * Protestant Exiles from France,' will 
hear nothing of him but praise. James Macpherson puts him 
down as indefatigable, industrious, and faithful, not a man 
of striking abilities, but of a good deal of address.^ Coxe admits 
him to have been a man of address and great knowledge of the 
world, but avers that his situation with the king rendered him 
insolent and presumptuous, that his necessities were great and 
his venality notorious.^ The passage in which Lord Mahon 
describes him as ' a prying, impertinent, venomous creature, 
for ever crawling in some slimy intrigue,' does that historian 
discredit.'"' But, whatever his character, it is agreed that the 
influence which Eobethon exerted over Bernstorff, and over 
the king, was exceptional. But it was exerted from the back- 
ground. Confidential secretary to three princes in succession, he 
held no important office ; notices of him in contemporary writings 

' Bothmer always signed his name thus, not Bothmar. The former spelling is 
adopted in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie. 

'^ ' A tout prendre c'estoit un des plus grands ministres de son si^cle, mais grand 
en tout, qui ne s'amusoit pas aux petitesses et qui fut honneur a I'Allemagne ' (Bode- 
mann, quoting Thomas Eberhard von Ilten, in the Zeitachrift clcs hist. Vcreines fiir 
Niedersachscn, 1879). The Prince of Wales in 1714 compared him to Heinsius, as an 
unselfish worker for the good of his country (Neuburg, Stowe MS. 227, f. 456, British 
Museum). There is a biographical notice of him in Spiel's Vaterlcindischcs Archiv 
des Konigreiches Hannover, v. 111. 

^ Original Papers, i. 619. 

* Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, i. 83. 

^ Histoi'jj of England to the Peace of Utrecht, chap. vi. adjin. 


are few; and almost the only evidence of his worth lies in the 
papers which he has left behind. 

He was the son and namesake of an advocate of the Parlia- 
ment of Paris. His family were Huguenot ; his mother, a sister 
of the well-known pastor, Claude Grosteste de la Mothe. When 
the time came to choose between exile and apostasy, he preferred 
the former, his father and brother the latter ; ' they remained in 
Paris, and James, the brother, became attorney-general of the 
court of the Mint.^ I have not learnt in what country Robethon 
took refuge ; perhaps with his uncle in London. Agnew states 
that he entered the service of William III when still prince of Orange, 
and shows that he was naturalised in England in 1693. He was 
then secretary to Baron Schiitz, the duke of Celle's envoy,* and 
as such attended William's court in London and in the Nether- 
lands, and had a very good knowledge of what was going for- 
ward. To this period of his life belong a pamphlet entitled * A 
Letter written to one of the Members of Parliament about the 
State of the Present War,' ^ and the interesting diary which he kept 
from 1694 to 1698 (below). 

When the earl of Portland went as ambassador to Paris in 
1698, he took Eobethon as a secretary. The Dutch statesman 
Dykveld congratulated him on this appointment, called him une 
personne de grand talent et application extraordinaire, and hoped he 
would receive on his return un establissement et employ, qu'en tant 
d'occasions vous avez merite par vos services, et que par les belles 
qiialites que vous possedez vous remplirez parfaitemerit.' '" Robethon 
acquitted himself with much credit, and, as his correspondence 
shows, remained greatly in Portland's favour till the latter's 
death. In September 1698 he had left Paris and entered the personal 
service of William III." We shortly find him drafting the 
king's i:)rivate correspondence. His credit was sufficient to make 

• And this though the father had formerly denounced the conduct of a Protestant 
minister who had turned priest (La Mothe to Robethon, 26 Sept. 1710, Stowe MS. 
223, f. 381). 

' Robethon's will at Somerset House, C. P. C, 81 Marlboro ; quoted by Agnew. 

• James Cressett, envoy to Celle and Hanover, who hated Robethon, wrote on 24 
Oct. 1695 : ' M' Ropton Schutz secretary I doubt but you see plying about y* 
oflice, if he be minded, his ather is a converted French Avocate at Paris, and indeed 
J' less all y' gang picks up any where, the better, for all will goe into France that ever 
they can learn, and M' Schutz passes as one of y' Cabinet in England.' And again, 
18 Feb. 1701: ' Ropton, ... a French refugid that was secretary to Mons' Schutz and 
now belong's to our Master.' And again, 23 Aug. 1701 : ' I never knew more of him, 
than his being y' lean affected Baron's secretary in y« first place, and afterwardes I 
know he pass'd into Portland's service ' (To Ellis, Add. MSS. 28897, 28907, 28909). 

• Hanover, Stadtbibliothek, MSS. vol. 93. Robethon states that he composed the 
pamphlet in 1692, and that it was translated by Wickard, the king's chaplain. It 
was printed in London. 

•• Stowe MS. 222, f. 13, 12 Feb. 1698. "" 
" Ibid. f. U, 


persons of Lord Galway's rank solicit his good offices.^^ In 
November 1699, Portland congratulated him on receiving a 
logement a la cour,^^ and in December Palmquist, the Swedish envoy 
in Paris, on farther advances in William's favour.'^ Industry, 
probity perhaps, a knowledge of the world, and a particular 
aptitude for drafting despatches, seem to have been his chief 
recommendations. Specimens of his work preserved among the 
papers for 1701 attest his skill. Among his correspondents in 
these years we find Portland, Dykveld, Galway, Christopher Count 
Dohna, Palmquist, the Danish statesman Plessen, Counts Auers- 
perg and Wratislaw, Ezekiel Spanheim, Earl Eivers, and James, 
afterwards Earl Stanhope. 

After William's death Eobethon passed into the service of that 
king's great friend, George William, duke of Celle. If Cressett is 
to be believed, he had maintained a correspondence with that 
court while still in William's service.'' Bernstorff was the duke's 
chief minister, and he, discovering Eobethon's merit, soon gave him 
his entire confidence, an advantage which stood the secretary in 
good stead throughout his life. At Celle, Eobethon was attached 
to the department of foreign affairs, working both for the duke 
and for the elector.'*^ His papers include a regular correspondence 
with Adam Cardonnel, the duke of Marlborough's secretary ; 
English and Scotch news from Sir Eowland Gwynne and others ; 
long letters from the Hague from his friend D'Allonne and from the 
Hanoverian resident, Klinggraeff ; and private despatches from Paris 
from the duke's secret agent, Martines ; in fact, he had correspon- 
dents at every court. Coxe notices his activity in procuring intelli- 
gence for Marlborough, and says that that duke supplied him with 
large sums of money for the purpose, which the number and value 
of his communications proved to be not ill bestowed.'^ 

Becoming a person of importance, Eobethon was shortly after- 
wards ennobled, and admitted to the duke's council. In 1704 we 
find Prince Eugene and Count Loewenstein writing to him directly 
on matters connected with his ofiice ; the former addresses him as 
* Hofrath ' or * Conseiller Aulique.' In 1703 he married a widow 
named Maxwell, a lady of some standing at the court of Celle, whose 
maiden name was Claudine de Berenger. She had already a son, 

'2 Stowe MS. 222, f. 16, 21 Jan. 0. S. 1699. " Ibid. f. 31. 

» Hanover, Stadtbibliothek, MSS. vol. 96. 

'* Cp. note 8. Cressett wrote further to Ellis on 4 Jan. 1701 : ' This ministry is 
alerte, and watches narrowly about y ofiBce. One Eopton tho now in the King's service 
gives light, as is to be taken care of. He is too intimate w"" Cardonnel, this between 
you and me ' (Add. MS. 28907, f. 12). 

'* Five of the elector's letters of this time, in Eobethon's hand, are preserved 
among the papers (Stowe MS. 222). Pauli, in the Nachrichten von der kdn 
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften tmd der Georg-Augusts-Universitat :u Oottingeri, 
1881, says that he worked chiefly for the electress Sophia, 

" Life of Marlborough, ii. 206, note. 


afterwards Colonel Maxwell, and commandant of Celle, where he 
died in 1750. Eobethon's son by her was born f| Oct. 1704, and 
was baptised by the names of George William Frederick in the 
reformed church at Celle on 29 Oct., his sponsors being the duke 
himself, the Electress Sophia, and Madame de Lescours, a lady of 
the court." 

The * good old ' duke died in the autumn of 1705, and the 
whole of the dommions of Brunswick-Liineburg passed into the 
hands of Elector George Louis. The courts of Celle and Hanover 
were united ; the duke's ministers — Bernstorff, Biilow, and Fabricius 
— joined the elector's privy council, at the head of which was Baron 
Goertz ; ''•' and Robethon became confidential secretary to the elector. 
All the latter's correspondence, preserved among the Eobethon 
papers, is in Eobethon's hand. Early in 1709 he received the 
appointment of * conseiller prive des ambassades,' an honour which 
brought no increase of salary, but gave him the rank of colonel, 
and precedence over the gentlemen of the chamber.^'' This 
advancement would seem to have been the work of the princess 
royal of Prussia, whom, after her marriage, Madame de Robethon 
had attended to Berlin, remaining there nearly three years.^' 

Towards the end of 1710 the change of ministry in England 
obliged the electoral court to devote special attention to the 
prospects of the succession. The elector himself professed in- 
difference thereto, though he was bitterly opposed to the idea of 
a peace.'-^- In this mdiflference he was abetted by Goertz, who 
ever since Bernstorffs advent from Celle had opposed him in the 
council.^ But Bernstorff and Robethon devoted themselves 
heart and soul to the cause ; and the overtures made by St. John 
to Eobethon having come to nothing,^* they allied themselves 
closely with the whig party. 

The elector's envoy in London, Louis Justus Sinold von 
Schutz, had died in February 1710. The present situation ne- 
cessitated the appointment of a successor ; and Bothmer being 
selected, Robethon was chosen to fill his place at the Hague. He 
proceeded thither in March 1711, and stayed till August. The 

'" Pauli, Zcitschrift des historiscJien Vercincs fiir NiedersacJiscn, 1883. 

" Edmund Foley's Account of tlic Elector and Princes of the House of Brunsvic, 
the original at the Record OfiBce, Home Office papei-s, Regencies 3, a copy in Stowo 
MSS. 241. 

=• Isaac d'Alais, Record Office, ibid. 5, 23 Feb. and 17 May 1709. 

■-' Copy of a letter from the princess to her father, strongly recommending 
Robethon, April 1709 (Stowe MS. 223, f. 215 ; cp. Creutz's letter, ibid. f. 214). 

" Cp. Felix Salomon, Gcschichte des letztcn Ministeriums Kunigin Annas von 
England, pp. G2, 122. 

-' Clarendon to Bromley, and Horace Walpole to Etough, in Coxe's Memoirs of 
Sir Robert ]Valpole, ii. 44, 48. The original of the former is in Stove MS. 242. 

*' See note 42. 


whole of his papers relating to this mission have been preserved,^-^ 
and their perusal gives an excellent idea of the work of which he 
was capable: of his astonishing industry, his knowledge of cha- 
racter, and his talent for diplomacy. It is not too much to say 
that an examination of these papers is indispensable to the his- 
torian of this year. Besides Eobethon's own lengthy despatches, 
there are copies of Bothmer's from London, and many extracts 
from the correspondence of Hanoverian envoys elsewhere. Every- 
thing that passed in Europe was discussed at the Hague, and 
everything that was discussed at the Hague came to the receptive 
ears of Eobethon. Three subjects were specially confided to his 
attention : (1) The negotiations which, it was known, were secretly 
in progress between England and France, and, in connection with 
fchem, the whole question of the Hanoverian succession ; (2) the 
difficulty which had re-arisen with Prussia respecting Hildesheim 
and Nordhausen ; and (3) the measures to be adopted to carry 
out the provisions of the Hague Convention of March 1710, 
for preventing the extension of the northern war into the 
provinces of the Empire. The Hildesheim aifair he succeeded in 
arranging ; but in regard to the other matters the death of the 
emperor changed the whole situation. In August Eussian and 
Saxon troops marched with permission from Berlin through 
Prussia into Mecklenburg,^** and a few weeks later Mesnager signed 
in London the preliminary articles of peace. 

For the next three years Eobethon was mainly occupied with 
the question of the succession. The efforts of the tory leaders to 
obtain a peace with France had brought them under suspicion of 
favouring James, whose cause the French king had espoused. By 
every post came frantic appeals from the whigs that the elector 
should immediately take measures of an active kind — he was 
even invited to invade England with an army ; but, on the other 
hand, the tories were emphatic in their assurances that in settling 
the terms of peace they would have nothing more at heart than to 
secure the protestant succession, and that the elector might have 
every confidence in the queen's good intentions. In the direction of 
the electoral policy in this delicate situation Eobethon took a con- 
spicuous part. There is not much among his papers for the year 1712, 
but at the end of that year begins a notable series of despatches ad- 
dressed by him to Thomas Grote, the new envoy to England. These 
are in his own hand, and bear his signature or initials. They are very 
full, and the tone adopted is the authoritative one of a responsible 

-^ Hanover, Stadtbibliothek, MSS. vols. 94, 95. Spittler has given an account of 
this mission of Eobethon in the GUttingischcs historisches Magazin for 1787. 

"* Augustus of Poland was encamped with the combined army at Strclitz by 25 Aug. 
The Prince Royal of Prussia and the Markgrave Philip went to see the troops pass, and 
were splendidly entertained by him {London Gazette, Nos. 4884-4890.) 


minister. But Grote had not been three months in London 
when he fell ill and died. This was a misfortune for the Hano- 
Terians, as he had conducted himself in his diflficult post with great 
tact and propriety. Eobethon's name was mentioned as a possible 
successor ; *^ he had, indeed, been thought of for the post when Schiitz 
died in 1710. But he would certainly have been unacceptable to 
the tory leaders, who attributed to him ^ in a great measure that 
preference of the Hanoverian court for their opponents which 
could not be concealed. Yet, had he gone, he would no doubt have 
avoided the errors of the younger Schiitz, who, captured by the 
whigs immediately on his arrival in September 1713, remained 
their instrument until extinguished by the catastrophe of the follow- 
ing April. 

When the elector ascended the English throne, Robethon re- 
tained his appointment of secretary of embassies, and the in- 
fluence which he had enjoyed at Hanover. This is not the place 
to trace his work in detail. Bernstorff, Bothmer, and he formed, 
as has been said, a ministry within the ministry, and nothing could 
be done without their assent. Lord Stair corresponded with Robe- 
thon from Paris as with one who controlled the whole range of 
British politics. Horatio Walpole and Cadogan explained to him 
their negotiations at the Hague. Dubois and other ministers of 
foreign powers wrote to him familiarly and directly. Nor did he 
confine himself to foreign politics, his proper sphere : he was con- 
stantly interfering in domestic matters also. This conduct of the 
Hanoverians could not but excite the anger and jealousy of the Eng- 
hsh ministers. Stanhope, whose active and far-sighted continental 
policy suited their aims, and Sunderland, were not so much affected, 
but Townshend and Walpole complained bitterly. Especially they 
resented the activity of the one whom they regarded as an upstart."-"^ 
We may be sure that the Hanoverians reciprocated the ill-feeling, 
and that it had much to do with the quarrel which split up the 
whig ministry at the end of 1716. 

After that happened Stanhope and Sunderland worked with 

*' Schulenburg to Leibnitz, in Kemble's State Papers, p. 512. 

*" E.g. Swift, History of tlie Four Last Years, Book iv., Scott's ed., v. 352-3 ; St. 
John to Thos. Harley, 18 June O.S. 1712, in Bolingbroke's DespatcJies, quoted below. 

*■ Thus Walpole wrote to Stanhope, 30 July O.S. 1716 : 'Robethon's impertinence 
is so notorious, that we must depend upon it he does all the mischief be possible can ; 
but if the heads can be sett right, such little creatures must come in in course, or may 
be despis'd.' Townshend on 25 Sept. O.S. 1716 complained of Robethon's interference 
in Scotch affairs. Stanhope apologised for him (to Townshend, 10 Oct. 1716): 'As 
for Robethon, you know he is naturally impertinent and busying himself, but at 
present the man does not certainly mean ill, and tho' he did, I do not think it would 
be proper to complain to the King of him at this time, I will endeavour to give him 
some advice, and shall, I believe, prevent him doing any hurt ' (Coxe, Memoirs of 
Sir Robert Walpole, ii. 59, 93, 109). In the House of Commons, Walpole alluded to 
Robethon as ' a mean fellow, of what nation I cannot tell ' (23 Mar. O.S. 1717, 
Tindal's continuation of Rapin, iv. p. 534, note). 


the Hanoverian ministers on a fairly amicable footing until the 
quadruple alliance had been happily concluded. But then came 
disputes, the chief of them, according to St. Saphorin, on the 
alliance with Prussia.^" Bernstorff resisted this, as he had pre- 
viously obstinately resisted the admission of that power to the triple 
alliance, in spite of the insistence of the regent and Dubois.^' His 
present opposition cost him his power. Stanhope wrote on 10 July 
1719 : * We have ... at last got a complete victory over the old 
man.' ^^ The treaty of alliance with Prussia was signed in August. 

This was nearly the end of Eobethon's political career, for he 
had faithfully supported Bernstorff. Bothmer, who opposed them, 
wrote to St. Saphorin on 15 April 1721, that Robethon had been 
the chief cause of the schism, but had gained nothing thereby ; that 
he was excluded from all public affairs, chagrin had ruined his health, 
and his chief friends were dead.^^ He died on 14 April 1722 
(Agnew). In the last year of his life he had been appointed governor 
of the French Hospital on the death of Philibert d'Hervart. He is 
described in his will ^* as ' Privy Councillor of Ambassage of H. B. M. 
lodging in his palace of St. James.' His wife and son survived him. 
The latter's guardian was James Robethon, a cousin, residing in 
Poland Street, St. James's. 

The following estimate of Robethon's political position is by 
Spittler, who examined a portion of his papers in the last 
century : ^^ — • 

No secretary in Germany ever did work of the value that Robethon 
did in Hanover and in England ; seldom has a man of his position 
effected under less capable ministers, of his own efforts, so much as 
Robethon did under the great ministers who served George Louis as 
elector and as king. In the matter of the English succession he carried 
on almost single-handed the chief correspondence from Hanover. 
Without him, as no one who has read Macpherson-^^ will think too boldly 
said. Elector George Louis would never have become King George I ; 
perhaps without him the English succession would have cost at least 
the half of what the Polish crown cost the poor Elector of Saxony. 

«> Pauli, loc. cit. (note 16). 

*■ Stowe MS. 230 ; see especially Dubois' long letter to Robethon of 17 July 1717. 
Writing to Heinsius on 4 June, N.S. 1717, Bernstorff alleged as the reason of his oppo- 
sition ' le grand projet que I'on avoit en vue pour la pacification de I'Europe ' (the 
plan, that is, which produced the quadruple alliance), and the consequent necessity of 
doing nothing which might offend the emperor. Dubois wrote on 29 Oct. 1718 : ' Je 
conjure Mr. de Bernstorff de sacrifier ou de dissimuler I'eloignement qu'il peut avoir 
pour cette liaison ' (Stowe MS. 231). 

^'^ Lord Mahon, vol. i. App. p. Ixxxiv. 

^ Pauli, loc. cit., p. 433. 

^* See note 7. The will is dated St. James's Palace, 19 Feb. O.S. 1722, a codicil 
2 March O.S. ; it was proved 21 April O.S." 

" Translated from the Gottingischcs historisches Magazin, vol. i. 1787, pp. 546-8. 

*« Macpherson's Hanover Papers are, on the whole, unlike his Stuart Papers, tq 
be trusted. 


Almost alone also lie regulated the measures which George I adopted 
immediately after his arrival in England, to the astonishment of all 
politicians, iu relation to Anne's ministers. He was Bernstorfif's right 
hand, and Bernstorflf was the King's right hand. . . . Yet he was not a 
man of extraordinary ability : he understood English, could write a good 
letter in French, was methodical in his official work, punctual in his 
correspondence, true to the master whom he served, but went no faster 
than an ordinaiy man should, was neither bold nor cowardly, and, without 
knowing it, possessed the fine talent of never reminding Bernstorflf either 
directly or indirectly of how little he could have effected in the most 
important afiairs without him. . . . After the accession he gave the first 
direction to the King's choice of ministers, and fixed the whole system of 
English politics. Bernstorflf advised only what Robethon thought good, 
and Bobethon never advised what did not at the time recommend itself 
to Bernstorflf. 

This high German estimate will not, to any one who has studied 
the Eobethon papers, seem unjustified. Eobethon's individual 
importance, while he was still at Hanover, is shown by the direct 
and familiar correspondence which he conducted with distinguished 
men. In the critical years 1710 to 1714 he was the moving spirit of 
the party in the council at Hanover, which Bernstorflf led, and whose 
policy was to take an active interest in the question of the succession, 
while discountenancing the extreme and dangerous measures urged 
by the whig alarmists. Nothing, in fact, was done, either before or 
after the king's accession, without Robethon's connivance. His 
opponents testified to his political influence by their hatred and 
abuse. Here is a specimen from Swift : — 

There was likewise at the elector's court a little Frenchman, 
without any merit or consequence, called Robethon, who by the assist- 
ance and encouragement of the last ministry had insinuated himself into 
some degree of that prince's favour, which he used in giving his master 
the worst impressions he was able of those whom the queen employed in 
her service. 

One from St. John : — 

As little a fellow as Robethon is, I have reason to believe that most 
of the ill impressions which have been given at that Court, have chiefly 
come from him ; and as I know him to be mercenary, I doubt not but 
he has found his account in this his management.^^ 

Lord Clarendon wrote : ' Mr. Bernsdorf is governed by Robethon, 
who is as bad as bad can be.' "^ Ker of Kersland, too, whose abuse 
is praise : 

Even Bernstorf himself is led by the Nose in those matters by an 
ignorant Fellow, called Robatham, who has nothing to recommend him 
but his own private Interest, Party Rage, and Insolence enough to do too 

" See the references in note 28. 

*^ Clarendon to Bromley, 15 Aug. 1714, Stowe MS. 242, printed by Coxe, 
Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, ii. 44. 


much Mischief at this critical Juncture, upon which all our future Happi- 
ness depends.^^ 

And similarly he had enemies at Hanover : — 

Ropton est habile, mais ses grandes passions et I'esprit des factions le 
font quelquefois charier a travers : il est hai et poursuivi du Ministere 
d'Hannover, excepte de Bernstorff, qui est dans ses interets/" 

The dislike which Eobethon inspired in England seems to have 
been in a great measure personal.^* 

That Eobethon was faithful to his masters' interests seems 
clear ; certainly he retained their confidence. But of course it 
may be doubted whether this fidelity was not due to a knowledge 
that his own interests were bound up with theirs. Suspicions may 
be entertained of his behaviour with regard to St. John's overtures 
in November 1710. He had oftered, it seems from D'Hervart's and 
La Mothe's reports, to conduct a correspondence with St. John. 
The latter was disposed to view the offer favourably, and hinted that 
Robethon might hope for the same private advantages from his 
party that he enjoyed from the whigs. But when St. John put his 
acceptance in writing, Eobethon took care to show the letter 
to the elector, and declined.^"^ In England, Eobethon certainly 
had a reputation for venality. As we have seen, St. John and Swift 
believed him to be in the pay of the whigs. That his necessities were 
great, as Coxe asserts, can hardly be true. He had his regular 
salary from the king, much increased, no doubt, by perquisites ; 
and the contents of his will show that his private estate, ' very much 
diminished by the misfortunes of the South Sea Company,' was in 
1722 still considerable, including a capital sum of 3,000/ saved for 
him, presumably out of his father's estate, by the care of his brother 
James, and an annuity * upon the public funds of the Generality in 
Holland,' worth 66/. a year. His wife, too, had a pension of five 
crowns a week from Hanover. But that he did make money out of 
his influence with the king is established by Lady Cowper : — 

This day Monsieur Robethon procured the grant of the King of Clerk 
of the Parliament, after Mr. Johnson's death, for anybody he would 
name. He let my brother Cowper have it in reversion after Mr. Johnson 
for his two sons for 1,800/.^^ 

'" To Leibnitz, Hanover, 25 Aug. 1714, in Ker's Memoirs ; see also ibid. p. 103. 

''" Schulenburg to Leibnitz, 12 July 1714, Zeitschrift des liistorischen Vereincs fiir 
Niedeisachsen, 1852, translated by Kemble in his State Papers, p. 512. 

^' Cp. Lady Cowper's Diary, 2 Apr. 1710. " 

*- See the correspondence in Macpherson, ii. 199-204, 242, from Stowe MSS. 223-4. 
Swift will have it that St. John's offer came too late. ' A delay in conveying a ver 
inconsiderable sum to a very inconsiderable French vagrant gave the opportunity to 
more industrious party of corrupting that channel ' (An Inquiry into ths Behaviour of 
thi Queen's last Ministry, book v., Scott's ed. vi. 59). Cp, Klopp, Der Fall des Hauses 
Sttiart, xiv. 11 foil. 

« Diary, 25 Dec. 1714. 


And in Jul}' 17 IG she makes notes of negotiations to gain over 
Kobethon to the Prince of Wales's side by a pension of 300Z. But, 
after all, few politicians of the time followed the example of Stanhope 
and Townshend. 

Robethon was the author of a number of political pamphlets, 
copies of which, or of some of which, are preserved among his 
papers. He also attempted verse ; for instance, an ' Eclogue ' on the 
death of the Queen of Prussia.^* Perhaps in the cultivated atmo- 
sphere of the electress's court he could not help this. 


The great mass of papers which Eobethon left behind him is now 
divided into three, or perhaps four, parts.^' The large majority of 
them are originals. This fact, and their confidential character, 
render them of first-class importance. Any account of them to be 
given here must be of the briefest possible nature. 

(a) The largest division was sold, according to an account 
which must be by Thomas Astle,*^ about the year 1752 among the 
effects of Colonel Robethon, the secretary's son. They were bought 
by Matthew Duane, who gave James Macpherson the opportunity to 
make the copious extracts and translations which appear in the 
Hanover division of his * Original Papers.' From Duane they passed 
successively to Michael Bray, Thomas Astle, the duke of Bucking- 
ham, and Lord Ashburnham ; and they have now found a resting- 
place at the British Museum, where they fill volumes 222 to 232 of 
the Stowe MSS., and are known as the ' Hanoverian State Papers.' 
They have been conveniently arranged in a chronological order and 
calendared.''^ When at Stowe the collection was transcribed under 
the direction of Dr. Charles O'Conor, the duke of Buckingham's 
librarian.'"* The transcript has little pretence to exactness. It 
occupies volumes 234 to 240 of the Stowe MSS. A thin volume 

** Poley to stepney, 2 April 1705, Add. MS. 7072, £. 111. Dubois refers to a 
poem of Robethon's, 13 June 1717, Stowe MS. 230, f. 143. 

*^ Colonel Maxwell, in his letter alluded to below (note 56), expresses the belief that 
some of Robethon's papers were handed over at his death to President Hardenberg in 
London. Whether these are identical with one of the three divisions here described, 
or form a fourth portion, I have not discovered. There is, further, much of Robethon's 
writing among the State Archives at Hanover. 

** Stowe MS. 233. The hand resembles Astle's, but is thought to be not his. 
But the writer says, ' I offered Mr. Bray a considerable sum for the papers, which he 
would not accept, but after his decease I purchased them.' And it was Astle who did 

" For further particulars, and for an account of the original arrangement of the 
papers in ten volumes, see the Stowe Sale Catalogue of 1849, pp. 96-98, the British 
Museum Catalogue of the Stowe MSS. i. pp. iii, 287, and the English Historical 
Review, i. 756, in a notice by Mr. P. M. Thornton. This last, it must be remarked, 
contains several errors. 

** The Bihliotheca MSS. Stowcnsis of this author is, as regards these papers, a 
marvel of inaccuracy. 


(233) contains the account by Astle alluded to above, with an at- 
tempt at an index. Astle also added the two volumes of transcripts 
241 and 242. These are interspersed with a number of other papers, 
and are entitled ' Astle's Collections for English History.' 

The following is only a list of the more important papers of this 

In 1695 there are copies of correspondence which passed 
between Louis XIV and Marshal Boufflers defending Namur. 

Drafts by Eobethon for despatches of William III to German 
princes and generals are numerous in the years 1701-2. In a 
very interesting letter of 28 Feb. 1699, William gives most wise 
advice to Queen Christine of Poland on the conduct she should 
observe in relation to her husband's change of religion. 

The correspondence of the elector of Hanover and of the 
electoral prince and princess, 1705 to 1713, amounts in all to 
some 235 numbers. Included are three original letters from 
Queen Anne,^^ about thirty from Marlborough, a goodly number 
from other English noblemen and statesmen, who assured the 
elector of their devotion, a holograph letter from Stanislaus 
Leszczynski, six from the Jesuit father Vota, and many others. 
Among the English correspondents are Sir Eowland Gwynne and 
Dr. John Hutton, the queen's physician. The elector's letters are 
drafts by Eobethon. Nearly the whole of the English portion of 
this correspondence appears in Macpherson. 

The correspondence of the Electress Sophia, 1706 to 1714, 
comprises a variety of curious and interesting letters. A great 
deal of this also has been reproduced by Macpherson. It includes 
a long correspondence with the earl of Strafford, whose long- 
winded and garrulous scribbles contrast strongly with the 
electress's pithy and well-turned replies. Most of the earl's letters 
discuss the proceedings at Utrecht, in which he was a principal : 
the first is a long account of a tour made in Italy in 1709, under 
the name of Mr. Yorke, when he was supposed to be taking the 
waters at Carlsbad. Among other letters are one of 20 May 1713, 
from James Macky, describing a portrait of James I left at Mons 
by the elector of Bavaria, and the original of Dr. Hugh Chamber- 
len's well-known account of what he knew about the birth of James 
prince of Wales. 

Marlborough is well represented by original letters to the 
elector and to Eobethon. Most have been printed by Macpherson, 
Lediard, Coxa, or Murray. A document of particular interest 
explains the plan concerted with Prince Eugene in June 1711 for 
keeping the cavalry on the frontier during the ensuing winter, so as 
to be beforehand with the French in opening the campaign. The 

*" A fourth letter, of 20 April 1706, is not now among the papers. There is a 
transcript of it in Stowc MS. 211, and Macpherson prints it (ii. 38). 



plan was never carried out, partly owing to Marlborough's own sub- 
sequent success, and partly through the lukewarmness of the 
British and Dutch governments.-^" 

Other important letters to Robethon in the years 1702 to 1712 
are too numerous to particularise. Several are from British envoys 
at foreign courts. Five originals of 1704 from Prince Eugene, the 
imperial ambassador at Frankfort Loewenstein, and a certain Neust, 
relate to the deciphering of intercepted letters, for which special 
facilities seem to have existed in the chanceries of Celle and 
Hanover. Letters from the influential Count Wratislaw are spread 
over the years 1705 to 1711. Another notable correspondent was 
the celebrated composer and diplomatist, Agostino Stefifani, named 
in 1706 bishop of Spiga.'*' 

A series of lengthy epistles from Eobethon's uncle, Claude 
Grosteste de la Mothe, have for their chief subject the declaration 
of the university of Helmstedt in favour of the change of religion 
of EUzabeth Christine of Wolfenbiittel, preparatory to her marriage 
with the Archduke Charles. The affair created a great stir in 
England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury took active measures. 
La Mothe also has a good deal to say about the projected union of 
the various protestant churches. 

Lord Stair, in March to May 1710, describes everything apper- 
taining to his mission to Warsaw. Charles Whitworth relates his 
experiences in this year at Moscow. News from Turkey, full of 
authentic and interesting particulars, came in 1711 from Captain 
James Jefferyes, accredited to Charles XII, and from Frederick 
Ernest de Fabrice,^^ who had in 1709, before Pultava, sent 
Robethon news from Poland. 

Despatches of the Hanoverian ministers in London and at the 
Hague in 1713-1714 fill the greater part of three whole volumes. 
Besides those to Thomas Grote before mentioned, there are an 
enormous number from the younger Schiitz, and more than a 
hundred from Bothmer, in their own hands. Others are from the 
inferior officials, Kreyenberg and Gaetke, from the Dutch resident, 
L'Hermitage, and one or two from Sunderland. 

A series of letters came to Bothmer from George Ridpath m 
1713-1714. With them is the MS. of one of his pamphlets, ' The New 
Project Examin'd.' 

^ The plan seems to be unknown to historians. Allusions to it have been mis- 
understood by the editors of Marlborough's and Bolingbroke's despatches — Sir G. 
Murray and Gilbert Paike. 

*' For the real facts of his biography see the Vereinschriftcn of the Gtirresgesell- 
schaft of Bonn for 1885- G. The dictionaries differ sadly. 

•'■•' Second son of the Hanoverian minister, Weipart Louis Fabricius. His letters 
to his employer, the administrator of Holstein-Gottorp, and his minister Goertz, were 
printed in 1760, under the title Anecdotes du sijour du Roi de Su^de a Bender. 



Other series are frora St. Saphorin^^ in Switzerland; from 
Nicholas Clignet,*^' postmaster at Leyden, and his nephew, De 
Neufville ; and from Martines, the elector's secret agent in Paris ; 
all in 1714 and the following yearc\ 

The congratulatory letters after Queen Anne's death include 
four, very humble and apologetic, from Strafford. The chief 
correspondent from Hanover, after the court had left, is the privy 
councillor Baron Elst. There is also a series in the autumn from 
Arent Baron Wassenaer van Duvenvoorde. 

Captain Jefferyes's despatches recommence in 1714 from 
Adrianople, and are continued in 1715 from Stralsund. They contain 
very interesting information with regard to Charles XII. 

In relation to the Jacobite rebellion there are four anonymous 
letters from Preston in July 1715 ; others from Scotland, from 
Charles du Bourgay at Stirling, F. Sandos, attached to Cadogan, 
Sir Peter Fraser of Durris, Cadogan himself, and Lord Eothes ; ^^ 
and from Ireland from Sir Gustavus Hume and Clotworthy Upton, 
M.P.s, Charles de la Faye, and Lord Galway. Two are from Ker 
of Kersland ; and a very interesting one from a minister at the 
Hague named Saurin relates the experiences and escape of 
Bulkeley, the duke of Berwick's brother-in-law, and of Lord 

In a remarkable letter to Bernstorff of 1 Aug. O.S. 1716, 
Barrington Shute desires to b3 relieved of his commission to con- 
ciliate the nonconformists. 

In the latter half of 1716 there are despatches of Bothmer and 
others from London, and important ones of Horatio Walpole, 
Cadogan, and the resident Klinggraeff from the Hague. The 
chief subjects of the latter division are the negotiations for the 
barrier treaty and the triple alliance. There is also much corre- 
spondence in this and the following years with reference to the 
proceedings of Peter the Great and Charles Xll. 

Dirck Wolters, a merchant of Piotterdam, reveals in the autumn 
of 1716 a remarkable plan concocted by Goertz for the rehabilita- 
tion of the shattered finances of Sweden. 

In April 1717, L'Hermitage, going home for change of air, 
undertook a secret mission from Bernstorff to sound the leading 
Dutch statesmen on measures to be concerted against Sweden, and 
on other points. He details his negotiations fully. 

" Francis Louis de Pesmes de St. Saphorin, afterwards envoy of George I at 
Vienna. ' Pen de Suisses ont fourni une aussi brillante carriere ' {Biographic 
Universelle, art. ' Pesmes ; ' see also Pauli in the Nachrichten, below, for 1889, pp. 

" ' Le plus habile, le plus entendu et le plus expert dans ces sortes de choses, et 
le plus zel6 ' (Heinsius, reported by L'Hermitage, Stowe MS. 230, f. 88.) Clignet 
was one of Robethon's chief intermediaries for the secret transmission of despatches. 

" Four unsigned copies of July and Aug. 1716, or some of them, would seem to 
be from Lord Eothes's despatches. 


68 JOHN DE liOBETHoN Jan. 

Thoyras Rapin gives in May 1717 a long account of the progress 
and scope of his ' History of England.' 

In March 1715 begins, and continues to November 1710, a 
series of 150 letters from the earl of Stair at Paris. These, dealing 
in the most confidential manner with the most confidential matters, 
are of the highest possible importance. They are supplemented in 
July 1718 by some from Luke Schaub, secretary to Lord Stanhope; 
and closely connected are nineteen letters from Dubois, 1717 to 
1719, a correspondence of which Stair was not informed. The 
progress of the negotiations for the quadruple alliance is very 
closely detailed. 

There is much in Martines's letters of 1718-19 about the land- 
grave of Hesse-Cassel, from whom he had now credentials, and the 
Rheinfels difiiculty. 

Volume 232 contains a mass of intercepted Jacobite corre- 
spondence of the years 1717 to 1719, mostly translations, 
deciphers, &c., in Robethon's hand. The chief writer is Sir Hugh 

Interspersed through the volumes are a variety of political and 
other documents, and pamphlets printed or in manuscript : 
the printed ones particularly in volume 231. Also several copies 
of verses. 

(b) A second portion of the Robethon papers is in the Stadt- 
bibliothek at Hanover. When Spittler examined these in the last 
century there were eight volumes — seven quartos and a folio — but 
one of the quartos is now missing. These volumes came into the 
possession of Colonel Maxwell, Robsthon's stepson ; he sent them 
in 1743 to De Reiche, chamberlain at Hanover,'*'^ from whose 
family they came as a legacy to the Stadtbibliothek in 1777. 

The first three volumes of this collection contain a diary which 
Robethon kept in the j'ears 1G94-97. A fourth volume, now 
missing, had his account of Portland's embassy at Paris in 1698." 
The diary opens with a fall copy cf proposals for peace, dated 
London, 19 Dec. O.S. 1693, presented on behalf of Louis XIV by 
Scheele, the Danish envoy. It continues with particulars of 
further negotiations for peace, of the state of affairs on the 
continent, of the course of English politics, and of military and 
naval movements and 'orders of battle,' up to July 1697. 
Interspersed are a large number of news-letters from Paris, 
Vienna, and elsewhere. There are, further, at the end, a series of 
forty-four letters from H. Kotzebue at the Hague to Robethon's 

*• Letter from Maxwell, ' Lunebourg ce 4* May 1743,' prefixed to Vol. 93. 

•' Can this be the Paris MS. journal used by Grirablot for his Letters of Wil- 
liam III and of Louis XIV, and by Dr. Schotel in his folio work printed for the 
London Exhibition of 1851 ? 


master, Baron Schiitz, and ten reports thence in German. These 
give valuable particulars of the peace negotiations conducted by 
Caillieres and at Eyswyk. 

Volume dG is a thick quarto filled with letters to Eobethon, 
which would be in their proper place among those at the British 
Museum. The writers are Palmquist, Swedish envoy at Paris ; 
Klinggraeff, Hanoverian resident at the Hague ; the famous George 
Henry Goertz ; Lord Kaby (Berlin) ; Count Auersperg (Vienna) ; 
and the agent Martines. A budget of letters from Eobethon's wife 
from Berlin has been cut out. 

Volumes 94 and 95 relate solely to Eobethon's mission to the 
Hague in 1711, of which mention has been made. The former 
contains the original instructions and credentials and electoral 
rescripts. The latter has the important correspondence. 

Lastly, Volume 93 contains a miscellaneous collection of tracts, 
some eight of which are by Eobethon. 

(c) A third collection is in the possession of the * Historischer 
Verein fiir Niedersachsen ' at Hanover.^* These papers were sorted 
and arranged in separate covers by the late Dr. Pauli, and many 
of them have been printed by him or by Onno Klopp. They are in 
four divisions. 

In the first are papers relating to the mission of Lord 
Elvers to Hanover in 1710, to the preliminary negotiations for 
peace, and to the missions of Grote, Schiitz, and Bothmer in 
1713-14. Eobethon's ' Eaisonnement touchant I'invitationdusuc- 
cesseur,' 1 Oct. 1705, is accompanied by remarks from the elder 
Schutz. Another document is the ' Eaisonnement des Whigs pour 
justifier la revolution,' November 1710. Other papers have reference 
to the affair of the duchess of Gordon's medal. There are four 
lengthy despatches from Kreyenberg in June 1713, treating of all 
the topics of the time. Last comes a collection of papers on the 
' Vieux et nouveaux Instruments concernant une Eegence,' the latter 
required in consequence of the Electress Sophia's death. 

Among the papers in the second division are a number of forms 
of appointment to the great offices of state. That for Marlborough 
to be captain -general is an original commission, with the elector's 
autograph and seal, dated -{j- Aug. 1714 ; others are drafts, some 
bearing initials of the elector and certain privy councillors. 

The third division contains a number of interesting documents 
and pamphlets. First come original papers concerning Eoger 
Acherley's proposal to establish a member of the electoral family in 
England.*^ An immense letter of six pages folio is from George 

*' The opportunity to examine these was very kindly afforded by Dr. Adolf Kocher. 

*' J. M. Kemble wrote from these papers an article for the Zeitschrift des hist. 

Vereinesfilr Niedersachsen for 1852, and has much on the subject in his State Papers. 


Ridpath, on Scotch affairs ; and there is a pamphlet of his, * Some 
Humble Thoughts about the Succession.' The contents of another 
pamphlet without title, name, or date, suggest Ker of Kersland as 
the author. A third is Eobethon's answer to ' English Advice to 
the Freeholders.' A memorial on the affairs of the Dutch Republic 
is from St. Saphorin, under cover of 2 Jan. 1714. 

Lastly, a fourth cover contains some copies of accounts and lists 
of the household at Hampton Court in 1717-18-22-28, and some 
remarks, attributed to Robethon, but not in his handwriting, on the 
treaties of Ryswyk and Utrecht. 

A paper on the Stadtbibliothek collection appeared in the 

* Gottingisches historisches Magazin ' for 1787, from the pen of its 
editor, Spittler. It has been already referred to. 

Dr. Pauli has published three articles, two in the * Nachrichten 
von der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der 
Georg-Augusts-Universitiit zu Gottingen ' for 1881, and one in the 
' Zeitschrift des historischen Vereines fiir Niedersachsen ' for 1883. 
The first is concerned with Robethon's correspondence in the 
State Archives. Pauli knows enough of him thence to call him * die 
Seele der diplomatischen Kanzlei.' In the other two he draws 
from the two collections here described, and gives many interesting 
particulars about Robethon. A good many of the papers of the 
' Historischer Yerein ' he prints. 

Onno Klopp, too, has examined the latter, and has printed many 
of the pieces in the appendices to vols. 13 and 14 of his great work, 

* Der Fall des Hauses Stuart.' J. F. Chance. 

Acherley, an English barrister, had reopened the question in correspondence with 
Leibnitz in Aug. 1712 ; see Acherley's Free Parliaments, pp. 205, foil. On the 
whole subject of the ' invitation to the successor,' see the work of Felix Salomon 
before referred to (note 22), pp. 90, 173, 224. 

1898 71 

Notes and Documents 


Modern writers assign the death of the great West-Saxon king to 
26 Oct. 901. The principal authority for this is the Parker 
MS. (x\) of the Old-EngHsh Chronicle, which seems to have been 
written at Winchester, where the king was buried. It states under 
901 that Alfred died six nights before All Saints' Day — that is, on 
26 Oct. In this it is supported by two other manuscripts of the 
Chronicle^ (B and C), whilst three others give the same date in 
the terms of the Eoman calendar (7 Kal. Novemb.) The evidence 
for the day of the month is very complete, for the king's death is 
entered under this date in a probably contemporary hand in the Junius 
calendar,^ and in a slightly later hand in the so-called * Psalter of 
King ^thelstan.' ^ It is also given under the same date in two 
eleventh-century calendars, one of which dates from the early part 
of the century,* the other being somewhat later. -^ Moreover, four 
manuscripts of the Chronicle (A, B, C, D) record that King 
iEthelstan's death on 27 Oct. (6 Kal. Nov.) 940 was forty years 
all but a day (.s?V) later than Alfred's death.'' 

The question of the year of Alfred's death is, however, involved 
in uncertainties. The Parker MS., followed by B, C, D, E, states 
that King iEthelred, Alfred's predecessor, died after Easter 871. 

' The Canterbury MS. (B) cannot be cited for chronological purposes, since the 
year numbers from 652 to 915 are ' supplied in a modern hand ' (Thoi-pe's edition, 
i. 190, note). It is here quoted, for what it is worth, in order to include all the 
manuscripts in our survey. 

- Junius MS. 27, in the Bodleian : * vii. Kal. No. Aelfred rex obiit.' Wanley 
{Catalogus, p. 7G) ascribed this calendar to the reign of jEthelstan. This calendar is 
described by Westwood, Palaeographia Sacra Pictoria, pi. 41, fig. 3, and Facsimiles 
of Miniatures of Anglo-Saxon and Irish MSS. p. 100 ; Ferdinand Piper, Die Kalen- 
darien und Martyrologicn dcr Angelsachsen (Berlin, 1862), p. 68. 

' Cotton. Galba, A. XVIII. See E. T. Hampson, Medii Acvi Calendarium, 1841, 
i. 395, 416 ; Piper, p. 48 ; Westwood, Palaeographia, p. 22, Facsimiles, p. 96. 

' Cott. Titus, D. XXVII ; Hampson, i. 444 ; Birch, Trans. Royal Soc. of Litera- 
ture, xi. 496, and Liber Vitae of Hyde, p. 272 ; Piper, p. 104 ; Westwood, Facs. p. 123. 

* Cott. Tiberius, B. V ; Hampson, i. 395, 416 ; Piper, p. 48. 

* ^Ethelwerd {Man. Hist. Brit. 519, A) states that Alfred died on the seventh day 
before All Saints' Day, probably by a corruption of the (lost) manuscript. The 
evidence adduced above renders it unnecessary to consider Lappenberg and Pauli's con- 
clusion that Alfred died on 28 Oct. See Piper, p. 48, note 3. Winkelmann (Geschichtc 
der Angelsachsen, Berlin, 1883, p. 182) was not aware of Piper's exposure of this error. 


In that year Easter fell on 15 April.' Under 901 we are told by 
all the manuscripts of the Chronicle that Alfred reigned 28^ years.* 
If we add this period, also given by later writers, to 15 April 871, 
we reach October 899 as the date of his death. This is, strange to 
say, the year given by the Northumbrian annals represented by 
Simeon of Durham and Roger of Howden.^ As these annals are 
*at this period little more than reproductions of the Worcester 
chronicle or of Florence of Worcester, we cannot ascribe to them 
the superiority in chronological accuracy over the West- Saxon annals 
vindicated for them at an earlier period by the bishop of Oxford.^" 
But it would seem that the Northumbrian compilers in continuing 
the ancient Northumbrian annals had before them a copy of the 
Chronicle or some independent source " in which Alfred's death was 
assigned to 899 and not to 901. The former date is given three 
times by Simeon, and in one case it is a deliberate correction of 
Florence's date. Other indications point to the same date. 
Eardwulf, bishop of Chester-le-Street, died, according to Simeon, in 
899,'^ and the ' Historia de Sancto Cutliberto,' which probably 
represents a late tenth or early eleventh century compilation, says 
that Alfred and Eardwulf died at the same time.'' Florence, who 
ascribes Alfred's death to 901, enters Eardwulf s death under 900. 
But he places in the same year the death of Bishoj) Heahstan or Ealh- 
stan of London, whose death is entered under 898 in the Parker and 
three other manuscripts of the Chronicle. We cannot, in the face of 
these difficulties, correct the Northumbrian date of Eardwulf 's death, 
and consequently of Alfred's death, to 900 or 901, in order to bring 
about an agreement with Florence. Thus we have one set of 
authorities that places Alfred's death in 899. 

' It might seem at first sight that ^thelred's death is recorded in Ji^lfsin's 
calendar (Titus, D. XXVII) under 9 Kal. May ( = 23 April), but this is the obit of 
^thelred the Unready, who died in lOlG (Chron. C, D, E), as has been recognised by 
Piper, p. 104, note. Florence, ed. Thorpe, ii. 85, records that the earlier .Ethelred 
was buried at Wimborne on 23 April 871. The date 871 for his death is evidently 
correct, for it is given by the Lindisfarne Annals (Pertz, Scriptores, xix. 506), Asser 
^thelwerd, Simeon, and Florence. 

* Florence of Worcester's statement (ed. Thorpe, i, IIC) that Alfred reigned 29| 
years has, no doubt, arisen from overlooking the word ' oSrum ' in the passage 'he 
heold I'ffit rice o(>rum healfum laes }>e xxx. wintra.' The omission of this word would 
make the passage mean 29^ instead of 28| years, since ' oSrum healfum ' corresponds 
to the German ' anderthalb.' Florence's error has been copied by Howden. 

» Simeon of Durham, Historia Ecgum, ii. 92, 120, Historia Dunelmcnsis Ecclesiae, 
i. 71 ; Roger of Howden, i. 50. Simeon at ii. 120 copies unthinkingly Florence's 
indiction for 901, but this is no reason for rejecting his date with Lappenberg. The 
indiction seems to have been calculated by Florence. 

'" Roger of Howden, i., p. xc. 

" Tlie source was, no doubt, the original of the Lindisfarne Annals. Pertz's text 
places Alfred's death in 899. 

" ii. 92, 121. This date also appears in the Lindisfarne Annals, p. 506. 

" Cap. 21, ed. Arnold, i. 208. Simeon, Hist. Dunelvu Eccl. o. 16 (i. 72), states 
definitely that Eardwulf died in the same year as Alfred. 


Another set places his death in 900. As we have seen, four 
manuscripts of the Chronicle state that ^thelstan's death on 27 
Oct. 940 was forty years less one day from the time of Alfred's 
death, so that they assume that the latter king died on 28 Oct. 
900. But we cannot attach much importance to this evidence, as 
in the Parker MS. the year has been altered from 941, and the 
interval reduced from forty-one years. None of the manuscripts of 
the Chronicle can be trusted for the chronology of this period. The 
tenth-century manuscript of the * Annales Cambriae ' records 
Alfred's death in 900,'* and ^thelwerd, who was born within a 
generation or so of this year, also places his death in 900.'' There 
are also two charters coming from a highly suspicious source, 
the twelfth-century ' Codex Wintoniensis,' in which Alfred's death is 
assigned to this year."' It is very remarkable that this evidence 
comes, like the Parker MS., from Winchester, where Alfred was 
buried, and that the date is not derived from the Parker MS. 

Great respect has naturally been paid to the statements of the 
Parker MS., because it is the only one of the manuscripts of the 
Chronicle that can claim to go back to Alfred's time. It has even 
been regarded as the original manuscript of the Chronicle, but 
it is clear that it is copied from an older text, for better readings, 
derived evidently from the archetype, are occasionally preserved 
in the later manuscripts. "^ The first hand of the Parker 
MS. ends in 891, which is apparently the date of the writing, for 
the scribe entered in the margin at the foot of the page the date of 
the following year {An. DCCC. XCIL), leaving a blank for the inser- 
tion of the events of that year. Another scribe, overlooking or ignor- 
ing the entry of the date of 892, continued the annalsof 891 by add- 
ing overleaf a notice of the comet, commencing with the words ' ond 
]>y ilcan gearc ofer Eastron' ( = andin the same year after Easter). 

'• Ed. Phillimore, Y Cymmrodor, ix. 167. 

'^ Monumenta Historica Britannica, 519 A. The calculation is, like many of this 
writer's dates, somewhat uncertain. But he tells us (519 B) that Edward the Elder 
was crowned on Whitsunday (8 June), a hundred years after Eegberht's accession, and 
that this was nine hundred years from the Incarnation. This would necessarily place 
Alfred's death in October 899. 

'* Birch, Cart. Saxon, ii. 235 : ' Haec autem cartula in Wintonia civitate scripta 
est, anno dominicae [Incarnationis] DCCCC, quo anno et Alfred rex defunctus est, 
Indictione III.' Ibid. ii. 241, 243 : ' Anno autem dominicae Incarnationis DCCCC, 
Indictione III, quando rex obiit et Eadwardrex filius suus regnum suscepit.' Mr. Birch 
has, as the present article will show, needlessly altered the date to 901. As frequently 
happens, these apparent blunders in copies of charters are presumptive evidence in 
favour of their authenticity. It is, however, difficult to believe that the two charters 
last cited are genuine. 

" E. Grubitz, Kritischo Unterstichung ilber die ags. Annalcn, Gottingen, 1868, 
p. 6 sgq. ; M. Kupferschmidt, ' Ueber das Handschriftenverhaltniss der Winchester 
Annalen,' in Englische Studicn, xiii. 165 ; Karl Horst, Zur Kritik der altenglischen 
Annalen (Darmstadt, 1896), p. 25 sqq., and 'Beitrage zur Kenntniss der altenglischen 
Annalen,' in Englische Studien, xxiv. 10. 


The comet thus recorded is that of 891,'" and manuscriptB B, C, and 

D have no new year-date before it, assigning it with the other events 
of 891 in the Parker MS. to 892. The presence in the latter manu- 
script of the unerased marginal date of 892 before the passage just 
quoted has had a disastrous effect upon the chronology of the 
next portion of the manuscript. The events of 892 were added after 
the passage about the comet, and that date was written in the margin, 
thus producing two marginal dates of 892. Noticing this, another 
scribe solved the difficulty by boldly altering the second 892 to 893, 
increasing the year numbers by one until 924, when the early tenth- 
century scribes who continued the annals from 891 ceased writing. 
Manuscript B gives the blank date 892 after the account of the comet, 
which it ascribes to 891, not 892, as the Parker MS. inadvertently does. 
Manuscripts B, C, and D give under 893 the events that appear in the 
Parker MS. under 893 (altered from 892) whilst E and F enter them 
in 892. The latter two manuscripts are supported in their date by 
the continental chronicles, for the march of the Northmen to Bou- 
logne recorded by both groups of manuscripts took place in the 
autumn of 892.'^ "We lose the guidance of E and F between 892 
and 901, when they agree with the other manuscripts in recording 
Alfred's death. It might be held that the dates of the other group of 
manuscripts are a year in advance of the real dates after 892 or 
893, especially as the arrival of the Northmen in the Seine, which 
is given under 897, occurred in 896 according to the continental 
writers.'^" But the foreign events from 878 are also recorded a year 
later than their true date,'^' and therefore if another year had been 
added in 892 they would thereafter be recorded two years after the 
real date. In 890 and 891, however, some of the foreign events are 
correctly dated, and some of the other discrepancies are probably 
to be ascribed to the lapse of time before the news reached England, 
or to the chronicler narrating a chain of events under one year, 
although some of them may have happened before or after the year 
in question. This striving after continuity of narrative has been 
one of the most fruitful causes of chronological mistakes in our later 

"Whether another great cause of chronological discrepancies, 
the unsettled customs as to the commencement of the year, has 
also been at work, it is hard to decide. It is clear that at a later 

'* The comet of 891, which Pingre thought was the comet of 1661, is recorded in 
China as being seen in the fourteenth moon, which commenced about 11 May ; Pingre, 
ComHographic, on TraiW Uistoriqxic ct Thioriqus dcs ConuHcs (Paris, 1783), i. 350. 
The Chronicle records its appearance as ' about Rogations or before,' i.e. on or before 
10, 11, or 12 May. Pingre thinks that the place of the comet of 892 does not permit 
of its being confounded with that of 891. 

"• E. Diimmler, Geschichie des ost/riitikisclicn BcicJies, ii. 351 ; Steenstrup, Nor- 
inanneme, ii. 281. 

»• Diimmler, ii. 434 ; Steenstrup, ii. 282. 

■•' This has been already pointed out by Steenstrup, ii. 74. 


time the Old English year began on 25 Dec.^^ At an earlier period 
Beda speaks of this English custom of commencing the year on this 
day as having fallen into desuetude.^^ When this ancient popular 
system again came into general use we do not know, and we are 
ignorant of the custom in use in Alfred's time. In reading the 
chronicle of his time we come across several instances where the 
first events recorded in a given year happened late in the autumn 
or in October or November. In the continental events it may be 
urged that, assuming that the year commenced on 25 Dec, the 
events are entered in the year, although they occurred before Christ- 
mas, because the news did not reach England until after that day. 
But this does not explain why the death of Karlman on 12 Dec. 
884 ^^ should be recorded in 885 ( = 884) as occurring * in this same 
year before mid-winter,' or why in 893 ( = 892) the march of the 
Northmen to Boulogne, in the autumn of 892,^^ should be the first 
event recorded in the year, or why in 896 the events in the 
summer in England precede those of the winter, since if the year 
began on 25 Dec. the events of the summer should have been 
assigned to the previous year. These instances would follow in the 
order given in the Chronicle in a year beginning 25 March, which 
would have been the proper commencement in the era of the 
Incarnation.'^*^ If the year commenced on 25 March preceding 

-- Thus ^Ifiic's Homilies, composed shortly before the year 1000, commence with 
25 Dec. ; of. Piper, p. 89. So also the poetical Mowlogmm begins at Christmas. 
Byi'htferth, in his Handhoc (ed. Kluge, Anglia, viii. 305, 27), mentions January first of 
the months, because it is the beginning and ending of the year ; but this is, no doubt, 
from the point of view of the church calendar. 

-^ De Temporum Ratione, c. 15 : ' Antiqui Anglorum populi . . . incipiebant autem 
annum ab octavo Calendarum lanuariarum die, ubi nunc natale Domini celebramus.' 
In his computistic work (cf. cc. 18, 20, 22) Beda commences the year, after the Roman 
fashion (c. 26), on 1 Jan. But this was the scientific usage, and in dealing with the 
literature of the computists he could hardly do otherwise than fall in with the scientific 
practice of his day. Similarly his description of March as the first month is in 
accordance with the Hebrew year, and cannot be cited to prove that he commenced 
the year in that month. Cf. Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologic, ii. 227, 325. 

2' Diimmler, ii. 223. 

« Ibid. ii. 351 ; Steenstrup, ii. 281. 

-^ That is, if ihelncarnatio, (rdpKuxns, referred, as it clearly did in early:times, to the 
Annunciation (Heinrich Gelzer, Sextus Jtilius Africanus uiul die byzantiniscJie Chrono- 
graphie, Leipzig, 1880, 1885, i. 47, ii. 243, 249). When in later times it was applied 
to the Nativity (ivavdpwwna-is), the commencement of the year must have been logically 
put back nine months ; so that the Calculus Fisanus, which identified the Incarna- 
tion with the Annunciation, was correct in beginning the year nine months and seven 
days before our commencement. The Calculus Flwentinus, which also began with 
the Annunciation, commenced its year two months and twenty-five days later than our 
commencement. This, although the most illogical system, was by far the most 
common. It is unfortunate that we do not know which system Beda or his great 
exemplar Dionysius Exiguus followed. The latter probably used the Pisan system. 
The computist who in 616 continued the cycles of Dionysius says that Dionysius 
commenced from the Incarnation in the year 532, indiction 10 (J. Guil. Jani, Historia 
Cycli Dionysiani, Vitembergae, 1718, 4to, p. 50, note /; Muratori, Anecdota, iii. 169). 


25 Dec, and not on 25 March following that date, we should have 
an easy explanation of the annals being in so many cases a year 
in advance of the reiU date, since nine months of the year would, 
according to our system, be pre-dated one year. This would 
enable us to correct the date of Alfred's death to 26 Oct. 900, and 
there would remain the possibihty of the error of a year, caused 
by the double date in 892, thus bringing the year of his death 
to 899. The evidence at our disposal does not enable us to 
affirm such changes or to disprove their possibility. We can, how- 
ever, state that the chronology of this portion of the Parker MS. is 
far from being trustworthy, and we need not hesitate to set it aside 
upon good contemporary evidence. 

Whether or not the preceding speculations account for an error 
of two years in the Chronicle as to King Alfred's death, it seems 
clear from the manuscript that I print below that his death did 
occur in 899 and not in 901. The Cottonian MS. Vespasian D. XIV. 
fo. 223 verso (oUm 220 irrso) contains the following computus for 
finding the year of the Incarnation. Although it is in Latin it is 
written in O.E. letters, which shows that it cannot be later than the 
early part of the tenth century, for after about 950 English scribes 
used a form of the Caroline minuscule in writing Latin. Conse- 
quently, w'hen it states that the * present year ' is 912, we may 
conclude that it was written in that year, a date with which the 
handwriting and the title Saxonum rex agree. The writer has 
iguorantly applied the rule or * argnmentum,' which is derived from 
Beda," who adopted it from Dionysius Exiguus,^* so that the 
figures cannot be made to work out correctly.^ There are several 
marks on the parchment that may be erasures, but are probably 

" De Temporibus, c. 14, written in 703. It is copied unchanged into ' Athelstan's 
Psalter ' (MS. Galba, A. XVUI) and Julius, A. XVI ; Hampson, i. 394. The latter 
(ii. 207) quotes the rule with the same date from Beda's Canones Lwiares, meaning the 
Canones Litnarium Dccennovenaliutn Circuloriim, printed in Beda's Opera (Cologne, 
1688), i. 321. This is not a work of Beda's, but is a ' farrago ' of various computists, 
many of whom lived after Beda's time ; [Van den Hagcn,] Obscrvationcs in . . . Pro- 
logas ct Epistolas Paschalcs (Amsterdam, 1734), pp. 205, 210. Other examples of the 
rule are given by this author, pp. 205, 206. 

^ Van den Hagen, pp. 207, 261. It occurs, with the reckonmg of the year 522, at 
foil. 8 d, 72 d, of the invaluable Digby MS. 63, a ninth-century manuscript that pre- 
serves the Paschal tables and other works of Dionysius. 

** It is easy to see how he went wrong. By adding 3 to 912 and dividing by 15 
he obtained 61 as the number of indictional cycles. When the indictions were con- 
tinued backwards to the birth of Christ, it was found that that event occurred in the 
fourth year of a cycle, so that an indiction cycle ended in 12 a.d. These twelve years 
were allowed for by adding the 12 ' regulares,' and therefore to count the cycle from 
B.C. 3 to 12 A.D., as the Vespasian scribe has done, was to count this cycle twice ; cf. 
Van den Hagen, p. 207. The years of the incompleted cycles were added to the sum 
according to the rule, but the year 912 was indiction 15. The scribe reckoned this as 
a completed cycle, and then added the indiction number of 15, thus counting the cycle 
twice. By thus reducing the number of cycles to 59 the ' computus ' works out cor 
rectly 912. 



merely natural rubbings of the page, which is the last one in the 
volume. But the figures that concern us — namely, that ' the present 
year ' is the thirteenth year of tlie reign of Edward, king of the 
Saxons, and that it is the year of the Incarnation 912 — have no 
signs of abrading, either accidental or intentional. We have, there- 
fore, practically contemporary evidence that Alfred died in 899. 
According to iEthelwerd, Edward was crowned on Whitsunday 900, 
in which year it fell on 8 June. If his regnal years were reckoned 
from that date, as seems probable, his thirteenth year extended from 
8 June 912 to 7 June 913. The computus was therefore probably 
written between 8 June 912 and the commencement, whenever it 
was, of the following year.^° The indiction given is that of 912, so 
that we cannot assume a mistake in the year. As the length of 
Alfred's reign added, as we have seen, to the date of his predecessor's 
death also refers his death to October 899, we need not consider 
the possibility of there being a mistake in the regnal year given in 
this computus. We cannot possibly assume that the * XIII ' is a 
mistake for * X ' or ' XI,' which would be required to harmonise 
Edward's accession with the placing of Alfred's death in 901. 
Therefore, I think, we must reject the latter date, which conflicts 
with the statement in the Chronicle as to the length of his reign, 
and we may conclude that the great West- Saxon warrior, saint, and 
scholar died on 26 Oct. 899. W. H. Stevenson. 

Si vis scire quot sint anni ab incarnatione domini nostri, scito quot 
fuerint ordines indictionum, et his per XV multiplicatis, XII adde 
reg[ulares], et insuper indictionem anni cuiuscumque volueris, et annos 
domini sine caligine reperies. Verbi gratia, in presenti anno, qui est XIII 
regni Eadweardi Saxonum regis, Indictionum sume ordines, qui sunt LXI ; 
lies partire ; per XV multiplica : quindecies quinquaginta dccl. fiunt, 
quindecies XI. c. v. [sic] fiunt. Adde Kegulares ^' XII et Indictionem 
XV, que est in presenti anno, et his priori numero coniunctis, dcccc. xii 
reddunt : ipsi sunt anni ab -Incarnatione Domini usque in annum 

'" As none of the year-commencements in use before the Conquest would enable 
June to be counted in the same year as the preceding October, it is clear that Alfred's 
death must have happened in October 899. If Edward's reign was reckoned from his 
father's death, his thirteenth year would be 26 Oct. 911 to 25 Oct. 912. 

^' These ' regulares,' which are not explained in the glossaries, were added to the 
number of cycles because the first completed cycle of indictions after Christ's Incarna- 
tion began in 13 a.d. (Van den Hagen, p. 207). Compare the early ninth-century ' Liber 
de Computo,' in Muratori, Anccdota, iii. 201 : ' propterea autem auctores XII Regulares 
ad annos Domini adposuerunt, quia quando Incarnatio facta est, XII anni de ilia 
Indictione remanserant. Ideo autem Regulares dicuntur, quia numerum annorum 
Domini regulare videntur.' So also the Digby MS. G3, fo. 20 d : ' hi XII regulares de 
indictione remanserunt quando Incarnatio facta est, ideoque regulam annorum Domini 
tenere videntur.' 



Dr. Stubbs, lamenting the difficulty of estimating the royal 
income in the fourteenth century, observes that * of the produce of 
a vote of tenths and fifteenths we have no computation after the 
reign of Henry III that is trustworthy.' ' Of that reign he 
writes — 

In 1224 a fifteenth produced 57,838Z. 13s. 6f/. ; in 1233 a fortieth pro- 
duced 1G,-175/. Os. d(L ; in 1237 a thirtieth produced 22,594/. 2s. Id. (' Liber 
liubcr Scaccarii ; ' Hunter, ' Three Catalogues,' p. 22.2) 

The first point to strike one here is that the sum raised in 1224 is 
out of all proportion to those obtained in 1233 and 1237, which latter 
harmonise with one another. Now the * fifteenth ' of 1224, granted 
by the clergy and laity,' is given in the Red Book as producing 
iiij''''vj miUia Dcclviij m, ij d.* 

The system of reckoning by Roman numerals is responsible for 
many of the errors in Domesday ; and we have only to suppose here 
that the scribe wrote * iiij"" ' for ' iij"'' ' to obtain remarkable results. 
For the total of the fifteenth in 1224 would thus be 66,758 marcs, 
and the ' thirtieth ' of 1237, which should, in proportion, have pro- 
duced 33,379 marcs, did actually produce 33,811. Again, to take 
another test, as the 'fortieth' of 1233 produced 24,712 marcs, the 
* thirtieth ' of 1237 should have brought in 32,950 : its product, 
as I have said, was 33,811. Once more, for a 'tenth' in the 
fourteenth century. Dr. Stubbs suggests, ' we arrive at the sum 
of 60,000/. as an approximation to the total sum.'"' If my emen- 
dation be accepted for 1224, a * tenth ' on the same assessment 
would produce 66,758/. This is curiously close to Dr. Stubbs's 
estimate. But if we adhere to the scribe's figure a ' tenth ' 
would have brought in 80,758/. Is it credible that the taxable 
property should have fallen so enormously in value between 1224 
and the days of the Edwards ? 

J. H. Round. 


A MANUSCRIPT which has lately been identified at the Bibliotheque 
Nationale will be of value for the edition of the year-books of 
Edward II, and of 1-10 Edward III, which, it may be hoped, Mr. L. 0. 
Pike will one day undertake. The thin folio volume * Fr. 5577 ' 

• Const. Hist. (1875), ii. 549. » Ibid. note. 

» Ibid. pp. 37-8. * Liber Hiibeus d« Scaccario (Bolls series), pp. civ, 1064. 

» Const. Hist. ii. 549. 


contains 72 parchment folios, 14| by 9^ inches, closely written on 
both sides, and paged in modern French numerals. Both edges 
are pricked, as usual, to guide the scribe in ruling his lines. The 
volume is made up of three separate manuscripts, bound together, 
written in as many different and closely contemporary hands. The 
first extends from f, 1 to f. 24 inclusive, and is in single column ; 
the second from f. 25 to f. 33 inclusive, f. 34 being a blank 
flyleaf; the third from f. 35 to the end, the two latter manuscripts 
being in double columns. With the exception of the face of f. 1, 
which is worn and so faded as to be in parts, especially the margins, 
difficultly legible, the manuscript is in excellent condition. The 
few holes and sewn-up rents existed when the scribe wrote, for he 
has passed across and around them. An examination of the folios, 
grouped according to the law terms of which they contain the 
reports, will facilitate collation with the MSS. which exist at 
the British Museum and elsewhere in England. The first of 
the three component MSS. (ff. 1-24) comprises reports for the follow- 
ing terms : — 

Michaelmas 20 Ed. II (ff. 1 and 2, and nearly the whole of 3 r'') ; 
Easter 1 Ed. Ill (the remainder of f. 3, 4 r^, and nearly all 4 v°) ; Mich. 

1 Ed. Ill (the remainder of f. 4, 5 to 8, and three-fourths of 9 r**) ; Hilary 

2 Ed. Ill (the remainder off. 9, 10 to 12, and three-fourths of 13 r<>) ; 
East. 2 Ed. Ill (the remainder of f. 13, 14 to 18, one-third of 19 r°) ; 
Mich. 2 Ed. Ill (the remainder of f. 19, 20 to 22, 23 r°, and hues 1 to 
6 of 23 v°) ; Hil. 3 Ed. Ill (the remainder of f. 23, 24 r° and v°). 

Comparison with the black-letter edition, made below, will show that 
Trinity 2 Ed. Ill may be added to this list, the MS. having incorporated 
that term under Michaelmas of the same year. 

At the bottom of f. 24 v° the first component MS. breaks off, 
and the second (ff. 25-33) introduces double columns. Written 
in a much finer and a more delicate hand, and on parchment of 
finer quality, it comprises two terms only : — 

Easter 3 Ed. Ill (ff. 25 to 27, 28 r", and a column and a half of 
28 v°), and Trinity in the same year (the remainder of f. 28, 29 to 32, 
the first column, and the first two lines of the second column, of 38 r°). 

The third line of the second column of 33 r° consists of the 
title : De termino Michaelis anno regni regis Edwardi tercii a con- 
questu tercio, but with this unfulfilled announcement the MS. 
breaks off, and from TriJi. 3 Ed. Ill to Hil. 9 Ed. Ill there is a 
long lacuna. The rest off. 33 is blank, f. 34 is a flyleaf, and f. 35, 
in a third hand, finer still than the second, introduces the third 
component MS. (ff. 35-72), which contains :— 

Hil. 9 Ed. Ill (ff. 35 to 37, the first 10^- lines of 38 r°), and under the 
same year East, (the remainder of f. 38, 39, 40 r°, and a column and a 
half of 40 v°), Trin. the remainder of f. 40, 41 to 48, the first quarter of 


column 1 of 44 r"), MichJ (the remainder of f. 44, and 45 to 49) : under 
the year 10 Ed. Ill its four terms — Hil. (ff. 50 to 54, the first ten linos 
of 55 r°), East, (the remainder of f. 55, 56 to 59, the first two lines of GO 
r*), Trin. (the remainder off. 60, 61 to 63, 64 r°, and the first half column 
of 64 v"), Mich, (the remainder of f. 64, 65 to 71, and a column and a 
half on 72 r*, with which the volume ends). 

A comparison of the jj^cas reported by MS. Fr. 5577 with 
those in the black-letter editions '^ will help in estimating its value 
for a new edition of the year-books. 

For Mich. 20 Ed. II the MS. contams 28 pleas, the Black Letter 
none. For East. 1 Ed. Ill the MS. has again 28 pleas, 27 of which are 
absent in the B. L. ; ' the latter has 49 pleas, none of which are in the 
MS. For Trin., which is entirely wanting in the MS., there are 10 pleas 
in the B. L. For Mich, the MS. has 19 pleas, 8 of which * are wanting 
in the B. L. The latter has 27, 12 of which are not in the MS. The 
pleas which for this term coincide in matter, differ in form. For Hil. 2 

• In this term there is a confusion in the order of the folios — a not infrequent 
occurrence, as Mr. Pike observes, in year-book MSS. F. 47 V, for example, is headed 
Trinitalis ; so also is f. 48 both i* and V. F. 49 r also apparently belongs to Trin., 
but 49 V" is entitled Michaclis Nono. 

• Or rather edition, since they are all reprints from the pioneer edition by Tottyll 

in 15G2. The three Rieat black-letter editions of the year-books 1-10 Edward III are 

those of Eichard Tottyll, 1502, Jane Yetsweirt, l.'>96, Sawbridge and Co., 1679. The 

title page of Tottyll's parent edition runs : ' Regis Edwardi tertii a primo ad decimum 

(inclusive) anni omnes, qui nunquam ante hac typis excusi sunt, nunc primum . . . 

non sine accurata multorum manuscriptorum exemplarium collatione in lucem pro- 

dierunt, opera et impfnsis Richardi Tottelli . . . 1502.' He winds up his volume, f. 

dxlii, with Plea Xo. 07, Mich. 10 Ed. Ill, and adds : ' Imprinted at London in Flete- 

Etrete within Temple Barre ... by Richard Tottyll . . . 1562.' Tottyll claims that 

the year-books 1- 10 Ed. Ill are printed by him for the first time, and that many 

manuscripts have been collated. His edition remained definitive, for subsequent ones 

are, as they themselves state, verbatim reprints. The first reprint of Tottyll dates from 

1596, when Jane Yetsweirt set forth an edition of which the ornamental title page is 

as follows : ' 1596. Anni decem priores Edwardi tertii, multo omnes quam ante 

emendatius aediti, signis istis * ♦ in textu, principiis foliorum editionis prioris, prae- 

positis . . . Londini. In aedibus lanae Y'etsweirt . . .' Jane Yetsweirt's edition 

professes to be more accurate than Tottyll's ' prior editio,' ' multo emendatius aediti,' but 

in fact it is identical. It describes itself as a reprint, giving asterisks whereby to 

harmonise its pagination with that of the edition of 1562, and a glance shows that 

the amount of Yetsweirt's text which lies between two asterisks corresponds to each 

complete folio, r" and v", of Tottyll. Tottyll is also the immediate parent of the third 

edition, by George Sawbridge and others, 1679, whose title page is worded : • Le 

premier part de les Reports del Cases en Ley . . . argues en le temps de . . . Roy 

Edward le Tierce, ore nouvelment Imprimes, Corriges & Amendes, avec les Notations 

& References a I'Abregement de . . . Juges . . . Brook & Fitzherbert. London. 

Printed by George Sawbridge . . . MDCLXXIX.' The agreement between the paging 

of the 1679 edition and the paging of Tottyll is also indicated ; a capital B is prefixed 

to each word of the text which corresponds to the first word of the verso of each folio 

of Tottyll, so that between B and B lies a complete folio of Tottyll, v" and r«. The 

claim that the reports are ' Corriges & Amendes ' merely amounts to this, that, whereas 

Yetsweirt's edition repeats literally the edition of Tottyll, this latest edition modernises 

the orthography. 

» MS. plea 26 = B.L. plea 26 of Mich. 1 Ed. IH. 
* Viz. Kos. 2, 5, 12. 


Ed. Ill, of 17 pleas in the MS. 1 only is wanting in the B. L., which 
contahis 21 pleas, with a supplement of 10. The 16 pleas which coin- 
cide agree verbatim. For Easter, of 31 MS. pleas 18 are wanting in 
the B. L.,^ which contains 11 pleas and a supplement of 4, the latter 4 
being absent in the MS. The 11 coincident pleas agree verbatim. For 
Triu., the title of which is wanting in the MS., the B. L. has 7 pleas 
and a supplement of 23. Of these, 6 (namely, Nos. 2 to 7) correspond to 
MS. Nos. 1 to 6 of Mich, in this year, and agree therewith verbatim. 
For Mich., of 35 MS. pleas none are wanting in the B. L., which con- 
tains 26, with a supplement of 35 ; the coincident pleas agree verbatim. 
For Hil. 3 Ed. Ill, of 11 pleas in the MS. 10 are wanting in the B. L.,'^ 
whose 39 pleas are, with one exception (No. 29), not in the MS. For 
Easter, the 41 pleas of the MS. are all ^ in the B. L., which has 38 ; 
the 38 coincident pleas agree verbatim. For Trin., of 45 MS. pleas 7 * 
are absent from the B. L. : one only of the 39 B. L. pleas (No. 28) is 
wanting in the MS. ; the 38 pleas which are in common agree verbatim. 
For the years 9 and 10 Ed. Ill, which occupy the rest of the MS., the 
identity with the B. L., both as regards the number of pleas and their 
nature and form, is very close : thus Hil. 9 Ed. Ill has both in MS. 
and B. L. 23 pleas, which agree verbatim and occur nearly in the same 
order. East, has 30 pleas in the MS., none of which are absent from the 
B. L. ; of the 31 in the B. L. it is No. 29 which is wanting in the MS. 
Here, as in the next two terms, the pleas agree verbatim. For Trin., 
of 20 MS. pleas none are absent from the B. L., of whose 25 the 5 
which do not appear in the MS. are Nos. 8 to 12. For Mich., the 61 
MS. pleas all appear in the B. L. ; the 8 out of the B. L. 69 which are 
absent from the MS. are Nos. 62 to 69. For Hil. 10 Ed. Ill, 30 MS. 
pleas all appear in the B. L., of whose 36 ^ pleas 6 '° are wanting in the 
MS. ; the coincident pleas here, as in the remaining three terms of the year, 
not only agree in form, but also occur in the same order. For East., 
of 55 MS. pleas 2 only are wanting in the B. L., which contains 64 pleas, 
For Trin. the MS. has 35 pleas, all of which occur among the B. L. 
45. For Mich., of 66 MS. pleas 3 only '• do not appear among the 
B. L. 67, 4 of which ^^ are thus wanting in the MS. 

From this comparison it appears (i) that the MS. contains 
in all 98 pleas which do not figure in the B. L. edition ; (ii) that 
part of the first of the three component MSS. and the B. L. 
represent independent reports, viz. for Mich. 20 Ed. II, East., 
Trin., and IMich. 1 Ed. Ill, and Hil. 3 Ed. Ill ; and that they 
represent the same report for the remaining terms. There is thus 
a family relation between the greater part of Fr. 5577 and the MS. 
(or MSS., as Tottyll claims) from which the first B. L. edition and 
its descendants were printed. 

' MS. plea 1 = B.L. plea 21 of Hil. 2 Ed. Ill ; MS. 2 to 12 =:B.L. 1 to 11 of Easf. 
2 Ed. III. 

« MS. No. 8 =:B.L. No. 29. " MS. Nos. G-8 occurring in B.L. under Hil. 3 Ed. III. 
» Viz. Nos. 31-37. " In reality 35. •» In reality 5, viz. 23, 2G, 30, 31, 33-36. 
" Nos. 50, 55, 56. '^ Nos. 22, 32, 36, 65. 



The manuscript was identified by accident. M. Maurice Prou, 
Keeper of the Department of Medals at the Bibliotheque Nationale, 
desiring a specimen of English fourteenth-century hand for a 
collection of palaeographical facsimiles which he was preparing,'^ 
had his attention drawn to MS. 5577 of the Fonds Francais. 
He submitted the manuscript to M. Charles Bemont, who decided 
it to be an excellent manuscript, not of the Exchequer Pleas (as the 
catalogue describes it) but of the Year-books of the Common Pleas 
for Mich. 20 Ed. II and for several of the first ten years of 
Edward III. The manuscript belonged formerly to the great 
collection of Colbert ; but how the manuscript came into bis posses- 
sion it has not been possible to discover. The purchase of that 
collection by Louis XV, in 1732, after the minister's death, for 
300,000/., doubled the Cabinet du Roi, enriching it with about 
8000 volumes.'^ The catalogue of Colbert's collection (in which 
our manuscript was No. 3138) was made by Etienne Baluze, who 
contented himself with the description : Registre de divers jiigemeiis 
rendus dn temps dn Roy Edotiard III. And when Codex Colbert 
3138 became in 1732 part of the Cabinet du Roi as * Regius 9986, 
1, a,' the description by Baluze was merely repeated. From 1741 
to 1759, however, the Cabinet des Manuscrits was in the zealous 
charge of Melot, who pushed rapidly ahead the preparation of the 
catalogue of the French manuscripts,'^ and on the paper flyleaf of 
our volume under the date 1745 is the following entry in a French 
hand : ' Journal des Audiences de I'Echiquier d'Angleterre pendant 
les annees 1, 2, 3, 9 et 10 du regne d'Edouard troisieme de ce 
noni depuis la Conqueste, et le 6" de ce nom en y comprenant les rois 
anglo-saxons qui ont porte le nom d^Edouard.' This description is 
signed M., and the same hand adds : Ce MS. est d'unc ecriture 
anyloise de la Jin du 14'' Siecle. * M.' is undoubtedly Melot, who 
thus kept the count of the Anglo-Saxon Edwards, but wrongly 
described our manuscript. His error has been perpetuated, and in 
the present catalogue of French manuscripts in the Bibliotheque 
Nationale (Ancien Fonds Fr. vi. 1887) under the number 5577, 
Melot's note is virtually reproduced : * Registres des Audiences de 
I'Echiquier d'Angleterre pendant les trois premieres annees, la 
neuvieme et la dixieme annee du regne d'Edouard III, roi d'Angle- 
terre : in fol., parchemin, xiv* siecle.' Jesse A. Twemlow. 

'* Nouveau Reaieil de facsimiles d'^criturcs du XIF a« XVIF siecle. Paris, 
1896. (Published since this present note was written). Facsimile No. iv. reproduces 
the upper portion of f. 25 r". 

' ' Leopold Delisle, Cabinet des Manuscrits, i. 439. 

»* Jbid. i. 41G. 



In the first volume of this Eeview, in the number for April 1886, 
there appeared an article of mine on the death of Amy Eobsart, 
in which I endeavoured to weigh, as carefully as I could, all the 
evidences that I then knew of bearing upon the subject. The con- 
clusion at which I then arrived, and to which I still adhere, was 
that her death was accidental ; although a letter of the Spanish 
ambassador. Bishop de Quadra, published by Froude in his * History ' 
(vol. vii. pp. 277-281), was certainly calculated to produce a dif- 
ferent impression. Nor was I surprised that my arguments did 
not satisfy everybody ; for I was perfectly aware that my view of 
this letter, taken by itself, was not altogether convincing. But 
the problem was to find some mode of interpreting it in conjunc- 
tion with other evidences that would make out a consistent story 
between them. If I failed I felt sure the error must be in the 
interpretation of this particular letter, not in the interpretation of 
the other evidences, which were all tolerably clear and distinct in 
their own way. And this has since proved to be the case. I had, 
unfortunately, no correct copy of the text of Quadra's letter of 
11 Sept. 1560 ; but I felt the inferences drawn from it by Froude 
must certainly be erroneous, however natural they seemed ; and I 
ventured to supply an explanation which Mr. Andrew Lang, and no 
doubt others, considered to be strained and artificial. I was not, 
however, concerned to vindicate Queen Elizabeth if a darker view 
of her conduct could be shown to agree better with the evidence of 
other documents and with the course of her whole reign. But not 
only did her guilt in this matter seem to me quite irreconcilable 
with the high esteem in which she was subsequently held, but it 
did not seem even compatible with other documents written, some 
immediately after the event, some only a few years later. I am, 
however, perfectly willing now to admit that my treatment of the 
evidences in this letter of Quadra was erroneous, for I could have 
furnished a much simpler explanation if I had had the true 
text before me. 

A German critic. Dr. Ernst Bekker,' who is totally opposed to 
my view that the death of Amy was accidental, has done me the 
great service of pointing out that the correct text of this important 
letter was published by the baron Kervyn de Lettenhove in his valu- 
able work on the ' Eelations Politiques des Pay s-Bas et de 1' Angleterre 
sous le Kegne de Philippe II.' As the full text, however, has never 
yet been printed in this country, either in the original language or in 

' In a paper entitled ' Das Ende Amy Eobsarts,' published in the Jahrcshcricht 
iibcr die Victor ia-Sclmle unci das Lehrerinnen- Seminar zxi Darmstadf fiir die ScJuiU 
jahrc 1895-90 imd 1890-97. 



translation, and as there are several serious inaccuracies in the 
fragmentary translation given by Froude, I venture now to present 
the English reader with a complete and, I think, entirely accurate 
rendering of the whole letter. 

Tlie Bishop of Aquila to the Diichess of Parma? 

Since I wrote to your highness many new things have occurred of 
importance, of which I have thought right to inform your highness with 
diligence. I came to Windsor, where the queen is, five days ago, and 
found, in the affairs of Scotland, that the parliament, by common consent 
of the clergy and regulars, has made an heretical confession of faith 
agreeing nearly with that of this kingdom. I will send a copy of it to 
your highness when I can get one. Only the archbishop of St. Andrews ' 
has declined to sign it, saying that he was not yet well informed. I 
do not know if the clergy of that kingdom have been intimidated by the 
seculars, who were armed. But, whatever may be the case, the faith is 
lost in that kingdom ; and to prevent its being so easily recovered there 
now come hither the earl of Huntley, the earl of Morton, and my lord 
Lethington to treat of the confirmation of the league made between 
this queen and that kingdom ; which league, I know now, was made 
before the war commenced ; and it was then agreed to by the rebels on 
the part of the kingdom, and by the duke of Norfolk on the part of this 
queen, who not having yet declared war did not wish to be named, that 
she might not appear to be the invader. Now already by virtue of that 
article made between her and the French touching matters of Scotland 
it appears to her that she may treat of another league without disguise. 
What the French may feel about that, and what quiet may ensue thereof to 
our neighbours, your highness may judge. I have not omitted to tell the 
([ueen that this appears to me a serious thing, and that I do not know how 
the French will take it. But to her it seems that it is the most proper 
course, and that the greater occasion that is given for a breach between 
the king, our lord, and the French, through these hindrances she gives 
them, the more prudently she conducts herself with a view to her pro- 
posed end. She has told me that what Fragmarton * has agreed to with 
the cardinal of Lorraine about the coming of the galleys has been done 
without her commission, because it nowise concerns her if the French sail 
galleys on that sea or do what they please, as she is sure on the side of 
Scotland ; and she also says she has written to Fragmarton not to speak 
any more about it except to ask them if they will ratify the capitidation 
lately made,'' and if they do not agree to do so let them do as they please, 
for they will have enough to attend to at home during the next two 
years. I begged her to tell me truly how she understood that affairs 
stood between her and the French. She told me that she was certain 
that the French lacked not the will to do her injury, but only time and 

= From Kervjn de Lettenhove's Relations Politiques des Pays-Bos et de VAiiglc- 
terre sous le lUgncde Philippe II, ii. 529-33. » Archbishop Hamilton. 

* So the name of Nicholas Throgmorton is here spelt. 

» The treaty of Edinburgh made in July, which, of course, the French could not 
possibly relish. 


forces, and that she knew that they had not despatched any men-of-war, 
and that manet alta mente repostum the injury that they pretend she has 
done them in Scotland. I repHed, showing much dissatisfaction with her 
about her marriage, in which on the 3rd of last month she had told me 
she was already resolved and that she assuredly meant to marry. Now 
she has coolly told me that she cannot make up her mind and that she 
does not intend to marry,*" 

After these conversations with the queen I happened to speak with 
the secretary Cecil, who I understood was in disgrace, and my lord Robert 
was trying to drive him out from public affairs, and after many protesta- 
tions and entreaties that I would keep it secret he told me that the queen 
was conducting herself in such a fashion that for his part he thought 
best to retire. For he was too bad a sailor, when he saw a storm coming, 
not to take port when he had the power to do so ; and he saw the queen's 
manifest ruin occasioned by this great influence of Lord Robert, who has 
made himself master of the business of the state and of the person of the 
queen, to the extreme injury of the whole kingdom, intending to marry 
her, and that he keeps her ^ all the day at home, to the great danger of 
her life and health. He concluded by remarking that he did not know 
how the realm would agree to it ; for which reason he was rer>olved to go 
home, though he believed they would sooner send him to the Tower than 
give him leave. Finally he begged me for the love of God to warn the 
queen as to her irregularities and to persuade her not to abandon her 
business so entirely as she did, but look after herself and her realm ; and 
then he repeated to me twice over that Lord Robert would be better in 
Paradise than here. I replied, merely regretting what he had told me, 
and said he knew how earnestly I had always sought the remedy of the 
queen, and had told her what she ought to do, in accordance with the 
instructions given me by the king, my lord, which were to recommend her 
to live peaceably and to marry, and that nevertheless he knew how little 
good it had done, except that the queen always showed that she heard 
me with good will. But with all this I would not weary nor forbear to do 
the same duty and repeat to her these two points, to live in peace and 
marry, whenever I found occasion to do it, although as to peace I under- 
stood that matters between her and the French stood in such terms that 
there was very little hope of them, she concealing from the king, my lord, 
the grievances of this kingdom, and I having to draw them out by pure 
importunity and questioning, as I did. He replied to me on this point in 
such a fashion that I thought he wanted to excuse the French to some 
extent. He told me, moreover, that the queen did not care anything for 
foreign princes, nor did she think she had any need of them, and that she 
was burdened with a very great debt, without ever thinking how to pay 

* Mr. Froude's translation (?) of this passage is as follows : ' On the third of tins 
month the queen spoke to me about her marriage icith the arclidukc. She said she 
had made up her mind to marry, and tJuit the archduke ivas to be the man. She has 
just now told me drily that she does not intend to marry, and that it cannot bo.' 
The first word in italics, ' this,' is an error for ' last ; ' the others about the archduke 
are entirely without warrant in the original text. 

' The reading given by Kervyn de Lettenhove is ' y que la traya,' not ' y quella 
traya,' as in Froude's transcript, which I followed in the English Histobical Review, 
i. 239. 


it, so that she had entirely lost her credit and the means of getting money 
from the merchants of London, which was a thing that she should have 
made her foundation ; and finally he said that they were thinking of 
putting to death Robert's wife, and that now she was pubhcly reported to 
be ill, but she was not so ; on the contrary she was quite well and was 
taking good care not to be poisoned ; and God would never permit such 
wickedness, nor could such a business have good success. I finished the 
conversation by showing, as I said, that I was sorry for what was taking 
place, and wished it could be mended, without entering on any matter 
that might cause me to prejudge anything, although I am certain that he 
speaks sincerely and does not dissemble. 

This misfortune of the secretary cannot but produce great effect, because 
it is terrible, and I think he has many companions in discontent, especially 
the duke of Norfolk, whom he named to me as one of those aggrieved and 
principal enemies of Robert, which is true. 

The day after this took place the queen told me, on her return from 
hunting, that Lord Robert's wife was dead or nearly so, and begged me 
to say nothing about it. Assuredly what they are doing in this matter is 
a most shameful and scandalous thing ; yet with all this I do not know 
if she means to marry him at once, nor even if she care to marry at all, 
because it appears to me that she does not keep firmly to any purposes,* 
and, as Cecil says, she means to do like her father. 

No injury to public affairs can come of the rupture between these persons 
so far as regards the removal of Cecil from affairs, for a worse man 
cannot possibly succeed. But it might give rise to something of 
importance if they were to shut up the queen in a tower, and make the 
earl of Huntingdon king, who is a great heretic, and if French forces 
were employed for the purpose, seeing that those of his majesty will 
never be employed in anything against religion and in favour of that 
nation. Of both these things I have some suspicion. That these 
heretics wish to make Huntingdon king is certain, and Cecil himself has 
told me that he is true heir of the kingdom of England, because Henry 
VII usurped it from the House of York. That they may use the French 
I fear, because I see great friendship between Cecil and the bishop of 
Valence.^ It may be that I am excessively suspicious ; but with people 
such as these I do not think one can go wrong in always expecting the 
worst. It is certain that the cry is that they do not wish any longer a 
woman as queen, and this one is in a fair way to spend the evening at 
home, and be in the morning in prison, she and her favourite too. 
Nevertheless it is certain that the French do not sleep, and the same 
Cecil has said to me, Non dormit Judas. What is likely to take place 
cannot but be troubles and changes. If I chose to place myself among 
them, I think they would trust me and tell me everything ; but I have 

» The Spanish is, ' que no trae pensamientos tan firmos ' (' she does not keep her 
designs so firm, or unalterable '). Froude translates the words, ' she wants resolution 
to take any decided step,' which is not the meaning at all, and which completely 
destroys the significance of what Cecil says, that she means to do like her father. 
The difficulty of all ambassadors with Henry VIII was to bind him to anything at all. 
No one knew what he was after, for he had always an arriire-pensie in his mind, 
which he did not even tell his ministers. 

• Jean de Monluc, bishop of Valence, was then the French ambassador. 


no orders what to do, and until I have I do not intend to do anything 
but listen to each party and temporise. It is very necessary that your 
highness should give me directions about these matters. To these 
catholics I show all the kindness that is in my power. I think their 
party is not so downfallen but that, if his majesty wished it, they could 
resist the machinations of those others. 

What it is important that your highness should tell his majesty is 
that he must not expect the queen ever to mend, or to do anything that 
is not against his majesty and against herself, as I have always said and 
notified. What has further to be seen to I know your highness will 
consider with much prudence. 

From Windsor, 11 Sept. 1560. — Since this was written the queen has 
published the death of my lady Kobert, and has said in Italian, Si ha 
rotto il collo. She must have fallen down a staircase. 

I have thought it best to give the reader the whole text of the 
letter, although the first paragraph contains nothing directly 
bearing on the ease of Amy Eobsart, and only a very few lines at 
the end of that paragraph refer to the question of the queen's 
marriage. It is for this reason, I suppose, that all else in this 
long first paragraph has hitherto been passed over, not only by 
Froude but unfortunately even by Major Hume '° in his calendar of 
Spanish documents, as if it were of minor importance. But Amy 
Eobsart really occupied a very subordinate place in De Quadra's 
mind when he wrote this letter ; and the things which seemed to 
him of most importance were undoubtedly those he wrote about 
first. The queen's intrigues in Scotland had been amazingly 
successful ; that country was now lost to the faith, and French 
influence was to be expelled in the northern kingdom if the 
treaty of Edinburgh were carried out. This was a most daring 
policy, and Quadra in vain insinuated to Elizabeth that it was 
rather hazardous. But when he had exhausted what he had to 
say on that subject, and found she was quite self-reliant, he came 
to the question of her marriage, on which he had spoken to her a 
month before, when she said she had quite made up her mind to 
marry some one or other. Here, too, however, the ambassador 
could get nothing out of her. She, in fact, went back on what she 
had said already, and told him she could not now see her way to 
marrying at all. Quadra then had a conversation with Cecil, 
who was simply in despair about the queen, finding, as he thought, 
that Lord Eobert's influence was everything with her and his own 
nothing. He believed, too, that there was a scheme for getting rid 
of Lord Eobert's wife by poison, with a view to his marrying the 

"• In this letter Major Hume, like myself, followed Froude's transcript in the 
British Museum. In preparing his first volume he informs me that he took transcripts 
from Simancas of all the direct English correspondence, but before going to press he 
added abstracts from Froude's transcripts of the correspondence between England and 
Flanders. His marginal references in these cases show the source. 


queen. Next day the ambassador sees the queen again, and she 
tells him Lord Robert's wife is dead, ' or nearly so ' — news which, 
of course, harmonises only too well with what Cecil had said about 
the intention to poison her. The letter is concluded (if not begun 
also) on 11 Sept., and a postscript is added after the date that 
the queen had just published the fact of Lady Robert's death, with 
the statement that she had broken her neck in falling down 
a flight of stairs. 

Such are the main facts in the letter relating to Lord Robert's 
wife ; and it must be fairly owned that no theory in the world will 
make them pleasant reading for those who love Elizabeth's memory. 
Moreover the gossip that Lord Robert intended to make away with 
his wife and marry the queen appears in previous correspondence ; 
and the queen herself, it is clear, while Amy was alive, could have 
done nothing to put a stop to it. She ruled, in fact, by mystifica- 
tion in some points, especially on the subject of her marriage ; but 
that she should have allowed gossip to make free with her honour 
to such an extent as this seems almost incompatible with the idea 
of self-respect on her part. Nevertheless I thmk her subsequent 
history shows clearly she was not the weak woman she was taken 
for by some at this time ; and, as I said in my first article, 
the actual death of Amy — coming just in the midst of these sur- 
mises — was a shock both to her and to Dudley. 

That this was so I think I have already shown in that article 
from other documents, such as Dudley's correspondence with 
Thomas Blount, and his letter to Cecil complaining that the 
* sudden chance ' has lost him all that influence with the queen 
which Cecil lately envied. The only natural interpretation of these 
documents seems to me to be that the queen at first suspected 
Dudley, and that Dudley, who himself half suspected Anthony 
Forster, was anxious for a very thorough mquiry to clear himself. 
And the inquest found a verdict which in modern language meant 
'accidental death.' But Dr. Bekker insists that the evidence in 
this letter of Quadra's is incompatible with any view of the case 
except foul play ; and it is only right to weigh his arguments. 

First of all, the letter does not bear the date of * London,' as 
Froude, followed by Major Hume, unfortunately gives it, but 
♦Windsor, 11 Sept. 1560,' And, secondly, attention is called to 
the important words at the beginning, * I came to Windsor, where 
the queen is, five days ago.' As the words in the original might 
conceivably be interpreted ' where the queen has been for the last 
five days,' Dr. Bekker takes some pams to show that the queen 
really arrived at Windsor on 30 Aug., and that De Quadra can 
only refer to his own arrival there, which, indeed, is the natural 
supposition. Quadra, then, arrived at Windsor on Sept., two 
days before Amy's death—at least if the letter was all written in 


one day — and my old hypothesis that it was only finished on the 
11th, but begun some days before, may now, I think, be dismissed 
as improbable, as the words ' five days ago ' would be misleading if 
the date at the end of the letter were not the date on which it was 

Now, so far, I accept all Dr. Bekker's corrections, besides a 
further one which is really of the highest possible significance, 
and which I made myself some years ago in a letter to the 
Atlienceum}'^ My first attempt, indeed, to explain the chronology 
of the interviews mentioned in Quadra's letter was completely 
vitiated by an error in Froude's translation, which, for a long time, 
I did not discover, and which Major Hume unluckily has only 
repeated with a difference. That error is noticed in a foot note 
above (note 6). Froude's translation made the world believe that 
Queen Elizabeth had given Quadra an interview on 3 Sept., 
when she told him she had quite made up her mind to marry the 
archduke, and that very shortly afterwards — apparently next day, 
but certainly only a few days later at the utmost — she completely 
changed her tune and told him that she did not mean to marry at 
all. In reality the first interview was on the 3rd of the preceding 
month (August), and even then, though the archduke was spoken 
of by others, it does not appear that the queen named him to 
Quadra at all. She only told him she believed she would have to 
make up her mind to marry soon, although it was sorely against 
her will.^"^ So there was really no such violent inconsistency after 
all in telling him a month later that she could not see her way 
to it. 

Now this rectification, to my mind, makes it far more easy than 
it was to maintain my original theory, that when the queen told 
Quadra that Lord Robert's wife was dead, ' or nearly so,' in- 
telligence of the actual fact of her death had already reached 
Windsor. For we know positively that it did reach "Windsor on 
9 Sept., two days before the letter was written, and we have no 
longer to combat the apparent chronology of a letter which seemed 
to date the statement that Amy was dead, ' or nearly so,' the day 
after 3 Sept. I believe that the Queen used that expression on the 
9th, if not on the 10th, after she had herself received intelligence 
of Amy's death — a piece of news which gave her so much perplexity 
that for two days she endeavoured to hush it up. 

Against this view, however, Dr. Bekker argues as follows : As 
Quadra arrived at Windsor on 6 Sept., and must have been, in 
fact, the queen's guest, whom she always received most kindly and 
gave him most patient audience, it is not to be supposed that his 
first interview with her took place only on Sunday, the 8th. It 

" Sec Athcnccum of 18 Feb. 1893, pp. 220-1. 

'- Hume's Calendar of Si)anish Slate Pai)ers, i. 174. 


was much more likely, Dr. Bekker thinks, to have been on the 6th, 
the very day of his arrival, or at all events the day following. For 
Elizabeth had ratified the treaty of Edinburgh on the 2ud, and 
the bishop had hastened to Windsor for the very purpose of getting 
exact information about the new state of affairs between England, 
Scotland, and France — a most momentous subject on which he 
wished to inform his master fully. Moreover Dr. Bekker argues 
that the interview must have taken place the very day of his 
arrival ; for if it had been deferred even till next day, the 7th, then 
the queen must have hunted on the day following, which was a 
Sunday — a thing which he considers incredible so soon after the 
passing of her Act of Uniformity (St. 1 Eliz. c. 2). I do not see 
that so clearly myself, as the act does not forbid hunting, though 
it enjoins attendance for part of the day at church, and it is 
notorious that pastimes on Sunday were never severely censured 
till a later period. 

But surely the whole of this argument is built upon very 
doubtful assumptions. First of all, is it clear that the ambassador 
was the queen's guest at Windsor Castle ? That would have 
been rather an unusual honour, for one hardly ever hears of an 
ambassador being lodged in a king's or a queen's palace, where the 
sovereign is actually resident at the time. And the letter, it should 
be observed, is not dated Windsor Castle, but only Windsor ; so 
that it is really to be supposed that lodgings were found for him in 
the town. Then it is, on the whole, unlikely that he got an 
audience on the very day of his arrival, for audiences had to be 
arranged beforehand. And, moreover, if he was so very fortunate 
as to get one that very day, or even next day, the 7th, he may 
have had another on the 8th, for it was not always practicable to come 
to business at a first interview, and the queen, after some civilities, 
could easily have put him off. Indeed, as Quadra himself says 
that he had to worm out facts by degrees, it is quite possible that 
she did something of this kind, and Quadra in his letter may 
only have mentioned the audience at which he really did get a little 
information. But on the whole it is rather more probable that the 
queen did not give him any audience till the 8th, the second day 
after his arrival. If Dr. Bekker thinks this improbable, has he 
considered well what is involved in his own supposition ? If we 
accept his view, Quadra had got all the information, he had to 
write about, except that mentioned in tlie postscript, as early as 
the 7th, and yet he deferred writing till four days later. Would that 
be consistent with the statement at the beginning of his letter that 
he was going ' to inform your highness with diligence ' of the im- 
portant facts he had ascertained ? James Gairdner. 




The state regulation of wages is generally supposed to have been 
either ineffectual or to have supported the interests of the employers, 
and not those of the employed. But between 1629 and 1640 there 
are several instances in which the privy council interfered with 
wages with the object of helping the poor. One of these seems to 
throw considerable light on the vexed question of the working of 
wages assessments. It is recorded in the Register of the Privy 
Council under the date 29 Sept. 1630. 

Foure letters of the tenor following directed to the justices of the 
peace of the counties of Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex. 

Forasmuch as wee have bin informed that divers poore people as well 
husbandmen as spinsters, weavers, keymers and other artificers doe com- 
plaine for want of a due proceeding with them for their wages according 
to the Law and theise hard and necessitous times doe require some better 
care to be had in that behalfe ; we have therefore thought good at this 
tyme to recomend the same to yo^" extraordinarie care. For the statuts of 
5. Eliz. and 1. Jac. haveing so carefully provided against theise incon- 
veniences, it were a great shame if for want of due care in such as are 
speciallie trusted with the execution of those lawes, the poore should be 
pinched in theise tymes of scarcitie and dearth. And his Ma*'® and this 
Board cannot but be exceeding sensible of any neglect or omission which 
may occasion such evill effects, as are like to ensue thereupon. And 
therefore since neither you nor any other can pretend any want of legall 
power to have prevented all just cause of complaint in this kinde wee doe 
hereby in his Ma** name will and require you to use such care and dilli- 
gence that his Ma*'® and this Board may not be troubled with any com- 
plaint for want of due execuson of the aforesaid statute. And so etc. 

The letter for Norff. was likewise directed to the justices of the peace 
of the Cittie of Norwich.' 

The signatures which were appended to these letters are noted 
in the margin, and it is interesting to see amongst them those of 
Laud, Coke, Falkland, and Dorchester.^ 

Apparently in accordance with these instructions the Norwich 
justices drew up a new wages assessment, and reported the fact to 
the council.^ It is curious, however, that one of these letters should 
have been directed to the justices of Suffolk so soon after they had 
drawn up the assessment of April 1630, recently printed in the 
English Historical Eeview.^ Probably the news of the complaints 
of the workmen had reached the council, but not the news of the 

' Privy Council Register, 29 Sept. 1630. 

* The full list of signatures is as follows : — Lo. Keeper, Lo. Trer., Lo. President, 
Ea. of Holland, Lo. Vise. Dorchest', Lo. Vise. Falkland, Lo. Bishop of London, Mr. 
Trer., Mr. Secretary Coke. 

» Dom. State Papers, Chas. I, vol. 176, No. 1, 1 Dec. 1630. 

* The English Historical Review, April 1897. 


assessment. The existence of this entry is a strong argument that 
wages assessments were enforced, or at least that they had a great 
influence on the wages actually paid. Otherwise the workmen would 
not have cared to complain, and the council would not have been so 
anxious to interfere. The record certainly shows us that in this 
instance the assessments were ordered to be made in the interest of 
the men, and not in that of their masters. It suggests that the 
justices were negligent, but it brings into prominence the fact that 
the justices were supervised by the privy council. 

This was not the first time that the council had acted in this 
manner. In 1629 the depression in the cloth trade had already 
become serious. The council insisted that work and relief should 
be provided for the workmen out of employment, and also made 
efforts on behalf of those that were still employed. In July 1629 
they write to the earl of Warwick and justices of Essex concerning 
the weavers of bays in the neighbourhood of Bocking and Braintree. 
Wages were already low, and the men hardly able to live by their 
labour, yet the employers were trying to force their workmen to 
make a greater length of cloth for the same money. * Wee thinke 
it very tit and just,' write the members of the council, ' that they 
(the weavers) shoulde receive such payment for their worke as in 
reason ought to be given according to the proportion thereof, and 
lykewise that the saide Bayes which are woven in the saide Co untie 
be made of one length.' ^ This question dragged on for some time. 
The masters of Sudbury complained of competition, and said all of 
their trade had decreased the amount paid to the weavers, but that 
if a general rule were made binding on all the employers, they would 
be willing to agree to any wages thought reasonable.^ A rate was 
fixed by an order in council, but the decision was not obeyed. 
Lawsuits were brought by clothier against clothier, until another 
attempt was made to settle the matter, and in 1636 Charles I 
issued letters patent fixing the length of the reel, and ordering that 
the wages of all the workpeople should be raised in proportion." It 
is thus evident that in 1629 the masters of Braintree and Bocking 
were trying to take advantage of the competition of their workmen 
to force down wages, and that in this particular trade the council 
tried to prevent anything of the kind being done. 

It is perhaps worth while to notice one other instance of pro- 
tection given to workmen by the privy council. In another time of 
depression of trade, in 1637, Thomas lleignolds, a haymaker of 
Colchester, made his workmen accept * dead commodities ' instead of 
money for their wages. The men complained ; the council found it 
was a second offence, and ordered Thomas Reignolds to be sent to 

* Privy Council Register, Chas. I, vol. v. f. 399, 3 July 1629. 

* Calendar of Ulalc rajcis, 27 April 1C31, p. 22 
' Kymer, xix. 720. 


the Fleet until he had paid his workmen double the amount they 
had lost and their charges for bringing the complamt besides.** 

E.M. Leonard. 


The following letters of Eichard Cromwell are now in the possession 
of my cousin the Kev. Eichard E. Warner, Stoke Eectory, Grantham, 
and the Eev. Thomas Cromwell Bush, descendants of Henry Crom- 
well. They were left, with some portraits and other things, to 
Henry Cromwell's grandsons by Elizabeth Cromwell, eldest daughter 
of Eichard, and it is to her that most of the letters are addressed. 
Elizabeth had no nearer relations than her cousins Eichard and 
Thomas Cromwell. The letters are not dated from any place : the 
first three probably were written from Paris or Switzerland ; the 
later ones are from Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire, and Eichard is 
supposed to have lived near Newmarket when he first returned from 
abroad in 1680. At all events he was certainly not far from London. 
I have selected the most interesting in the collection. 

Augusta S. Burn. 


[Undated, but written to his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, during his wife's illness, 
therefore before 1G7G, and written probably from Paris.] 

Deare Betty, — I would write unto yo*' mother but I know not how : 
for I feare her weakness : ffor truly untill M'" Prit : his letter I was in 
great thaughtfuUness & could not tell what the next letter would send : 
but blessed be the Lord for any remaining hop's. Ah, the stroke would 
have been seveere, and the dispensation is much exercising, God can isshew 
all for good & turne o'" feare, and sorrowings into joy. will he be pleased 
to let us praise him? Your Aunt S.^ will at last answer desires & 
expectation : and I hope shee may come oppertun'ly, I can assure you she 
comes not without advice. M"" C.'^ hath been freindly according to his 
skill. W' fifather hath expressed himselfe very generous in sending 
the nose of the skull w*'' an upper mandable he says yo'" mother knows 
how to order it. He hath sent of the Snakes root of Verginnia pre- 
scribed by M^' C as the best of cordialls ; you must powder it, and 
give as much as will ly upon a sixpence in a spoonfull of sack, take 
another spoonful to washe the mouth & throate of that w*='' sticks 
behind. Pray finde out yo'" mothers receit of the Lucutelles balsome ^ take 
a coppie out of it to be sent to yo'" old ffather, belike yo'" mother promised 
to give him a receit of it. be full and plaine in yo>" draft of it. Send it 
when yo'' Aunt S returnes. Pray desire your mother to quiet her 
minde concerning me, and let her strive to be cheerfull, bid her consider 

" Privy Council Register, 10 May 1637. On 17 May an order was made for the 
release of Thomas Keignolds, as he had given the weavers full satisfaction, 
' Probably an old servant ; S. Smith is mentioned as a servant or friend. 
- Mr. Cooper, the doctor. =* Loaatelli balsam, u^ecl for coughs. 


that in a few dayes the Sunn will be turning towards her and that her 
blood may be refreshed. Let her sattisfy herselfe of the love of God, and 
what he doeth shall l)e for her fjoules advantage ; the love of God is 
unchangeable, and he hath the tender bowells of a ffather. the L* 
encrease faith. I cannot now goe further, but desire that we that are 
specially concerned may be plying the throne of grace for your mother, 
with my sinceer love and affections to her, as alsoe my prayers for you 
all desiring boeth the rod & we may be sanctefyed I rest 

Yo"" loving f 
[Signature torn oflF.] 

[Written from Paris— probably about 1675-6— to his daughter.] 

Beare Betty, — I had yo*"* by the hand that visited you, noe pleasing 
account as to yo*" mothers falling again towards her former distempers, 
they greatly move me ; and that of M"" R.'' his letter since startles : truly 
my heart is heavy & I could better make my Eys to run then my pen, 
I confesse I have not freedome of expression what is it that the Lord will 
doe with us ? Oh that he would spare, that he would looke upon a poore 
afflicted ffamily. ... I know not the present strength of your dearc 
mother I am persuaded she is very weake my great greife & sorrow. I 
am unable to help, what can such a poore creature direct ? yet would the 
Physician be against sweets ? your powder Cordialls I think not alwayes 
the best, what if she should try Curdes, balm, Rosemary or Rue, this last 
is nautious. The Lord direct the good Lord step in in this our great 
perplexity. ... Oh the heart breakings of some & the crying of 
children ! Hast thou Oh L'' snatched once nay twyce out of the jawes of 
death. Let thine handmaiden yet be raised, restored to her place to be a 
living monument of thy praise, let her yet be continnewed a blessing to a 
poore distressed famuly. . . . The Lord instruct us, thy rod is sharpe. 
Pray imbrace thy mother for me, I doe love her, she is deare to me. Desire 
her to keep up her spirits beg her to be cheerfull. A good mother & a 
loving wyfe — her name is a sweet oyntment, her soule is precious, Lord 
let her yet live to praise thee ; my prayers & love is for her & you 
all. . . . 

I rest your poore & sorrowing freind. 

[No signature.] 


[Undated, but written most likely from abroad to his daughter, and soon after his 
wife's death in 1670. 

These first three letters are written on similar paper and appear to be of aboat the 
same date.] 

Deare, — I have received your letter which gives my oppressed soul a 
little ease & my troubled mind some space of quietness : from a 
burning fyre, relaxation, and hopes that we may have the exercise of 
paternal affections, love & reason and to that end you seem in yours to 
invite which shall be performed with the best judgment & the most 
sereen candidness of minde the Lord (who is earnestly sought unto by me) 
shall be pleased to afford k bless me with ; hoping that you will lose no 

* Mr. P.ayner, the steward of the Hursley estate. 



time in your addresses to the God of your Spirits & your Father in 
covenant that you may be made free to discharge the most inward of your 
thoughts that both our souls may be as with skill searched and dressed 
that no corruption may be secretly hid to occasion new inflammation to 
the casting us into new distempers, relapses being most dangerous. Dear 
child, for my hopes are in thee & in my greatest troubles deprivements 
of dearest & nearest relations, in my solitary life, when I have looked 
about and cast my thoughts upon my children, praises & thanksgivings 
to the God of my choicest mercies have so (through His divine goodness) 
flowed that my whole soul hath been refreshed, that love & dutifulness 
your health & that deportment that graced you made you so acceptable 
where the Providence of God casts & removes you that from a crown of 
thorny troubles my head hath been as it were wrapped in soft silk & 
solacing itself in the comforts & hopes of my children as upon a downy 
pillow, I can rightly say that I have been as much concerned for your 
condition, & the Lord is my witness I have been as solicitous for your 
present as well as changing state (my circumstances considered) as the 
best of fathers. The Lord hath given us the wound & it is he that 
must heal us, our sins brought the stroake let us repent k humble & 
turn unto the Lord'whoe is infinite in mercy & hath saied the rodd 
shall not alwayes be upon the back of the righteous & if it be well with 
them, doubt not of a good portion of the things of this world : but get a 
heart fitted for them or else your soule may too late repent the eager 
desiring of them, they being given rather out of judgement than mercy. 
Your mother knew full well how I was concerned for you, take notice that 
M"" Goddard in that point was not true either to me or you or others, 
you see the hand of the Lord : certainly God reignes, & hath an Ey upon 
all his works, you are a chylde of many prayers, if he numbers our haires, 
taks care of sparrows, feeds the young Ravens, & cloathes the young 
lillys, how much of more worth are yee of little faith. Stirr up your graces 
use faith & prayer in temptations, be vigorous in them importunate as 
the widdow, as a good souldier not to give over till you have got an irre- 
coverable victory — to conclude hoping I may drop something suitable and 
seasonable, desiring you not to be amaised & frighted as the children of 
Israel whoe had their enemys surrounding them and the sea before them, 
but with Moses faith be quiet, feare not, stand still and see the salvation 
of the Lord. And now to him that works all things in & for us, for 
without him wee can doe nothing, be Glory and praise for ever and ever. 

Remember me to your sister Dorothy, my prayers for you both I rest 
your truly loving father 

R. C. 

To make all more plaine consult with my sister & the soonest I may 
see you to be better sattisfied of the occasion of yours & this answer. 


[Undated, but probably written to Elizabeth in 1681, as mention is made of his 
daughter Dorothy, and of his landlord's son desiring an apprenticeship, and therefore 
written in England.] 

Dear Childe, — I hope my distemper is turning, it hath been very 
sharpe, & a sohtary time with me ; Pray help me to acknowledge the 


good rest of the Lord to me in it, ffor though my thoughts were troubled 
(not as to Death) but that rodd after rodd should come upon me, The 
condition of my poore ftamily &. the love I have for my children, all 
these with other considerations, I should not (though I was tome as it 
were in peices with my distemp) but have a sense upon me. And truly I 
have been gi-eatly supported. Deare children while you have strength provide 
against Sickness & weakness, its ill putting offe o'' accounts with God, 
watch then ; The industreous Ant layes up in the Sumer for the winter. 
, . . Let not London's greatness nor glory, hinder us from making for- 
ward to the new Jerusalem, where we may imbrace true riches, con- 
tentment & happyness. I heare Dolly hath been ill of her old distemp — 
She must take heed of taking colds, old yong, yong old. My Land L*^ in 
the country desired me to improve my interest amongst my acquaintance 
to finde oute a suitable trade & suitable master for his Son, He gives 
10 or 12 pound w**^ clothes att setting oute, the Ladd is ingenuous 
about IQte**" yeares of age. A gold wyer drawer was propounded but the 
weakness of his Eys were doubted. S Smith propounds a Tin worker w*^** 
we do not disapprove oflf . . . , 

I rest yo" 

R Caby. 


[This letter, to his daughter Elizabeth, must have been written while his daughter 
Dorothy was ill. She died in 1681, a year after her marriage with Mr. Mortimer. She 
\>&8 born the same year her father left England, 1G60, and was named after his wife.] 

Deare Chyld, — Sickness of relations and other disappointments hath 
caused S. Smith to be so long a coming, I hope shee will find, when shee 
comes to you a better account of the goodness of the Lord then what we 
meet with by your uphill Sc downhill letters. Yet such distempers are 
not quickly removed they require time & great care &, exercise of 
Patience. I need not be a nurse or Physitian, & I hope the L** heares o"* 
prayers. I thanck you for your lynes, and you rejoyce my heart for the 
goodness of the L** upon you. Our troubles rather increase than 
deminish, we are in the fyer the L'* purge us of all drosse. Truly Chyld 
there is cause of great wrestling w'"^ the L*^ for our strength is not great, 
the weight is heavy, oure way is rugged, and the night is very dearke. yet 
let us put o"" trust in the L'^ coinit thy wayes unto the L'' and he shall 
bring it to passe. He shall bring forth thy Righteousness like the light, &. 
thy judgement as at noone day. I was very much concerned for thy 
sister D. — I hope you will give me a better account, an account that may 
ease my thoughts. . . . 

I thank you for yo** pott of Hayre venneson : it is spent and yo"" 
cooking was very well approved. All the things you wrote for are pro- 
vided. Your brother wrote for the little gun, he may have it, but I thinck 
it is not so propper for shott it being a wreathed barrell as for a single 
bullet, w*** w*^'' he will not venture to shoote at a Pheasant. M"* R. had 
an excellent piece I believe he will not refuse your brother, ffor the 
pistoUs pray let him be disuaded from such a ffancy, the day will not 
beare it. Shall he goe beyond sea then he may have what he desires in 
that matter. Remember me to them all, take a kisse to yo'" selfe & 


give the rest eache one, give my love to M'" and M''* R. my kind thanks 
to Hersent and others, excuse my haste I pray for you all, and that the 
L'^ would enable me to serve you I rest 


[Signature cut off ; no date.] 
Entertaine yo'" guesse with freedome. 


[This letter is the first with a date.] 

To the tow Ladyes E. C. A. C. att Hursley near Winchester the^e 

25"' 87. 

Deare Ladyes, — I had yor» by this bearer, oh that I had the liberty to 
express my soule to you ; The day is darke yet I am not w*''out hope ; the 
providences of the Lord are not to be compromised by mortals : therefore 
let us put 0'" trust soly on him, who made all things & governs all 
things, his Ey is over all his works. I thank you for your kind expres- 
sions, this day I met with M^' R. your brother & selfe have declared 
what so ever is complyant to your owne resolutions, fixe yo'' selves give 
us tim'ly notice : believe I have not been very right by reason of a cold 
these 5 weeks. This day I let blood, I thought I should not have Avrit, 
my affection over swayes, excuse my going no further than to assure you 
that I am yours to command 



[Elizabeth Cromwell in her answer to this letter refers to the length of time she had 
been parted from her father — namely, twenty-eight years, from 1660 to 1688. Eichard 
Cromwell evidently still lived a very retired life and shunned publicity ; in the then 
disturbed state of England it was natural he should do so.] 

7br ye yi, 88. 

Madam, — I have yo''* and according to yo"" one order my shaking hand 
returns. You will give me leave to query whether yo^' Brother & Sister 
understand & had knowledge of what yo*"^ proposed. Know that yo'^ 
company is more desired (nay I say your Sister & yo"" Brother principle 
to you both) then I can expresse : Iff yo'" affairs are for Towne I will 
waite uppon you ; a lodgin you know to finde. I confess I know not how 
to invite you to a place that is upon reparation, alteration, & what not 
to please. I recoinend all to yo'" more serious thoughts. This is not 
to discouradge, though I add the present confusion that is uppon the 
greatest counsels in Europe. The Lord Raines Let all them that 
beUeveth, rejoice. The dayes are short, the wayes will be dirty : Padders 
& highwaymen, Lyons & beasts of prey are for the night. I am very 
ready to answer to M'"^ Leadbeater's house setting up and am ready to 
contribute with your direction. My service to your brother & Sister. 

I rest yo'" humble servant 


ffor Madam Elizabeth Cr" these. 



[Written on the other side of the paper on which this letter is written is one 
in answer, from his daughter Elizabeth probably : the writing is like one letter 
signed *E. C] 

Most D' & ever Hon'" S"", — I humbly beg your pardon for my giving 
you the troubel of answering my letter y'^selfe, it was to prevent mistakes 
(most being ready to give their own scuse) & to keepe my proposal 
private till I knew your mind about it, which I take to be for some other 
time rather than now, tell the happy time of seeing you shall offer, give 
me leave to assure you by writting that it was not any aflfair that I had 
in town, or any delight I have in a iorney that occationed my asking 
leave to wait on you before winter, but only my desier to see you as often 
as may be, & thinking all things had been settled before youre move to 
y new quarters, I hoped to injy you there with greater freedome then I 
could expect in London, knowing what hun-ies usually attend that place, 
besides I thought some pretty gratuity which I might be capabel to retum 
would save greater expence. My Bro : or any else knew of what I had 
proposed, till afterwards my Sis knows nothing yet of it nor doe I intend 
she shall, she having spent soe much time already I supose she would not 
desier to take a iorney againe soe soune, & I thought I might with my 
maide easily stepp up & downe againe without being missed ; as for your 
desiers of seeing and inioying us I can never question being very senseibel 
of the greatness of your affection & love, I desier patiently to wait tell 
our good God who has soe wonderfully preserved us these 28 years 
wandering apart & together in all y*" shall bring us together, & in the 
mean time bee the strengthening our Faith & Patience that we may 
quietly wait doing our Duty tell he shall deUver us from those straits &, 
dificultys which of a long time we have been exercized with, to whos pro- 
tection I commite you begmg yr blessing & leave to subscrib myselfe your 
most aflfec : & most duty-humbel sarvent. 


[There is no date to this letter, but it was probably written about the same time 
Richard is still afraid of living with his children and compromising them. I have 
put it among the letters dated 1689, as the writing and papers are similar.] 

For the Ladys JE, A. C. att Hursley near Winchester — these in 

Deare ee, — I have received both that from you and another from y*" 
sister : and very much refreshed to finde soe good a temper of mind in 
you boath ; you seem to hint that my last to you drew such dearke lines 
as if I was wrapt in the mantle of melancholly. Perhaps I might have 
some thoughts and to be w'^'out clowds, take my cercomstances, you 
cannot but excuse me. I doe assure you, nothing in this world could be 
more pleasing to me then to enjoy the company of my children : but lett 
me act as Fa : not to doe that w** shall be prejudicial I think my removal 
should be w"' advice, & I am ready to imbrace it : I would not be 
wanting to seeke it, though I have found hetherto no encouradgement, I 
have waited, lett the sinn lye at the doore of those that have only pre- 
tended, and by experience I have found very false, and my Eys are 
witnesses they have not in aU theire dealings & wayes anything to 




boaste off. They may loade me as much as they please, & peradventure 
they at the same time are loading themselves. God will be judge. Yee 
are all blessings & comforts to me, I thank you for your Xtchian 
advice : tryalls cals for ffaith, a suitableness to the exercise keeps the head 
above the waves, hetherto God is good, he hath been very tender : happy 
are they that putt theire trust in him, I say in him alone. I have seen 
your brother, I am glad to see him soe Avell & greatly pleased to heare 
it was soe well w*^ you both, & that the distemper of your head was 
removed w''^ you exprest when you wrote ; as also glad that the once 
taking of the Venice treakle was of that advantage to your sister as she 
exprest. would I could serve you both better. I am forc't to desire your 
sister to take her parte in this letter as answer to hers, so farr as to gaine 
a better time & leisure : ffor that your brother maks soe sudden a 
returne. Present me to M'" Leadbeater & his wyfe, I design'd the 
present to have been better. Remember me to M*" Rayner & his wyfe. 
Your sister may dispose of the puppy. I think nay intend (the Lord 
willing) to be in Towne tomorrow in the evening to see your Brother 
before he taks his journey, and if anything more occurs shall acquaint 
him, and having exceeded the modest bounds of my paper, I shall shut 
up desiring the Lord to bless you both in your outward and inward man, 
who am Yo»'^ in all affections & duty 

R: C. 


For Oliver Cromwell in King Street near Guildhall these. 

8"" 4"' 89. 
S*", — Since I parted from you I have not had any account how it is w*'^ 
you : I bless the Lord I gott home very well ; it would have pleased me 
to have received a little hint how the Bpp entertained you, for I am very 
much persuaded he hath very good intelligence, and knows men as well as 
things, though I believe he is sattisfied (as well as the wisest of our day) 
this is as crittical a time as times and times hath afforded. The 19'^ of 
this month the Parliament meets. The great silence as to affairs in 
Ireland maks people to muse as if things did not run currantly ; the 
weather & the country no freinds to our new planters especially if they 
lye in the field. I have no more, but if your stay is longer continued I 
should (if with your conveniency) be glad to see you, especially to dis- 
course what you intend as to the gentleman you mentioned about 20 
miles from you towards Basing, if I see you not. make noe motion of the 
matter concerning me to him or any other untill further conference 
betwixt us either by person or writing. I have forgott his name, but I 
think you said the s*^ gentleman marryed your Cosen Cutts sister. S*" I 
desire to waite upon the Lord for counsell unto whose care I recommend 
you and rest Your affectionate & to serve you 

C. E. 

Black Robert and Madam Pen * parts I believe you may have him upon 
reasonable terms, if you care to treat with him, the fellow is ingenious, 
a speciall kitchen gardener w'^^ I esteem to be the most of use and 

* Mrs. Pengelly, wife of Mr. Pengelly, afterwards Serjeant Pengelly, with whom 
Eichard lived at Cheshunt. 




ffor the Ladies E. A. C. att Harsley near Winchester in Hampshire, 

gtr 2*1 89. 

Deare hearts, — I thanck you for remembrance. Its my duty, Sc through 
goodness you are minded specially morning & evening. I assure you, 
you cannot be compremised imder any difficulty to express yourselves to 
me, I know you want not for aflfections, my cercomstances, providentiall 
make me rather to winde up my Colors then to display them, for time 
& seasons are beautifull however our Eys are : for att the best they 
may be mistaken in the very true laying of Colors. I know my love <k 
duty to you all, I am sattisfyed of yo*" Paradisticall abode, yet I will 
moderate my passion & deny the appetite of my sense, &, act faith ; 
The better to discharge my duty : Indeed I love you. I have seen yo'' 
Brother much to my sattisfaction & I hope the Lord is pleased w'** the 
temper of his minde, Oh that we coiild caste o'" care upon him that careth 
for us. I charg'd his memory w*'' a supplement of the Sear cloth w*='» hath 
been beneficiall to me. for shirts & stockens I leave to yo"" owne con- 
veniency I am obleiged & I assure you I am yo'^ most affectionately 

Salute all freinds. 
I designe the conveyance of this by M*" Rayner. 


9»" 29"' 89. 

Madam, — Its not reasonable that yo" of the 23'"'' should be neglected ; 
to answer yo*" apologies is unnecessary, & I will plaide my unskilfulness, 
therefore pray madam let us be swallowed up in the overflowing of 
affections it being httle to use words, where there is such an Ocean that 
cannot be in danger of either Bocks or Sandes. I have received all that 
was put up, Shirts, Stockins and Sear cloth, the last of these was the 
more lookt for, & that it came noe sooner : you have sattisfyed me, & 
it was needless, for though I had worne out that w'=** was imployed, it had 
effected so great an advantage that the supply may honestly attend a call, 
for the use of that w'='' you have sent. The worke of Shirts & Stockins 
are greatly praised, they shall not want my thancks, & it shaU not passe 
w*''out a sighe that I am att such a distance to kisse those fingers. 
Madam I dare not touche the last parte of yo** letter, my joye is soe 
great that I must shake my penn, & then what lines should I drawe ? 
you say the clouds are very darke : I confesse it : dark fryday, & black 
Munday. A Spanish Ambassado*" said in James the first time he had not 
seen his freind in England in six weeks time. The Sunn was : through 
vapours (black) interposed — blessed be God for yo"" Faith & hope. In 
this (give me leave to say) & in this, you & all those that have the same 
faith & hope, are unexpressible beautifull nay happy. Pray excuse me 
& present my affections to yo"* Brother Selfe & Sister. The contents of 
the inclosed I intend to observe, give it to peruse : The great God be our 
ffather & Counsello'" I rest w*** all hearty salutations to freinds 

Yo" in all affectionate duty 
R Chaxdbebry. 


We have w*"^ M'' Wa : & M'' Keed : sett the affaire of the deceased 
M'' W''*' as well as circomstances permitt, & when they are proceeded some 
hand or other will give yo'" yong gentleman an account. Things as to the 
Pub : goes on in such a method as all o'' high flowen imaginations are as 
loose as the dust. All are gazing not knowing where they shall be. 
the plane honest country converse is the best : Too forward buddings are 
soone snipt & consequently unproffitable, it is good to be sober, & its 
wi sdonie to be waiting upon God to see him to God first. Sir H I ^ is 
coming up, his L" Col : is dead att Chester perhaps a favourable provi- 
dence, He would have been talkinge, it was always a distemper incident 
to liim. I must say noe more, excuse my scribble or game I reitterate 
salutations deare S"" and Ladyes. 

Yo'' most affectionate 
R. C. 

Yo*' letter was very acceptable to my Land lady, boeth of them presents 
theire affectionate services to you all. They have & are true freinds. 
Present me to bo'th your Chaplens and their wives. 

I suppose you have seen the declaration concerning Ludlow, the 
notes of the house are useful : lead me not into temptation but deliver 
me from Evill I will say noe more. 


Jan 31" 89. 

Madam, — Though I have nothing materiall, yet having the opportunity 
by my landlady M""^ Ab : & my pen in my hand I adventured to scrible 
my affectionate service to your selfe, Sister & Brother : I hope he had 
mine of the receit of those birds he was pleased to send me : & I assure 
youl tooke great pleasure to understand att the same time of your healths 
& welfaire of your ffamily. I hope Madam, your Brother received the 
Boxe of Tobacco w"'* was sent him by Winchester carryer some time since* 
it conteined nett 25'^ : coste 2^^ 10* : I have paid for it, & A. J. Bod : tells 
me it was his best Virginnea. Madam it would greatly please to see your 
Brother answer a duty bo'th to God & his ff'amuly : He did incouradge 
me when I last saw him, but I confesse I have heard nothing, yet I would 
hope he would not dalley any longer with providence, but take a resolution 
to fixe his minde in a matter, praiseworthy and sattisfaction to his Eelations 
& freinds. If you doe not understand me I tell you plainly yo*" Brother 
ought to marry. The Romans would not imploye any in the affaires of 
theire Comonwealth unlesse they were marryed, wyfe & children are rather 
Spirres than cloggs. my prayers are that the Lord would direct him & I 
wishe it were in my power & province to serve you all in that w*^'* might 
be for the sattisfaction of all yo*' minds. I had a letter from your Cosen 

" S' H I was probably Sir Henry Ingoldsby, son-in-law of Sir Oliver Cromwell, of 
Hinchingbrook, and first cousin of the Protector Oliver. Sir Henry was a strong 
parliamentarian and in the army ; he was made a baronet by the Protector Oliver. 
At the Restoration he went over to the royalists and was confirmed in his baronetcy 
by Charles II. 


H. C.^ whoe signefys his wives being delivered of another Sonn. His 
name must be his wives ffathers name, it was exprest with an Apologic, & 
also he writt that his sister Russell ** was brought to bed of her eighth 
Child. It seems to me to be a breeding country. What shall we say ? 
What is man or the Sonn of man that thou art mindful of him. Man is 
conceived in Sinn & brought forth in iniquity ; to trouble & sorrow, The 
Lord give us flfaith in Jesus Christ, whoe only can relieve us & deliver us 
from Sinn <fc Wrath. Let us with Eagles wings fly unto the Rock whose 
top is in the Heavens. Madam, we are oute of the Roade of news, & we 
please ourself e with the Hermits retirednesse more than w*'' the confusions 
of Tongu's in the Towne, I viset it very seldom ; yet give me leave to tell 
you the Proroging of the Parlement was very surprising, soe many are 
the discourses, that I hope you will excuse my silence untill the noises of 
men's heads be quieted, when perhaps we may understand the true reason 
of the Prorogation. 3 or 4 days preceding the House of Coraons had 
named D'" Watson & D*" Scott to keep the 30*'' Jan : with them, but 
prevented. Taxes grumble the gizards of many : and the unequal dis- 
tribution of the Assess"''* maks Complaints. Some understand the Act of 
the Convention one way & some another, pray use not the word Convention 
too comon. and yet some will say the reason for Proroging is in order to 
dissolving to make way of a more authenticke Parlement, as to its suraons. 
Be not others drudges, especially in the matter of moneys. As the 
members of Each country voted, soe they have time to order. Yo'' grand 
f : would never meddle in mony matters, be reserv'd yet civell, let noe man 
make you their hacny. Madam I hope you will excuse me, I cannot but 
blushe, yet give me leave to repeat my affections to you all assuring you 
theire is none that more respects & vallews you then yo*" most faithfuU 
and obleiged to serve Cbanbourne. 

Gentleman, wyfe & sonn present all dues to yee. My hearty saluts to 
M'" Leadbeater & his best wyfe — the bordering ffenns affords bo'th ayre & 
Soyle for breeding. Pray alsoe present me to M*" & M*"* Reyn''. 

Madam E. C. 

[Answer to above letter evidently a rough copy, as it is written on the back of the 
above letter. The signature ' dutifuU C and ' E. C show it to be probably written 
by his child Eliz"' Cromwell. Elizabeth Cromwell was evidently the rich one of the 
family, and seems to have been applied to for a loan or her cousin Major Henry 
Cromwell. She speaks of the new baby, who w^as named Benjamin Hewling, after 
his grandfather. The writing of this letter is very careless and scrawled.] 

Most deare & ever Hon'''^ S"^, — I blush to say I have two of y most 
kind letters to return my humbled & harty thanks for, since I must confess 
an oppertunity has slipt me that of the birds, for want of timely notice, & 
now been longer delayed by M"^ Lead : kindness to their nece who is to be 
the bearer of this to London : chusing a private hand & to what I have to 
writ need not fear the conion way, we are by the blessing of God in y* 
injoyment of much mercy, but the want of y'" presence & the fear, you 
have not that attendance you ought to have is very abating to our 

" ' Your Coscn H. C here referred to was Major Henry Cromwell, of Spinney 
Abbey, near Soham, second son of Henry, lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Major Henry's 
second son was born at Spinney in 1689, and was named Benjamin Hewling, after his 
maternal grandfather. 

» • The sister Russell ' was Elizabeth, seventh child of Henry, lord-lieutenant of 
Ireland, who married Mr. William Bussell, of Fordham. She had fourteen children. 


sattisfaction, give but the word Sc I am ready to be your valet de 
chambre when ever you chose it is much my troubel I canott visit you 
as I would frequently, yet I hope when my brother marries (which 
he seems inclined to, tho I think he knows not how to goe about it) 
I shall be more at liberty to travel, I wish the hint in y'" letter may 
quicken him, could he acomodate his mony matter a littel I dont doubt 
but he would goe briskly on, Oh that it would please our good God to 
direct him in his choice & lead him as he did Abrahams servant in the 
right way. The Tobaco came safe my bro : was soe pleased with it. I 
thought he had acknowledged the resait for it. My Cosen H. C. gave me 
an account of his son with the doubel name & in that letter acknowledged 
my hundred pound promising principel & intrest desiering forbearance. 
I was glad to see he owned it & have defered his bond promising to be as 
I have ever ben his freind. The news we have here makes my bro : glad 
he is here quietly looking after his own concerns & admiring y'' foresight. 

pardon the rughness of these lines &. be pleased to accept of humbel 
duty & sarvis from all here with her who is, Dearest S'^' 

Your most obliged & most dutifuU C. 

in all affectionate sarvice 


ffor my hon'^ Lady Madam Elizabeth Cromwell att Hurseley near 
Winchester Hants these 

March 10'" 89/90. 

Deare Madame, — I began w*'^ your Sister, & my penn rann me oute of 
bounds before I was aware & having spent much of my powder, I hope 
you will excuse me if I am not soe learge to you, nor is it want of affec- 
tions nor matter but time our yong schoUar whoe is to give them a lift 
to London & now waites (for the end of this) booted &c : ** I am glad it 
pleased you to have hint from me to call upon your Brother to settle : I 
have revived it againe to your sister, & I hope you will boeth see it soe 
reasonable & necessary that you will call upon him. It concern's your 
ffamily in generall & you & your sister particularly, he is tho Spring that 
must move your wheels. You pleased me to say he was inclined, & your 
drole (that you thought ho know not how to goe aboute it) made me 
smile. Well madam I thank you for your carefull affectionate expression 
concerning nie, pray lett your Brother settle & that will be the best step 
for us to enjoye eache other according to what you desire. I would not 
have you att a distance from him when he is aboute a matter of such 
concerne for I know he will advise with you both. And it is my prayers 
to the Lord to direct that a blessing may succeed to you all, that we may 
experiment by what is brought together, that though we are forsaken of 
men yet we are not of the Lord. I had a transient view of a letter from 
your bro : to Coz : W. it startled me & to deale plainly (for that is best 
among freinds) it went against the haire, nor can I make head or foot of 
it, I suppose the Corporation hath chosen well, a couple of Monmouth- 

' This refers to Richard's anxiety that his son should marry. 


touians &, the ffreeholders should choose together : it must come to 
the Comittee for Elections & they are generally a Comittee of Affections.'" 
I doe believe it had been better (upon what we have att present before o*" 
eys) that your brother had declined the choyce. It is not too late for 
him to take advice, whether the nature of the thing will allow to be 
dropte & soe prevent a public stain. Maynard & Runton who opposed 
Gerrard & Hawtry lost it for knights of the shire Middlesex. Our 
Church of England were allarumed & bravely bestirred themselves 
in the choyce of this Parlement : & it pleaseth our King very well : 
he loves not to see the Presbiterian to prick up his Ears, & the 
Coirionwealths man hangs them down. The Lord appears to be breaking 
& pounding together all must be melted downe & then looke for som 
what, what thinck yee of the Kingdom of Christ. Pray do not call me 
ffannattique why all our world are mad. And is it not a strange sight to 
see a sober man in a mad world. Madam pray excuse me, I find my 
pemi to cofhit errors it blotts <fe blurrs, I am not upon a right subject & 
I must not stay the yong schollar any longer ; services are all presented : 
I shall know more when I see your brother, by whose light I shall know 
how (better) to direct my penn desiring the Lord to continnew his favour 
&. blessings I rest Deare Madam 

Yo*" most affectionate 
& faithful servant 


Present me to yo'" Brother I write not to him for that he is soe neare 
his journy. To M'" & M«^ Leadbeater To M'" & M" Raynor & to whom so 
ever is in the way quallafyed let them know I present respects love nay 


[There is no date to this letter ; it must refer to Richard's son Oliver. The writing 
and paper place it about 1690, when his son would be thirty-four years old. Yet 
Ricliard writes as if his son were quite a young man. Evidently Elizabeth Cromwel 
was the ruler of the family, the one to whom they looked for guidance.] 

Dear Childe, It will not be many dayes but yo"' Brother will be w*** 
you, soe as the L*^ prospers his returnc. and you may acquaint M" 
S. w*'' it that she may not be surprised. . . I intended it upon a runio'" 
that the great one w*'' his followers were going down some time this 
woeke, w^'' is unccrtaine ; how ever meeting with that which wounds mee ; 
had I a horse I thinck onlie of my duty & the trouble of my Soule rather 
then his retume should not be made & that speedyly what ever 
hazard I should have met with as to my owne lyfe or Son I should 
have adventured. You know the caution boeth of us gave him & 
what care & cercomspection was necessary. I preceeded his setting 
forth with a letter to M"" Parr to have an Ey to prevent what ever might 
be of blemish to his name or behavo*". I followed him with cautionary 

'• Richard Cromwell's son Oliver was elected member of parliament for Lymington 
in 1690, William and Mary's second parliament. However, the exigencies of the times 
caused all returns of members to be adjusted by the government, and Oliver's election 
was not allowed. 


letters to keep his deportment fresh, that there might not be the least 
slip. I incouradged in my letters his manly liberty, strengthening his 
good minde & disposistion, that this journey might prove every way to his 
proffit. But the contrary I meet with, there being no regard of what was 
either said or wrott, And such are the clattering of tongues in this Towne 
concerning him, that I know not whether he hath not given a deadly 
wounde to his poore distressed ffather k sisters : nay let me tell you I 
know not but he hath ruined himselfe, I am certaine as things are repre- 
sented to me & others' he hath eclipsed all the glory of his Travels. 
"When he comes to you deale plainly w*'* him, k tell him he must humble 
himselfe before the L'^ for he hath greatly offended his people, he hath 
prodigiously opened the mouths of o'" Enemys to his & his ffamily's 
derision. And with all let him know subterfuges, & adessembling tongue 
will doe him noe good, ffor I tell you the person that came to tell me of 
what he had heard at the relation of things, he protested he was ready to 
sinck under them. I say againe for him to smoother his guilt will be a 
double iniquity. I protest I shall never trust him for the future if he 
gads aboute to smoother anything. The general charge is keeping com- 
pany with the baisest of the country, horse racing, & whether it hath 
been accompanied with drinking, gaming, swearing or what not I cannot 
tell for I heare only things in general w*^** make my hearte to ake. What 
is this judgement from the L'^ upon us, Avhat are instructions, cautions 
etc. I am afraide he received noe good by the acquaintance w*'^ y'' yong 
Lockharts. Pitty, pitty, pitty me, is this a day to be careless, Avhen every 
one is throwing at us. Oh that the L*' would deale w*^ his Soule, its a 
day of mourning, I have only this comforte to support my soule that I 
have used the best of my endeav"*"* in the behalfe of my children. And 
say not that I have ruined you, nor for want of patience doe not ruine y'"''- 
selves. The day is dearke & it is alsoe light. I have felt & feele & yet I 
intend to waite for the iJ^ only can deliver. You may show my letter to 
M''* S. & yee may both as Christians deale with him, & prepare him to be 
ingenious : ffor I am resolved to goe to the bottome of things, & it is that 
I am concerned for his sisters k his owne soule more than I am for 
myselfe, having dealt plainly with you, I am at some ease of minde desir- 
ing the L^ would turne all for o»' everlasting good. 

I reste your deare affectionate & truly loving 

f. CR. 


[To his daughter Ann Cromwell, who afterwards mamed Dr. John Gibson, a 
physician in London. The state of England and Europe at this time was very 
unsettled, and is evidently often in his mind.] 

Decem"-- 18"' W. 
Deare, — Think not I forget you, though I confess I have been silent 
too long in returning & owning of that of yours to me. that W^ was 
one barr I knew not upon M^'^ Abbotts remouing how to send soe as my 
letter might come safe to you. And though we write nothing of State 
affairs they being above our providentiall spheer ; yet I am not willing to 
be expos'd, nor can there be that freedome when we are thoughtfuU of 


such restraint as a peeping Ey. The hand by whom this comes gave me 
a hint as if there were some foule play to letters directed to him. Deare 
heart I thanck thee for thy kind & tender expressions to me, and I 
assure (if there had been any cause) they would have melted me, there is 
a great deale of pittie, piety & love, (what I had before was soe full that 
I had not the least rome to tume a thought or surmise) but what shall I 
say, my heart was full, but now it overflowes ; you have putt joye & 
gladness in it : How unworthy am I to have such a child & I know I 
may venture to say, that the like parralell is not to be found : what I 
said was experienced matter for information, what you replyed was in 
behalfe of those whoe protest themselves to be the Lord's people & they 
that are truly such are as tender as the Apple of his Ey. I rejoyce in 
that we both of us love them, yet we are not to deny our Reasons as to 
the mischeife some of them hath been instrumentall not only in particular 
to a ffamuly, but in generall to the Churche of Christ, besides what 
woes are hanging over these nations, may we not goe further & bring 
in all Christendom. I have been above 30*^ years bannished & under 
bilencc & my strength & safty is to be retyred quiet & silent, we 
are foolish in taking our cause out of the hand of God. Our Saviour will 
plead k God will do right he hath promised let us joyne our Prayers flfor 
fifaith k Patience, if we have heaven let whoso will have the world, my 
hearty, hearty, hearty aflfections & love to your sister and selfe. Salut 
all freinds I rest comending yee to the blessings of the Almighty againe 
fairewell who am 

your truly loving father 


Present me to all freinds. 

LandL** & Land lady present respects & service. 

ffor"" Madam Ann Cromwell att Hurs'ly near Winton South'"". 


[There is no date to this letter and the signature is torn off, but it is evidently from 
Elizabeth Cromwell to her father : the writing is similar to her letter signed' E. C.,' and 
the expressions are also similar.] 

Is there noe hopes Dearest S'" that the turns made of late by the 
Wheel of Providence may lead you from your Cell k Hermits life that 
your faniely may be made happy by your prescence, why should not you 
quit y'" thoughts of those as has soe unjustly deserted you k yours, and 
indeavour to settel your selfe soe as your Children may be serviceabel to 
you then they can be in this way you are now in, I hope it will not be 
long erre you will give me leave to wait on you, at which time I must 
again beg your pardon for the freedome I now take with my pen as I doe 
now, k also that I have been so remise in writing as to have two of 
your most affectionate leters to return thanks for at once, my De : 
Brother can informe you how much I long to be serving my Dearest ¥. & 
what news the Countrey affords therefore I will say noe more but 
heartily wish this jorney may be as sattisfactory to my Brother as the last 
for I thought I never saw him looke better in my life, desiering you & 
y*"* may be guided & counseld by the onely wise Counseller to whos 





protection I comitt you beging your blessing I take leave to subscrib 

Yours very 

[No signature.] 


[Probably written to his son Oliver, and from the style of writing and paper 
written about 1690.] 

Feb. 22. 

I blesse the Lord for bis grace, I desire to love, & through his good- 
ness all his works & dispensations are more than favourable. My lasto 
letter was the second, the first might have been worth yo*' observation as 
to my Soule, the second worth consideration, bo'th oute of love & affec- 
tion. The day requires holding the Anchor for how soon do'th the 
marriner repent of his ffancy : ffaine would he be at Anchor but neither 
winde or tyde will suffer it. I thanck you for yo*" first & second letter ; 
whoe can you confide in better than in him that will tell you yo*" faults. 
I blesse the L*^ I have but few to tell you of. The Lord be acknowledged 
for the welfare of yo*" Sisters ; This is to incourage you to write & speak : 
I am not in haste therefore take yo'" best conveniency. Believe it, God 
will be waited upon ; the pitt is open ready to swallow : & if I have 
any observation, you have not as yet loste any time. I give you my 
heart, Hearte to Hearte is good. My true respects love & kindness to 
M" S. w*^ assurance that I wish all your happyness & that the L'^ 
will be pleased to begitt & maintaine a right understanding are the 
prayers of 

Deare Deare 

yC most affectionate 

freind C". 


For M*" Edward Eayner^- att Hursley neare Winchester These 

Aug' 29, 91. 
Deare madam, — When I had wrote the inclosed of the 27*"^ I thought 
good to stop it until we had gott Thursday & fryday evening over, for 
that great voyding of blood '^ was on Wednesday between 5 & 6 o'clock as 
I think is mentioned. We have kept him in bed & to-night w'^'^ is fryday 
he was tooken out until it was made, and t" returned blessed be the Lord 
all quiet soe that o'" hop's beginn to return ; yet we must waite for it will 
be some time before his strenght will be restored or to returne to the 
place where he received yo'' letters. Therefore Madam be pleased to 
direct your letters for M'" Thomas Pengelly att ffinchley East end near 
Highgate, I know not why they should not come safe, for the Post Office 
orders the letters for the penny posts in theire several quarters. Or if 
you like not this you may inclose to M'" Lee as you formerly did, and 

'- Mr. Eayner was steward at Hursley to Elizabeth and Ann Cromwell and their 
brother Oliver, and some letters were evidently sent under cover to him. 

" Referring to a previous letter containing an account of the severe illness of a lad, 
probably a young Pengelly, as Richard was most likely at Cheshunt at this time. 


direct him to send either by y« market people or Coacbe or penny post. 
I think we may write more slowly than we did att one time, a time that 
required it. The wings of the Almighty cover you. 

Yo*" humble servant 


we all present o** dues. 

ffor M"" Edward Rayner at Hurs'ley near Winton These in Hampshire. 

Madam, — Yo*" Brother k Sister were in the right, one att a tima 
is suflficient, for oure maine concern's is to imderstand how the bowse 
stands ; that my letters crowded one upon another, its difficult to passe 
them 4 or 5 miles to the Post Office, yours of the 12 arrived att evening 
on 14'^'=n"', it for those that come for any of you, your direction maks them 
performe theire journey as quick k steady, nay better then stop & bate 
in London. . . . There is nothing would be more pleasing then to answer 
the invitation made by yee, & there is not a day but I cogetate upon the 
subject, there are difficultys which a little time may remove ; I cannot 
disgest the Par : usadge of Ludlow I believe we cannot parralell a time of 
greater roguery & dissimulation & treachery as what we are in, & the 
time we are coming into is to be feared will be worse & worse. My 
shirts doe grow thinn. I am glad focky is with you. . . . S'' I had tum'd out 
my bay horse to grasse, these last 3 nights the weather being temperate 
I left him oute, this morning I went to look upon him, but he could not 
see me, the sudden alteration surprized me, I went for the flfarryer, who 
hath tooken out a hawe, his Ey was swelled, & it is swelled, I have tookcn 
him to stable but whether he will come to see againe or noe I know not. 
I wish focky may please you, I believe you must tye him up & not let 
him be too full when you hunt him. one letter att a time is best, I am 
sorry to fiude yo'" Sister E to coiiiplane, I hope itt will goe oflfe againe. 
My hearty affections to you all, having out runn'd the Constable I 
rest w*'" all dues from all to all 

Yo*' in dutv 


For Oliver Cromwell Esq** att Hursley near Winchester Hants These. 

10'" 19">91. 
S*", — Yo" of the 10*** instant forces me not to delay longer for I have 
now by me w*'' this tow from you the other being that of the 29''' of the 
last month as also one from yo'' Sister E & another from your Sister A. 
yo** first as also these last have perplext my thoughts fearing I might 
creat thoughts of remissness in me towards you. I hope your candors 
will acquit me when I shall give you some touche of the true reason of 
my forbearance ; the week preceeding the last I was invited by M*" 
Swan to come to Towne to discourse an acquaintance of his about 
an overture to be offered to you, oure first meeting afforded me very 
little light for my old man would not disclose the person, but alto- 
gether played upon one string, viz : that I should give an account of you. 


yo'' estate etc : I thought I was bound to be cautious as he was reserv'd 
or might act the parte of cunning. I told him how providence had made 
me a stranger to my family, but he had the liberty (pretending friendship) 
to sattisfye himselfe as to the person & his estate — with all Rancks 
whether high or low Lawyers, Divines, Phisistians, Marchants, Tradesmen 
in City Country freind or foe such is the generosity & free sperrit of the 
ffamily. The old man would not be sattisfyed but I must give him 
another meeting, w*''^ was the following week, & all the time & place we 
mett, it was my parte to heare, & when time was spent, I understood shee 
was about 30 years of adge worth 8000 baggs of nayles. And finding the 
old man as darke as he was before, resolving not to fall into a snare I 
repeated what I have above mentioned, & that he or any appointed 
might sattisfy their Eys if they would take the paines as to the Estate, 
person & government of the ffamuly— tellmg him relations might be 
byassed, & as I tooke leave, I cal'd for M*" Sw : that if this gentleman 
had anything more to say in this businesse if he hinted it to him he 
should give me notice & I would meet him. Now S'' had I kept touche 
with y*" letters I had saved the trouble of my scrible, & your trouble of 
reading .... S"" I must not omit to lett you know I entered an 
acquaintance w*** yo"* Cosen Moss, old & yong exprest great love. . . . 

We have a boxe, my old great boots came not to hand, let Madam E 
know we found the pot of Oysters very good & Madam Ann s stockens they 
are to be valewed, A pair of new Glov's I know not from whom w^'^out it be 
little M*" Sparks. T. P.'^ my fellow travello'' presents his service to yo'selfe 
& ladys & desired me to signefy M*'^ Mary Purvis lives at Sanford near 
ffaringdon in Berks. Its time to stop my head is hott my fingers are cold 
yet give us leave to present all dues from All to All with our affectionat 
& joynt prayers for all blessings I rest intirely yo""* 

R Ceanmore. 

The great M"" Baxter dyed last week to be interred tomorrow. M*" 
Cocken was interred some time since. And one M'" Brand an eminent 
minister buryed y® last weeke. 


[Addressed on the outside to Mr. Eayner, the steward, but written to his daughter.] 

To M*" Edward Rayner at Hursley near Winchester. 

Dec"' ]« 91. 
Deare, — I might stop my pen & stay a little longer having since my 
coming backe dischargd my selfe with one to your Brother ; w*'** was a 
little after my returne to the Post where I now am. My fellow traveller 
Wedesnay last wrote alsoe to give an account of the Comissions he was 
charged w*^. It would not looke well that M"" Leadbeater should come 
empty w^^^out scrip or scrole, besides it saves S*^ carridge. A letter from 
his wyfe spake yo*" Brothers coming home on flryday evening but it was 
w**^ a cold the reste of the fi"amuly well. Colds many tims have 
very ill effects upon the body, his spirrits are very active, the house 
is originall clay, a breache is soone made, & its ill repairing in 
Winter, besides there is an old proverb * old yong, yong old ' 

" T. P. was the son of Mr. Pengelly of Cheshunt, with whom Eichard was living. 


Pray Ladys joyne w*' me & desire him to be more kinde & care- 
full of himselfe then perhaps his yong blood will give hiiu leave to 
consider. Poor Robbin says in his Almanack good meats &. drinks to 
put into the body warme cloths upon the body att this season of the 
yeare, certainly an excellent D'". we have sent to enquire for o"" boxe with- 
out successe, we suggest the missetake was in the messenger demanding 
in the name of Clark when it should have been Pengelly our errour shall 
be soone corrected. Madam Pen stayed all the week to entertaine o'" pro- 
mised expected guests, M"" Leadbeater & M"" Prilby, Satterday she was 
forc'd to Towne tow houres after her taking coache, my gentlemen came, 
we answered the surprize as well as we could they seemed sattisfyed, it 
would have been better if shee had been att home. I told them they 
were welcome. They returned after dinner to Towne M"" Leadbeater 
returned next morning to Highgate Church to give a sermon to the 
importunity of one M"^ Price a former acquaintance, tell his Nancy of it, 
& let her know that if his horse had been att home he would have stayed 
att London towne a quarter of the yeare. M"" Prilby hath a bagg full of 
stories to tell her. but for her comfort she must not believe all. Deare 
hearts I thank you for all yo' love. I greatly rejoyce & solace my self e, I 
chew the quid of all yo"^ kindnesse yee are comforts the greatest in this 
world, the Lord of Heaven reward you bo'th with temporall & spirrituall 
blessings of rest. All dues from All to All. Madam Pen : •"' begs a httle 
respite to expresse her acknowledgement of yo"" care & kindnesse to her 
sonn, the father also expresses most sensibly his obligations to you all — 
& so doth my fellow traveller, excuse the hast & badness of my pen. 

yo"^ yo" yo" in duty & affections 



[The post mark is the only date, ■■ „. ■. . The quality of paper and writing place 

this letter in 1691. The deliverance of ' your brother ' is probably from one of the 
attempts to arrange his marriage, so often alluded to in these letters.] 

for M" Cromwell at Hursley near Winchester these. 

Deare heart,— The first account I had of yo'" ilness soe astounded me, 
that I have been as one benumbed ever since, 1 wrote & I did not know to 

whome nor when, nor what Deare deare you have cleared my 

sight & cheered my heart with the sight of your own handwriting of 
the 26"» the steadyness of your hand but esspeically the words of 
yo'' mindc is a cordiall to my soule ; what miserable creatures should we 

be had wo not a God to go to Thus farr was I before I came to 

Towne, I have only time to conclude leaving what I have to say untell I 
have more time & better instrument considering yo»" sisters lines on the 
other side of y°^, I am forc't to conclude your Brother is happily deUvered 
we have cause to bless y« Lord. I love, love, & love you : yee have my 
prayers, dues to all from all I rest yo*^ in my whole soule 


Yo' Brother longs to be at home, he will discourse what the penn is 
shorte off. My hearty love. 

'* Mrs. Pengelly. 


[On the other side of this paper are the following lines from his son.] 

This serves to letfc my dearests know that I will observe Marjories 
letter but I cannot jor"-^ till Tuesday. Therefore I expect my coach at 
Winton on Tuesday next. 

I am y^ 

0. Cromwell. 


10" 31 92. 

Deare Madam, — I have had my thoughts not a little exercised how I 

might return to yo*"^ of the 17**^ for it came while I was under the rules 

of my Docter, the observation of whome I was resolved to tye myselfe w**' 

the most exactist stricknesse ; & I must say while I was in the use of 

means I was much releived I will come to see you as soone 

as it maybe convenient M*"^ Sophia "" gave me an account of 

yo'" going out of Towne on Wednesday I have told you I intend 

to see you. The good Lord keep & blesse yee all, are the prayers of 
(w*** dues from All to All) yo*^* in hearty affections 

R Richardson. 

I know not how the D*" will order for me & therefore when you 
write let me know the dayes yo*" brother Mortimer '' is at Home. 


[For his eldest daughter and enclosed to Mrs. Sophia Leadbeater. There is a post- 
mark outside, 

£for M""^ Sophia Leadbeater att Madam Horseman in Bartlett 
Courte in Holbourn London These. 

April 1" 93. 

Deare heart, — My purpose of seeing you, I was prevented, the 1** 
parte of the week being roughfe, the latter of same was inviting & when 
I had joyned my resolution to make use of my horse as I was in bead 
ready to rise turning my head I was struck with such a rick w'^'^ pointed 
from my neck to my left shoulder, & though it is not soe troublesome as 
it was yesterday, yett it will not lett me have my desire of coming to see 
you today I received yo*"** of 29**^ March w*'* the inclosed yester- 
day morning. Well madam I think you have done well in being att 
liberty as to yo'^' returne for Hursley. Yo'' sister says she had one from 
yo"" brother whoe wrote from Comton where he was kindly treated this 
was on Tewsday night — for on Thursday morning they began their 
journey onward for Exeter, & here yo"" sister breaks off. ... I perceive 
she intends a journey up, I thincke hergenious ought to be incouradged, & 
I am sattisfyed you will be ready to consider what shee shall desire soe 

farr as you are capable to help her You doe well to change yo"^ 

ayre often, I incourdge yo'' designe for Battersea. Pray let yo"" sister 

" Mrs. Leadbeater. 

^' Mr. Mortimer, who married Dorothy Crcwnwell, Richard's youngest daughter. 


know I have hers of y« 27'*' Mar*'' & that I shall (if you incouradge her 
journey up) cease writing untill I cither see or heare again from her. I 
am in hast the Lord blesse yo" w'** dues from All to All. 

I rest yo"" most aflfectionate f & servant 



S"' 26 97. 
Deare, — I was almost persuaded to stay my pen untill the Thursdays 
return of the Post ; for Satterday I received a letter from my Lady 
Russell,'* it was scribled with bemoaning & exprest a soifte & tender 
spirrit w*** affection to have a line or tow from me by way of retume. I 
told her that hers was very welcome though it found me more out of 
Tune than 1 have been for many yeares, amongst other matters, I re- 
comended her to the sermons of o"" Lord & Saviour in the 6''' & 7"' 
chapters of St Matthew & to be conversant in the Psalms as her ffather 
was for there is noe case but what may be there found. . . . You 
are to be comended for the Affections you bare to yo"" Brother, M"" Wavell 
hath not (notwithstanding all the fine weather & blessed seed time) 
answerd as yet to his promised seeing of mee. Put not your trust in 
man saith the Divine Orakle. . . . excuse the defects of my pen from the 
noise of my head my knee is som'what better, I have bespoke a cover for 
my head, measure is tooken Dues to all I rest your most 

affectionate f k servant 



9"' 16 97. 

Deare Madam, — ¥■"' of the 8"' should have been answered sooner, I 
put off Tewsday Thursday k Satterday posts in hop's of having something 
material to write. Your sister did well to make a step to me before shee 
made a retume to the desired answer. The D"" '^ knows that the step is 
on my account k youre sister & all of you will be sattisfyed in our delay 
when we can answer for o^'selves, we are not idle but labouring to get 
better light & understanding to prevent errours. Sit loose, it may 
require sometime, k I cannot see how anything can be done without your 
Brother's presence, I am sattisfyed lett it goe w*^'' way it will you will 
have sattisfaction not only in the stop that providentially have been put 
upon your Sisters penn but also as to her longer waiting, for if it be of 
the Lord, nothing shall hinder. What can you expect from me. If yo' 
Ey saw how it is you would pitty me, my heart is ready to fly in peices to 
feel the cercomstances of your ftamuly. 1 wish you had not acquainted 
yo' Cosen Morse ^° that the ship was sold. Its a start, I love k pitty you, 
blott out these last 6 lines. The King is arrived,^' the people for severall 
miles was upon the Roade a night to gett to Towne to see. I did not 

'• His sister Lady Frances married, as her second husband, Sir John Russell of 
Chippenham. Henry Cromwell, his brother, also married a sister of Sir John 

'» Dr. Gibson, who married Richard's daughter Ann in the following year. Ann 
seems to have taken some time to consider his proposals. 

^ ' Cosen Morse' was granddaughter of Bridget Cromwell, Bichard'a sister. 

*' William HI after the peace of Ryswlck. 



intend to say anything more than that I had received your letter bitt 
would not say more, being Aviliing to attend the promised guest viz M"" 
Wa ; Morse, as also M'" Lisle. What I shall meet with from them I 
know not, espetially y*' last, the Alderman's Wyfe starts tow other kins 
women of hers ten 1000 a peice the course is often spoiled w" there are 
many haires in view & the world is full of trickes ; blessed be the Lord 
who hath bestowed upon y*' Brother so large a measure of understanding 
he must put forth himselfe for himselfe, the world is tricking, & these 
q[ue]s[tijons he propounded to the Alderman as to fortun's are more 
to be preferred, & if M^ Lisle when he coms talks upon the subject I shall 
adventure to declare my opiiiion. I shall beg of the Lord to help us 
in our difficultys, he is our only hope & rest. Oh that all o"" exersises & 
tryalls may be sanctafyed & we bettered ; my knee is not freed from paine 
nor my head from noise I sleep & eate well, M""^ Banes is very weake 
hath been forc't to mak reiterated use of S'" Edmund King, who sayes 
the attendance must be nigh & watchfull for w" shee goes it will be 
quick. I have scribled too much Excuse w*^' due affections to you all 

I rest your humble servant 
Ma**^ Pen : presents dues to All. C E. 


Jan : 15"> 98. 

Deare Madam, — My laste was to yo^" Sister I hope shee hath received. 
This is only tolett you know that yo'"* to Madam P. is come to hand, its 
but resonable but some little time should be allowed to make her return, for 
its but necessary to be informed whether that of yo"^" Sister's to Towne be 
received we are endeavouring to be informed & that w*** caution which 
will require some little time. That the Lady hath found out the person & 
the carractistical badge put upon him, occations no dissturbance but 
rather imbrace her affections, but who shee hath plowed with though I 
have a shrewd guess yet for the present its prudence to pass it. Let the 
Person be a little Whig its better than a great Tory. That the Ladyes 
were not acquainted with what they have hunted after is no fault here 
for its above 5 weeks since I wrote to the Lady R '■^'^ to have a con- 
veniency of time & place given me to waite upon her & the other female 
but I think it hath broken off* our letter comunication. I will refuse 
nothing where I may finde God in it & att least be passive where I can- 
not see & hope for the blessing of y® Lord. I intended to say no more 
than y« 2 first lines but be ready to heare what any shall say, it being my 
duty to waite on the Lord for its a great concerne, & I am psuaded boeth 
on one hand & the other the Lord is sought & with dues to all I rest 

¥•■« affectionatly to serve 
To Elizabeth Cromwell. 
[This letter is torn and frayed at the edges.] 

Mar 26 1G98. 

Deare Madam, — Though it be so long as you mention since you laid hold 

of your pen to me, it was either that others stept in or that there was no 

business to write upon, & if I mistake not it was youre turne ; now this is 

** Lady Russell, who seems by this to have been also trying to arrange the wished- 

or marriage of Richard's son Oliver. 



to sattisfy you that I have yours of the 21 instant. That of your brothers 
giving an account of his safe retume, said that you were pritty well, but 
your sister was some**"* indisposed, but not to hinder her to goe aboute ; I 
am glad my letter was to sattisfaction, & I accept her thancks &c : Cheer- 
fulness of minde is a very good compaunion, & it keeps oflf that w'^'' is 
noxious cherriseth that whi*^** is proffi table & pleasant to health. That w*^'' 
shee had from the Gentle" carrys authorety, the fountaine is alwayes 
prefiferable to the strearae, the first is clear when the other by accident is 
fowle. Credditt may be allowed where there is stricktness to maintaine 
reputation, but how much more secure is that person who hath a 
principle above Education or morality. The visit is the next, having 
accepted yo"* Bro* invitation, your Brother is a Gentleman & he cannot 
act other then like himselfe, he is a brother & loves his Sister, & hath not 
only said that he would doe what belongs to him as to your sisters 
portion : and in that point how ingenously did he act with his wood ward ; 
but I hope he will hold on his resolution of settling himselfe, and 
then the portion will be better and more easily raised. The present (if 
partys agree) is for your Brother and gentleman to settle and secure the 
portion according to cache others sattisfaction , . . P this no doubt but 
boeth of them .... affection into halfe of the ... . if the partys 
agree ; and pray take notice that this will be the last time of asking 
What signefys scribling ; consider the day, cercomstances, and amongst 
the rest your sisters adge, and who hath heitherto intressed y^selves con- 
cerning any of you : Therefore look upon the Providence, but especially 
upon the flfather of it, who is an all knowing all wise God, and if any 
lack wisdom lett them aske it of God, wlioe gives it with a pleasant 
liberaleity. Madam Pen : intends to viset you with a line or tow the next 
weeke, shee dropt out, that shee intends to be plane, well upon that 
single account I will leave her to hsr purpose, not directing, but in- 
couradging as I suppose not mistaking as that which is most agreeable 
to your genious : and its to be lamented we have so little of it in this 
adge ; Its a fuel not to be cast among swine : well madam, our World is 
to be lamented, the day is only happy or rather favourable to them that 
have least to doe in it. The Dissenting Dissenter how are they tairing 
one another a peices, what sport doe they make the Divel & their 
ennemys : on the contrary how displeasing wounding, greiving to the 
Trinnitie of our being & happyness. To whose Councell care & 
blessing I recommend you all with all your concerns, I rest yo' most 
affectionate f & servant C R. 

before I shut my letter I must let you know the D"^ after dinner 
gave us a viset. He holds liis resolution Muuday come 7ven night you 
cannot doe less then to send youre Charrot, for it will be too much 
for him to foot it. I assure you he is modest to a beauty : shall I bid 
you all be cheerfull, pray be merry, God is good. 

I cannot give you a particular account how it hath been w**> me, a 
very hard winter, but what a day is this, how dry, but chang'd into soft- 
ness, it is bountifull to y« prisoners. A hope of delivery. & what a 
seed time, . . . ." yo"^ Brother hints ! God is good, but ... . Exeter 

** Here and in the following lines the letter is torn 


y« Wedsenday af'.er the D'« Munday, the ffarr .... before that time ; 
our Lady Day is just past .... desired for his own money. ... 

[Ann Cromwell married Dr. Gibson on 10 June. I give the entry from 
the register of Hursley parish, sent to me by the kindness of the Rev. 
J. G. Young, the present vicar. 

Anno Dom., 1698. 

16 Junij. Thomas Gibson de Londino Armiger et M. D. duxit Dominam 
Annam Cromwell de Hursley. 

Afterwards she and Dr. Gibson lived in Hatton Garden, London, and 
Richard used to stay with them, for he mentions Hatton Garden and the 
Gibsons together.] 


To the same. 

July y' 5"' 98. 

Madam, — Since I sawe you I have had my thoughts exercised upon 
the discourse we had aboute youre Brother ; I would not make reflections, 
but I greive that the Eyes that should see will not see, & the person 
only proper to act doeth not act. I owne a duty & from that, I could not 
but send for this bearer, I have had a full & learge discourse with him 
about the Nottinghamshire ffamuly, & I iinde myselfe so loaded that I am 
forced to acquaint you ; & that it is more then (may I say it) necessary 
that you should unbiasse yourselfe of all prejudice & cooley heare what 
the bearer hereof can give you in that Affaire. The gentleman his name 
I take to be Taylor, a dissenter, free & gentile, only one daughter 8000^ 
p an : has been in Towne for severall moneths but lately is gone into the 
Country Regards nothing more but a civil gentleman — whether he hath 
an Estate or noc for his daughter. What shall we say, your Brother not 
ignorant of such a business, nay, when he was to discourse M'" du Moulin. 
I confess I am not pless't. That ycu may the better discharge your 
coinission, heare what this gentleman sayes, & that you may have the 
better advantadge to serve yo'" Brother, let me desire you to recieve him 
Avith freedomo & freindship & as a kinsman. Such notice & mannadge- 
ment of business maks very uneasy, therefore I shall breake offe, with 
returne of thancks for the late kind entertainment of yo*" Brother & 
Sister Gibson, hoping shee is better than when I was with her. wishing 
you all happynesse I rest with dues from All to All 

Yo*"* in all affections 

C. R. 

To the same. 

Jan 20'" lo- 

Deare Madam, — Yo" of the 15^^ instant tells me that yo*" sister gave 
you an account of my being at her house & how I was freed from that cold 
my last acquainted you with, & this I may add it went off without its usuall 
concluding with a coughfe. I know not but my going to Towne & the 
kinde reception might be an additional means, the more I looke upon the 
relation between your Sister & M"" Gibson the more I see of God. without 
flattery lett me say they are a worthy couple, the D"^ improves in 
heavenlys as in Earthlys. Blessed be the Lord for his good hand of 



providence in that affaire. The same God can doe more, we have more 
work of that kinde. Oh that it would please him to take away our 
reproach, that the mouths of thy people God may be stopt, in that 
thou hast lift up the light of thy countenance upon us as a kinde ffather 
in disposing of thy children. Thou ought to be sought unto, for that 
which is done by God is well done, k if he will nothing can be done 
without him. flbr encouradgement, Gods nature is goodness, he will not 
alwayes chide, his heart is love & he delights in mercy. How tenderly 
hath he dealt with you in your late exercisings he tooke yee (brother, 
selfe, it was somewhat longer w"' y*"" woman) & layed yee upon 
his knee but not in anger showed the rod, & kist you ; the Postscript of 
your letter next morning tells me after bleeding your brother had a very 
good night throat well & easie. Let these mercys encouradge faith k 
duty I have (sayes the Psalmist) trusted in thy mercy, my heart shall 
rejoyce in thy Salvation because thou hast dealt bountefully w"' me. I 
had been undone, if I had not been undon, none but God can kill k bring 
to lyfe. that we may leame I am called upon, the Lord sanctafy all 
his providentiall dealings with dues from all to all I rest 
your most affectionate f and 

assured to service to my power 

I shall take care of your farmers designed kindness k observe as to 
carridge paid or not. 


To the same. 

Jan 27 Z,. 

Deare &c:, — This is only to lett you know (according to intimation in 
yo*" last to me) I sent Robert on Thursday to the Winchester carryers 
Inn, whoe found & brought what was mentioned viz : A statly chine 
accompaned with a fatt Turkey. A farmer may be gent in his present, 
what ever the imployment. tow shillings for carridge att a penny in the 
pound maks me to heare the Farmer to say this hog this chine the best 
is for M"" Clark well pray thank the man for the chine & the woman for 
the Turkey, I will tell you it was the best, because it was to come to 
your best freind I weighed it at 1\ halfe. I intend to make a Royal feast 
on the Royal day in spight of the hangman that burnt the covenant. 
Rich"* Ward of Most, & Cap* Har : ^^ I design to be guests. I have not 
the Ladyes as yet. pray lengthen my affections to your Selfe k Brother, 
blockhead, say Brother first. I am glad you are together, the blessing of 
Heaven be upon you boeth with dues from All to All I rest truly your 
down reight freind C R. 


To the same. 

Feb 25"' ^o- 
Deare & &c, — The reason I delayed the returne to yo" of the 14'*' 
instant is that I am visited with that unwelcome noisie compannion which 
you know my head hath been formerly troubled with. Robt having some 

" Capt. Har : is probably the same person as the Capt. H. mentioned in the 
next letter, Bicbard's nephew Henry Cromwell, son of Henry, lord-lieutenant of 


business the beginning of the week in Town mett the D'' & told him how 
it was, whoe replyed if I kept from taking cold by keeping warme (for the 
cause of the noise was from a cold) it would goe oflfe . and . another 
reason I deferred to the last day of the weeke in hopes to have given you 
an account that the wind's are allayed, but this I can tell you they are 
not encreased, but rather abated, & I am encourdged with a draught of 
patience to try a little further time, for whoe knows not but the D*" may 
bj right, & the spring at the dore in all probability it will be warmer. 
Aenough of this, & truly Madam you must not esspect att this time much 
more then what is in yo'"^, & for the latter part I have not time to speake, 
I know not the feild you intend nor how you will draw up all my case is 
to gett intelligence where & how you intend to plant your roaring may, 
I will endeavour what I can to get the rear of her for when shee roars 
shee maks a terrible noise, her breech will be musique to cause mirth, 
but the mouth terro'" & feare. well to close this we are in the dearke, & 
therefore it is folly to make an answer before a right understanding of 
w''* should be spoke too. 

Capt. H.2'' was arrested for mony's by the Agent of the Eegiment in 
w<^'' the Capt had a Troop. It was contrived to be att a house in Grays 
Inn lane not farr on the backside of Hatton Garden. The D'" was wrot 
to the letter read to y*^ wyfe only that the D"* would come. The D>" told 
his wyfe that it was a Spunging House, shee tells him (as being the gray 
mare) he could not goe. Away trots the careful wyfe to M''* Bend : '■^*' & 
there shee finds the Captains wyfe, boeth arm'd, how sharpe their 
weapons were & how they clattered I cannot tell, after some shorte 
time the debt was payed, but for the Arrest your Sister upon conditions 
furnisht the Capts wyfe with fortie shillens. 

It was an action I am afraide was accompaned with a trick, I can say 
noe more untel I goe to Towne. Let this suffice it is noe pleasing 
subject, well, before I conclude I must take notice of the kinde intention 
of yo'" Brother to put me into the same Cloath with himselfe. Pray tell him 
I heartyly prize his kindness, & when it comes (let it be sent to yo»' Sister 
in Hatton Garden who may receive it for me) to hand & then I shall order 
it with my taylor for the use it is designed. As to the quantity I am for 
the coate to be made with wescoate of silk, how to direct I am noe 
tayler, but my bill tells me my last cloth coate & breeches is 4 yards & a 
halfe, & the breeches is accountable for 3 quarters of a yard, soe by ih\s 
calculation the coate will be 3 yards 3 quarters if the cloath of the 
above mentioned bill was Ell wide as yours sayes that of your Brother is, 
I believe your brother will better gheuss what will make a coate better 
than I, it being a coate upon a wascoate not a coate upon a coate as he 
hath as yo'"^ speakes for himselfe. 

Deare heart I cannot but express my concerne for the occation but 
rejoyce also with your Cosen Morses kimical sacke dissiplined so much 
to yo'' proffit & advantadge ; I am persuaded she doth heartely love you. 

-' Captain Henry Cromwell was very poor. His wife was supposed to have spent 
too much money in supporting dissenters. After this his aunt Lady Fauconberg 
induced the duke of Ormond to give him a troop of horse, and he went abroad on 

-'* Mrs. Bendysh, daughter of Ireton and Bridget Cromwell. 


when I see her I will lett her know what affections you have for her. 
My thaughts are not a little exercised, it is best for us humbly & patiently 
to waite on the Lord, though he taks not the weight ofif yet his hand must 
support or else we must sincke. I did not thinck I should have had my 
penn so long, nor is y« noise of my head encreased take all in good part 
my cordiall love to your Brother & selfe with dues from all to All. 

I rest 


To the same. 

Mar 12'" fj^;. 

Deare Madam, — This is to let you know upon the receit of yo" of the 
6*'^ I went to Towne on the 8**' happely missing M' Pengelly who dyned 
at Hatton Garden on the &^ your sister not being well he was ordered to 
putt a stop to my coming up that week, but it was other wise ordered by 
my going Isliiigtown, k W Pengelly corning down Panckridge roads & I 
am very well sattisfyed that we did miss one another ; though I found 
none but servants below staires, the master gone out of Towne in his 
imployment 10 miles, & the mistress confined to her chamber, soe when 
I came up the poore woman was surpriz'd, having no company no dinner, 
but that was quickly set right by a well cho'sen & well drest tale of cod, 
& I had in company honnest Cosen Gibson, & a . . [illegible] . . that was 
prepared for y*' servants, not wanting a glass of wyne. & this was better 
than if I had gone abroade & hunted for a dinner, giving me the more 
time to enjoy your sister, whoe hath not been well, but by the use of 
mean's all will end for advantadge, & when I understood what you had 
wrote to your Sister I tooke my resolution to stay all night, having agreed 
to send to M"^ Smith to enjoy her company next morning, for I had a cast 
in my thaught that her husband hved some time in Northamptonshire, 
shee owned shee knew the place & that there was such a name of a 
famuly '^^ as you had exprest, but cheifly that she had them that now & for 
severall yeares; have lived in the Towne who are persons capable & such 
as shee can rely upon to give such an account as may be expected. Shee 
thaught for not loosing of time to doe soe what that night by Satterday 
nights post. Note, The Person on the side is not named, I suppose hath or 
will give you an account in what order this afiaire is put. The old gentle- 
woman did imbrace the thing we propounded w''' a heartyness. & 
seemed to brisk herselfe upon the imploy. The Cloth is come, with my 
hearty thancks to my Benefactor. I am taking the D" prescription, a 
box of Pills I began yesterday, 3 in the morning & 3 when to bead w*** a 
draughft of sage tea. untill I have emptied y*^ box. I must breake oflf for 
I have been too long poring I deserve a chiding. Therefore with dues 
from all to All I rest 

Yo" in hearty affections 


Doe you remember att Bucklersbury a confectioner you had a maide 
for that time (I confess I have forgot her) shee was called Rose Williams. 
Did you know M»" Richards among the shugar bakers & Davis, this latter 
*' Evidently still trying to arrange Oliver's marriage. 


marryed Rose afore mentioned & lives at Ket : This by way of informa- 
tion, every business hath a beginning, you talke of seeing this Spring 
these parts, I doubt not but you will finde some that will give you 
welcome, But you will finde cure quarters have broke up. Oh Lord leave 
us not. 

To tlie same. 

April y« !■« 99. 
Deare &c, — The fooles day is the lott of my penn, & it fals out very 
well for I have nothing to trouble you with but lett you know I had that 
of yours of the 22'"' which for matter & variety was pleasing. I shall 
not coment on the purchase, nor descant upon the Rule of Erro"", but w* 
will you say if your Brother finds not a very great change in the same 
sorte of hounds while stricktly governed & exercised & since left at loose. 
I thinck he did very well to exercise his body & recreate his minde in a 
pastime soe well suited to booth, my feare is he is not horst to his hounds, 
& much more, there being danger to be under built as to his weight hard 
for the horse to get up hill, dangerous to tumble downe. Let this little 
touch suffice I wish you boeth well, a blessing attend boeth you & youre 
affaires, them in the Country & them Elsewhere. Youre Brother & 
Sister Hatton ^^ gave us a viset about the middle of the weeke preceeding 
this, it was shorte, but very hearty, excusing how his occasions would not 
suffer it to be other. Shee gave me a touche of your bro : business, she 
said also that her Cosen Bendish was resolved to attend it, your Sister 
seemed to be pleased with the circomstance, gave me an account of some 
y^ could not goe to Church for want &c : its the same you had told mee. 
I acquainted M. P.'-*^ about your mentioned guift, shee presents her service 
& is ready to serve you. The great God Bless you with dues from all to 
all I rest 

Yours in all real affections 
[The signature is torn off this letter, but the paper and writing are the same as the 
signed letters.] 


To the same. 

Aug : y 8"" 99. 

Madam, — I have tooken penn in hand, but I know not what to dictate, 
nor is this of mine in course, for yo'"^ of the 24**^ was in relation to one of 
the &^ of the last moneth viz. : fur : & you have one since your Sister 
Gibson came downe, you being boeth entitled to it. Therefore I might 
have stayed a Post or tow in this punctillio not being behind a hand. 
However let things be what they will now I must goe on, was your 
Sisters viset soe pleasing, let an increase of pleasure bee with that of her 
husband, by whom went salutations to All, & if all, you may (M" fond- 
ling) be suer to be included, & now being come to the last word of your 
letter, why may I not give over. Oure spring is dry, but I am afraide 
our Harvest hath more Raine then tears, generally a people under judg- 
ments are hardned, as I have heard from one who said when he was a 
boy how glad he was to heare cry fyer that he might run from his worke 

■-* ' Brother & Sister Hatton' are Dr. and Mrs. Gibson, who lived in Hatton Garden. 
=» ' M. P. ' is Mrs. Pengelly. 


& frisk up & down sporting the warming of his hands. I pray God Eng- 
lands professours doe not loose the old serious Puretan spirrit. ^^'e 
would hope it hath not been so much raine furth"" off, or with you, as it 
hath powred downe here though the greatest parte comes w*** a SW winde 
it hits for grasse, though not for corne. the latter is of greatest concerne. 
The Lord rules k orders All things, he is all wise, we are but servants, 
let us be found obedient & thankfull. I am now come to conclude having 
runn the gantlope of one of my old visitours a whippinge sneezing cold it 
exercised my body from top to bottome, it proved benificiall to those 
paines in my knee, not but I intend to take y* first conveniency to breathe 
a veine. I have been greatly loaded boeth in body & minde if sanctafyed 
they shall be for proffit, oh that we may learne that thease teachings 
may make us learned I wishe you All, all happiness, outward & inward 
with dues from All to All & rest as certainly I am your most affectionate 
f & humble servant 


To tJie same. 

Aug. 10'- ^. 
Deare heart, — You complaine of a dull lazie humour put you behind 
hand having tow from me to return to ; confess had there been anything 
of business you might have had a foundation for youre appologies, but 
this I will observe, the same was with me : well Sister Dottril we are 
both caught, you have been att Newmarket where upon those adjacent 
heath those birds mimick away boeth their liberty & life ; I believe you 
have heard the same it being comon through the wholl country there- 
fore I will passe from this to something else. And let me poste it, it is 
like the world, a disappointment, for none of my gheusts did answer my 
invitation, but who thinck you had the loss, not I, nor the house, we had 
the more cold, Sc nothing can be prefered to a cold chine of such a hog & 
such a feeding. But that which is most to be tooking notice of I have 
not the receit of my letter, & that it should not miscarry, & to prevent a 
shift, I sent Robert to put it into M"" Wa : hand he not being at home, 
having been gone out an houre before, Rob* delivered the letter to the 
chiefest daughter att home. Well, I have been too long upon this stadge, 
I was jaded ; & the next stadge will be worse I feare ; it is concerning 
the Capt : ^^ att Hackney, pray Madam give me leave to please myselfe, 
that your sister G.-" hath given you an account of the design & how it was 
mannadged, so that I may save me neck in riding this stadge what as to 
the badnesse of the ways, dearkness of the night & badnesse of the guide, 
tricks & designes of darkness god will prevent if he hath any love or 
kindness for a Person or ffamuly. Oh that man would yet consider & be 
wise. I am sattisfyed if the Captain corn's to have any sense he will finde 
he hath done himselfe no kindeness, & perhaps naming him to be one to 
the chine, the other tow tender nosed gentlemen would not come, but my 
ignorance should not have hindered them taking notice of my letter it 
would be but a penny besides the paines of writing. Let it passe, for truly 
I am quiet, & through the goodness of the Lord, I can & I hope (by w* I 

** Captain Henry OromweU. *' Mrs. Gibson, 


have gone through) make a proffitable use to myselfe. I am glad nay 
rejoice to finde by your penn the soe good fraime of spirrit the Lord is 
pleased to accompany you with. . . . Blessed be the Lord it is so well 
with y*" family, & that your fears are over as to Dick Purdue, k that there 
is a stop put to the small Pox in your neighbourhood, let the Lord be 
lookt upon, & the rodd sanctifyed. Robert went to Towne I bad him see 
Madam in Hatton Garden & aske her when shee will be free for me to 
step up to see her ; he is not yet returned & expecting the penny poste 
every minnute, I am forc't, & fear how farre my penn hath runn it is but 
reasonable to shut up, with hearty love & well wishes to your Brother 
& Selfe & dues from All to All I rest 

Yours &c. 


To the same. 

April 4'" 1700. 

Deare Madam, — Yo** of the 23*^ I received the 26, & yo'" sister with 
her husband visited us the 27*'^ March. I had as full an account of what 
we call a concerne as shee was then stowed ; she said, shee would write 
unto you by the next post, of w''^ I was willing, as being under an obbliga- 
tion to answer one from you, & for that w'^'* I should have said it would 
have been what had been chewed therefore I thought it best to give way to 
yo> Sisters inclination & purpose as being best able to sattisfy. But truly I 
had another reason that hinders & that is the noise of my head, nothing 
hetherto maks any alteration, I tooke 5 douzen & 2 pills with a Draught 
of Sage Tea 3 pills in the morning & 3 at night as also I sneezed w"* the 
juce of white primrose, I have sense that also according to rule lett blood, 
what shall I say ? naughty boys are not safe w*^out the rod. It is an 
exercise & I believe exercise was the beginning of it. if ret not thy selfe 
att Evil doers &c P* 37, 1, the 7*^ especially y° last words of y*^ verse. I 
desire to mend that it may be sanctafyed. I will say noe more of thia 
now, being pleased with a dash of yours to me of an intended designe of 
a journey to London about the middle of next month w'^'^ is this of April. 
Lett it be safe & pleasant, & the journey made prosperous in that it is 
designed for. M"" Bodden signefyed to me that he had received a letter & 
bill from Hurseley, it will be look't after the latter end of this or beginnins 
of the next week. I thanck your Brother for care and kindness wee will 
please ourselves with the thoughts of a not long delayed expectation in 
the desired embraces of eache other. The seamans marriadges are most 
esteem'd by some, for their often renewing the wedding day by the 
repeated returne of every voyadg. Pray excuse the Errors of my head, 
my heart is yours with dues from All to All I rest a poore pilgrim your 


[The next three letters are dated and signed with his own name or initials. 
Written after his son's death, they refer to business arrangements with his daughters, 
and seem to show clearly that although Bichard was annoyed and irritable about 
some business there was no real quarrel with them.] 


ffor Madam Elizabeth Cromwell att Hursley near Winchester 

These Hants. 

Jan 21 1705. 

Deare Madam, — Yo" is in answer of mine of the IS'** the last month ; 
And youe begin, I am very sorry you have such uneasie & hard thoughts 
of all oure endeavors for serving you & yo'' family according to the true 
intent of the will of your dear deceased Brother to which I must adheere 
& therefore beg a legall order for the hundred pounds you call for & I 
will return it as soone as I can get it inn. To prevent blunders let it be 
remitted according to my former directions unto Adam Bodden ; Bacconist 
in George Yard Lumber Street. I tell you Daughter this is not an un- 
necessary caution ; To trouble it tare me aboute my Estate is a feeling 
to the flesh, but I have spirrit as well as flesh I will sooner be abused 
then my companions at Hursl'y hampton Co' & in many dangers in my 
hiding pilgrimaging removals : whoe dare to break that knot of love & 
faithfulness which time hath of soe many years experienced. I tell you 
againe & againe what I doe its for youe more than for myselfe, doe not 
think I flatter or eulogue I am for your Brothers will you have a Legall 
administration for a part ; I have Law comprehensive. I am forc't to 
gird closse & I hope the Lord whoe hath preserved me will stand by me 
in what is my right. All that I require of you is to keep your selfe free 
& as I advise you, I doe resolve upon as to myselfe The Coast is free 
S"* C: B.^- is marryed [at] last Some sayes lO.OOO'b others 20000. 
Pray encourage Steele he may prove a good chapman I heare of the 
death of Cosen Harsent a losse of a good freind ; which I took him to be. 
I will conclude, I could have entertained you with a long scribble, I am 
at the candle noe good light for old Eys ; & my matters are better 
discurst than ^vritten. be upon yo' guard we know not whoe to trust. 
I will say noe [more] but assure you I am your affectionate f & true 
freind to ser\e you R C. 

1 doe present the hearty love & service of Madam Pengelly I believe 
you have seen a letter from yo'" Cosen Disbrow keep yo*" Eys & Eares open 
it guide yo*^ selfe with that reason & understanding that God hath given 
you, be not imposed upon Light will discover the hidden things of 


To Elizabeth Cromwell. 

December l'* 1705. 
Madam, — Yo*"* of the 5^^ tells me by ffrydays post you received my 
orders for selling the yearly seasonable quantity of coppice wood, & that 
you would observe the best assistance for selling. Secondly, you say : I 
And by being here k paying as fast as I can, gives the credditors such 
sattisfaction that I have not had one dun from any since you left me, & 
you further say you hope the winding up yo*" bottom '' will be more 
pleasant than the beginninge. This sht paragraph hath a deal of matter 
in it. Its the executrix stock for the credditors, but whose Land is it. 

*= Probably Sir Charles Barrington, of Hatfield, Broad Oak, Essex, a cousin to the 
Cromwells through the Protector's wife, who was Miss Bouchicr. 
*' Bottom or end of the accounts. 


The D"" ^* said with your mannagry it would make 3 Rents viz : 900'*^^ p 
an : one for him, another for you & a third for wages tare & weare & up- 
holding the stock reparation etc with other contingencys : So that there is 
nothing for poore Pilgarleck ^' so thou must live upon Charetie & as thou 
behavest thyselfe some time sweet some time sower. 

I doe not understande how you have not been dunde since I cam from 
you & the winding up of your bottom will be more pleasing. I should be 
glad to see you at the end of a perplexed troublesom business your 
Brother Mortemar sent me a letter of what he had been doing about 
the woods now he hath found enough to quiet the fears of those that had 
concerns upon Hursley : & I will assure you had I been as well informed 
as I am now the woods should have paid all portions & debts of what 
kinde so ever, which would have prevented a great deale of dirt & duste, 
I did try & attempt, but Jehu like I was run down, & they furiously drove 
on to the overthrow of their charriot. It hath troubled boeth head & 
heart, the first duste (the taking off of the disguise) was by a penn from 
Hursley to London now Madam you shall see I am no Jehu but can 
coiifiand my penn to say no more of this subject at this time. Yo" of the 
19 brings us Turrkey, Chine & puddens & you would have added some of 
thedaintys of the woods, The game appeares to be destroyed when such tow 
marksmen & who so well knows the woods as M St. Johns ^^ & his man a 
wholl days banging could not finde a pheasant, when I in time past going 
in alone have sprung anie of 1^^^ brace, w*'^ my hawke I have in tow 
houres brought in 3 brace & halfe. The Royalty must be lookt to, & I 
approve of W™ Cook whom you recofhend, let Cleverlys instrument be 
demanded & w'^*ever gunn or guns your Brother lent him & what ever is 
his own he shall have the liberty to sell them but this last clause may waite 
a time by way of tryall so see w''* faire means may doe, & may make a 
smother step to authority & provoked riggoure. But tell W"' Cooke I 
approve of the nomination & carrecto" that hath been given by you of him. 
& I doe appoint him my game keeper, & you may let him beginn w^" he 
will by word of mouth, I discharging Cleverly & substituting Cooke in his 
place, you should know how Cooke writes himselfe which must be 
observed in my warrant. Your S*^ letter of the 24**^ is upon W™ Cook 
concerning a Beech & an old Pollard deny him not for he offers faire. 
Keep your accounts distinct that which is the personall & that w*''' is the 
reall, what the priviledg John Bowls had I know not but it is necessairy 
that Holms & the tow other coppices you mention should be seicired 
& none fitter than this very person who shall not want a power suited 
to the office & honn'' of the Royalty, for the present give him my word 
& desire M*" St. John to tell Cleverly he is no more gaimekeeper & 
that he will do well to deliver w''* gun or gunns (if any lent by yo'' 
Brother) up to you, to prevent suspicion, & deliver himself from tempta- 
tion. I have now tyred you & wearyed myselfe therefore I will end 
with my paper assuring we are your best friend, Dues from All to All. 


R. C. 

Turkey Chine puddens Avere all very good, coinending includes thanks. 

^* Dr. Gibson. ^^ Meaning himself. 

^* Mr. St. John was cousin to the Cromwells. 



To the same. 

[This last letter was written when Kichard was eighty-two years of age, and is the 
only letter in the collection with his full signature ; it must have been addressed to his 
daughter. Richard must have lived after his son's death partly at Hursley and partly 
with the Pengellys at Cheshunt ; he died at Cheshunt in 1712, and was buried at Hursley. 
His daughters buried him with much pomp. After a time they sold Hursley and went 
to live in London. Elizabeth survived her brother and sisters ; she died in Bedford 
Row in 1731.] 

November 1*« 1708. 

Madam, — I give you full power according to the direction of the letter 
designed for me to see in answer to that from Hursley. I say full power 
to make choyce of such person or persons you with the best information 
& judgement you can meet with To bargaine & sell what Coppices & 
underwood is to be disposed of this season My sonn Mortemar ^^ may be 
helpfull dues to all my deare first born I rest yor» etc 

R. Cromwell. 


The following letter is printed from a copy in the charter chest of 
an Aberdeenshire family related to the Menzies of Pitfodels. William 
Menzies of Pitfodels and his five sons took an ardent part in the 
rebellion of 1745-46, and the letter is presumably from one of them 
to his wife.' Kobert S. Rait. 

Manchester : j"* May, 1749. 

Dear Wife, — I wrote you fr. Newcastle In January last, wherein I 
acquanted you, that I was to take a tripe in through England. I left 
New Castle the begining of Febr : and came to York a few days after ; 
where I stayed a whole Moneth, fr. thence I write M"" Carmicball : to 
remite you forty shill : str. which I hope he has complyed with, since I 
left York I have traversed most of the west ridding of \''orkshire, pairt of 
Lancashire ; Cheshire, and a pairt of North Walles and on Frieday last 
I returned here ; where I desinge to stay this week ; and pairt of the 
next, after which I am hopefuU to sett my head homeward : if things do 
not once more give way. When I left London I wrote you I then ex- 
pected soon to see you. that proposall failed ; and if this do fail, adeiu to 
any more, ye have seen in the newspapers that the Pr. had left Avignon 
Janr. which is trew, but what place he has gon to is yet yet a secreat to 
most people, it is generally said that he is gone to Poland to Marie Prin- 
cess Badziwell, but that I take to be desingly done to cover the reall 
desinge. If I should tell you that he has been maried almost two years, 
and that for reasons of State the consumation of the mariage has been 

delayed and that he and my Patrons brother is in J d and that in a 

little time ye'U see them boeth ; and that my dream is Just ready to be 
fulfiled : ye'll not believe me. Neither do I beUeve myself. A Uttle time 
will do good. Make my compliments to U. and his family to P. and his 
family : and believe me to be. 

Copic taken Thursday the jj day of May 1749 at Pitfodels. 

*' Mr. Mortimer, who had married his youngest daughter, Dorothy. 

' Cf. Allardyce's Jacobite Papers, i.. New Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 189-5. 

1898 125 

Reviews of Books 

Handhuch der griechischen Geschichte. Von Dr. Georg Busolt. Band 
III. Theill,'DiePentekontaetie.' (Gotha : F. A, Perthes. 1897.) 

It is now more than eight years ago that the first edition of Dr. Busolt 's 
* Handhuch der griechischen Geschichte ' was reviewed in these columns. 
In the interval the Aristotelian treatise of the 'Adr]vaiu)y UoXite'iu has been 
discovered, and the researches of archaeologists into every department of 
Greek life have been prosecuted with even greater vigour and more success 
than before. The Aristotelian treatise alone has given birth to a for- 
midable encyclopedia of new literature, and the new archeological facts 
and theories have been scattered broadcast over an endless number of 
monographs and periodicals. Nothing daunted, Dr. Busolt has kept 
abreast with this enormous mass of fresh material, and has set before 
himself the task (for which every student cannot be too grateful) of col- 
lecting within a reasonable compass all the ascertainable facts about 
Greek life and history, together with references to the evidence on which 
these facts (or theories) depend. The results of his labours are to be 
found in the second edition of the handbook, which he has now brought 
down as far as the fifty years' interval between the Persian and Pelopon- 
nesian wars ; and the amount of new material before us may be estimated 
from the fact that whereas in the first edition Dr. Busolt devoted but 
306 pages in the second edition he assigns 588 pages to the same 
period. Though the learned professor's views on many points, and some of 
great importance, have, as we shall see, changed, his method and style 
remain the same. History to him is not an opus oratorium ; he has no 
wish to point a moral or adorn a tale. His aim is to give in his text as 
succinct a narrative as possible of the facts of Greek history, interpreted 
in the widest sense, so as to include, besides political and military affairs, 
the commercial, literary, artistic, and architectural developments of all 
the various Greek states, whether in Hellas itself, in Asia Minor, or in 
the innumerable colonies surrounding the Mediterranean ; and at the 
same time in his notes to justify each and every statement by a careful 
estimate of the evidence on which it rests. 

History, Dr. Busolt is well aware, is nothing without chronology, and 
perhaps the largest portion of his notes is taken up with the discussion of 
chronological difficulties. In our first review we ventured to suggest that 
much space would have been saved and much greater clearness attained 
if these complicated discussions had been ' collected together and relegated 
to an appendix, or, still better, had appeared as a separate volume in the 
form of-chronological tables.' This suggestion is more than justified in 


this present volume. Mr. Munro has shown • us, or at least rendered it 
extremely probable, that much of the confusion in the dates of this period 
is due to rival systems prevailing among the old Greek chronologists 
themselves, whose dififering dates for the same events are quoted at 
i-andom by our ancient authorities. To discuss each date separately, as 
Dr. Busolt has chosen to do, is, therefore, an endless task, and fails to 
arrive at any principles on which any satisfactory system of chronology 
can alone be arranged. 

But to pass from general criticisms of Dr. Busolt's style and method, 
about which, indeed, enough was said in our earlier review, to the new 
materials incorporated in the present volume. Dr. Busolt has now 
included what previously he had reserved for his next volume, elaborate 
sections on the Periclean buildings, the art of Phidias, and kindred sub- 
jects, rightly thinking that the highest point of development was reached 
by the Greeks in this period rather than in the later period of the 
Peloponnesiau war. Among alterations we note with pleasure that Dr. 
Busolt has rejected Kirchhoffs hypothetical account of the early organisa- 
tion and administration of the Delian league. History cannot be written 
without evidence, and for the organisation of the Delian confederacy 
between 478 and 454 there is no evidence. This our author has clearly 
grasped, being even prepared now to admit the genuineness of Thucydides's 
account (i, 96) of the foundation of the confederacy, down to its total of 
460 talents for the first imposed <j>upoc, which, as inconsistent with Kirch- 
hoffs hypothesis, he previously (with other eminent scholars) rejected as 
an interpolation. 

Nothing, however, better shows the greater importance that the 
author now attaches to the statements of our original authorities than his 
attitude towards the vexed question of the policy of Aristides. He clearly 
points out the contradictions involved in the account of the 'A9t)iaiu>f 
TToXtrtia that at the same time that the Areopagus was exercising its 
seventeen years' aristocratic supi'emacy over the constitution (479-462) 
Tliemistocles and Aristides, the two TriKxr-d-ni toO liifuif, the one of whom 
the people employed as general, the other as adviser, were urging the 
Athenians on to more and more democratic measures. He then with 
equal clearness emphasises the unintelligibility of Plutarch's ^ report 
of Aristides's famous decree, kou*);' tliui r»)i' TruXiniay v<«l tov<; afi^^uyTac ti 
'AOqiaiwi' Trnrrwi' aipelffdat, conjecturing with some probability that its 
' source ' is the fallacious Idomeneus of Chios, and rightly rejecting all 
attempts to reconcile it with the contradictory statement of the 'AOtjvaiuiy 
noXiTua ' that the archonship was only thrown open to Solon's third class 
in 457, and to the Oi/rtc never at all. Hence Dr. Busolt very rightly 
infers that the proper attitude of mind of the modern historian towards 
such conflicting evidence is the sceptical tVf)x»?. 

It might be wished that our author had seen fit to rewrite his own 
reconstruction of Spartan and Argive history after the formation of the 
Delian confederacy and before the outbreak of the Helot revolt in an 
equally judicial spirit ; but, as this depends on his own pet conjectures in 
chronology, this is perhaps too much to expect even in a second edition. 
Equally unsatisfactory are Dr. Busolt's reasons for assigning the battle 
' Classical Review, 1892, » Arist, 22. » 27, 2. 



of Oenoe, where the Argives, aided by the Athenians, defeated the Lace- 
daemonians, to the year 45G. This battle is described by Pausanias ^ as 
depicted in the Stoa Poecile on the Athenian Acropolis, but without any 
indication as to date. Dr. Busolt's chief reason for his own dating seems 
to be that in his own system the year 456 is unoccupied by any important 
event. Other authorities have assigned the battle — with not very much 
greater plausibility, it must be confessed — to the time of the Corinthian 
war in the fourth century. 

The difficulties of the would-be constitutional historian of the fifth 
century are nowhere better illustrated than in Dr. Busolt's '' account of the 
democratic reforms, where he enters with great detail into the processes 
of judicial procedure, the tiaayyeXia, &c. Here, when we subtract from 
his lengthy discussions all that applies only to the fourth century and all 
that is based on mere conjecture, we find a residuum of historical facts of 
the fifth century which might easily have been disposed of in a page or 
two instead of twenty-five. Still even here Dr. Busolt's careful criticism 
of the evidence dehvers him from the rash conjectures of many of his 
predecessors. Thus he is well aware of the insoluble nature of the problem 
how new ro/jioi were made at Athens before the Peloponnesian war. He 
contents himself, therefore, with simply stating that, as ascertained from 
inscriptions, regulations as to the allies, the cleruchies, financial adminis- 
tration, and religious matters were passed by the assembly, and that the 
first appearance of jo/joBi-ai with power to revise the existing roj^oc was 
after the expulsion of the Four Hundred in 411, and that they were again 
employed after the expulsion of the Thirty in 403. 

Instances, however, exhibiting at once the merits and defects of Dr. 
Busolt's method of treating Greek history, might be multiplied indefinitely. 
Enough have already been taken to show the thorough and painstaking 
character of his work. The ' serious ' student will probably find the notes 
more useful than the text ; nowhere else can he find anything like a com- 
plete bibliography on any point, Avhether intimately or remotely connected 
with the history of the Pentecontaety, and the results of long and patient 
researches so clearly and systematically stated. An eminent archfeologist 
warned us some time ago that monumental evidence gives us * almost 
always just the information we least expected.' This accidental nature of 
such evidence is the very difficulty that the modern historian has to face. 
Either he must, like Dr. Busolt, aim to record all the facts of Greek 
history interpreted in the widest possible sense of the term ' history,' or he 
must adopt a point of view of his own, necessitating a certain selection 
among those facts. Our earlier writers practically limited themselves to 
military and political history, following in the footsteps of the ancient 
literary authorities, with now and then a digression on the literature and 
art of the several periods. Our modern writers have a mass of new facts 
to work upon, many of them due to the accidental working of the spade. 
The genesis, the importance, the date of such discoveries are, in many if 
not most cases, matters of almost endless controversy ; and hence result 
confusion and bewilderment both in the writer and in the reader. Nor 
are these discoveries confined to Athens, where literary evidence can often 
be brought to bear on them ; they are quite as numerous in other cities of 
M. 15, 1. *§26,/. 


Greece whose literary history is a blank. The motlern writer has, there- 
fore, to be much more careful in selecting his point of view : otherwise he 
will find himself lost in a maze of unrelated particulars. He too must 
now, like the historian of a modern nation, exercise his judgment as to 
what to include and what to discard. Such a histor}', however, cannot 
lx)S8ibly be written except with firm foundations laid by such careful and 
conscientious compilers as Dr. Busolt, and from this point of view no praise 
can be too high for the ' Handbuch der griechischen Geschichte.' 

G. E. Underhill. 

Hannibal. By W. O'Connok Morris. ' Heroes of the Nations.' (London : 
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1897.) 

Judge Morris has written an interesting history of the Carthaginian 
hero and the war with Rome. As a popular account, indeed, his work is 
excellent. Even though it is impossible to attain to Arnold's picturesque 
brilliancy, the descriptions, e g., of the battles of the Trebia and of Zama 
are vivid, and a great number of modern parallels — there are more than 
fifty, and nearly half are drawn, as is natural, from the Napoleonic wars — 
add brightness and suggestiveness. To those parallels, which are the 
common property of all historians since Mommsen, and find their orthodox 
place in Mr. Morris's Life of Hannibal, the writer has added many others 
of his own. Historically, also, many of Mr. Morris's own judgments 
are concise and sound, nor is it necessarily time wasted to reinforce some of 
Mommsen's. The right rejection of annalistic fables {e.g. in dealing with the 
Spanish incidents of the period) ; the assertions that Rome's chief military 
inferiority consisted in her system of dual command, while Carthage's 
' essential weakness ' lay in her treatment of her subjects ; the insistence on 
the significance of events sometimes overlooked, as e.g. Carthage's inactivity 
after the victory of Drepana, the Illyriau troubles as explanatory of 
Macedonian interference in 215 B.C., the importance to civilisation of 
Rome's triumph; and, finally, the treatmentof character and judgment of 
military skill, as in the cases of Scipio, Marcellus, Hasdrubal (where Mr. 
Morris maintains a good case against Colonel Dodge), and Hannibal 
himself (Mr. Morris's summary of Hannibal's character and strategic 
abilities is, for instance, a great improvement on De la Barre Duparcq's 
similar effort) ; in all these features of a good historical work, this Life 
of Hannibal merits praise. And on the whole it is a clear, well-balanced, 
and interesting account of the Carthaginian and his great deeds. 

On the other hand, it must be said that beyond this the book does not 
go. The treatment of many of the problems of the subject is meagre and 
unsatisfactory. Mommsen, Arnold, even Hennebert, are followed far too 
slavishly. There is little independent research displayed. The two 
introductory chapters —comparing Rome and Carthage — display little 
original criticism, though both Polybius's and Mommsen's accounts of the 
comparison and prospects of success to the combatants are open to dis- 
cussion. Mr. Morris's account of the Carthaginian constitution shims the 
problems of nomenclature and the nature of the judicial body. To say 
simply, * Rome was being shut out from Mediterranean commerce,* is but 

1898 ttEVIEWS OF BOOKS l29 

hungry fare for those who wrestle with the prohlems of the commercial 
treaties. The old trite views of the harshness displayed by Carthage to 
her subject cities (jiot to the Libyans of course) and of the inferiority of the 
mercenary to the citizen soldier — these Mr. Morris borrows from Momm- 
sen. Yet both are highly doubtful views. Following Captain Mahan, he 
makes the reason for Hannibal's land-march the Carthaginian naval 
inferiority. True doubtless. But even had Carthage commanded the 
seas, both the difficulty of transport and the question of the point of 
entrance into Italy must have decided Hannibal's action. Some well-known 
problems are avoided altogether, e.g. in Polybius's story of the building 
of the first Koman war-fleet. Mr. Morris's solution of the great Ihne- 
Momrasen controversy is indeed the natural one, and suggests itself to 
every clear-sighted onlooker. But the ' time difficulty ' is escaped simply 
by spreading these operations over two years. Nothing, again, attracts 
Polybius's interest and care so much as the question of the responsibility 
for the second Punic war — the pleas and the purposes of both combatants 
• — the truth of the questions concerning Saguntum and its treaty with 
Eome, the Ebro convention and the like. All this — an introductory point 
surely of the first importance — is left absolutely untouched by Mr. Morris. 
The reasons dictating Hannibal's refusal to march on Eome after Cannae 
he gives clearly. Yet a few examples of the difficulties found in siege 
operations would add point to the argument. The question of the true 
ability of Flaminius is of importance chiefly as raising the great problem 
of the impartiality of our authorities. Mr. Morris touches but lightly upon 
it. It is surely not enough to quote Polybius as proof when it is precisely 
Polybius's impartiality which is in question. 

In several cases Mr. Morris shows an unfortunate lack of acquaintance 
with recent research. A knowledge of Beloch's ' Der italische Bund ' (or, 
German be a difficulty, of the French translation of the ' Staatsrecht ') 
must have modified his account of the treatment of Capua by Rome, and 
his assertion that ' the whole affair of the revolt of the twelve colonies 
was buried in judicious silence.' Following Arnold, Mr. Morris asserts 
that ' the duration of the siege of Syracuse and the dates of its successive 
events cannot be precisely ascertained ; ' but at least a valiant attempt 
in this direction has recently been made by Giuseppe Tuzi ' Ricerche 
cronologiche sulla seconda guerra Punica in Sicilia,' Eoma, 1891). But 
above all it is in his account of the events between 216 and 207 b.c, 
of what he justly calls ' the obscure and ill-told operations of these 
years,' that Mr. Morris shows an ignorance of the almost indispensable 
labours of Gaetano Bossi (' La Guerra Annibalica in Italia da Canne 
al Metauro,' Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto, ix. 427-452, x. 153- 
183, 303-343, 417-447,] xi. 67-97, xii. 57-106). Thus, e.g., Bossi argues 
that of the three great Roman victories at Nola, only the first can be 
admitted as a victory of any importance, and this only at Polybius's 
expense. The second was a mere skirmish, where Hanno, and not 
Hannibal, faced Marcellus. The tale of the third is a barefaced fiction. 
Again, Hannibal made but one attempt on Naples, and not four, as 
Livy would have us believe. A similar Livian repetition is found in 
the tale of two Carthaginian victories at Herdonia. Mr. Morris accepts 
one battle and two skirmishes at Nola, four attempts on Naples, 



and two battles at Herdonia. I do not, of course, say that Bossi Las 
proved his case. But at least Mr. Morris's account would inspire greater 
confidence, if there were any signs that he had weighed the arguments 
ably presented on the other side. Similarly the Livian tale of the march 
of Fulvius from Capua to Rome is almost certainly a fiction, probably 
of Valerius Autias, but Mr. Morris is quite unconscious of the difficulties 
Livy's account involves. 

On the many almost desperate topographical problems of the Hanni- 
baUc campaigns in Italy Mr. Morris is very unequal. There are no 
signs whatever of a personal acquaintance on the part of the writer \nth 
any of the sites described. This capital defect does a great deal of harm. 
Otherwise Mr. Morris would never have inserted the disgraceful map of 
Trasimene. He tells us he ' agrees with Colonel Dodge ' in his account 
of the battle. Now, though the American soldier's map leaves much to 
be desired, yet he chooses the Passignano-Torricella site clearly and 
without hesitation. Much, of course, may be urged for this and for 
its rival the Sanguineto site, but nothing, I think, for the extraordinary 
blend of the two adopted in Mr. Morris's map and confused description. 
Surely a better source for the former than Colonel Malleson's ' Ambushes 
and Surprises ' could have been found ; and the latter disregards Poly- 
bius and Livy equally. Again, Mr. Morris accepts the story that the in- 
vading Gauls in 225 retreated from Chiusi towards Fiesole, and yet fought 
at Telamon. Of the almost insuperable topographical difficulties this 
story involves he seems quite ignorant. 

In his addition to the hundred and fifty dissertations already existing 
concerning Hannibal's passage over the Alps and his good note on the 
subject, Mr. Morris follows Colonel Dodge and champions the Little St. 
Bernard. But a map is a crying need. Those facing pp. 106, 118, 
are entirely inadequate, and for it we would even sacrifice the ' Turner ' 
illustration. * Trebia ' and * Cannae ' are much more satisfactory. 
Mommsen's * left bank ' site for the former is now almost universally 
rejected, though Mr. Morris in the latter case follows Stiirenburg and 
Vaudoncourt, and rejects Mr. Strachan-Davidson's site. But Mr. 
Morris's arguments claim attention, though very far from convincing. 
No attempt, however, is made to discuss the topography of the Metaurus 
battle, concei'ning which in this very year the German Oehler attacks 
Tarducci and Bossi, the Italians, in favour of a site he selects. To 
accept Nero's march but reject— in a footnote — the ' thirty miles a day ' 
is, of course, a possible compromise ; but the footnote on the subject 
might have been expanded with advantage, especially as on this ques- 
tion hinges much of Mr. Morris's own favourite theory that Nero was 
the greatest of all Rome's generals in the war. In the great con- 
troversy as to Hannibal's march on Rome, Mr. Morris chooses the Via 
Valeria and rejects the Via Latina. This is now wellnigh certain. None 
the less it involves a sacrifice of Livy's account in favour of Polybius. 
Yet here again Mr. Morris's account is a blend of both, rejecting from 
both and adopting from both at pleasure and without explanation. 
Thus, according to Polybius, Hannibal really hoped to surprise the city 
and was baffled only by chance. This is naturally inconsistent, not only 
with Mr. Morris's account of Hannibal's motives, but also with the story 


of the communication between the senate and Fulvius, which forms part 
of Livy's improbable tale. Yet this is accepted by Mr. Morris. Con- 
sidering also the position of Alba Fucens, it seems an unlikely statement, 
and scarcely needed, that that colony sent its forces to help defend Eome, 
' having been informed of Hannibal's march.' It would be a priori pro- 
bable, even were it not confirmed by Appian, that the Alban reinforce- 
ments were rather fugitives fleeing before Hannibal's advance than an 
armed assistance ' nobly ' sent. 

Surely also, to talk, as Mr. Morris does, of the ' animation of the 
rich and free life of Hellas ' (surely a somewhat grotesque caricature of 
the Polybian Greece here described), of * Asia Minor west of the Halys ' as 
a * Roman subject country ' after Magnesia — to write thus is not 
' thoroughly trustworthy as history.' ' Mylos ' and * the Etrurians,' too, 
have a somewhat barbaric sound. And in one footnote Mr. Morris does 
unwittingly some injustice to his predecessors. ' The passage,' he says 
{i.e. Polyb. iii. 68), ' which proves that Hannibal contemplated falling on 
Scipio when still separated from Sempronius has escaped the notice of, 
as far as I know, all commentators.' A reference to Bernewitz (' Leben 
des Hannibal,' i. p. 222) and Dodge (' Hannibal,' p. 260) will enable Mr, 
Morris to modify this statement. 

I have dwelt on these defects, many of them somewhat trivial, 
because Mr. Morris's ' Hannibal ' has not a few points of superiority over 
all other stories of the Carthaginian general in English. 

Lastly, it is worth while notmg that the maps of Italy included in 
the volume are unsatisfactory, though it is fair to add that this is probably 
the fault of the publisher rather than of the author. They are too minute, 
and give but a small part of the geographical information required by the 
text. Plans of Tarentum and Syracuse would be far more to the point 
than the useless plates facing pp. 50, 52, and 152, and a map of the 
Via Valeria and Samnium far more useful facing p. 238 than the plan 
of Eome now there. Surely, too, Scotti has so far deserved of the his- 
torian that a ' ? ' should be added to the supposed * Bust of Hannibal ' 
facing p. 146. The Greek of the footnotes on pages 41, 284, 217, 322, 
345, leaves much to be desired in the way of accentuation, and in the last 
three cases there are also very bad misprints. Doubtless a second edition 
will rectify this. It might also with advantage make the index con- 
siderably more complete. Bernard W. Henderson. 

Tlie History of the Decline and Fall of the Boman Empire. By Edward 
Gibbon. Edited by J. B. Bury. Vol. III. (London : Methuen. 

The third volume of Mr. Bury's edition of the * Decline and Fall ' is not 
inferior to those which have preceded it in the care and thoroughness 
with which a far from easy task has been carried out. This book has 
now obtained such an assured position that it would be superfluous to 
dwell on its merits. Errors and omissions there must necessarily be 
where the field is so wide, but they are surprisingly rare ; and it is no 
exaggerated flattery to say that there are very few living men who could 



have executed tbis formidable task with equal success. It may, however, 
be worth while to call the reader's attention to a few points which we 
have noticed in our perusal of the volume, which, by the way, covers the 
period from the death of Julian to that of Valentinian III. 

It might have been stated in the note 60, p. 20, that Ammianus 
(xxvii. 7) does not, as Gibbon suggests, ' suppose that all who had been 
unjustly executed were worshipped as martyrs by the Christians,' and on 
the same page a note might have been added about ' Mica Aurea,' which 
Gibbon has left unexplained. It would hardly have been superfluous to 
remark (p. 30) that there were other sides to the character of Pope 
Damasus than that presented in Ammianus. Again, it might have 
been noted (p. 135 sq.) that Gibbon does not realise sufficiently that the 
charge against Gratian was not his devotion to hunting, but his accept- 
ance of the barbarian regime. No allusion is made by Gibbon or his 
editor to the restoration of the walls of Rome in 402 ; but Mr. Bury 
might have found an additional confirmation of his demonstration of the 
fact that Zosimus recounts the campaign of 401 against Radagaisus as 
if it were that of 405 (App. 18), in the statement of that historian that 
the threatened invasion caused a special panic at Rome (v. 26, 4). The 
restoration was the outcome of that panic. It is now recognised that 
the statements in the ancient catalogues, which are repeated by Gibbon 
(p. 305), about the seating capacity of the circus and other places of 
entertainment in Rome cannot be accepted literally. The facts are 
conveniently given in Lanciani's recent book ' The Ruins and Excava- 
tions of Ancient Rome' (pp. 92, 381). It is interesting to note that this 
latest authority believes that Gibbon struck almost the right figure in 
estimating the population of Rome (oj). cit. p. 93). No attempt is made 
by Mr. Bury to reconcile the conflicting statements as to the scene of 
the marriage between Ataulfus and Placidia (p. 385, n. 140). Forum 
lulii, in Italy, is not a sufficiently important town, yet why should it be 
mentioned if Narbo was the place ? Perhaps the difference has arisen 
from a misunderstanding of an original statement that the wedding took 
place at Forum lulii {i.e. Fr^jus), in Narbonensian Gaul. Mr. Ramsay 
has identified Theodosiopolis (p. 392) with Kamacha Ani (* Geography of 
Asia Minor,' p. 305, note). The ravages of the Huns in the neighbour- 
hood of Constantinople might have been illustrated by a reference to the 
account in tbe ' Life of St. Hypatius,' by Callinicus (p. 108), which was 
published in 1895 in the Teubner series. We have noticed but few 
imperfections in the references. But the inscription of Valentinian 
given (p. 35, n. 97) as ' Eph. Epig. 2, p. 389,' is now ' C. I. L. 3 Suppl. 
10596.' The inscription about Claudian (p. 485) might have been tran- 
scribed from the ' Corpus ' more correctly. G. M*N. Rushfobth. 

The Celtic Church in Wales. By J. W. Willis Bund. (London : 

D. Nutt. 1897.) 

It would be difficult to exaggerate the vivacity, audacity, and ingenuity 
with which this book has been written. Such or some such qualifica- 
tions were necessary for an author who has achieved what might have 



been otherwise thought the impossible task of writing a volume of no 
less than 533 octavo pages on the history of the Celtic church in Wales. 
Now this church in Wales is not represented, as the sister Celtic church 
in Ireland is represented, by surviving literary compositions of her saints or 
leaders — such as the ' Confessio ' and ' Epistola ad Corotici subditos ' of St. 
Patrick, or by surviving liturgical volumes, such as the * Antiphonary of 
Bangor; ' nor does she possess, as the Celtic church in Scotland possesses, 
an early biography of any of her own saints, written from a Celtic point 
of view and by a Celtic author, such as Adaninan's ' Life of St. Columba.' 
She can claim, indeed, one early historian, who, though he writes at some 
length, writes in such a verbose and turgid style that little information 
about the Welsh church can be extracted from his pages. The biographies 
of Welsh saints are none of them, apparently, earlier than the eleventh 
century, and they are written from the Latin or Anglo-Norman point of 
view, and are valueless as history. The writers of them did not know, 
or, if they knew, they purposely suppressed all mention of the peculiarities 
of the Celtic church and of its ecclesiastical customs and arrangements. 
From what quarry, then, is historical material to be obtained? Mr. 
Seebohm has written an interesting volume on the * Tribal System in 
Wales,' which Mr. Bund includes in his list of authorities (p. 532), 
but to which he seldom refers elsewhere. Mr. Seebohm finds sufficient 
material for his purpose in ' The Ancient Laws of Wales ; ' the Welsh 
extents or surveys between 1294 and 1608 ; the records in the ' Book of 
St. Chad ; ' in the ' Book of Llan Dav ; ' and the records of St. Cadoc in 
the Cotton MS., Vesp. A., xiv., Brit. Mus. By aid of these he fills a volume 
about one quarter the size of Mr. Bund's ' Celtic Church in Wales,' the 
documents in question being replete with references to the tribal system 
while they say very little about the church. How, then, can Mr. Bund 
fill a volume of 500 to 600 pages with a subject of which so Httle is 
known as ' The Celtic Church in Wales ' ? 

Being a person of strong political and ecclesiastical views, he cannot 
help having his fling at arrangements of the present day, if they are 
distasteful to him, in spite of a well-expressed determination in the 
preface (p. vi) to abstain from remarks of such a nature. For instance, 
describing a Welsh bishop of Celtic days, he says — 

He was not, like the Latin bishop, the spiritual ruler over a defined area. 
He was not a personage like a mediaeval prelate, who claimed and asserted his 
superiority over the proudest lay prince. He was not, like the bishop of our 
own day, the political nominee of the government for the time being, whom a 
subservient chapter pretend the Holy Ghost has inspired them to select out of 
all the Anglican clergy as the fittest for the place (p. 34), 

This is the sort of jibe which one would have expected to find in such 
a book as Cobbett's * History of the Keformation,' but which, whether 
justifiable or not, is out of place in a serious history. 

But the main source of Mr. Bund's voluminous dissertation remains 
to be named. He advances the claim that wherever information is 
defective with regard to any point in the history or the constitution 
of the Celtic church in Wales, it may be supplied from the history of 
the Celtic church elsewhere in these islands, and as there is plentiful 
information forthcoming as to the constitution and customs of Celtic 


Christianity in Ireland, a large fund of information is at once placed 
at his disposal. This, of course, begs a very large question, and we do 
not think that the validity or invalidity of the procedure is capable of 
proof or disproof, except when the inference is corroborated or otherwise 
by phrases in the 'Ancient Laws of Wales,' or in the few charters or other 
early documents which have come down to us, or by some others of the 
scanty sources of early Welsh information. 

For example, to explain the precise difference of meaning between the 
Hail, the hettios, the capel, and the capel hettws in Welsh, Mr. Bund 
recalls the fact that four kinds of churches are described and differentiated 
in the Irish laws — the annoit, the dalta, the compairche, and the cill. He 
transfers the description of them to his pages, and bases on it an inter- 
pretation of the hitherto unexplained Welsh terms (pp. 339-42). Who 
shall say that this borrowed explanation is right or wrong ? It is certainly 
extremely precarious, and that is true of a great deal of the argument 
and explanation advanced in this book, which, nevertheless, should be 
read and weighed by every one who is interested in the ancient church of 
Wales. Point after point is advanced over which the reader will place 
the label * not proven ; ' it is seldom that he will use the word ' proven,' 
and seldom the word ' disproven.' There are, however, cases, even when 
the argument is not borrowed from Ireland, where the latter word must 
describe the verdict ; e.g., Mr. Bund finds the origin of tithes in Wales in 
the payments, made originally in kind, but afterwards in the form of a 
money commutation, from the landowners or tenants to the lay chieftains. 
But whatever the origin of tithes in Wales may have been, it certainly 
was not this. These money payments still exist side by side with tithe 
in some parts of Wales. Mr. Seebohm tells us : — 

In the extents the old food rents of the free tenants or weles had akeady 
been commuted into money payments. And these money payments were 
evidently treated as not charges upon persons, but permanent charges upon the 
holdings in occupation at the time of the conquest. They were scrupulously 
respected by the conquerors, and have mostly been left unaltered from that 
time to this. . . . These money payments are the amounts into which the 
ancient food rents of the free tribesmen were connnuted, and the continuity, as 
already pointed out, shows that they were regarded as charges on particular 
lands or holdings, and not personal charges. Many of them are still payable as 
ancient quit-rents throughout North Wales.' 

The fact that Mr. Bund is wrong on a point of which the accuracy 
is capable of being tested makes us suspicious about the value of many 
ingenious theories and brilliant guesses, of which his volume is full, and 
as to which no test can be applied. We can only select one or two 
points as samples. It has been a standing wonder that such an 
immaterial matter in itself as the form of the tonsure should for 
centuries have been a burning subject of contention between the Celtic 
and the Roman churches. Mr. Bund offers an explanation which is 
adequate, if it is true. He says : — 

The probable explanation is that the Celtic tonsure is some survival of Pagan 
worship which the Celtic Christian took over with other survivals from the 

' The Tribal System in Wales, London, 1895, pp. 9, 11. 


heathen, and that still after it was used by the Christians was supposed to 
possess some peculiar Pagan virtue (p. 273), 

He supports his interpretation by reference to passages in early Celtic 
literature, which he might have enlarged and enriched by the references 
collected by Mr. Seebohm in the book of which Mr. Bund makes curiously 
little use.'^ Again, with reference to the fire kept perpetually burning in 
the monastery of St. Bridget, at Kildare, a secular instead of a religious 
origin is suggested for it. 

The right to have fire was the right of the chief, and he supplied it to his 
tribesmen. It might be in this way that Bridget, as the chief of a tribe, pos- 
sessed the right to have fire at Kildare, even although there was another reason, 
such as analogy from the vestal worship. 

These are but samples of Mr. Bund's theories. Their soundness 
depends largely upon his view that early Celtic Christianity, both in 
Wales and Ireland, was rather paganism with a veneer of Christianity 
than Christianity slightly tinged with paganism — a view which we can- 
not here discuss at length — for which some support is produced both 
by Mr. Bund and also by Professor Rhys (' Hibbert Lectures,' 1886, p. 224 ; 
' Arthurian Legend,' 1891, p. 367), but which seems to us to be incon- 
sistent with the intense and spiritual Christianity which breathes through 
St. Patrick's own writings, and which is ascribed to him in his earliest 
biography — the Hymn of St. Sechnall. But whether we accept Mr. 
Bund's conclusions or not, his volume is a most interesting one to all 
who care for the subject, and will have to be reckoned with by all future 
writers on the Celtic church of these islands. F. E. Waeren. 

The Church of the Sixth Century. Six Chapters on Ecclesiastical His- 
tory. By W. H. HuTTON, B.D., Birkbeck Lecturer on Ecclesiastical 
History, Trinity College, Cambridge, Fellow and Tutor of St. John's 
College, Oxford. (London : Longmans. 1897.) 

Mr. Hutton's book is not a general history, scarcely even a review of 
the church in the sixth century, but rather a sketch of those parts of the 
history which can be grouped round Justinian. A pleasant and lively 
sketch it is, garnished with up-to-date reading, and with personal memo- 
ries of a visit to Constantinople. As a whole it is not a success. Mr. 
Hutton takes ' the standpoint of the church historian ' with a narrowness 
which goes far to defeat the church historian's own purpose. He recites 
indeed ' the ruin of the East Gothic power, the restoration of the empire to 
almost its widest boundaries, the invasion and settlement of the Lom- 
bards, the foundation of the medieval papacy, the beginnings of English 
Christianity ; ' but he is too much absorbed in purely ecclesiastical inter- 
ests to see clearly their connexion with the general history. The work 
is practically an apology for Justinian's church policy, and an apology 
which allows his orthodoxy to cover a multitude of sins. Its most 
original part is an attempt to clear Justinian from the charge of having 
fallen into heresy in his last years ; and this (as Mr. Hutton seems to feel) is 

^ '^ The Tribal System in Wales, Y}.1Q, ■ 


too much like special pleading. He is no doubt right in setting aside the 
incongruous evidence of a distant Gaulish bishop like Nicetius. But is 
the clear narrative of such a writer as Evagrius to be rejected because he 
made some bad mistakes in measuring St. Sophia ? The most powerful 
argument in Mr. Button's opinion is 'the general judgment of the 
universal church ' — that is to say, the current opinion of a later time, 
which might very well overlook a heterodox edict which after all was 
never issued. The printing is not faultless ; there are several slips on 
pp. 60-66. H. M. GwATKiN. 

£tudcs d'Histoirc du Moyen Age dedUes d Gabriel Monod. (Paris: 

Cerf. 1896.) 
Bibliotheqiic de la Facultd des Lettrcs. III. Mdlanges d'Histoire du 

Moyen Age. Publiee sous la direction de M. lo Professeur Luchaire. 

(Paris: Alcan. 1897.) 

On the occasion of M. Gabriel Monod's election to the presidency of the 
Historical and Philological Sciences section of the Ecole pratique des 
Hautes Etudes, a hundred and fifty of his old pupils gave him, as a 
testimony of their respect and gratitude, a volume of studies in medieval 
subjects written by some of themselves. With such extraordinary rapidity 
has the work of the man whom they call master brought forth fruit, that 
while M. Monod is still in the prime of life the names of his pupils are 
already famous among historians. The influence that he has had on the 
teaching of history in France, as director of historical studies in the Ecole 
des Hautes Etudes and as Maitre de Conferences in the Ecole Normale, is 
described by his friend M. Lavisse in a charming letter of dedication, 
which tells the story of M. Monod's share in the creation of the modern 
French school for the scientific study of medieval history. As fellow- 
students, M. Lavisse and M. Monod had listened to lecturers who hurried 
their pupils through vast periods of general history, making it their 
primary object to instil superficial ideas. Of personal communication 
between professor and pupil there was none ; even in the smallest classes 
it was not etiquette that the professor should show that he knew any 
of the members individually. But at M. Monod's first evening lectures 
he used a dififerent method : he gave up dogmatic teaching and the 
oratorical style, formed a small class of men not much younger than 
himself, and made it his business to encourage study rather than to 
expound general views. His little class for the study of a facsimile or 
the critical explanation of a passage from some medieval classic soon 
became an integral part of the new school of history. 

As this large collection of short monographs has no unity other than 
that which is given by the common inspiration of one teacher, a few only 
of the more important articles can be mentioned here. Among the most 
suggestive is a paper by M. Imbart de la Tour on the commercial immunities 
accorded to churches in the eighth and ninth centuries. He refers to the 
charter of Sigebert II to the abbey of Stavelot (651) as the earliest which 
confers commercial privilege. In the next century, the economic import- 
ance of the abbeys as great landed proprietors was recognised in a large 
number of charters, granting either immunity from, or the right to take, 


tolls, the right to establish markets or fairs, and the right to the dues 
thence proceeding. In the details of the carrying services due from 
tenants, the * carroperae,' the ' navigationes ' (frequent in French 
charters), the claims to the tenants' horses, carts, boats, &c., M. Imbart 
inclines to see evidence of an elaborate system for the conveyance 
of wheat, wine, and goods for long distances, not arrangements for a 
merely local transport. In 775 a body of ' negociatores,' or merchants, 
are privileged in a St. Denis charter, and from that time on are often 
mentioned as a group of monastic servants who are distinct from the 
servile as from the free tenants. The charters granting market franchises 
to churches in the ninth century are collected by the essayist, who fully 
appreciates the importance of the commercial element in the growth of 
seignorial and dismemberment of comital power. 

In his Etudes Carolingiennes, M. Giry has put together a number of 
short notes, chief of which are : one, on a lost capitulary of Louis the Pious, 
promulgated about 818 or 819, and concerning regular canons, the 
contents of which can be guessed only from two fragmentary indications ; 
another, on the date of Lupus of Ferrieres' nomination to the abbacy, 
which he puts 840 instead of 842, a change which affects the chronology 
of Lupus's letters ; and last, a collection of the Carolingian charters of the 
abbey of Montieramey, several of which he prints for the first time. Of 
essays concerning the history of the papacy there are two : one, by Paul 
Fabre, on the relations of Poland and the see of Eome from the tenth to 
the thirteenth century, with special reference to the payment of Peter's 
pence and the analogies between the Polish and the English payment ; 
another, by E. Jordan, adducing proof of the authenticity of the papal 
letters preserved in the formulary of Eichard de Pofi, hitherto generally 
supposed to be merely models of style, not letters which really emanated 
from the papal chancery. There are also two papers on the peers of 
France, one explaining the origin of the twelve peers, and the geo- 
graphical reason why twelve of the royal vassals were distinguished from 
other peers of the same tenure ; another, by Funck Brentano, on the 
nature of the peers' tribunal. M. Bemont writes on Hugues de Clers' 
* De Senescalcia Francise,' and, in opposition to M. Luchaire and others, 
defends its authenticity. He rejects only that part of the work which 
Hugues says he took from a manuscript supposed to be by Fulc of 
Jerusalem, but he believes the evidence may be trusted which Hugues 
adduces from his own personal knowledge of the Count of Anjou's claim 
to the seneschalcy. In reply M. Luchaire again attacks the document in 
the Bibliotheque de la Faculte des Lettres, and maintains his original 
opinion, that the ' De Senescalcia ' is worthless. He believes that it was 
penned about 1158 by a clerk, who was anxious to justify the pretensions 
of Henry II of England to the seneschalcy, and who also desired to 
magnify the importance of Hugues. M. Luchaire trusts none of the docu- 
ments which support the statements of the 'De Senescalcia,' and believes 
that they were all inspired by that work. With regard to Gervaso of 
Canterbury's phrase [that Henry ' ut quasi senescallus regis Francorum 
intraret Britanniam,' he thinks it should be taken to mean that Louis VII 
gave the military powers attached to the title of seneschal to Henry II in 
view of this particular expedition. Robert de Torigni speaks three times 


of the right of the counts of Anjou to the stewardship, but his testimony 
is dismissed as that of an obsequious servant of Henry II. 

M. Abel Lefranc gives Guibert de Nogent's ' De Pignoribus ' an im- 
portant place in the history of religious thought, as a scathing attack on 
the worship of relics by an abbot of unsuspected orthodoxy writing not long 
after 1115. M. Molinier writes on the first part of ' Les Grandes Chroniques 
de France,' to 1223, compiled by the monk Primatus. He opposes the view 
of M. Paul Meyer and others, that the work dates from the first years of 
Philip the Fair, and reverts to the view that it belongs to the reign of 
Philip III, and was finished in 1274. M. Pirenne writes to show that 
the Chronique de Flandres to 1342, which was very popular in the Low 
Countries, must be regarded as a mere compilation, worthless as an 
historical source. M. Couderc treats of an anonymous French chronicle 
in the ' Recueil des Historiensde la France' (t. xxi. p. 146), of which only 
four manuscripts were known. He has found twenty-six, and shows that 
it was a manual of history written for Philip VI by a monk of St. Denis. 
The work was largely used for a Latin compendium by Guillaume Saignet, 
the facts of whose life M. Couderc has collected. English readers will 
not overlook the paper on the share taken by Wycliflfe's poor priests in 
raising the rebelUon of 1381, an essay based on the notebooks of the 
late Andre Reville, another of M. Monod's brilliant pupils. 

M. Dupont-Ferrier's paper on the library of Jean d'Orleans, comte 
d'Angoulcme, published in the BibUotheque under M. Luchaire's 
direction, is of very great interest, and deserves more than the brief notice 
which it is possible here to give. M. Dupont-Ferrier's account of the 
thirty-three years of captivity endured by Jean d'Orleans in England in 
the reign of Henry VI, which appeared lately in the Bevue Historiquc 
has made the story of this man, happy only in his love of books, more 
generally familiar. He has now collected notices of 167 manuscripts 
which once belonged to the count, a work which must have entailed much 
research. In one of them is found this delightful curse on the book-thief : 

Qui che li\Te emblera 
A gibet de Paris pendu sera, 
Et, si n'est pendu, il noiera, 
Et, si ne noie, 11 ardera, 
Et, si n'aert, pitte fin fera. 

Eleven of the Count's manuscripts were copied by his own hand. One 
contains the inscription : Cost livrc est a Jehan, comte d'Engolesme, lequcl 
Vacheta d Lomlres, en Engleierre, Van de grace 1441. Two of his 
English books, one a copy of the ' Canterbury Tales,' were written by the 
scribe, John Duxworth. Mary Bateson. 

Chronologic des Mittelaltcrs und dcr Neuzeit. Von Fbanz Buhl, 

Professor der Geschichte an der Universitiit Konigsberg. 

(Berhn : Reuther und Reichard. 1897.) 

Pkofessok Ruhl has produced in a small compass a most useful 
treatise. It is both scientific and practical, and supplies even more than 
it promises, since it goes back to the establishment of the Julian calendar. 


the various eras from that of Nabonassar downwards, the Olympiads, 
and the divers years of the world. Any one who has toiled through 
books on technical chronology will appreciate the distinction between 
writers who mechanically repeat the facts of their predecessors and those 
who have worked them out afresh for themselves. Professor Riihl belongs 
to the latter class. His exposition is always intelligible, and is so inter- 
esting that we have read his book from end to end with gratitude for 
many rays of new light, especially on the darker ranges of the Easter 
computus. The treatment is also remarkably comprehensive ; besides 
giving the data necessary for understanding western chronology, the 
author discusses at sufficient length, and with full references to special 
sources of information, both the oriental systems and the usages of 
the remoter regions of Europe. He has devoted much pains to the By- 
zantine part of his subject, which will be found better explained here 
than in any other manual with which we are acquainted.' He is always 
careful to state the origin as well as the purpose of the methods of 
reckoning which he describes. The indiction he traces, with Seeck, to 
the Egyptian fiscal year, and he observes that the notice in the ' Chroni- 
con paschale ' that the Constantinian indictions began in 312 implies 
the previous existence of another sort of indiction. Seeck's argument 
that the precise date of the beginning of the indiction was 297 might 
well have been more fully stated. The Constantinian indiction seems, in 
fact, to be only another way of describing the indiction in the reign of 
Constantine. It might also have been noticed that 312 is the year in 
which the ' Laterculus ' of Augustalis ends, and in which, therefore, it 
was necessary to start a new table for finding Easter. As for the Spanish 
era he is not able to go beyond the theory of Heller and Krusch that it 
is connected with an Easter cycle in use in the Peninsula. 

Though Dr. Riihl has not added largely to the materials already 
accessible, he has brought together a considerable mass of details which 
are scattered through a multiplicity of treatises and monographs, and 
articles in periodical publications. For guidance in chronological inves- 
tigation it is these details which are even more necessary to set out 
correctly than the main principles which are after all more or less easy to 
ascertain. We all know, for instance, the meaning of leap-year, but we 
do not all know that the leap-day (if the expression may be allowed) is 
not the 29th but the 24th February, so that the feast of St. Matthias 
should in leap-year be shifted to the 25th. So again the old French 
custom of beginning the year with Easter is famiUar to historical stu- 
dents ; but that this meant Easter Eve (or in Flanders, Hainault, and 
Brabant even Good Friday) is not so readily found out. If we have to 
do with German documents we need to learn the mad rules of the Cisio- 
janus, and in late centuries the varying reigns of the Julian, the Gregorian, 
and the ' improved ' calendars. On all these subjects the student will 
seldom consult this book in vain. An English reviewer may note a few 
points in which Professor Riihl's information, generally sound about 
EngHsh matters, is inaccurate. To say that ' morrow ' is used for the octave 

' Since the publication of his book he has published an ingenious argument 
connecting the Byzantine era, through the use of the lunar cycle, with the era of the 
Jews, which will be found summarised below among our Notices of Periodicals. 


of a feast (p. 81) must rest upon some misunderstanding. The supposed 
earliest appearance of the annus Domini as a mode of dating in 676 
(p. 199) depends upon a document which has a questionable indiction 
and two incompatible witnesses. The oldest original in which this 
reckoning is found, the charter of Suaebraed of Essex to the bishop of 
London, is not a charter of 704 (ibid.) but one confirmed by the Mercian 
king Ceolred some years later, while its handwriting looks considerably 
later. The annus vuincli of Archbishop Ussher was not 4403 b.c. (p. 
208) but 4004. It will be new to many to learn that on the continent it 
was not until the end of the eighteenth century that the English practice 
was adopted of applying the era of the annus Domini for reckoning the 
years b.c. Reginald L. Poole 

Die Konigspfalzcn der Merowinger und Karolingcr. Von Db. Konkad 
Plath. I. * Dispargum.' (Berlin : R. Siebert. s.a.) 

This essay is, as we gather from the signature of the sheets, an offprint 
from the Jahrbuch des Vercins von Altcrthumsfreunden im Bheinlande, 
vol. xcv., and is the first of a series in which the author intends to treat of 
the hundred and fifty palaces of the Frankish kings. The prospect is 
somewhat alarming, for the present essay, which extends to sixty quarto 
pages, is not complete, the author reserving for a second section the topo- 
graphy and archaeology of Duisburg, which he maintains to be the 
' Dispargum ' of Gregory of Tours (ii. 9). This Dispargum castrum was, 
Gregory informs us, in terminum Thoringorum, and was the residence oi 
Chlogio, the ancestor of ' Merowechus * and the first of the Frankish con- 
querors of Gaul. In this passage Gregory is even more than usually con- 
fused, and Dr. Plath maintains that the clauses do not form a united 
whole, but that the section thatsdchlich nur cin nacJdassig aneinander- 
gercihtc Beispielsammlung in liickenJiafter Auswahl ist, die, um ihr den 
Schein des Zusammenhangs zu gchen, mangelhaft und zum Theil sinnlos 
vcrbunden wurde. He then proceeds to examine exhaustively each of the 
eight parts of the passage. Next he examines and rejects all the other 
sites that have been suggested. Of these the only one that has met with 
much support is Duysbourg, between Brussels and Louvain, which has 
naturally been favoured on account of its proximity to Cambray, where 
Chlogio is first heard of on his march into Gaul. Dr. Plath has put this 
out of court for ever, by showing that its name in the thirteenth century 
was Duzenborch, a form that can scarcely be descended from Dispargum. 
He rightly rejects the proposals to read Tungriorum, &c., for Gregory's 
Thoringorum, and he endeavours to meet Waitz's objection to the identi- 
fication with Duisburg that it is not in terminum Tlwringorum by 
claiming for Thuringia a wider extension at this time, and by attempting 
to prove the existence of a Thuring'a on the left bank of the Rhine. It 
cannot be denied that in the ferment of the Vdlkerwaiulerung there must 
have been many unrecorded changes of the position, and extensions and 
contractions of the districts of the Germanic tribes, who were unstable even 
in nomenclature, but it is difficult to assent to such a violent bound forwards 
and rebound as he assumes the Thuringians to have made, whether or not 
this was a Bundesname. His arguments have too much the appearance 


of special pleading to be convincing, and he exercises too great a license 
in constraining obstinate facts to change their complexion. Moreover 
there is considerable writing of history without evidence. Thus he claims 
that in this passage Gregory records the first conquest of the Franks (the 
Salian and the Eipuarian are held to be identical) over the Thuringians, 
as a consequence of which the Franks settle in the (hypothetical) Thurin- 
gian land about the confluence of the Rhine and the Ruhr, and there elect 
their first king (in explanation of Gregory's reges crinitos super se crea- 
visse). All this is begotten of the necessity for explaining how Duisburg, 
which is in a Frankish district, corresponds to Gregory's Disixirgum in 
terminum Thoringorum. As Daisburg was after Chlogio's assumed con- 
quest in a Frankish district, it is not evident why Gregory should refer to 
it as Thuringian, even if it had been undoubtedly so at an earlier time. 
If we read his words unfettered by the trammels of any theory, we must 
conclude that Dispargum was in the Thuringian march, and on the right 
bank of the Rhine. The forms of the name of Duisburg given on p. 1G8 
certainly seem to favour the identification ; but some of these, e.g. Adam of 
Bremen's Dispargum, must have been influenced by Gregory's form.' 
Forstemann, who has many forms of the name of Duisburg that are not cited 
by Dr. Plath, derives the name from thiu (O.E. \eoiv). It is impossible for 
this to have appeared in Gregory as D'ls-, even though the modem Duishurg 
is dissyllabic. Dr. Plath does not deal with the etymology of Dispargum,'^ 
and his derivations of Salian s from ' salt ' and of Merowing from the see 
do not promise that he will be able to strengthen his case philologically. 
Those whom he has been unable to convert to his view will hardly find 
any very convincing arguments in the topography and archaeology of 
Duisburg, which are to form the second part of his essay. 

W. H. Stevenson. 

Geschichte der Stadt Camhrai his zur Ertheilung derLex Godefridi (1227). 
Von WiLHELM Reinecke. (Marburg : Elwert. 189G.) 

The town of Cambray, situated on the borders of France and the 
Empire, the seat of a bishopric, and the scene of one of the earliest 
communal movements, was likely to have a history worthy of being 
chronicled. Besieged by the Hungarians, West Franks, and Germans in 
turn, contested between its bishop and its count, then between the bishop 
and his castellan, and lastly between the bishop and the count of Flan- 
ders, the changes in the fortunes of the town were constant and be- 
wildering. Favoured by the quarrels of their masters, the burghers 
seem bit by bit to have won a degree of independence which excited the 
admiration and wonder of contemporaries, only to lose it almost com- 
pletely at the end of the period covered by this monograph. So far as the 

' This is suggested by a diploma of 966 quoted by Forstemann, Altdcutsches 
Namenbuch, ed, 2, ii. 1442 ( = Mon. Hist. Germ., Diplomatiim Tom. i. 440) : ' Actum 
Diuspargo, quod vulgaliter (sic) dicinius Diusburg.' 

^ If this singular word is Germanic, it must embody the word for ' hill ' (berg) and 
not burg. It is possible that the form parg instead of pcrg is to be ascribed to the 
Gaulish interchange or equivalence of e and a before liquids, which accounts for the 
two forms Gcrmanus and Garmanus. Cf. Gustav Kossinna, ' Arminius deutsch ? ' 
\Indogermanische Forschungen, ii. 181). 


outward history of the city goes, the historian had an abundant if somewhat 
one-sided source in the ' Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium ' and similar 
local chronicles. But he has attempted rather to trace the develop- 
ment of the episcopal power and the city autonomy, and for these the 
medieval historian who cared more for events than institutions is of but 
little service. All that is gleaned is by way of inference, and inference 
is not too sure a guide. For the later history, indeed, the author has 
the help of three charters dated 1184, 1185, and 1225 respectively. But 
mainly occupied as they are with civil and criminal law, the light they 
throw on institutions is but meagre. The author has therefore had no 
easy task to perform, and he seems to have brought to bear on it much 
labour and judgment. It is only by such studies as these that any 
real progress can be made in the study of medieval mimicipal history. 
The book, however, might have been made much more interesting and 
useful by one or two additions. Surely it would have been possible to give 
us something like a map of the old town, without which the topographical 
chapter is incomplete. A fuller explanation of the right of ' condactos ' 
exercised by the bishop (p. 203) would have been welcome, whilst the 
reader could well spare such notes as that assuring us that land sold by 
one exempt person to another remained free from municipal taxation. 
Was the punishment of destroying an offender's house peculiar to the 
middle ages ? 

The history of Cambray furnishes a striking illustration of the atti- 
tude of the Church and the Empire to the communal movement. Far 
from being its favourers they were as consistently hostile as circum- 
stances would allow them to be, however frequently the struggles of the 
bishop with the count of Flanders or his own castellan, and of the emperor 
with the papacy might bring about a precarious and lukewarm alliance. 
Nothing can be further from the truth than to attribute to any medieval 
ruler any of those ideas which are usually called Uberal. The holy horror 
of both bishop and emperor when the men of Cambray taxed them- 
selves to pay the count of Hainault for his assistance against Simon of 
Oisy is almost ridiculous. They only granted what they were forced to 
grant, a fact which renders the strength of the communal movement all 
the more striking. Cambray, however, paid the penalty of its early de- 
velopment in the almost complete extinction of its independence by 
Bishop Godfrey and the Emperor Frederick II in 1227. It seems at one 
time to have had its own provosts, ' sworn-men,' and the right of public 
assembly, and a share in the profits of justice. It could not be taxed by 
pope or emperor, or its burghers compelled to military service, except for 
the defence of the city, and then only so far that they could return home 
the same day. All this was changed. The appointment of provosts, the 
profits of justice, and tiie right of assembly were taken from the town, and 
the bishop was once more unquestioned ruler in Cambray, victorious alike 
over his earlier opponents, the counts and castellans, and his later, the 

The book is rather a series of dissertations than a real history, and the 
classification of subject-matter scarcely makes up for the want of an 
index. Perhaps this last want will be supplied m the continuation which 
the author promises us, and a more definite picture of the municipal or- 


ganisation be drawn from the 'municipal archives which unfortunately 
remain unexplored by him. One or two misprints may be added to those 
noticed in the errata. On p. 144, 1. 4, ' Johannes II ' should be ' Johannes 
III.' On p. 102, note 1, 1. 5, ' 10 Jh.' should be * 11 Jh.,' and in the last 
line of p. 274 ' servire ' is printed ' service.' Walter E. Khodes. , 

Macoudi : Le Livre de V Avertissement et de la Bdvision. Traduction par 
le Baron Cabra de Vaux. (Paris : Imprimerie Nationale. 1896.) 

In the dearth of trustworthy translations from the Arabic the Council of 
the Societe Asiatique is to be congratulated for having commissioned 
M. Carra de Vaux to undertake the ' Tanbih ' of Masiidi, an epitomised 
version of which was published as long ago as the year 1810 by Silvestre 
de Sacy. We have now complete translations of all that is known to be 
preserved of the voluminous labours of Masudi, perhaps the most 
readable of the many historical writers of the golden age of Arab litera- 
ture ; for this translation of the ' Tanbih ' is the complement of the 
labours of Professor Barbier de Meynard, who, in 1877, finished the nine 
volumes of the * Golden Meadows,' of which the Arabic text, with his 
French translation, forms part of the * Collection d'Ouvrages Orientaux 
publiee par la Societe Asiatique.' The Arabic text of the ' Tanbih ' was 
already edited in 1894 by Professor de Goeje, and M. Carra de Vaux has 
had the advantage of having his present translation revised by the 
veteran orientalist, who, as editor of the original, was best able to throw 
light on the many obscure passages found in this text. The ' Tanbih ' 
is a sort of table of contents, drawn up by Masudi late in life, to systema- 
tise and explain the contents of all his previous works. In it he reviews 
the whole field of his historical and geographical labours. But that this 
is no mere catalogue of names may be deduced from the fact that the 
translation runs to over 500 pages. M. Carra de Vaux has enriched his 
work by many notes, in which the reader will find references for elucidat- 
ing each point of detail, quoting books and papers written by other 
labourers in this department of history and geography. The translator, 
further, has done much himself to clear up confusion, and his note to p. 
86 on the island of Kanbalu (which is not Madagascar) may be instanced 
as a model of succinct presentment. For the cosmography and geography 
of the earlier middle ages in the East, and for Moslem history prior to the 
year 956 a.d., when Masudi concluded his labours, this translation 
of the ' Tanbih ' is a true mine of information, and M. Carra de Vaux has 
rendered all this easily available to students by an index, carefully com- 
piled by himself, which fills over 58 pages. Guy le Strange. 

L' Opera d" Irnerlo. Vol. I. ' La Vita, gli Scritti, il Metodo.' Vol. II. 
* Glosse inedite d' Irnerio al Digestum Vetus.' Per Dr. Enrico Besta. 
(Torino: Loescher. 1896.) 

' The world knows nothing of its greatest men.' Hence the tempta- 
tion to guess a little too much, a temptation which, so it seems to me, 
Dr. Besta has sanely resisted. The celebration by the university of 
Bologna of its octocentenary drew attention to the mysterious figure of 


Irnerius. "Who was he ? What exactly was the service that he performed 
for Roman law and for civilisation ? Perhaps no academic festival has 
ever given occasion for better work. But there was also some unwarrant- 
able speculation. It seemed at one time as if every anonymous legal 
tract would be ascribed to the master. The day for sobriety has come, 
and Dr. Besta is above all things sober. 

Before we attribute anonymous work to any man on the strength of 
internal evidence we had better know the work that he has published 
as his own or that was set down to him by those who were likely to 
be in the right. In the case of Irnerius this means that before we 
make him author of the ' Questiones * or the ' Summa Codicis ' we ought 
to know, and to know in a careful edition, the glosses that bear his 
sigle. But to do this is not easy, for behind how many diflferent 
sigles from G to Y may he not lie concealed ? In the second volume 
of this book Dr. Besta endeavours to extract from three manuscripts of 
the * Digestum Vetus ' (one at Turin, one at Padua, one at Venice) the 
glosses which come from the great glossator's hand. There is here 
every external sign of an editor who thoroughly knows his business. 
Then in the first volume Dr. Besta, equipped with what he has learnt 
from the gloss, discusses the various questions that have been raised of 
late years. To such meagre facts concerning the life of Irnerius as had 
already been ascertained there is unfortunately little to add, though their 
significance may be slightly changed by new grouping. As to the con- 
tinuity through the darkest age of anything that could be called a 
scientific study of the Roman texts, Dr. Besta treads a middle path : he 
is less confident than Dr. Fitting, less sceptical than M. Flach. As to 
the anonymous books, he is inclined to think that the important 
' Questiones ' may well be given to Irnerius, but that, on the other hand, 
the * Summa Codicis ' cannot be his. 

On the whole, if one who stands far outside the study of 
Roman law may trust a general impression, Dr. Besta's work seems to 
be of an excellent kind, learned, modest, and circumspect. The careful 
Irnerian bibliography that he has compiled will be useful to some whose 
interests lie rather in the history of the universities than in the detail of 
jurisprudence. F. W. Maitland. 

Tote Listoire de France {Chronique Saintongeaise). Now first edited from 
the only two manuscripts, with introduction, appendices, and notes. 
By F. W. BouRDiLLON, M.A. With prefatory letter by Gaston 
Paris, Membre de I'lnstitut. (London : David Nutt. 1897.) 

The old French chronicle which Mr. Bourdillon here prints, for the first 
time, under the title of ' Tote Listoire de France,' is otherwise and more 
commonly known as ' La Chronique Saintongeaise,' it having been written 
in the Saintonge district. It was probably composed in the first half of 
the thirteenth century, and if it can no longer claim the credit of being, 
as it was at one time thought to be, the earliest history of France in the 
vulgar tongue (there being at least two others of earlier date, as M. 
Gaston Paris points out in his introductory letter), it is none the less of 
considerable interest as being among the three or fom* earliest efforts of 




the kind. Mr. Bourdillon prints from a manuscript, now in his own pos- 
session, which formerly belonged to the collection of Dr. Lee of Hartwell 
House. Before the acquisition and identification of this manuscript 
(which he calls the Lee MS.) by Mr. Bourdillon, the chronicle was sup- 
posed to exist in one manuscript only, which is preserved in the Biblio- 
theque Nationale at Paris {Fonds /rang. 5714). The Lee MS. is the later 
of the two, belonging probably to the end of the thirteenth century, and 
is, in general, inferior to the Paris MS. ; but it has an independent value 
of its own, as in not a few cases it affords a better reading than the 
latter, and it occasionally supplies details which are wanting in it. 
Mr. Bourdillon has done well, therefore, in printing the text of both the 
manuscripts in extenso, side by side, so that it is easy to see at a glance 
where the one supplements the other. 

The chief interest of the work being rather philological and literary 
than historical, it would be out of place here to enter into the various 
questions discussed by Mr. Bourdillon in his introduction. From the 
strictly historical point of view, indeed, the chronicle is almost beneath 
contempt, being obviously the translation of an ignorant clerk from some 
Latin compilation, interlarded with a certain number of local descrip- 
tions and allusions (which have, of covirse, a special value of their own), 
together with stories and traditions derived from the chansons de geste. 
The story begins, as usual, with the siege of Troy, and is brought down 
to the beginning of the ninth century ; the translator, however, is so 
ignorant that he has never heard, for instance, of the Pyrenees, but takes 
Pirenei to be a man's name, who with his Gascons betrays Charlemagne 
in Pavie (for Hispania), and, attacking the emperor's rearguard, slays 
Roland and others of his peers — hardly an authentic account of the 
dolorosa rotta of Roncesvalles ! Mr. Bourdillon has been at the pains of 
tracing the sources of the Latin compilation which the translator had 
before him (and which, in the precise form made use of by him, is now 
apparently no longer in existence). He shows that it must have been 
composed mainly of excerpts from four or five well-known works, such 
as the ' Liber Historiae Francorum,' Einhard's * Vita Karoli,' the ' Vita 
Ludovici Pii,' and the like. Consequently, even if the translator had 
faithfully rendered his original, his ' Istoire de France ' would have had no 
value as an independent authority. 

In an appendix the editor discusses the identity of the Taillefer de 
Leon of whom an account is given in the chronicle, and comes to the 
conclusion (which M. Gaston Paris accepts) that he is a ' composite ' 
personage (like many of the heroes of the chansons de geste), and that 
his original was probably Guillaume Taillefer I., count of Angouleme, 
916-962. Paget Toynbee. 

The Bed Booh of the Exchequer. Edited by Hubebt Hall. In Three 
Parts. (London : H.M. Stationery Office. 1896.) 

The Red Book of the Exchequer is a bulky manuscript, of which the 
greater and more important part, dating from about 1230, is based upon 
the laborious researches of Alexander Swereford, a baron of the exchequer 
and treasurer of St. Paul's, who died in 1246. Large miscellaneous 



additions have been made to the volume by later hands between the 
thirteenth and the seventeenth centuries, until even the fly-leaves have 
been utilised for miscellaneous notes and records. It has long been 
known to historians, mainly by reason of the extensive use made of it by 
the great antiquaries of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, 
whose colossal labours in our then undigested and unsorted archives 
have never been surpassed, and are still by no means altogether super- 
seded, despite the constant talk that we hear nowadays about the 
superiority of modem research. In 1728 Hearne published the somewhat 
earlier Black Book of the Exchequer, containing chiefly the remarkable 
collection of charters drawn up in 11G6, in which the barons themselves 
specified to Henry II the extent to which they owed military service to 
the crown, and the manner in which they proposed to pay it, whether by 
means of subinfeudated knights of the old and of the new feof ments, or as a 
direct obligation to their own demesne, or by a combination of both these 
methods. These baronial certificates are in substance reproduced in the 
Bed Book, both collections apparently having been taken from a common 
original. But the complete document contains a great deal more than 
this, and a comparison of Hearue's thin octavo with the three stout 
Rolls Series volumes, that have now been published by Mr. Hall, shows how 
much new matter is for the first time made accessible in print to the little 
group of EngUsh scholars who seriously concern themselves with the 
original sources of our medieval history. 

The contents of the Red Book are almost distressingly miscellaneous. 
But its real value and originality lie in its being the most complete 
feodary ever drawn up by the trained officials of the Angevin kings. It is 
impossible to over-estimate the importance of the vast mass of evidence 
brought together by Swereford's labours as regards the great problems 
of feudal tenures, taxation, and administration that are still so dark, 
despite the bright rays of light which have been thrown across them by 
some recent workers. Hardly less important is the bearing of his 
materials on the task, never yet accomplished in detail, of constructing a 
territorial map of Angevin England. Besides the records of fees and 
scutages, the book contains collections of exchequer and other precedents, 
the texts of statutes, charters, diplomatic correspondence, and state papers, 
the formulae of oaths, an estabUshment book of the royal household, a 
quaint glossary of Anglo-Saxon law terms, and anything else that 
struck Swereford or his successors at the exchequer as worthy of record 
in a handy reference book for the practical use of the departmental officials. 
All these things are huddled together as convenience, accident, space, or 
tradition suggested to the custodians of the work. Equally necessary in 
such a case are careful publication of the text and critical editing. 

Mr. Hall has not printed the Red Book as a whole, but he has given 
us nearly all the unpublished portions, and has drawn up an elaborate and 
almost indispensable table of contents in the order of their occurrence in his 
manuscript. In this table he gives references to the pages in which they are 
printed in his edition. Moreover he gives careful reference to the places 
where the scholar will find in print those parts of the manuscript which he 
judged it unnecessary to reproduce, and he has calendared in other places a 
few formal documents that he did not think it worth while to print at all. 


In this he has, on the whole, exercised a wise discretion. There is no need 
to waste space by giving once more what we may read just as well in 
the ' Statutes of the Kealm ' or the * Foedera,' in published chronicles or 
cartularies, or what need only be calendared in such abridgments as the 
' Calendar of Patent Rolls.' Sometimes one cannot but wish that it had 
fallen within Mr. Hall's plan to have given us better texts than we always 
have accessible. The * Dialogus de Scaccario,' for instance, is included 
within the Red Book, but Mr. Hall contents himself by a reference to Madox, 
though he has been at the pains of identifying twenty-four transcripts of 
this document, from which he might well have derived a better text than 
the reprint of Madox in Dr. Stubbs's * Select Charters.' However we must 
wait patiently for this, knowing that the matter is in eminently safe hands. 

It is impossible to speak too highly of the enormous pains taken by Mr. 
Hall in bringing before the public this great quantity of new material in a 
careful and scholarly form. The mass of the printed text is enormous, 
but, in addition to seeing this safely through the press, Mr. Hall has care- 
fully collated the Red Book itself with the Hargrave MS., the Cottonian 
MSS., and the Black Book, all of which contain partial transcripts of por- 
tions of its contents, and which have independent authority through being, 
in some cases, taken directly from a lost original from which it is thought 
the Black Book and Red Book were both in some measure copied. He has 
also taken infinite pains to discover the whereabouts of every parallel 
manuscript for each document in the Red Book. The results of this 
process can generally be expressed in a line or two of type, but the labour 
involved in it must often have been very considerable. Infinitely more 
exacting, however, must have been the task of compiling the elaborate 
index that falls but slightly short of three hundred pages, while the three 
long prefaces make up in themselves nearly four hundred closely printed 
pages of original matter. It is no wonder that with so much work to be 
done the edition should have been somewhat long before it appeared. But, 
in addition to the elaborate nature of the task, a strange series of fatalities 
has beset the Red Book during its progress towards publication. It has 
been robbed of its original editor by the death of Mr. Walford Selby, 
while ill health, we are told, has deprived it of the editorial services of 
Mr. J. H. Round, whose remarkable studies on Domesday and the origin 
of knight service have put the whole question of feudal origins on a new 
basis. These mishaps have long delayed publication, and even now the 
necessity of printing off the text some time before the introduction was 
ready, and the ill luck that caused the transcript for the press to be begun 
from a recent copy, which Mr. Hall found untrustworthy, show that the 
misfortunes that have dogged the book have not been exhausted, and 
compel Mr. Hall to apologise for certain imperfections in the genea- 
logical and topographical aspects of the work. Under such circumstances 
it would be churlish to lay too much insistence upon shortcomings 
such as the too long and by no means complete list of errata. It would 
be unreasonable not to expect that some imperfections of execution should 
result from so unlucky a process. 

It remains to speak in more general terms of Mr. Hall's prefaces 
and index. These are not quite so perfect as we might have expected 
from a man of Mr. Hall's knowledge and scholarship, but both are very 



considerable pieces of work, and those who use them rightly will have 
abundant reason to thank the editor for the pains he has bestowed 
upon them. The prefaces are plainly the result of enormous toil, but 
we think that Mr. Hall has missed his best opportunity by working 
out his introduction on somewhat mistaken lines. There are admirable 
sections dealing with many of the subordinate subjects treated of 
in the 'Red Book.' The northern tenure of cornage, and its relation 
to castleward, the constitution of the royal household, the points 
suggested by the curious tractate on the new coinage, the personnel 
of the thirteenth -century exchequer, and the differences between it 
and that described in the 'Dialogus de Scaccario,' the wrongs of 
Isabella de Fors, and the strange and disreputable career of Adam of 
Stratton, even questions so foreign to Mr. Hall's ordinary studies as the 
puzzling subject of the cantreds and commots of Wales are handled with 
a wealth of illustration and precision of knowledge that leave little to 
be desired in all essential matters. The account of the various attempts 
at exchequer reform in the latter part of Edward H's reign may be singled 
out for special praise, as covering ground quite new to most of us, and 
largely helping to make intelligible the most difficult part of that unsatis- 
factory and ill -understood period. Even more thorough is the more technical 
part of the introduction, the description of the manuscripts, the biography 
of Swereford, and the like. Indeed, the more technical Mr. Hall is the 
more satisfactory does his method seem. The emendation of Dr. Luard's 
text of Wykes, which turns the misleading vwnastermm Quarreriae 
into the intelligible ministcrmm Camerariae, is a brilliant piece of work. 
Equally fascinating, though not perhaps so convincing, is the reading 
extra legem tota Marchin Walliae for the obscure ex legem totam 
Walliae. Yet even here Mr. Hall is better on technicalities than on 
generalities, and without expressing an opinion as to the arguments by 
which he seeks to read ' Kedewain ' for * Lydeneye ' (Pref. II. cclxi), we 
may doubt whether there be any insuperable difficulty in marcher law 
obtaining in a border lordship like Lydriey. 

When on this subject we agree that ' Gunlion [better Gunliou], in 
Gloucestershire,' is probably Gwenllwg,as Mr. Hall says ; Monmouth, how- 
ever, was not in Gloucestershire, but, if in any shire, in Herefordshire, in the 
Red Book documents. Yet we must not imagine that because the sheriff of 
Hereford or Gloucester sometimes accounted, as a matter of convenience, 
for the scutages of the autonomous marcher states that lay westwards of 
his proper jurisdiction, the lordships of the march were in any real 
sense shire ground. There is a similar ambiguity with regard to the 
great northern franchises, where Durham is sometimes treated as a liberty 
within the shire of Northumberland and sometimes as a county palatine 
standing by itself. The relation of such franchises to the adjoining 
sheriffdom reminds one of the way in which the great fiefs of France 
were included within the purview of the bailli or seneschal, who ruled 
directly over the nearest province that happened to be included within 
the royal domain. As a matter of strict law Monmouth was no more 
in Hereford or Gloucester than Bordeaux was really under the authority 
of the seneschal of Perigord. On this point we may note that on p. ccxl 
Mr. Hall quotes the statement that G. de Umfraville holds Redesdale per 




regalem potestatem, as if it were a typical example of the ' wards of the 
north.' This is not so, as Redesdale, it is well known, was a franchise 
with rights almost as extensive as those of the bishopric of Durham, and 
was therefore in an exceptional rather than a normal position. We need 
not lay any great stress upon occasional sHps like the * Eleven Virgins ' 
of Cologne, robbing St. Ursula of so large a part of her following, or 
even the strange and unilluminating speculations that are suggested 
by the name 'De Fortibus,' which are at once laid at rest by 
remembering that it is but the corrupt Latin form of the village of Fors, 
in Poitou. 

More important than any occasional blemishes of detail is the some- 
what obscure and stilted style in which much of the preface is written. 
This sometimes makes it rather hard to follow Mr. Hall's particular line 
of argument. Even more to be regretted is the devotion of so many 
pages to the carrying on of an unimportant controversy, about which 
enough had already been said. The ' attack ' made on Swereford by 
Mr. Round in the pages of the English Historical Review (vi. 625 seqq.) 
had already been dealt with by a writer in the Quarterly Review, whom it 
would be an affectation not to identify with Mr. Hall, and both combatants 
had full opportunities of replying and counter-replying in the pages of the 
Athenceum. The natural enthusiasm of Mr. Hall for Swereford led him 
to resist with unnecessary heat Mr. Round's contention that the assign- 
ment to particular wars of certain scutages, collected in the early years of 
Henry II' s reign, could not be borne out by the Pipe Rolls. Of course 
Mr. Round put his point with needless acerbity. It is his method to get 
angry even with a man who has been dead more than six hundred years ; 
and all will agree in reprobating the language in which he has expressed 
his opinion of the work of a brother scholar with whom he has been per- 
sonally associated in editing this very book, and who, even at the thres- 
hold of this unlucky dispute, spoke of Mr. Round in very becoming terms 
of appreciation. But the replies of Mr. Hall were couched in an 
unnecessarily exalted spirit, which is the more to be regretted since 
we cannot think that he has in all respects fully answered Mr. Round. 
But in truth these arid controversies are much to be deplored. They 
obscure rather than promote the quest of truth, and the violence 
with which they are apt to be carried on is but too likely to make the 
enemies of research blaspheme against historians and all their ways. 
This particular controversy is of no great importance. The solid compila- 
tion of the Red Book will always keep alive the memory of Swereford, 
even if he made mistakes, as all historians do, as to the history of 
the previous century. It is not critical to regard the value of his 
work as ' standing ' or ' falling ' by his views as to the ' scutage of 
Toulouse.' It is hopeless to make him out a modern critical historian, 
and still more to regard him as an infallible custodian of an authentic 
official tradition, as Mr. Hall seems to wish it to appear. Swereford's 
object was practical, not historical ; his interest in the antiquarian part 
of his task was very limited, and he probably did not take much trouble 
in the matter. To suppose that he was filled with the excessive contempt 
which the modern record scholar professes for chroniclers, and delibe- 
rately ' rejected their aid,' seems almost trifling with the subject, and 


Mr. Hall's ovra reliance on a single doubtful passage of William of New- 
burgb (p. clxxiii) shows that even record scholars are glad to use the de- 
spised chronicler when he seems to help forward their case. But it is not 
at all Ukely, despite William of Newburgh, that helium Tolosanum was 
the general term for the Anglo-French wars from 1159 to 1196. Even if 
it were, helium Tolosamim is one thing, exercitus Tolosae another. 
It would have been much better if Mr. Hall had avoided this thorny 
and barren ground and given us what he could, if he had willed, 
done so admirably — namely, an analysis and summary of the great 
feodary which he has printed. As it is, the miserable squabble about 
Swereford may go on for ever, while this really important task remains 

The index, like the preface, is a work of great labour, but, like the 
preface, it is not in all respects quite everything that could be wished. 
We may pass over the curious absence of mind that declares that the 
Bed Book is the first medieval record published in the Rolls Series (p. 
ccclxxvi). Every one who uses a book like this can correct such a slip for 
himself. Perhaps also Mr. Hall is unnecessarily emphatic about the * really 
scientific system of record-indexing ' which prevails in the admirable new 
series of medieval calendars. I have more than once tried to urge that, 
excellent as these indexes are, they are capable of being improved in ways 
that would make them much more helpful to the scholar. It is hard to 
see that the cause of exact science requires Abbotsbury to be indexed 
under * Abbodesbiriae,' Aberfifraw under ' Aberfrau,' or Abergavenny under 
' Burgavenny.' But it is certainly a pity that, as Mr. Hall teUs us, 
there has been no ' systematic and progressive identification of the per- 
sonal and place names of the text.' As a matter of fact Mr. Hall has 
done a good deal, and he has no doubt wearied himself with the labour 
which the troublesome and endless work involved. But, while acknow- 
ledging warmly the trouble he has taken, we cannot but regret that place 
names so distinct as ' Cahors ' and ' Caux ' should be blended together 
under the strange and unsorted list of corrupt forms that ' science ' 
requires to be indexed under the head ' Chaorciis.' ' Vaux ' and 

• Valoignes ' do not escape the same confusion. Mr. Hall perhaps pushes 
specialism to excess when he emphasises so strongly the difference 
between the record scholar, the topographer, and the genealogist, as if 
records could be properly studied or edited save by those equipped at all 
essential points of medieval lore. But it required no very special or 
recondite knowledge to identify such forms as, for example, ' Calatrensium,' 

• comes de Sancto Paulo,' * Wennunwen Walensis.' On the other hand it 
is only fair to emphasise the fact that the index is practically exhaustive 
of all the names contained in the text, and that, after much testing, the 
page references seem exceedingly trustworthy. Only those who have 
tried to be accurate in making an index on a small scale will reahse how 
much it means to make a good index on this great scale. Apart from the 
occasional errors in the identifications and the more common omission 
of any attempt to identify, the index seems exceedingly good. 

T. F. Tout. 


The Opus Mains of Boger Bacon. Edited, with Introduction, by John 
Henry Bridges, F.R.C.P. 2 vols. (Oxford : Clarendon Press. 

In the preface to this edition Mr. Bridges speaks with regret of the ab- 
sence of Communication between two able investigators (Professor Brewer 
and M. Emile Charles), who chanced to be simultaneously at work upon 
friar Eoger. A like piece of ill-luck befell Mr. Bridges himself. The 
discovery by Dr. Gasquet of the unknown preface (printed in this Review 
last July) came too late for the Oxford edition, in which it is but 
inadequately dealt with on a fly-leaf appended to the new editor's preface. 
We cannot perhaps acquit Mr. Bridges of some negligence in not making 
the discovery his own by more persistent inquiry for tbe Vatican MS., 
the existence of which had already been noticed in a trustworthy work 
of reference. Be this as it may, the misfortune is in the present cir- 
cumstances of less moment than it would have been in the case of most 
editors. It is unluckily necessary to say clearly that for reasons quite 
unconnected with this mishap the present edition will be found to be 
nearly useless. There is, indeed, little reason to doubt that a fairly 
satisfactory text might have been constructed from the manuscripts 
known to Mr. Bridges. The task however required an editor possessed 
of rather special training, and such training Mr. Bridges has failed to 

I have a natural desire toi speak respectfully of an editor who has 
evidently devoted a very considerable amount of time to the production of 
a laborious piece of work in an unfamiliar field. It is obvious that we have 
here the results of several years of honest pains. That there should be 
mistakes and limitations would have been inevitable, even had the editor 
been a specialist in medieval learning all his life. That a scholar who 
was not among the few specialists in this field should attempt an edition 
of the ' Opus Mains ' does not, I hold, necessarily imply a rash precipi- 
tancy, nor can he fairly be blamed for a severe self-restriction in the 
matter of working out Bacon's references. Any one familiar with the 
standard authorities of the thirteenth century knows how often a mere 
marginal reference to a printed text would be impossible, inadequate, or mis- 
leading. Take, for example, the three or more different tracts which passed 
under the common name of ' Aristotelis Physiognomia,' or the tract on 
medicine of Pliny ' the younger.' Necessary consideration for the interests 
of his publishers might reasonably restrain an editor both from full treat- 
ment of such questions and from a general survey of Bacon's writings, 
such as would be necessary to piecing together the ' Scriptum Principale ' — 
if there be in existence a work to which that name properly applies. 
The dictum of a great authority that it is impossible to write history from 
manuscripts has much truth, and it applies equally to the treatment of 
many questions that arise from Bacon's works. Hence an editor might 
well consider his duty done in supplying a working text with such ex- 
planations as were absolutely necessary, a fit foundation on which others 
might build. 


But no such foundation is to be got from the vohimes before us. Mr. 
Bridges, in a letter to the Atheimeum,^ has stated that he did not intend 
to produce a critical edition. If he means by this a scientific estimate of 
the exact manuscript evidence for verbal differences, nobody will complain 
of his plan ; but if he means that differences of text, due not to inaccuracy 
of scribes, but to a succession of recensions by the author, have been 
deliberately ignored, then the defence is bad upon the pleadings. I prefer, 
however, to believe that his statement that ' all variations which are of 
more than verbal importance have been noted in the present edition ' 
(preface, p. xii) implies a fuller conception of an editor's duties. I regret 
that I cannot say the execution is equal to the design. A comparison of 
Mr. Bridges's text with two or three of the older manuscripts impels me 
to the belief that the editor has found the reading of thirteenth-century 
hands not only difficult but distasteful, that he has grudged to turn to 
them so long as a fair sense could be got from the later text, and has 
shut the book with relief whenever the older writing was mutilated or 
could at first sight be regarded as illegible. It is not a happy frame of 
mind for any editor of medieval works ; it is doubly unhappy in the 
present case, because it happens that the Cotton MS. Julius D. V. is for 
parts i.-iv. of the * Opus Mains ' of somewhat special importance. It is 
necessary to insist upon this, lest it seem that too much stress is here 
laid on Mr. Bridges's ill-success with one only of his authorities, and this 
a manuscript which is the sole authority for but some half-dozen pages 
in the book. To extract and utilise to the full the information about the 
history of the Opus Mains contained in the manuscript in question might 
require the powers of a Henry Bradshaw. Certainly I can make no 
pretence to give a final account of it, but something must be said on the 
point. The marginal sign of a man's head, which Bacon mentions that 
he uses, is not absolutely rare, so that its occurrence in the manuscript 
may seem but a small sign on which to base a theory that the book was 
executed under the author's eye. Certain other evidence, however, goes, 
as I think, to corroborate the notion. This evidence is to be found first 
in the extreme rarity of those errors of ignorance which are so inevitable 
in the transcription of works on abstruse subjects written in the contracted 
hand of the period ; secondly, in the structure of the text itself ; and 
thirdly, in the other contents of the volume. It is upon the second of 
these points that, in spite of some trepidation, I am tempted to put 
forward a theory, less for any value I imagine it to possess than as an 
example of the kind of question to pass which in silence is a fatal flaw in 
the editor's work. The crucial passage is the junctura between parts iii. 
and iv. of the • Opus.' Part iii. in the old text {i.e. in Jebb's edition, and 
presumably in the Oxford and Dublin MSS., which I have not seen) ends 
at p. 92 of Mr. Bridges's text, and is complete in itself. After this Mr. 
Bridges has added, from the Cotton MS., a continuation, extending to five 
pages, in which Bacon raises several new points, but the discussion as 
printed is not complete in itself. One of the paragraphs (p. 96) begins 
thus:— ^171^0 [the manuscript has sec2«jf/o] multnm est necessaria Rei 
Puhlicae Latinorum dirigendae cognitio Vnigiiariiin ^propter tria, but the 

' 16 Oct. 1897. 



exposition here promised never comes. Instead of it Mr. Bridges places, 
a few lines lower down, a line of dots, then two sentences to close the 
part. No indication, except the dots, shows any divergence from the 
manuscript. Now the fact is that at the point where the dots are placed 
the Cotton MS. meanders away from the subject, gives an unnecessary 
repetition, rather than recapitulation, of matters previously discussed, 
and finally, after about 35 lines, enters without any break (in thought or 
writing) upon the subject of part iv., at the words Et quodpeius est, near 
the foot of p. 97. Out of these 35 lines Mr. Bridges has arbitrarily 
selected his two closing sentences. From Et quod peius est the manu- 
script continues steadily down to the end of p. 108. Here there is a 
break ; the manuscript returns to the point where we first got into diffi- 
culties, recasts the last sentence before the dots on p. 96, and enters on a 
loug and most interesting discussion of the political utility of the tongues, 
an anecdote of the Soldan's ambassador, criticisms on the usefulness of 
crusades, the proceedings of the Prussian order, &c, — all this is tacitly 
omitted by Mr. Bridges — finishes up the logical conclusion of part iii. and 
begins anew manifestato quod multae &c., as in Mr. Bridges's text, p. 97. 
It is to me almost irresistible to imagine the first draft of the passage 
written or dictated by the author in a sleepy state, forgetting much of 
what he wished to say in his hurry to get on to the new subject. The 
revised draft presents itself on this view as, we may say, the next morn- 
ing's second and better thoughts. A keener grasp of the work reveals to 
him the omissions and the fact that clearness requires a new section for the 
new subject. As a matter of fact, the whole system of subdivision in this 
manuscript is suggestive of unfinished work. It differs from the Bodleian 
MS. in ways which can hardly be imputed to careless scribes, and it is, I 
believe (the mutilation of the manuscript makes it difficult to be certain), 
inconsistent with itself. Thus part ii. appears to end with cap. 5, p. 41. 
Part iii. is written continuously with the end of part ii. and headed dist. 
secunda, and so on. Whatever the true explanation of these facts, we 
certainly have here two recensions. "Which is the later I do not 
undertake to decide, but I protest against a mixture which gives us 
neither one nor the other, and conceals the fact of their existence 

Mr. Bridges's curiosity does not seem to have impelled him to an 
examination of the other contents of the Cotton MS. Had it done so, he 
would have found in it the three difficult but interesting letters to John 
of Paris — they ought to have been noticed on p. Ixxiv under the heading 
of ' Barology ' — each with a colophon written in a simple cipher. These, 
being interpreted, give the quaint result, ' magmim et primum mendacium 
Bogeri Bacun ad fratrem Johannem Parisiensem,' ' mains mendacium,* 
&c., and ' terciicm mendacium,' &c. If the editor had not fled from the 
manuscript the moment he could do without it, he might have been led to 
examine the question whether the jest is of the kind a man makes at his 
own expense or not. 

I have dwelt at disproportionate length on the interest of this manu- 
script ; it unfortunately requires but a short specimen or two to show how 
far Mr. Bridges was capable of using it. The following is not the worst 
sentence on the page (p. 93) on which it stands, and that page is not worse 




than any other among the pages of the text which depend solely on the 
one manuscript. 

Cotton MS. 
Nec«««e est igitur nobis in omnibus 
psalmodiis et obsecroctonibus no«fris, 
ut sciamws rite perferre et intelligere, 
qnodciue iux/a ■aerhoTum proprietatew 
8ciainu« denote peticiones nostras 
formare, ut quod recte et denote 
petimus, Dei et Ba7ictorum pietate et 
mentis eccleaie eonsequamur. 

Mr. Bridges. 
Necesse est ergo nobis in omnibus 
psalmodiis et obsecrationibus nostris 
ut Bciamus recte proponere et intel- 
ligere quaecunque et juxta uerborum 
proprietatem devote nostras petitiones 
sonare, ut quod recte et devote petimus 
Dei et sanctorum pietatem et merita 
ecclesiae consequamiu*. 

In a few lines of p. 95 (11. 3-11) Tertia vero causa est dc requires the 
obvious emendation de causa est, Syrii should be Syri (MS. Siri), sub- 
jiciuntur should be scribuntnr, sciant linguas earum should be scirent 
linguarum harum raiionem [the manuscript has lingue (corr. to linguarum) 
huius], et ordines ecclesiae sahitares per sincerum non rgcipiwni should be 
et negligunt ordines cccl. sal. quia persuasioncm sinceram non recipiunt, 
Unde accidit quod should be Unde uhique. 

It is unnecessary further to multiply instances. The samples are chosen 
as fairly representing the editor's ability to escape the pitfalls which 
thirteenth-century contractions lay for the unwary. As showing 
their perils it is but fair to note that I have remarked several slips 
(qwwm for qwoniam, prebentur for preberentur,' &c.) in the corrections 
made by Mr. Bridges's reviewers. Of course, too, with other texts to fall 
back upon, Mr. Bridges has not given us mistakes at the same rate 
throughout the book, but we can have little confidence in his corrections 
of later scribes' errors when we see what his collation with the older 
manuscripts means. Surely, too, the editor's critical acumen might have 
come to the rescue of his defective reading powers in such a passage as 
that on p. 76 where Bacon is made to say that the dative of the first Greek 
declension ends in &>. So the verification of accessible references would 
have turned the quotation from St. Augustine on the same page from 
nonsense into sense by the insertion of a negative, and on p. 89 must have 
suggested 18"" Actuum for the unintelligible misreading iglnoratiolne 
Aciuum. In any of these cases an editor working from transcripts made for 
him by others would, one would suppose, have sent back queries for veri- 

Space is lacking for further criticism of details. About general prin- 
ciples I have still a word to say, lest any incautious reader be tempted to 
use the book in the belief that it contains that which it does not contain. 
Perhaps of all faults in an editor the worst is the concealment, whether 
conscious or due to carelessness, of the sources from which an intelligent 
reader may correct his errors. Of this bad kind of reticence we cannot al- 
together acquit Mr. Bridges. In particular I desire to protest against the 
sti-ain upon the reader's power of divination made by the editor's dots. Who, 
on reading the attack on Dr. Jebb (in the note on p. 74) for his omission 
of the Hebrew alphabet, could be expected to know that the three or four 
dots after daho represent a considerable passage in ' Chaldean ' omitted 

'' Athentzum, 25 Sept. 1897. 


by Mr. Bridges ? So the three dots on p. 79 stand for a sentence which 
has no other difficulty than the interpretation of a contraction ( pos for 
postillator). These examples are not solitary. 

Again, the editor's account of the manuscripts is confused and incom- 
plete. Among other things it serves to hide the fact that of one available 
ancient manuscript of the ' Multiplicatio Specierum ' no use whatever has 
been made. This manuscript (Add. 8756), which, as Dr. Brewer remarks, 
is very trying to the eyes, is probably for its actual readings not com- 
parable in importance to Jul. D. V. in the ' Opus Maius.' It includes, how- 
ever, a few short passages not in the Bodleian text, and — a much more 
important fact — it has the tract actually written as part of a larger whole 
in continuity with other portions assigned to the ' Scriptum Principale.' 
Fortifying by this manuscript evidence his connexion of the work, the 
editor would perhaps have done more wisely to omit the tract altogether 
from his volumes, gaining theraby space for fuller treatment of the ' Opus 
Maius ' proper, and leaving the ' Multiplicatio ' to the editor of the larger 
work when time shall disclose him. But when will that be ? Mr. Bridges 
(or rather, no doubt, his printer) begins an unlucky note on perfect numbers 
(p. 7) with the words ' when 2"' is a prime number.' Before the event 
contemplated we may look for many remarkable things. Perhaps among 
them will be the publication of satisfactory editions of all Bacon's works, 
and among these not least of the * Opus Maius,' for enough has been said to 
show that we are still far from having attained such an edition. The 
only part of the present volumes I can safely recommend to the scholar is 
the very full analysis, and even this with the reservation that it represents 
a recension containing either too much or too little. We can be sorry for 
Mr. Bridges, but we shall be sorrier for the interests of scholarship. 

J. P. GiLSON. 

Select Cases from the Coroners' Bolls (1265-1413), with a brief account 
of the history of the office of Coroner. By Chakles Gross, Ph.D. 
(Selden Society. 1896.) 

This volume partakes of the nature of extracts from the medieval ' Police 
News.' Dr. Gross found his material ' in the Public Record Office among 
the Assize Rolls of the Queen's Bench (Crown side).' From these he 
gives us the earliest preserved rolls, in substance complete ; but contents 
himself with a selection of cases from those of a later date. It is not 
only the office of coroner, nor even of the coroner's jury, that is thus 
illustrated. We learn much about the whole working of the county 
courts. Dr. Gross has come to the conclusion that these surviving rolls 
are ' merely transcripts, and in some cases abstracts of the originals . . . 
made especially for the use of the royal treasury.' There is much mention 
of the property of felons, however small it may be : a collection of the 
deodands valued would form a respectable introduction to the study of 
medieval implements. There does not seem much need for the printing 
of so many extracts as the volume contains. For instance, a larger space 
is given to Bedfordshire than to any other county, and the thirty-eight 
pages by themselves would give us a very fair idea of the information 


which may be culled from the whole set of printed extracts. But it was 
right to give examples from other parts of England : practically some 
sixteen counties are represented. The space devoted to Bedfordshire might 
have been considerably curtailed without any real loss of information. 
Of course there are lessons, and valuable lessons, to be learnt from 
wearisome reiteration. We begin to appreciate the amount of routine in 
the working of the courts ; we become aware of the local activity of 
medieval life. But the variety of that activity can only be set before us 
by judicious extracts from many rolls placed in juxtaposition. Dr. Gross 
furnishes us with an admirable summary in his introduction. His 
section on the functions of the coroner, together with a note on the part 
played in the work of the local courts by the representatives of the Four 
Neighbouring Townships, are full of interesting matter, and they may 
be recommended to any one who has come fresh from an attempt to 
grapple with the account of the procedure of the local courts in the great 
' History of English Law.' 

Into the merits of the controversy between Dr. Gross and Professor 
Maitland on the antiquity of the coroner's office we cannot here enter. 
But Dr. Gross does seem to make out a very strong case for its existence 
before the articles of the eyre of 1194. The justitiarius of the London and 
Colchester charters, who is not only to keep {custodire, sercarc) the pleas 
of the crown, but also i)lacitarc them, sounds very like an official to whose 
duty it would fall to hold {tenere) the pleas in question. Much food for 
reflexion is supplied by all that Dr. Gross has to say about the early 
history of the coroner. He regards the office as an outcome of the exten- 
sion of crown pleas, and as growing in importance alongside of the 
itinerant justices into whose hands the coroners played. Their work was 
not merely to inquire into cases of sudden death. ' They were the 
principal agents of the crown in bringing criminals to justice.' They 
acted as a check on the sheriflF, and, if Dr. Gross's estimate of their 
position and duties is correct, their power was co-ordinate with that of 
the sheriff in most things, and superior to it in some of the more 
important. But the sheriff was the king's officer, while the coroner owed 
his post to election in the county court. We can scarcely think that the 
Plantagenet kings of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries would unduly 
exalt the popularly elected official at the expense of their own. That the 
sheriff was depressed we know, but that the coroner not only took over 
some of his duties and discharged others which the sheriff never possessed, 
but even disputed the chief local authority with him, seems a matter of 
considerable doubt. From the coroner's duties we pass to the coroner's 
jury of the representatives of the four neighbouring vills, and here Dr. 
Gross attempts to work out the suggestion of Professor Maitland, that 
perhaps in them is to besought the origin of the petty jury. But Dr. 
Gross does not stop here. The coroner's jury was representative, but so 
was the coroner himself. Two or four coroners were elected in each 
county, and at first they must be knights. ' The machinery for the elec- 
tion of coroners seems to have been the mould which shaped the repre- 
sentation of the shires in parliament ; the coroners were prototypes of 
the parliamentary knights of the shire.' But knights of the shire were 
elected for other purposes ; and it seems more likely that the employment 


of such a committee for the assessment or collection of taxation should 
suggest to the king the assembly of such representatives in his presence, 
than that he should have been led to the idea by a machinery designed 
for the appointment of a local officer of justice and police. 

D. J. Medley. 

Eohert the Bruce. By Sir Herbert Maxwell. (London : G. P. 
Putnam's Sons. 1897.) 

Sir Herbert Maxwell is weighted by his subject. He wants to be fair 
and critical, and must be national. The marvel is, that he has been so 
successful, for he has certainly produced a biography which must be 
called successful, if only because he has put away the perfervid style. 
He breaks into panegyric on occasions, but he disposes of the myths. 
The fact is, that he really goes as near as possible to the fountain-head. 
He waters the visually unadulterated draught of Barbour and Fordun by 
an admixture of cold documents. Bain and Stevenson supply him, and 
he has practically worked out their material into a consecutive story. 
Unfortunately he has stopped there. He has not examined the documents 
themselves, which is the more annoying in that Bain frequently gives 
rather meagre abstracts or extracts, and we want the whole document. 
A good instance is the inventory of the horses in 1298. Mr. Bain does 
not give us the total, so therefore Sir Herbert does not ; but we have 
ourselves added up a total of 1,217 horses from the two rolls in the Public 
Records.' Allowing 500 horse as the contribution of five great feudal 
lords and of Henry Percy, the number which they furnished in December 
of the same year,^ or enough to complete in round numbers 2,000 horse, 
with the bishop of Durham's unrecorded contingent thrown in, we are still 
immeasurably short of the 7,000 cavalry that Hemingburgh supposes 
present at the battle of Falkirk. The largest force of foot which the 
earl of Surrey commanded on the borders in the beginning of 1298, when 
he was expecting to receive orders to march against Wallace, was just 
over 25,000 strong, a number which rapidly dwindled. The evidence of 
the pay lists is conclusive that the infantry could never be kept together 
for any great length of time, and Surrey's average force of foot was about 

Sir Herbert is vague on the position of Stirling bridge. A site must 
be sought at some little distance up the Forth, in fact somewhere near 
the traditional site, simply because the battle must have been fought 
within the widest loop of the river. On the other hand, his description 
of the field of Bannockburn, as well as his map, could not be better ; the 
common account of this battle gives the reader no idea of the extent of 
the swamps, or of the nature of the Bannock's banks. It is a pity that 
he is unacquainted with Mr. Hereford George's book on British battles 
where Bannockburn is presented from the English point of view. He 
would then have known that Baker of Swinbrook is a military authority 
whom no student of medieval tactics should neglect. He does just 

' Exchequer Accounts, Army, &c., Bundle vi. nos. 39 and 40. 
"^ Cain, Calendar, vol. ii. no. 1014. 


mention Sir Thomas de la More, but a glance at Sir E. M. Thompson's 
introduction to Baker's chronicle would have shown that it is doubtful 
if the whole of Baker's narrative is to be considered as copied from 
Sir Thomas's French original. At least, the theory that the main 
English archer force was kept in the rear, and was therefore useless, is 
not noticed, on which, however, Baker speaks definitely. Sir Herbert, how- 
ever, makes up for this by showing, on his plan of the battle, that 
Keith's light horse only cut up one unsupported wing of archers. 
The rest of the two days' fighting is admirably told. Clifford's flanking 
movement and its failure, Gray of Heton's value as an authority, 
the absolute impossibility that the traditional bore-stone can mark the 
position of Bruce's reserve, or even of the centre of the front line on 
the day of the main battle, the leading fact^that the solid ' schiltrome ' 
gave the victory over the blindly rushing and stumbling horse, no 
matter where exactly the pits were dug — each point receives good 
treatment. Nothing could be better, especially as some notes by 
Sir Evelyn Wood, on the position of the Scottish army, have been used. 
Unfortunately this only satisfies the reader of biography, who is content 
to study the battle as the crowning achievement of a great career. It is 
not enough for a student of military science, to whom one battle is a link 
in a chain. The triumph of the pike was short-lived. Bannockburn 
taught the English the necessity of remodeUing their military array, for 
even at Falkirk the archers were regarded as an inferior corps to the 
knights. Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill were the first triumphs of the 
fully evolved archers, handled and combined with the dismounted knights. 
But Bruce, Douglas, and Thomas son of Randolph were then dead. 

Yet if Sir Herbert does not treat his military topics quite fully enough 
to satisfy the English mind, he atones by his handling of Bruce's earlier 
career. The * humiliating record' of his actions, down to 1305, is given in 
full. It is shown how Wallace fought as guardian for the absent 
Balliol, and how the earl of Carrick fought or made terms with Edward 
for himself. Yet in Stirling the memory of each is still green, as if they 
were comrades in arms. The influence of France is acknowledged, but more 
stress should have been laid upon it. Had Edward never gone to Flanders, 
or had there been less important matters to negotiate with the pope and the 
French, Wallace would not have had his opportunity. The presence of 
Gascon mercenaries in the garrisons in Scotland, and the naturally over- 
bearing conduct of the English soldiers towards peaceful townsfolk, of 
which there is interesting evidence in Bain and Stevenson, are not 
emphasised. Yet Wallace and Bruce probably owed much of their early 
success to the animosity so caused. There is too much detail of the 
exciting adventures of either hero, too little of what caused the spirit 
of patriotism just when Edward's rule seemed likely to be universally 
accepted ; nor is the price that Scotland paid for her independence 
reckoned. Bruce is the hero of the nation, and the succeeding non-heroes 
are kept out of sight. 

The main purpose of the book is a good one. Myths are systemati- 
cally attacked. Not the least interesting of Sir Herbert Maxwell's 
admissions is that Cromwell is not to be credited with the destruction of 
every monument destroyed in Scotland. Tourists know how every piece 


of wanton mischief is put down to liim, as if the Covenanters were never 
iconoclasts. So, too, it is interesting to find a Scottish writer who does 
not consider every Comyn to be a traitor. J. E. Mokeis. 

Philippe de Mezieres, 1327-1405, et la Croisade au xiv siecle. By N. 
JoRGA. (Paris : Librairie Emile Bouillon. 1896.) 

It was a happy choice that led M. Jorga to take the life of Philip de 
Mezieres as the centre round which to group a history of the crusading 
idea in the fourteenth century. Philip was born early enough to catch 
something of the traditional spirit of the early crusaders, and he lived long 
enough to witness and in part to inspire the last effort of western chivalry in 
the expedition of Bouceiant in 1403. Philip himself is, moreover, in many 
ways a striking personality, and his lifelong zeal for the holy war, combined 
with his intimate share in the projects for its renewal, gives a unity to the 
narrative which it could not otherwise possess. The story of the ill-success 
which attended his unceasing labours to revive the interest of western 
Europe enables M. Jorga to show why in the fourteenth century, despite all 
its display of chivalry, a new crusade was so hopeless an undertaking. 
There were three great motives that had inspired the early crusaders ; the 
spirit of adventure, the desire of gain, and the zeal for religion. But in the 
fourteenth century princes had full scope for their energies in the direction 
of that national sentiment which the crusades had done so much to foster. 
Private adventurers also found a more promising field in the great wars 
which convulsed the west. The commercial motive again had ceased to 
act ; the great trading communities had grown averse to the continuance 
of a warfare, which threatened to endanger the commercial system that it 
created. As for religious zeal, the church, through the decline of papal 
authority, had lost the power, if not the will, to excite and direct popular 
enthusiasm. All these facts Philip had to learn by personal experience in 
the courts of France and England, in the republics of Venice and Genoa, 
and in the papal curia. On another side his relations with Cyprus illustrate 
the partial success of one phase of crusading enterprise, and the reasons 
of its failure ; whilst his ' Order of the Passion ' points out the most hopeful 
means for maintaining crusading energy, and at the same time shows how 
futile was the attempt to revive it. 

Born in Picardy, the young Philip grew up among the traditions of 
Peter the Hermit. His knightly ancestry inclined him to a life of adven- 
ture, whilst a careful education made him familiar with the whole range 
of medieval romance and history. So in a sense he combined the zealous 
spirit of the twelfth with the chivalrous ideals of the fourteenth century. 
His first service had been with the unfortunate Andrew of Hungary, who 
might equally have inspired or caught Philip's enthusiasm. In 1346, 
Philip won his spurs in the abortive attack by Humbert of Vienne on 
Smyrna, and in the following year made a long-intended pilgrimage to 
Jerusalem, where he conceived his idea of a new military Order of 
the Passion to take the place of the effete Hospitallers. Coming home, he 
stayed in Cyprus, and there made the acquaintance of Peter de Lusignan, 
in whom he found a prince after his own heart. But it was more than 

160: HEVIEWS of books Jan. 

ten years before Peter's accession to the throne of Cyprus gave Philip his 
opportunity. The interval was spent by Philip in the west. But soon 
after his return to Cyprus in 1860, Peter made him his chancellor, and 
from this time forward Philip was the king's chief counsellor in his plans 
for a new crusade. He accompanied Peter in his mission to western 
Europe, travelling like him from country to country in the vain endeavour 
to extract something more fruitful than high-sounding promises. Still 
some western knights joined in the new crusade, and eightscore English- 
men, like Chaucer's knight, were 

At Alisaundre . . whan it was wonne. 

Philip's dream never came so near accomplishment. A third of the city 
was to be his share, and he could at last establish his new military order. 
But his hopes were rudely shattered. The army broke up, and its conquest 
was perforce abandoned, whilst the Venetian republic took alarm at an 
achievement which threatened to endanger its commerce. Next year 
Philip went on a mission to the west, but found his enthusiasm baflSed by 
the indifference of people and princes, and by the desire of the commercial 
republics for peace. He was with Peter de Lusignan during his second 
visit to the west in 1367. But the assassination of his master on 16 Jan. 
1369 robbed him of his position in Cyprus and of his hopes for the crusade. 
He retained the empty title of chancellor of Cyprus, and never renounced 
his favourite dream of the Order of the Passion. After a few years spent 
in Italy, he passed into the service of Charles V of France, who loved 
him as a man of letters, of devout mind, and sage in counsel. On 
the death of Charles, Philip entered the cloister of the Celestins at Paris, 
where he died on 29 May 1405. He kept up his relations with the 
outside world, and by his writings, partly mystical and partly reminis- 
cent of his past life, continued to the last to advocate the renewal of the 
holy war. 

His own enthusiasm was unquenched, if a little disillusioned. He 
could see the futility of such an enterprise as the expedition of the comte 
de Nevers in 1396. With all his imaginative zeal, Philip was indeed no 
mere visionary. In his last years he laboured to restore peace between 
France and England, and to heal the schism in the church, realising that 
until these objects were accomplished Latin Christianity could make no 
imited effort. Herein he anticipated the aspirations of Henry V, and, like 
the EngUsh king, he saw that the new crusade must strike at Egypt and 
Syria, and not waste itself in the valley of the Danube. To the last he 
sought recruits for his Order of the Passion, and if his dream of a new 
military order was vain, it shows that he had studied the history of the 
crusades to some purpose. He came to realise the hopelessness of the 
circumstances of his own time, but he looked forward to a regeneration of 
society when ' honourable men of the middle estate of Christendom ' should 
furnish adherents to his Order. There is something prophetic in the idea, 
and it is this catholicity of sentiment through which he lived both in the 
past and in the future, that makes Philip's career so pathetic and so full 
of interest. 

M. Jorga's book covers what is practically a new field, and is full of 
interest. It is furnished with a copious bibliography and notes. A number 


of English liiiights and adventurers find notice in his pages. I have 
marked a few sHght errors in EngUsh names ; it was John, and not 
Richard, Grey of Codnor who fought at Alexandria iii 13C5 ; Alain de 
r>ooksell should be Alain de Buxhull, and Eichard de Pembroke should 
be Richard de Pembridge or Pembrugge. C. L. Kingsfoed. 

Deutsche Geschichte. Von Karl Lamprecht. IV. and V. (Berlin : 

Gaertner. 1894-5.) 
Zwei Streitschriften den Herren H. OncJcen, H. DelbrucJc, M. Lenz 

zugeeignet. Von K. Lamprecht. (Berlin : Gaertner. 1897). 

The plan of Dr. Lamprecht's History was fully explained in the notices of its 
earlier volumes that have appeared in the English Historical Review. 
Only in one respect has it been departed from. The promise to tell the 
whole story of the German nation from Ariovistus to Bismarck in seven 
volumes has been kept in the letter, but not in the spirit ; the fifth volume is 
longer by some three hundred pages than its predecessors, and published in 
two parts. But such miscalculations are pardonable enough. Succinct in 
its narrative, clear and crisp in style, and interweaving with the political 
history many sides of the national life which must usually be looked for in 
special works, it seems to have met with favour among the reading public, 
if we may judge from the fact that the first and second editions of the 
second part of vol. v. were published simultaneously. To some extent, 
indeed, this may have been a succes deijolemique, for Professor Lamprecht 
has had to run the gauntlet of very severe criticism from the reviewers of 
his own country. His claim to be (in the words of one of these critics) 
' the prophet of the new evolutionist school of history ' has roused a not 
entirely good-humoured controversy on the text, Wasist Culturgeschichte ?' 
His assailants also declare the fifth volume to be full of errors and 
exaggerations, and roundly charge him with borrowing a good part of 
his narrative from the older descriptive historians whom he professes to 
supersede. Many of the mistakes are of no great importance, but enough 
seems to be made out to warrant the conclusion that it is rather beyond 
the powers of a single historian to treat every part of such a wide sweep 
of history with eg[ual adequacy. In his latest reply to these critics Pro- 
fessor Lamprecht, while repelling the charge of plagiarism and retorting 
with an accusation of personal animus, pleads guilty in his own defence 
to more numerous and more serious misprints than a careful writer should 
allow to slip into his work. But though experts may pick holes the 
book will probably maintain its ground as, despite defects, the most satis- 
factory history of the great German people in manageable compass and 
incorporating the most recent researches. Jambs Tait. 

Bibliotheca Erasmiana. I. : Adagia. (Gand : C. Vyt. 1897.) 

The indefatigable curators of the University Library at Ghent, MM. 
Vander Haeghen, Vanden Berghe, and Arnold, have celebrated the 
centenary of their institution by publishing the first instalment of their 
stupendous bibliography of Erasmus. This section, which appears 
within four years of the publication of their preliminary Listes somvuxiresy 
VOL. XIII. — NO. xlix, ti 


contains the * Adagia,' and is a marvel of minute detail. Every known 
edition is treated with such literal accuracy that a student who wishes to 
examine any particular issue can do so as perfectly here at second hand 
as in the original. Besides the more obvious information about title- 
pages, prefaces, colophons, &c., the additions and excisions made in 
various issues have been thoroughly examined, and to every book is sub- 
joined a list of the public libraries in which it is to be found, private 
collections also being enumerated in the case of rare editions. The 
remoteness of many of the libraries thus mentioned is in itself an indi- 
cation of the far-reaching inquiries of the authors. The book ends with 
a summary list of all editions, which enables the reader to compare them 
roughly at a glance ; and herein are included a few of which no copies 
are known to exist. It is perhaps a pity that in this list at any rate, if 
not in the book itself, the authors have not allowed themselves more 
latitude of conjecture, and placed in their approximate order the early 
undated editions, instead of putting them in a body at the end as editions 
sans date, leaving the student to discern for himself which are con- 
temporary with Erasmus and which not. They have abandoned the 
confusing arrangement adopted in their ' Bibliotheca Belgica ' of printing 
on the recto only ; yet even so the book in its three divisions dealing 
with the writings of Erasmus, the works he edited, and the authorities 
to be consulted about him, cannot fail to fill a great many volumes. But 
as it is a model of bibliographical work, the student of Erasmus will only 
hope for the rapid completion of such an invaluable undertaking. 

P. S. Allen. 

Die Geschichte der Fugger" sclien Handlung in Spanien. Von Konrad 
Habler. (' Socialgeschichtliche Forschungen.' I. Heft.) (Weimar : 
E. Felber. 1897.) 

KoNRAD Habler's studics in Spanish economical history are always 
welcome. This monograph explains in full detail the position which the 
Augsburg house of Fugger held in Spain from the accession of Charles V to 
the middle of the seventeenth century. It is not only the story of the family 
splits, the confidential agents, the business methods, the enviable profits of 
these leading German bankers ; it acts as a guide to those who follow the 
career of Spain down the road to ruin. Each fresh source of revenue which 
was farmed to the Fuggers was, mainly wdthout their fault, a fresh mile- 
stone on this road. Long before the goal was obvious, in the reign of Charles 
and the earlier years of Philip II every important item of receipt was 
assigned as security for loans — the alcabala, the tolls, the subsidy ordinary 
and extraordinary, the royal share of precious metals from the Indies, the 
papal concessions of the cruzada, the quarto and its later substitute the 
sussidio. Important above all were the permanent leases of the silver mines 
of Guadalcanal, the quicksilver mines of Almaden, and the territories of the 
grandmasterships, now definitely annexed to the crown. In addition to 
this the Fuggers undertook for the government the function of exchange, 
at once highly important and highly profitable. There were, of course, 
other private sources of profit. The rival German houses, in trading with 
Spain, usually made the Fuggers their intermediaries ; every traveller 


would bring a letter of credit on the firm ; the great Spanish landlords 
remedied the inequalities of their rent roll by their aid ; through them 
were paid to Spanish statesmen the pensions from foreign princes ; Spanish 
capitalists used them as brokers for investments at home and abroad. To 
the government the Fuggers gave a substantial quid pro quo. No Habs- 
burg king could have existed for six months without a loan, and the risk 
of the lender was often great. The Fuggers provided the salaries for 
several of the Spanish ambassadors, and also the secret service money 
which these envoys so lavishly expended. Granvelle even wished that 
they should undertake the payment and supply of the troops engaged 
against rebels in the Netherlands. Later Philip II strove by their aid to 
divert the carrying trade with Spain from the Dutch to the Hanseatic 

The leases of Almaden and the lands of the grandmasterships were, if 
highly profitable to the lessees, also a national benefit. Bringing to Spain 
a ripe experience of mining in the Tyrol, Hungary, and Silesia, they made 
the management of the mines of Almaden a model even for those of Mexico. 
The prosperity of these mines was exactly coeval with their adminis- 
tration ; the quicksilver monopoly was, throughout the reign of Philip II, 
the most elastic source of Spanish revenue. This was not an ordinary 
case of farming. The ordinary procass was reversed, the Fuggers under- 
taking, in consideration of a dead rent and a royalty, the quicksilver which 
the crown then placed upon the market. No less successful was the 
administration of the lands of the grandmasterships, which were first 
leased to the Fuggers in recompense for the loans which had secured the 
empire for Charles V. By wise forbearance in bad seasons, by loans of 
seed and money for the extension of arable land, they made these terri- 
tories the centre of the grain trade, which still throve in these districts 
when Spanish agriculture was in full decline. If the principal agent of 
the firm must needs follow the court, Almagro, in the territory of the order 
of Calatrava, was the rural headquarters. Here the Fuggers rebuilt the 
parish church, and made it a family foundation, with its endowment for 
five chaplains, its pictures, bells, plate, and organ, all of German work- 
manship. The strength of their position is proved by the honours con- 
ferred on their agents, and repeated licenses for the export of precious 
metals, in direct defiance of law and national feeling. The Fuggers could 
snap their fingers at Philip II's decree of repudiation ; they refused the 
composition offered and bided their time till the king was forced to accept 
their terms. From the similar decree of Philip III they were expressly 
exempted. Nevertheless, in the long run the fortune of the Fuggers must 
depend on the solvency of the government. They had almost become in the 
seventeenth century the national bank of Spain ; their credit and that of 
the crown were mutually interdependent ; any accident might bring a crash 
for both. The grandmasterships and the exchange were now conducted at 
a loss ; Guadalcanal had passed from their hands ; only Almaden was still 
profitable, and here a fire in 1639 brought work to a standstill. This was 
nearly the end of Fugger enterprise in Spain, though the process of liqui- 
dation dragged on for many years. The situation was aggravated by the 
long- smouldering jealousy of the Spanish officials, stimulated by Genoese 



The Fuggers had their faults and virtues. They placed their private 
interests before those of their clients, their class, and their nation. They 
were revengeful in ruining both Guadalcanal and Almadeu when their 
term was not renewed. Not content with 14 per cent, interest, they 
forced the government to antedate its receipts for loans. But they 
rightly claimed that they were less extortionate than the Genoese, and not 
nearly so corrupt. Their agent, indeed, confessed that if the cart would 
not move the wheels must be well greased ; but they did not shamelessly 
rob the crown in collusion with members of the council of finance. 
They were generous and intelligent landlords ; the miners of Almaden 
were probably the only men in Spain who received their wages to a day. 
If the fire in the mine was the cause, this punctuality was the curious 
occasion of their fall. Olivares, in his well-meant schemes of reform, 
insisted that they should undertake the payment of the salaries of the 
court and household. The Fuggers reluctantly undertook the task, but 
did not succeed, owing to the failure of the government to execute its 
contract, and this immediately produced the rupture. 

The Augsburg bankers nearly founded a great chartered company. 
The author devotes a chapter to a long series of negotiations between 
Charles V's government and the Fuggers for the colonisation of the 
south-west coast of South America. The settlement of Venezuela by 
their fellow townsmen the Welsers supplied the model, but it seems 
clear that the Fuggers meant Chili and its islands to be a ' jumping-off 
place ' for the Moluccas, the monopoly of which Charles V had mortgaged 
to the Portuguese. The Fuggers had already shared in the enterprises 
led by Loaisa and Cabot ; they had induced Charles V not to confine the 
spice trade to his Spanish subjects. The negotiations for the charter turn 
upon the number of colonists to be supplied within a certain time, the 
proportion of conquered land to be allotted to the Fuggers as private 
property, the remission of the crown's royalties, the hereditary right of 
appointment to civil and military commands and ecclesiastical benefices. 
The German firm wished to pledge both the crown and themselves to 
forego the principle of forced native labour implied in the grant of 
encomiendas to the settlers, although the philanthropy of the Welsers had 
proved fatal to the survival of the Venezuelan Indians ; the colonists 
regarded the natives either as miners or as vermin. The negotiations 
proved abortive, probably owing to the civil troubles in Peru, but they 
illustrate the jealous precautions of the council of the Indies against 
colonial independence and unlicensed control. Now and much later, even 
under extreme financial pressure, the crown refused to grant concessions 
beyond three lives. We have spoken always of the Fuggers. They, 
however, even as the great Florentine bankers who preceded them, were 
no mere family firm. Sometimes their name represented a syndicate in 
which German, Italian, and Spanish houses took their part. More often 
it covered a joint-stock company for which the Fuggers invited capital. 
It is characteristic that when clouds gathered over Spain the firm with- 
drew its own capital to Germany, and conducted the Spanish branch with 
their clients' funds. Fourteen per cent, can always tempt credulity very 
far afield. E. Armstrong. 


Church Briefs, or Boyal Warrants for Collections for Charitable Objects. 
By W. A. Bewes. (London : A. & C. Black. 1896.) 

This contains a history of the origin and employment of briefs in 
England, with lists of all known to be issued and a number of documents 
relating to the subject. Many of the briefs calendared are of purely local 
interest, being authorisations to collect money for churches to be built or 
r( naired, or for towns which had suffered by Hood or fire. Those of 
most historical interest are the Iriefs for the redemption of sailors and 
others captured by Turkish pirates, or those referring to collections for 
the benefit of foreign piotestants. Of the latter class the briefs for 
Montpellier and Geneva, for refugees from the Isle of Rhe in 1627, for the 
people of the Palatinate, the Vaudois, the Huguenots both before and after 
the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and for protestants in Poland and 
Hungary, are the most important. These Mr. Bewes prints at length, 
adding in an appendix a number of papers relating to the expenditure of 
the money raised for the Vaudois. Mr. W. A. Shaw's article (English 
Historical Review, ix. 662) has already made some of these papers 
knoAvn, and his conclusions on the subject agree generally with those of 
Mr. Bewes. Among other briefs which deserve special mention are one 
for Teignmouth after its burning by the French fleet in 1690, one for 
Montreal after the great fire of 1765, and an extremely curious one for 
the colleges of New York and Philadelphia in 1762. Facsimiles of briefs 
for the endowment of Bethlehem Hospital in 1560 and on behalf of the 
refugees from Orange in 1704 are given, and a curious ballad on the great 
storm of 1703 is reprinted in the notes. There is an excellent index, and 
the editor has done his work throughout with great care and exactness. 

C. H. FlETH. 

Captain Cuellafs Adventures in Connacht and Ulster, A.D. 1588. By 
Hugh Allingham. To which is added An Introduction and Complete 
Translation of Captain Cuellar's Narrative of the Spanish Armada 
and his Adventures in Ireland. By Robert Crawford, M.A. 
(London : EUiot Stock. 1897.) 

Mr. Allingham has done well to publish this enlarged and corrected 
edition of his paper, which originally appeared in the Ulster Journal of 
ArchcBology, and still better in adding to it Mr. Crawford's translation of 
Cuellar's letter, the original of which is, in many passages, not easy of 
interpretation. The identification of the places from misspelt names 
and vague descriptions could only be done by a local antiquary, and adds 
much to the interest of this curious picture of the state of Ireland. But 
in his identification of one of the ships wrecked on the Streedagh Strand 
with the ' San Juan de Sicilia ' I think Mr. Allingham is wrong. If the 
ship referred to was the ' San Juan ' at all, she was more probably the one 
distinguished as the ' San- Juan de Diego Flores,' or the ' San Juan ' of the 
Castilian squadron, whose captain was D. Diego Enriquez, whereas 
the captain of the ' San Juan de Sicilia ' was D. Diego Tellez Enriquez, a 
totally different man. I am strongly inclined to believe that the * San 
Juan de Sicilia' went down in the North Sea. It seems very probable that 


the ship of Streedagh Strand was the Castilian ' San Juan,' and that the 
figurehead depicted on p. 5 belonged to her, which would explain its bear- 
ing the royal arms of Spain. J. K. Laughton. 

East Anglia and the Civil War, By Alfred Kingston. 
(London : Elliot Stock. 1897.) 

Mr. Kingston has written a very interesting book, and in spite of 
various shortcomings it deserves to be read by every one interested in the 
history of the civil war or the life of Cromwell. He has collected a large 
amount of new information from newspapers and pamphlets, and has 
made judicious use of the Tanner MSS. and of other unpublished 
documents dealing with the history of the war in the eastern counties. 
This is the first attempt made to treat the history of the Eastern Associa- 
tion as a whole, and to show how it arose, how it was organised, and 
how it was supported. The expense of maintaining the army and the 
defences of the associated counties was very considerable. Mr. Kingston 
prints an account of money received by the treasurers in 1644, showing 
that in that year SufTolkpaid in 68,000/., Norfolk 59,000Z., Essex 60,000/., 
Cambridge 19,600/., and Huntingdon 11,600/. ; and to these sums must be 
added the contributions of Hertfordshire and Lincolnshire. Most of this 
money was provided by direct assessments, but a small portion came from 
the sequestrations and tines imposed on the royalists. Of the seven 
counties, says Mr. Kingston, Lincolnshire contributed by far the largest 
share to the parliamentary treasury from royalist estates. Next to 
Lincolnshire, Cromwell's own county of Huntingdon, for a small county, 
paid the largest penalties for its divided allegiance. Then came Norfolk, 
Suffolk, Herts, Essex, and Cambridgeshire. Another interesting calcula- 
tion shows the number of royalist clergymen sequestered in the seven 
counties, and in the appendix there is a valuable list of the deprived 
clergy of Cambridgeshire, contributed by Mr. W. M. Palmer (pp. 293, 820, 
875, 390). 

Mr. Kingston treats the opening of the civil war very fully, and gives 
a nari-ative of Cromwell's activity in the summer of 1642 and the spring 
orf 1G13, which contains many new facts, and proves the great value of 
his services to the parliament long before he became famous. On the 
other hand, the struggle for the possession of Lincolnshire, which was 
the crisis in the history of the Association, is very imperfectly related, and 
the connexion between the general war and the local war is not clearly 
shown. The consequences of the battle of Winceby, the events which 
preceded the victory at Gainsborough, and the importance of Rupert's 
relief of Newark in 1644, are omitted or very obscurely stated (pp. 119, 
145, 155). The author is also rather uncritical in his use of authorities, 
gives too much credit to mere newspaper rumours, and quotes those 
notorious forgeries the Squire papers. The discussions in the earlier 
numbers of this Review should have convinced him of their worthless- 
ness. A minor error is the identification of Viscovmt Camden with 
Charles Cavendish, thus confounding two royalist leaders in one 
(p. 116). The nobleman in question was Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount 
Campden, whose life may be found in volume xli. of the 'Die- 


tionary of National Biography.' There are many other places in 
which a consultation of the same work would have been useful to 
Mr. Kingston. Sanford's * Studies and Illustrations of the Great Rebellion ' 
would have also helped him in his account of Cromwell's early life. For 
instance, Mr. Sanford clears up both the reasons why Cromwell left 
Huntingdon, and the story of his defence of the right of the commoners 
of Somersham (pp. 232, 368). In spite of all defects, however, 
Mr. Kingston's book is both interesting to the general reader and useful 
to the student of the civil war. It is to be hoped that it will reach a 
second edition, and thus enable him to make the corrections and additions 
it requires. One of these additions should be a map of the associated 
counties, which is very necessary in these local histories of the war, and 
is invariably omitted. C. H. Fibth. 

History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1660. Vol. II. 
1651-1654. By Samuel Rawson Gabdinee, D.C.L., LL.D. (Lon- 
don : Longmans. 1897.) 

To the student of history the publication of a new volume of Mr. 
Gardiner's great work is always a noteworthy event. It is not only that 
he is certain of finding in it new lights on subjects which he may have 
fancied himself already familiar with, suggestions on problems which 
he may often have pondered over, but that he is sure of a valuable 
lesson on the best methods of historical research. What impresses me 
most in all Mr. Gardiner's writings is the calm, judicial spirit which per- 
vades the whole ; the utter want of tinsel embroidery ; the almost ideal 
fairness with which he marshals the facts for or against different opinions 
or causes, and, without even indicating his own prepossessions, shows how, 
why, or in what respects one or the other failed or excelled. In the 
present volume we recognise all the familiar merits, and are again im- 
pressed by the oft-repeated lesson. As to the matter, it includes the im- 
portant political revolution in which Cromwell seized on the supreme 
power ; and the picture of Cromwell in his might and its limitations is one 
on which we dwell with admiration and conviction. But the chapters 
that are freshest, that will be to many the most interesting, are those 
which give the detailed history of the Dutch war, now, for the first time, 
written with some approach to completeness. We have had nothing at 
all comparable with it ; and if, in the course of the next two or three 
years, we have fuller details — as we are promised — it will be from the same 
hand, and will be the presentment of material which is already, in some 
degree at least, familiar to the writer ; so that we may fairly suppose 
that, as far as it goes — and it goes a long way — the story of the war is 
here told with an accuracy till now impossible. Mr. Gardiner brings out 
clearly the fact that both Cromwell and the army were opposed to the 
war, and suggests that Cromwell, in the hope of maintaining peace, * advo- 
cated at least a partial appeal to the country.' * It is possible,' he thinks, 
' that fresh supplementary elections under the influence of Cromwell and 
the army might have averted war.' It was not to be ; and though it is 
now the fashion among a certain school of philosophical Avriters to deplore 


the war as one between kindred people, alike in religion and the spirit of 
independence, it may, on the other hand, be regarded as, in some sense, 
the foundation of England's naval and commercial pre-eminence, and as 
che overthrow of England's most dangerous rival. From that point of 
view it is not to be regretted. Sooner or later the quarrel had to be 
fought out, and the crisis could not have come when England was better 
able to meet it. We shudder at the thought of what England's for- 
tune might have been had the first fury of the war fallen on it while 
Charles II controlled its expenditure. 

The story of the fighting cannot be repeated here, but I may mention 
two points in connexion with it on which I have formerly expressed 
opinions different from those now put forward by Mr. Gardiner, with a 
more exhaustive knowledge of the evidence. The first relates to the en- 
gagement off Dungeness on 30 Nov. 1652, as to which, indeed, the differ- 
ence is mainly a matter of opinion, and must remain so. I quite accept 
Mr. Gardiner's suggestion that Blake left the Downs, ' perhaps fearing the 
fate of Oquendo.' It is, in fact, one which I have often made in my lec- 
tures, very nearly in the same words, and is enforced by the fact that the 
batteries which Ayscue had erected in July for the defence of the anchor- 
age had been recently dismantled. As to what happened afterwards Mr. 
Gardiner's story is clear, consistent, and intelligible, and he concludes it 
with 'My own belief is that Blake meant to fight^all along.' What I 
wrote in the ' Dictionary of National Biogi'apliy ' {s.v. * Blake ') is — 

The next morning, 30 Nov., the two fleets weighed nearly together, and, with 
a fresh wind at from N. to N.N.W., stood to the westward along the coast, Tromp 
ixnable, Blake, it may be, imwilling to attack. But as they came near Dungeness 
the English were forced to the southward by the trend of the coast ; with or 
without their will they were obliged to close, and their leading ships were 
thus brought to action. 

I may be permitted to say that the difference — to which Mr. Gardiner 
refers — is really very slight. He believes that Blake considered his fleet, 
notwithstanding its numerical inferiority, as superior to the Dutch by the 
individual force of his ships, and was therefore bent on fighting. It 
seemed to me, on the other hand, that, having discovered the superiority 
of the Dutch, which I think it probable he was not fully acquainted with 
before he came out of the Downs, Blake was not sorry to put off the 
moment of collision as long as he could. He had resolved against being 
attacked at anchor, and he knew that by standing along the coast he 
would be forced to the southward at Dungeness ; but the delay might give 
time for a shift of wind in his favour. If the wind had freshened to a gale 
at N.N.W., the Dutch fleet would have been driven off the coast, and 
possibly dispersed. I cannot and do not object to Mr. Gardiner's inter- 
pretation of the facts, but I do not feel sure that Blake would not have 
considered a north-north-westerly gale an interposition of Providence. 

The other point to which I have referred is a matter of fact, not, 
perhaps, of very much importance, but still interesting — the position, 
namely, of Lawson in the battle of Portland, 18 Feb. 1652-3. Both in 
the text and in the diagram Mr. Gardiner has placed him astern of the 
generals. He has not given his authority for this, but from the way it is 


worded I conjecture it is the narrative of Captain Saunders as quoted by 
Granville Penn (i. 578), where it is said, ' Lawson, vice-admiral of the red 
. . . being about a mile on the starboard quarter, and as much astern of 
the generals when the fight began.' If this is so, it would almost seem 
that Mr. Gardiner has not noticed that this narrative of Saunders is 
virtually identical with another by Mr. Gibson, the purser of Saunders's 
ship, also printed by Granville Penn (ii. C15 ; Add. MS. 11684, f. 9), 
with, however, one small but very important difference : instead of 
generals Gibson has general. It seems to me quite possible that Gibson's 
general means Penn (who was not, it is true, appointed a general till 
several months later ; but neither was Lawson knighted till several years 
later), and that Lawson was really ahead of the generals, between them 
and Penn. So placing him would make the Saunders-Gibson statement 
intelligible. Gibson has it — 

Your father \sc. Penn] with his division, in which was the ' Assurance,' 
tacked and stood through the Dutch fleet, with the wind on the larboard side, as 
Sir John Lawson (then vice-admiral of the red) in the ' Fairfax ' did, with his 
larboard tack aboard, being about a mile on the starboard quarter, and as much 
astern of the general when the fight began. General Monk . . . being at least 
four miles to leeward of the generals when the fight began. 

The narrative printed as by Saunders is in even verbal agreement, except 
that Lawson is not called Sir John ; ' generals ' takes the place of ' general ; ' 
and Monk is ' to leeward of the other generals.' As to this Mr. Gardiner 
says, ' The account given by Captain Saunders, that Lawson " tacked and 
stood through the Dutch fleet with the wind on the larboard side," is in- 
explicable. . . . Probably Laivson is written by a slip of the pen for 
Penn.'' But, if so, what becomes of the position of Lawson ? and Penn 
was not vice-admiral of the red. On the other hand, if we may suppose 
that by the general Gibson meant Penn, that Saunders's ' generals ' is an 
error of transcriber or compositor — Granville Penn has not said where the 
original is- and that Lawson was really ahead of the generals, the state- 
ment is perfectly intelligible. Substituting Penn for Lawson does not 
make it so. It is, of course, possible that Mr. Gardiner has other evidence, 
which he did not judge it necessary to refer to, and that, as the action 
began, Lawson was certainly astern of the generals ; but in that case 
Gibson and Saunders agreed in writing nonsense, and their whole story 
is discredited. 

As I conclude I may express my satisfaction at finding that Mr. Gar- 
diner, after a much more exhaustive examination of the evidence than I 
could pretend to, endorses my denunciation of the story of Tromp's 
* broom ' as a fable. ' No Dutch authority,' he says, ' mentions it, and no 
English authority earlier than the ''Perfect Account" published on 
9 March.' He refers to another account in 'New Brooms Sweep Clean,' 
' also published on 9 March,' the date which I too had given ; so that it may 
be taken as proved that the canard was first let loose on the town on 
9 March, and then only, on feeble wing, to tell of what had been done in 
France. It was not till it had grown old and shameless that any mention 
was made of the celebrated cruise in the Channel. J. K. Laughton. 


Tlic Diplomatic Relations bctioecn Cromwell and Charlen X of 
Siceden. By Guernsey Jones. (Lincoln, Nebraska : ' State Journal* 
Company. 1897.) 

Mr. Guernsey Jones has, with great care and diligence, set forth 
in this dissertation the leading facts of the desultory and ultimately 
abortive negotiations for an oflFensive and defensive alliance between 
Cromwell and Charles X of Sweden. The negotiations in question 
were indeed almost necessarily bound to come to naught. Quite 
apart from Cromwell's financial and domestic difficulties, there can be 
little doubt that his fanatical hatred of the Roman Catholic party in 
Europe hampered his policy by blinding him to the fact that a grand 
Protestant alliance had become an anachronism, and that the time was 
past when commercial and religious objects could be made to harmonise. 
Hence the apparent tergiversation and irresolution of the Protector's 
Scandinavian policy, which resulted in Sweden's supplanting England 
for a brief period as the dominating power of northern Europe. A 
common jealousy of the maritime expansion of the Dutch seemed likely at 
one time to unite England and Sweden, but ultimately the imperial policy 
of Charles X, who would have erased Denmark from the map of Europe 
and made of the Baltic a Swedish lake, seemed even more dangerous 
to the Protector than the commercial rivalry of the republic nearer home. 
On the other hand, the violently aggressive policy of the S.wedish king 
was, from his own point of view, not only justifiable, but statesmanlike and 
patriotic. He was simply bent on consolidating the empire which his 
great ancestor, Gustavus Adolphus, had built up on such precarious 
foundations, and the only method of doing so was to weld together the 
scattered and exposed possessions of Sweden into a compact and 
composite whole by means of fresh conquests on both sides of the Baltic. 
The weakness and disunion of his enemies seemed to facilitate an enter- 
prise too vast, perhaps, even for his genius, but the ablest Swedish 
statesmen of the day by no means regarded such an enterprise as hope- 
less. This point of view seems to have escaped Mr. Jones's attention, yet 
without it the whole policy of the Swedish king is unintelligible. The 
dissertation would also have been much improved by a final summing up 
of results. We note, in conclusion, one or two typographical errors, e.g. 
Holland for Halland, Druntheim for Drontheim. R. Nisbet Bain. 

Burnet's History of my own Time. Part I. The Reign of Charles II. 
Edited by Osmund Airy, M.A. (Oxford : Clarendon Press. 1897.) 

Mr. Airy has given us, or perhaps I should say has begun to give us, the 
scholarly edition of Burnet's gossipy notes which has so long been 
wanted. The present volume only goes down to 1672, that is to say, it 
covers the period of Burnet's childhood and adolescence and stops short 
of the time when he accepted the permanent position in London as 
preacher at the Rolls which brought him into the centre of political life. 
The volume which is to come will therefore be the more important of the 
two, but as the principles adopted by the editor for the conduct of his 


work are necessarily the same for both volumes it requires but little of 
the gift of prophecy to foretell from the manner in which he has dis- 
charged his present task that the completed work will prove the standard 
edition of Burnet for many years to come. The text of the original 
manuscript purchased by the Bodleian Library in 1835 has been carefully 
followed. In the margin references to the paging both of the manuscript 
and of the folio edition are inserted so as to avoid all difficulty of verifica- 
tion. All important alterations and erasures made by the bishop's own 
hand in his manuscript are notified, and all that is valuable in the notes 
of Dr. Kouth, Speaker Onslow, Lord Dartmouth, and Dean Swift which 
have appeared in former editions of the work is preserved. Some readers 
indeed may think that the editor has been too lenient to the splenetic 
utterances of the tory dean. The chief alteration that has been made 
with regard to the text is that it has been divided into chapters. This 
will probably be disliked by some readers who are attached to archaism 
for its own sake, but to most its obvious convenience will outweigh senti- 
mental objections. 

The value of Burnet's work has by this time been pretty accurately 
gauged by historical scholars and calls for little remark in the pages of 
this Eeview. Its faults lie on the surface and have been very carefully 
and ruthlessly exposed by his political opponents. Burnet was nothing 
if not a partisan, and his ears were always greedily open to stories which 
affected the credit or character of those whom he disliked. His memory 
was of that kind which, though substantially accurate in important 
matters, is positively irritating in its inaccuracy as to minor details. 
His pompousness and conceit are as conspicuous as his shrewdness and 
bustling activity. But it is impossible not to like the man personally and 
to admire him for his honesty, his pluck, and his energy, whatever views 
we may hold as to good or bad influence which he exercised on the 
political and religious life of Englishmen. . Materials for history collected 
and written by such a man require the most careful editing if they are to 
be of permanent value, and in Mr. Airy Burnet has found just the editor 
that he required. He has a detailed and impartial knowledge of the 
period ; he is trained in habits of minute accuracy ; and he has had the 
assistance of scholars like Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Firth to advise him on 
doubtful points. The result is that his notes are models of what such 
notes ought to be— full of information, but terse, to the point and never self- 
assertive. Indeed, the only complaint that the reader will be inclined to 
make is that there is not more of Mr. Airy in the notes and less of Dean 
Swift and Lord Dartmouth. H. 0. Wakeman. 

Journal of Sir George Bookc. Edited by Oscar Browning. (Navy 

Records Society. 1897.) 
This ninth volume of the active Navy Records Society is not a success. 
Mr. Browning has indeed prefixed a lucid account of the expeditions of 
Sir George Rooke to the Sound in 1700, and to Cadiz and Vigo in 1702, 
illustrating the former with interesting extracts from the despatches of John 
Robinson, H.M.'s minister resident at Stockholm. He gives a sketch of the 
political circumstances attending those expeditions, and explains in a 


helpful way the geography ; but he has not, unfortunately, considered it 
part of his editorial duty to provide a correct text, and the book teems 
with errors. A not exhaustive comparison with the manuscript has revealed 
some two hundred and sixty departures therefrom, other than alterations 
of spelling ; and over one hundred of these affect the sense in a greater 
or less degree. 

The subject matter is interesting. Sir George llooke himself was 
distinguished for those qualities of pluck and straightforwardness which 
have become traditional in the British navy. He retained in success and 
failure the confidence of a William III, and his laurels bear the names of 
La Hogue, Vigo, and Gibraltar. His command of 1700 was a remarkable 
one, designed to compel Denmark to cease hostilities against the duke of 
Holstein-Gottorp, without damaging her or forfeiting her friendship, so 
important to England on grounds both political and commercial. William 
calculated that the mere appearance of an Anglo-Dutch fleet in Danish 
waters, prepared to act in concert with the irritated Swedes, would bring 
about the desired result. But Frederick was not to be so intimidated. 
He withdrew his fleet to a safe refuge under the guns of Copenhagen, 
where its bombardment by the allies was as ineffectual as it was half- 
hearted. The desired peace was only obtained after Charles XH, pro- 
tected by the fleets, had landed at the head of 5,000 foot in Seeland 
(24 July) ; it was signed at Travendal fourteen days later. The journal 
relates how on 29 June Rooke and Almonde were in imminent danger 
of defeat at the hands of the superior force of the Danes, who fortu- 
nately had orders to remain on the defensive. The peace signed, the 
Swedes were not allowed to prolong their occupation. Rooke saw them 
safely back to their own country, and returned to the Downs, where oc- 
curred the only disaster of the expedition — the accidental blowing-up of 
the ' Carlisle.' William's policy was successful. The peace between 
Sweden and Denmark, so essential to his plans, was kept till after Poltava, 
and Danes and Holsteiners alike swelled the armies of Marlborough. 

Of the year 1701 Mr. Browning says nothing. The great war had 
actually begun, and William was awaiting from day to day his call to take 
part in it. Rooke lay at Spithead in command of a fine fleet, watching 
the French ships in Brest harbour, and expecting orders to sail for the 
coast of Spain. On 16 August he actually sailed, despite his protesta- 
tions that the season was too far advanced. But stormy weather 
hardly allowed him to proceed beyond the Lizard, and he was back in the 
Downs on 22 Sept. But though there are no warlike operations to 
record, the daily account of his command supplies many interesting 
details of the maintenance and management of a fleet at the time, and is 
an important part of the journal. 

The circumstances of the disgrace at Cadiz, and of the saving and 
brilliant victory at ^'igo, are so well known that nothing need be said of 
them here. Appended to the account of them are the questions put to 
Rooke on the occasion of the lords' inquiry into the conduct of the 
expedition, with his answers. There is also a telling document on the 
pi'essing of sailors, showing the extraordinary hardships which that 
institution entailed on the maritime community in former days. But the 
correspondence re Captains Whetstone and W^ishart forms no part of the 


journal, and should not be printed as such. It is taken from a transcript 
made in a handwriting of at least a century later, on a loose sheet of 
paper placed within the cover of the volume. 

Interspersed in the journal are a number of copies of documents and 
correspondence. Of particular interest are the letters which passed 
between Kooke and the Danish and Swedish admirals in 1700, and the 
urgent appeals of Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt in 1702, that the 
expedition should winter in Spain — appeals which Ormonde supported 
(p. 208), but which had to be finally rejected. 

Of the manuscript itself, Mr. Browning strangely omits all account. 
It is contained in a vellum- covered volume stamped with the royal arms of 
William and Mary, and is certainly original. It was picked up, with a 
fellow volume containing lists of naval officers, at a marine dealer's store 
in Battersea, now removed. The purchaser sold the two volumes, through 
Messrs, Hodgson, of Chancery Lane, in January 1889, and they were 
subsequently bought for the library of the Public Eecord Office, where 
they now are. The journal was kept by Rooke's secretary, who entered it 
up, as many diarists do, several days at a time. In the margin he entered 
the days of the week, denoted by their planetary symbols, and of the 
month, and the points of the wind, also a good many notes, which in 
printing have either been incorporated (incongruously sometimes, e.g. 
pp. 142, 184) in the text, or omitted. Some of the documents he copied 
in their proper place, others at a later part of the book, giving references 
to them in the margin. Hence some of those of 1700 appear in the 
middle of the journal for 1702, which overtook them. In printing the 
manuscript, the endeavour has been made to arrange these displaced 
documents in their proper order. But with what success ? In three 
instances the marginal directions of the scribe have been neglected. The 
instructions of 23 July o.s. 1700, printed on pp. 106-7, should appear on 
p. 97. The ' Line of Battle ' on pp. 257-8, and the ' Memorial ' on 
pp. 255-6, should be placed respectively on p. 147, under date March 17, 
and on p. 145. In the latter case, not only has the date 1702 been 
mistaken for old style, and altered to 1703, but the words ' his Majesty,' 
which might have betrayed the error, have been changed to 'her 
Majesty ' ! 

At the British Museum is another version of the journal for 1700 
(Add. MS. 28125). This is one ofithe Norris volumes purchased in 1869, 
and the version was possibly made for Sir John Norris, who did not take 
part in the Danish expedition. At first sight it appears to be adapted 
from the Record Office original; the handwriting, to judge without 
actual comparison, is the same, and it is written consecutively. But the 
language is greatly altered, and there are curious additions ; for instance, 
under date June 8 it is stated that the Danes had despatched some 
frigates to look out for a French fleet expected to come to their aid. 
Many of the same documents are inserted, and in their proper order, but 
others are added ; for instance, the extracts from Cressett's letters which 
Rooke pleaded in justification for the bombardment (Add. MS. 4202, 
f. 127, cp. Journal, p. 97), and the articles of the treaty of Travendal. 
The journal is only carried from May 10 to September 1. There are many 
mistakes, and it is evidently of authority greatly inferior to the other, 


There are also at the British Museum (Add. MS. 4202) Rooke's original 
letters to Secretary Vernon, May to September 1700, with others. Here 
also are copies of some of the documents. Add. MSS. 28925 and 29591. 
may also be consulted. The latter has the lords' examination not of 
Rooke only, but of Ormonde, Fairborne, and others, with a copy of the 
committee's report. 

For the expedition of 1702, the Record Office possesses also Admiral 
Hopsonn's journal (Admirals' Journals P). This extends from May 10 
to November 28. It supplements that of Rooke in a number of interesting 
particulars, the most noticeable a detailed account of the breaking of the 
boom at Vigo, and the burning of the ' Torbay,' from which Hopsonn 
himself had some ado to escape. 

Turning to the text, some of its errors are so obvious that it is 
astonishing that Mr. Browning could pass them. They are far too 
numerous to be cited here, but a word may be said about the spelling. 
The society prescribes that this shall be modern, with certain exceptions, 
one of these being that persons' names shall follow as far as practicable 
the person's signature. On the propriety of this opinions will no doubt 
differ ; for common words, at all events, the result is decidedly agreeable. 
But the rule being adopted, special care should be taken to obtain 
uniformity. We ought not to find, as we do here, Sparr and Sparre, 
Croft and Crofts, Ruuth and Ruth, Calembergh and Calemburg, and so 
on ; Wenn and Wenne, d'Hogue and La Hague (MS. D'Hague), Finester 
and Finisterre (MS. Finester), Tangier and Tangiers (MS. correctly 
Tangier). The impression which these differences give to the reader is 
opposite to the fact ; he is led to infer that the readings of the manuscript 
have been sedulously preserved. 

We notice a few faults in Mr. Browning's own work. ' Denmark ' 
for * Darmstadt ' on p. xxxviii, and the want of a hyphen to connect 
Brunswick-Liineburg on p. viii, are obvious slips. But on the latter page 
we must read * resident ' for * envoy.' On p. xii it is necessary to the sense 
to state that Robinson wrote on 26 June from Mahuo. It can hardly 
have been the reigning duke of Wiirtemberg (p. Ill, note) who visited 
Rooke, rather Duke Ferdinand William (p. 26 note), the Danish commander- 
in-chief. Both he and his brother Charles Rudolph were commonly 
known in England as ' Duke Wirtemberg.' ' Morrice (p. 249, note) was 
captain of the ' Newport ' (cp. pp. 128, 184), and no engineer officer ; 
they are, indeed, distinguished in the text. 

Lastly, the society prescribes a full index of names of persons, ships, 
and places, and of subjects. In the present case, the entry of names 
of persons and ships occurring in the main text is far from perfect ; 
those in the tables are not indexed at all. And geographical names are 
conspicuous by their absence. J. F. Chance. 

Postscript. — Since the above was in type the Navy Records Society, 
warned of the shortcomings of its publication, has printed eight pages of 
errata. This list, being incomplete in several important points, is, we 
understand, to be amended, but it can never be satisfactory, nor obviate 
the real want, that of a new edition. J. F. Chance. 

' Luttrell's Diary, passim. 


La Torture aux Pays-Bas Autrichiens pendant le XVIII' Steele : son Appli- 
cation, ses Partisans, et ses Adversaires ; son Abolition. Par Eugene 
Hubert. (Bruxelles : Office de Pubiicite, J. Lebegue et Cie. 1897.) 

Professor Hubert's monograph has been elaborated with so extra- 
ordinary a diligence in the use of an enormous mass of archivistic and 
printed materials, and treats the various aspects of its theme with so dis- 
passionate a candour, that it would be ungrateful to quarrel with what we 
might wish otherwise in the plan of the essay. The introductory chapter, 
however, cannot be said to err on the side of exhaustiveness, and we miss 
in particular any sufficient attempt here or elsewhere in these pages to 
trace the growth of the legal absurdity that no condemnation is justifiable 
in the case of an unavowed crime. Again, though this further demand 
may perhaps not be quite reasonable, we should have welcomed a more 
explicit statement as to the restrictions placed on the actual choice of methods 
of torture practised in the Austrian Netherlands. In his introduction 
Professor Hubert claims for them the credit of having fallen short of the 
refined cruelties applied in France, Italy, and Germany, and the assertion 
of Cobenzl that la question en ces pais-ci est terrible quoique pen 
douleureuse seems to be incidentally borne out elsewhere in the case of 
methods of ordinary torture. A more significant lacuna in the argument 
of this essay, pointed out by M. A. Prins in his able report on it to the 
Brussels Koyal Academy, is very frankly acknowledged by Professor 
Hubert in a supplementary note. What special reasons account for the 
endurance of the use of torture in the Austrian Netherlands to so late a 
date as 1794 ? It is true, as he observes, that if Belgium was late in 
abolishing it, other governments were later still. In Holland it only came 
to an end in 1795 ; in Hanover, according to the professor's statement, 
which, so far as I can see, must refer to the deUberations of the estates in 
the last fortnight of the year, it was reintroduced, at least on paper, in 
1814 ; in parts of Switzerland and Sicily it was in vogue within li\dng 
memory. As to the Austrian Netherlands, Professor Hubert is not 
satisfied with the explanation offered by the eminent historian du Droit 
Penal de Vancien Duche de Brabant, M. Edmond Poullet, who attributes 
the tardiness of the accomplishment of this reform to the absence of a 
literary influence like that which popularised the idea of it in France ; 
for, as he observes, the ideas of the encyclopaedists were actively propa- 
gated on the other side of the frontier. He prefers to seek the explanation 
in the conservative tendencies of the Belgian magistrature ; but neither can 
this solution be accepted as altogether adequate, more especially as there is 
point in the generalisation to be found on an earlier page of this essay as to 
the unfailing attitude of lawyers towards reforms of any and every descrip- 
tion. The weakness of the government, both at Brussels and at Vienna, in 
its struggle with the bench is indeed abundantly illustrated in this essay, 
as is the ill-luck which included the abolition among the ephemeral changes 
introduced by Joseph II ; but this part of the subject might perhaps 
have been more amply unfolded. On the other hand, no statement seems 
to have been thought requisite concerning the influence exercised in this 
matter by the church. It is striking that the most important deliverance 


of the period against the practice of the torture proceeded, nearly half 
a century before Beccaria, from the poised pen of the eminent canonist 
Van Espen, in his ' Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum' (Louvain, 1720). 
Nor can it be wholly without significance that in the tragic case of 
Mertens, who after seven confessions under torture, each of them except 
the last being followed by a revocation, at last ceased from revoking, 
and was accordingly executed on 21 Sept. 1293, two Augustinian 
canons intervened with a protest which was not less powerful than 
modest, but which appears to have been simply ignored, and indeed to 
have remained unknown till discovered by Professor Hubert. 

The lamentable story told by him with so much lucidity and force 
contains innumerable instances of the cruelty bred from a system rooted 
in unreason. He shows that the legal foundation of the later Belgian 
practice of torture is to be sought in the Ordinances of Philip II., dated 
9 July 1570, which limited its application to cases where the proof of 
guilt should be so apparent as seemingly to require for its absolute com- 
pletion nothing but the confession of the prisoner, although he should 
have continued to declare himself not guilty. As a matter of fact, how- 
ever, it was obstinately applied to prisoners convicted of a crime which 
they continued to deny, in deference to the principle, cherished by many 
judicial personages as a matter of conscience, that without confession no 
criminal ought to be sentenced to death. Exceptionally, it was also put 
in use against the * contumacious ' — i.e. accused persons persisting in 
silence — or for the purpose of inducing a convicted criminal to reveal the 
names of his accomphces, as Mr. Gardiner has recently reminded us it 
was in this country in the case of Guy Fawkes. The kind of torture 
called * of the inquisition,' and inflicted upon vagabonds in order to oblige 
them to give an account of themselves, though specially regulated by an 
ordinance of Charles V., seems to have been further restricted under the 
government of Albert and Isabella, and to have become quite obsolete in 
the eighteenth century, though it was still pertinaciously upheld in theory 
by the tribunals of Brabant. But the large majority of the applications 
of the torture noticed in these pages belong to the category authorised by 
Philip's tender mercies, and developed with appalhng zeal and consistency 
by the Belgian magistrature during the course of more than three 
centuries. A. W. Ward. 

Maupertuis et ses Correspondants. Lettres incdites dii Grand Frdddric, 
du Prince Henri de Prusse, de La Beaumelle, tic, dr. Par I'Abb^ 
A. Le Sueur. (Paris : A. Picard et Fils. 1897.) 

The interest of this volume is chiefly biographical, and even as such is 
not particularly profound. Maupertuis' name still has a solid sound in 
the domain of mathematical science ; but though he took the trouble of 
a journey to Lapland to verify some of his results, and was thus esteemed 
a very great catch when Frederick II found him willing to become 
head of the Berlin Academy, the heroic element was sadly defective in 
his character. The Abbe Le Sueur in his introduction, which is written 
in a very praiseworthy spirit, though without much lucidity of arrange- 

1898 ttEVIEWS OF BOOKS l7t 

ment, shows sufficiently how Maupertuis' mind was perforated by 
jealousies of all kinds, and that his quarrels were very far from being 
confined to his battle-royal with Voltaire, the brunt of which seems, by 
the way, to have been borne by the faithful La Beaumelle. When 
Koenig, a rival mathematician, died, Maupertuis paid to him a parting 
tribute which the Abbe Le Sueur justly thinks worth extracting: La mort 
de Koenig fait un ingrat et un fripon de moins dans le monde ; mais 
qu'cst-ce qu'un de moins dans le monde ? 

A history of Frederick's efforts on behalf of his Academy might have 
been worth writing from the point of view of a French scholar ; in those 
of the king's letters which are here printed there is, however, nothing 
specially noteworthy, except a characteristic 'reply' or two. The sugges- 
tion is worthy of the king's practical genius, that a law should be passed 
for erasing from the roll of the academy the name of any member who 
has not produced a paper within a period of two years. Nor is the follow- 
ing comment out of keeping : Le Boy est pauvre comme un rat d'dglise ; 
il dtablit grand nombre de colonies de paysans : lorsque celles-ld seront 
pourvues, on pensera aux astronomes. 

Far more effusive are the assurances of goodwill to France and her 
illustrious men in the letters of Prince Henry, who was inabued with 
genuine admiration for her peculiar forms of culture. Vice versa, some 
curious illustrations are to be found in the course of this correspondence of 
the popularity of Frederick and his cause in parts of France at the com- 
mencement of the seven years' war, after the reversal of the time-honoured 
system of alliances. Writing from Nimes in 1758, La Beaumelle assures 
Maupertuis that this popularity is by no means due to religious motives ; 
* for neither at Nimes nor at Montpellier is any one in favour of Great 
Britain.' The editor naturally doubts the correctness of this diagnosis ; 
but there can be no doubt that the change in the foreign policy of France 
was far from being universally approved in that country. 

I leave the letters of Euler, Koenig, Kuestner, and others to those 
whom they may concern ; the chief literary interest as connected with 
the controversies between Voltaire and ' Doctor Akakia ' will be found in 
the letters of La Beaumelle. There are only one or two replies in this 
collection from the hand of Maupertuis himself — a fact explained by the 
correspondence now before us having been bequeathed by him to his 
friend La Cardamine, and afterwards by the latter to the Estouilly 
family, in whose chateau it was preserved in manuscript. Apparently it 
comprises a series of letters which La Beaumelle had intended to insert 
in the life of Maupertuis that he left behind him, but of which, owing to 
circumstances, and more especially to his breakdown in health, the copy- 
ing out was not completed in time. Thus, although the gleanings are 
considerable, they merely supplement materials of superior importance 
already known to the world, and including the body of the correspon- 
dence between Maupertuis and his patron-in-chief, Frederick the Great. 

A. W. Waed. 

Vol. XIII.— no. xlix. N 


The Paget Papers : Diplomatic and other Correspondence of the Rt.Hon. 
Sir Arthur Paget, G.C.B., 1794-1807, arranged and edited by his 
son, the Right Hon. Sir Augustus B. Paget, G.C.B., with Notes by 
Mrs. J. R. Green. 2 vols. (London : Heinemann. 1896.) 

These handsome volumes are a monument erected by a distinguished 
sou to a father not unknown in his generation. Family influence, 
perhaps also his social importance as a young man of fashion, the 
intimate friend of the Prince of Wales, obtained rapid promotion in the 
diplomatic ser^-ice for Arthur Paget, third son of the Earl of Uxbridge. 
The confidential and cordial friendliness of the letters addressed to him 
by such veterans in his profession as Lords Malmesbury and Minto, 
Whitworth, and St. Helens are good evidence of his capacity. Yet it 
cannot be said that he was a successful diplomatist. No doubt the 
reason which he himself suggests is in the main true — it was his fortune 
to be employed where success was all but impossible ; but his letters show 
a want of the imagination or sympathy without which he could not 
adequately realise the position and motives of those with whom he was 
called upon to negotiate. The incapacity to understand foreign politics often 
imputed to EngUsh statesmen was mainly due to a tendency, in which 
Paget largely shared, to look at international relations too exclusively 
from an insular standpoint, to regard as not only foolish but criminal 
any want of zeal on the part of continental allies in supporting a pohcy 
mainly determined, and rightly determined, by British interests. This 
was especially the case during the struggle with revolutionary France, 
when England appeared to herself to be the leader of a crusade, the 
champion first of order against anarchy, and afterwards of the inde- 
pendence of Europe against insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. The 
majority of EngUshmen were convinced that the only favour which the 
continental powers could hope to obtain by disgraceful subservience to 
the monster was that of being devoured last ; they had therefore no 
patience with a temporising policy which appeared to them as dangerous 
as it was dishonourable, and they did not make sufficient allowance for 
statesmen who, when the irresistible armies of Napoleon were at their 
gates, preferred whatever chance the future might offer to an immediate 
and hopeless conflict. 

At the age of twenty-three, and with little previous experience, Paget 
found himself charge d'affaires at Berlin, then (1794) an important post, 
since the success of the coalition against France was supposed to depend on 
persuading Prussia to earn her subsidies by uniting her forces with those 
of Holland and England in the Low Countries. The young envoy seems 
to have shown firmness and tact in dealing with the ill-will or indifference 
of the Prussian ministers ; for, as he says, the king was the only man in 
the country who heartily wished to prosecute the war. He showed 
himself a match for Haugwitz — homme sans foi et sans hi, according to 
his rival Hardenberg ; he denounced the malign influence of Lucchesini 
and the 'fatal' Bischoflfswerder, and penetrated the intention of the 
Prussian cabinet to make peace with France as soon as terms could be 
secured satisfactory to their policy of cautious greed. • You have done,' 
Lord Malmesbury wrote, ' everything that prudence or ability could desire.' 


Arthur Paget was next sent to Munich in 1798, nearly a year after the 
treaty of Campo Formio ; in which, as he writes in January 1799, he sus- 
pected that there were ' secret articles that are monstrous.' He had, he 
said, ' the worst possible opinion of the court of Vienna.' The Austrian 
government acted most foolishly, no doubt, in alienating Prussia by 
raising difficulties to her acquisition of the secularised ecclesiastical 
principalities and in frightening Bavaria into the arms of France, but 
neither when at Munich, nor subsequently when ambassador at Vienna, 
did Paget sufficiently appreciate the very difficult position of the imperial 
government. While in Bavaria he made the acquaintance of the 
Archduke Charles, and he pronounces him to be ' one of the finest 
characters that either personally or by fame I ever became acquainted 
with.' But when the archduke in 1803, aware of the unsatisfactory 
condition of the Austrian army, opposed a precipitate renewal of hos- 
tilities, the lustre of his virtues was singularly dimmed in the eyes of 
his admirer (ii. 163). Munich was an unpromising field for the labours 
of Enghsh diplomacy, but the next mission entrusted to Paget was even 
more thankless. He was sent to Palermo, in order that he might direct 
and support the most odious government in Europe, that of the 
Neapolitan Bourbons, a corrupt despotism in which, as he complained, 
law and justice were neither practised nor understood. His immediate 
task was to induce the cowardly and incapable king to return to Naples. 
This prince, the object of Nelson's enthusiastic devotion, was, as Paget 
says, ' timid, bigoted, cruel, and revengeful.' In a confidential letter to 
Lord Grenville (i. 217), Paget complains of the pernicious influence of 
Lady Hamilton, who had done her best to thwart the object of his 
mission, and who represented him ' as a jacobin and a coxcomb, a person 
sent to bully, and,' he continues, * I am sorry to say that Lord Nelson 
has given in to all this nonsense ; his lordship's health is, I fear, sadly 
impaired, and I am assured that his fortune has fallen into the same 
state in consequence of great losses which both his lordship and Lady 
Hamilton have sustained at faro and other games of hazard.' To 
search for spots in the sun is justly invidious. But in these days of 
exaggerated Nelsonolatry, it may be well to remember how much weak- 
ness, both moral and intellectual, was mingled with the heroism of the 
great sailor, and that what it may be permitted to call his jingoism 
sprang as much from his egotistic and emotional prejudices as from his 

In 1801 Paget was appointed to succeed Lord Minto in the important 
post of ambassador at Vienna. He conceived from the first a strong 
dislike to Cobenzl. The vice-chancellor owed his position to the inter- 
ference of England, and, although very inferior as a statesman to such 
predecessors as Kaunitz or even Thugut, was far from being the ' mise- 
rable minister and unpatriotic citizen ' he appeared to Paget. In a despatch 
written shortly after the murder of the Duke of Enghien (ii. 100) there 
is an interesting account of an interview between the English ambassador 
and the Austrian vice-chancellor. The former declares ' that he never 
witnessed the display of so much ignorance, weakness, and pusillanimity 
on the part of any individual calling himself a statesman,' but an impartial 
reader must doubt whether Cobenzl was quite so wrong in maintaining 



that it was well not to talk till you were ready to act, and in declining to 
allow his country to be drawn into war while unprepared and almost 
defenceless. No hint was given by the English government to their 
representative at Vienna of the negotiations carried on at St. Petersburg, 
which led to the third coalition (July 1805). A month after the treaty 
had been concluded Paget was denouncing as proofs of Austrian perfidy 
measures concerted with England and Russia to deceive Napoleon. The 
small confidence placed in him by Lord Mulgrave was not calculated to 
improve his position at Vienna. It became untenable after the uncalled- 
for and indefensible publication of his despatches by the English foreign 
office. Fox, in a straightforward letter (ii. 272) written immediately 
after his accession to power, told Sir A. Paget that he should in any case 
have recalled him, since the ambassador at Vienna must be in his pai-ti- 
cular confidence and share his views in regard to foreign politics, but that 
he should not have done so at once had not the unfair publication of his 
despatches ' necessarily rendered his continuance at Vienna disagreeable 
to himself and by no means conducive to the public service.' Sir A. 
Paget was only once more employed to negotiate a peace between Russia 
and England, then allied, and Turkey. In his instructions, drawn up by 
Canning (ii. 290), we find English statesmanship already perplexed with 
the familiar problem how to coerce Turkey without precipitating the fall 
of the Turkish empire, supposed to be imminent. On board a man-of-war 
off Tenedos Paget carried on a tedious and fruitless negotiation for three 
months, and had ample opportunity of appreciating the skill of ' the good, 
the honest Turk,' as Nelson called him, in diplomatic subterfuge and 

Perhaps the most interesting part of the correspondence contained in 
these volumes is the letters from the Prince of Walei to his 'dearest, 
his beloved Arthur.' To the taste of the present day 1 ey must appear 
excessive in protestations of affection, but they bear witness to the natural 
amiability of the writer's disposition, and they are the letters of an 
educated gentleman. The best of those about this mifortunate prince 
thought only of using him so as to further their political ends, while the 
majority of his associates sought profit or pleasure by flattering his vices. 
Although Paget shared in the taste of his royal friend for dissipation, it 
would be unjust to place him in either of these categories. That he was 
no injudicious adviser appears from a letter written by him from Berlin 
to Lord St. Helens in 1794 (i. 45) upon hearing that a treaty of marriage 
was on the point of being concluded between the Prince of Wales and 
Caroline of Brunswick : * a connexion,' he says, ' which may draw with 
it calamities which are unknown, or at least forgotten, in England,' and 
that, too, when an admirable wife, a jewel without flaw, might have been 
obtained, the Princess Louisa of Prussia. The prince, on his part, was 
scarcely less solicitous to see his friend in possession of another 'jewel of 
the first water,' the duchess dowager of Rutland, and the letters written 
by him in the hope of furthering this match show both delicacy and good 

Sir Augustus Paget has edited his father's papers with piety and 
discretion, the notes are such as might be expected from Mrs. J. R. Green, 
and the twenty-four excellent portraits which they contain greatly add to 
the attractiveness of these volumes, P. F. Willert. 


American History told by Contemporaries. By Albert B. Haet, Pro- 
fessor of History in Harvard University. Vol. I. (New York : Mac- 
millan. 1897.) 

The Coronach Expedition, 1540-1542. By Geoege P. Winship. 
(Washington : Government Printing Office. 1896.) 

Cabot Bibliography. Compiled by G. P. Winship. (Privately printed. 

To a writer who has incurred odium and sustained some coarse personal 
vituperation for holding, contrary to received opinion, (1) that John Cabot 
made only a single voyage to the North American coast — namely, that 
from which he returned in August 1497 — and (2) that this voyage was in 
substance and fact a ' Northman's voyage ' — having been performed, as 
Gomara states in so many words, by ' following the Iceland route to the 
Cape of Labrador ' — it is comforting to find the former proposition 
practically accepted by one so keenly interested in American history as 
Professor Albert Hart, and it may be hoped that the latter proposition 
will in good time be deemed worthy of consideration. Those interested 
in the Cabot centenary — and every one is interested in it — will read with 
pleasure Professor Hart's division entitled ' Cabot's Voyage,' which con- 
sists of excerpts from Sir Clements Markham's translations of the 
letter of Pasqualigo and the first one of Soncino, together with the whole 
of Soncino's second letter. These texts, which tell all that is known or 
is likely ever to be known about it, have not hitherto been accessible in a 
popular form ; and they should suffice in themselves to secure Professor 
Hart's volume a good reception. There are some inaccuracies in the 
translations ; and one of these, trifling as it seems, is in truth no 
trifle, inasmuch as it begs the whole of the important question whether 
Cabot started in 1496, as the present reviewer believes, or in 1497. Sir 
Clements, if Professor Hart's reprint is correct, translates e stato mesi 
tre sul viazo ' he has been away three months on the voyage.' As the 
great event described by Pasqualigo is Cabot's return from the expe- 
dition, rather than the expedition itself, considered as a whole from 
beginning to end, the most reasonable version would seem to be the 
literal one, ' he has been three months on the voyage,' i.e. the return 
voyage from the American coast. Nobody who considers seriously the 
conditions under which the voyage was made, can for a moment suppose 
that the whole expedition occupied only three months. 

To contemplate Professor Hart's book as a whole is to feel disap- 
pointment that he has not, in some important respects, done it better. 
The idea which has prompted it, though by no means new, is so excellent 
as to impose on any one who aspires to realise it the imperative duty 
of taking at least twice the trouble which Professor Hart has seen fit, 
or perhaps in the midst of onerous professorial engagements has been 
able, to bestow on its details. The work of selection, on the whole, has 
been done fairly well, though it might have been done better ; the ex- 
tracts themselves are mostly valuable, always interesting, and sometimes 
amusing. Nobody can help liking the book ; yet nobody with any real 
knowledge of the subject can help wishing that it had been undertaken in 
a more genuinely historical spirit. There are defects, though not serious 


ones, both of thought and taste ; and there is far too much of the cheap 
antiquarianism which perniciously leavens the study of American history 
in America itself. Authors would doubtless plead that this is a matter 
in which they must consult the taste of their public. Surely such a 
taste, even if it were widely prevalent, which is doubtful, or prevailed at 
all among the better class of readers, which is more doubtful still, should 
be rather disdained than propitiated, most of all by a professor of history 
in a great university. History is one thing ; black-letter type, the use of 
U for V and V for U, contractions incorrectly reproduced, antiquated and 
often grotesquely erroneous spelling, and the usually slipshod and uni- 
versally inaccurate English of the ' oldest translator ' are another. And 
if we must perforce have these rags of the past thrust on us, let them 
be at least presented accurately and intelligibly. Not that Professor 
Hart has not taken a good deal of pains in the last-named behalf. 
But this sort of thing, poor as it is, has a standard of its own, a stan- 
dard of which the book falls decidedly short. A graver fault is that the 
scanty additions made to the texts by way of direction and explanation 
are too often inadequate and sometimes misleading. Immediately after 
' Barlowe in Virginia,' for instance, we come upon ' Ralegh in El 
Dorado.' We do not for a moment suppose that Professor Hart 
imagines that there ever was such a place, or rather such a person, as 
• El Dorado,' or that Raleigh was ever within hundreds of miles of the 
locality where ' El Dorado ' was alleged to be. But the only hint of 
this vouchsafed to the presumably simple-minded reader is the succinct 
remark that ' this narrative shows the credulity of the age.' Does it not 
rather show an ill-founded belief on Raleigh's part in the credulity of the 
wealthy English public, a belief quickly dissipated by the general in- 
diflFerence with which his crazy project was received ? 

Coronado's expedition to New Mexico, which Professor Hart calls 
' First Expedition to Kansas and Nebraska ' (?), la an interesting 
episode in Spanish American history ; and students will be grateful to 
Mr. Winship for the trouble he has taken in reproducing the original 
narrative of Castaueda from a manuscript in the Lenox library. ' No 
attempt,' the reader is warned, ' has been made to add marks of punctua- 
tion, to accent, or to alter what may have been sli^JS of the copyist's pen.' 
In taking this course the transcriber was undoubtedly well advised ; for 
anybody who turns to his translations must shudder to think what Mr. 
Winship, had he rashly attempted to edit it, in the ordinary sense of that 
word, would have made of the original text. But for Professor Hart's 
quotation from Mr. Winship's version of Jaramillo's narrative— inserted 
in the volume as an appendix, without the original text — Mr. Win- 
ship's exploits as a translator would have remained unnoticed. No one 
can read a page of Professor Hart's extracts without feeling that in 
many places they cannot properly represent the meaning of the writer ; 
and a comparison of the four pages with the original discloses the fact 
that these pages, adding to them a few passages which Professor 
Hart judiciously suppresses, contain blunders in translation brief correc- 
tions of which would go far to fill a page of this Review. Nor are 
these blunders trivial ones ; they occasionally make the author con- 
tradict himself or utter what is little better than nonsense. It is to be 


hoped that Mr. Winship shines more as a bibliographer than as a trans- 
lator from the Spanish. In the mechanical task of compiling his ' Cabot 
Bibliography ' he had few opportunities of going wrong ; it is at least 
difficult to suppose that, with the assistance afforded by the late lamented 
Dr. Winsor's admirable * Narrative and Critical History,' he can have 
made many mistakes of omission. E. J. Payne. 

History of South Africa under the Achninlstration of the Dutch East 

India Company, 1652 to 1795. By Geokge M'Call Theal, LL.D. 

(2 vols. London : Sonnenschein. 1897.) 
This is the second edition, revised and enlarged, of Dr. Theal's standard 
work, though a great part of his history has passed through three editions. 
He modestly disclaims in the preface any attempt to do more than to relate 
events in their chronological order, even at the risk of making the narrative 
heavy and dull. ' I feel,' he says, ' that for me to attempt to give a polish 
to my writing would be like a quarryman attempting to give the finishing 
touches to a statue ; ' but most people will probably prefer the solid merit 
of Dr. Theal's work to a more pretentious style. He has investigated a very 
great mass of documents not only at the Cape, but also in Holland ; and 
the minuteness of his researches is shown by the amount of what is really 
genealogical information contained in these two volumes. Such informa- 
tion is, of course, more generally interesting to the South African than to 
the English reader, but even here there is much to interest every one. 
It is, of course, well known that there was an influx of Huguenots 
into the Cape, but it is not generally recognised that a considerable 
number of Germans arrived among the old Dutch settlers. They came 
chiefly in the eighteenth century. But they left no mark, as they 
brought no German women with them ; and what is curious is that they 
were not so prolific as the French, who came to South Africa in youth 
and early manhood, while many of the Germans were of the roving class 
who settled down late in life. 

A history so minute as Dr. Theal's, and based on so careful a study of 
original documents, cannot indeed fail to contain much that is interesting. 
The Cape settlement may almost be said to have been founded as a Idtchen 
garden. But when we realise that the voyage from Europe sometimes 
took months and months, and read the figures given of loss by scurvy, it 
is clear that, apart from military reasons, the directors of the Dutch East 
India Company were justified in founding the settlement, which, however, 
never appears to have produced sufficient revenue to meet the expenditure 
down to the time of the English occupation. Here is an instance showing 
how terrible a scourge scurvy was. In 1747 the company's outward-bound 
ship ' Reygersdal ' ran ashore near Robben Island, and went to pieces at 
once, only twenty men reaching land. She was four months and a half 
out from Holland ; she had lost 125 men from scurvy, 83 of the remainder 
were too ill with the same disease to keep their feet, and the few who 
were able to work could not manage the ship. This is perhaps the worst 
case quoted, but similar instances abound. 

The Dutch in South Africa have often been accused of ill-treating the 
natives. But the company's rule certainly sGems to have been remarkable 




for the absence of conflict with natives, except Bushmen, with whom 
it was difficult to remam on friendly terms, owing to their habit of cattle- 
liftmg. The instructions sent by the company were always couciUatory, 
and, on the whole, were well observed. It was only when the Dutch 
settlement, spreading east towards the Fish river, met the Xosas 
(Kaffirs) moving westward that serious conflict arose between the 
white and the black man, and the wars which the colonists then had 
to undertake were the beginning of a series which have continued 
until recently. Dr. Theal remarks that in the seventeenth century, 
though the heathen were not considered to have any rights, a baptised 
black enjoyed all the rights and privileges of a European ; but in 1742 
the church authorities had become sceptical as to the fitness of Hottentots 
for instruction iu Christian principles or baptism. It is curious to learn 
that Van Riebeek wished to import Chinese — a wish shared by his suc- 
cessor Wagenaar, and due, no doubt, to the intimate connexion with the 
East Indies always maintained by the company. South Africa is peopled, 
as it is, by very heterogeneous elements, and it is probably fortunate for the 
country that yet another was not added. 

The company's rule became towards the end extremely corrupt. The 
company itself was overburdened with debt, and the government became 
averse to undertaking any measure involving expense. Hence, while at 
Capetown there was * a condition of affairs in which no transaction with 
government could be carried on without bribery,' on the frontier the 
colonists were left to defend themselves. At Graaf Reinet they had 
indeed practically thrown over the company's rule before the English took 
the colony ; and it is clear from Dr. Theal's account that, although some 
of the burghers near the Cape peninsula were ready to fight for the 
Dutch as against the English, there was no one who was prepared to conduct 
an energetic resistance on the part of the company. The Dutch, both at 
home and at the Cape, were divided between the revolutionary and the 
Orange parties. The domination of one meant Frencli rule ; the victory 
of the other could not, in the circumstances, have restored the old con- 
dition of things. It was therefore inevitable in 1795 that the Cape 
should fall into the hands of Great Britain ; and its capture forms a con- 
venient conclusion to the two volumes before us. H. Lambert. 

The first part of Dr. Liebermann's long-awaited edition of the Anglo- 
Saxon Laws has lately come to our hands {Die Gesetzc der Angelsachsen, 
herausgegeben von F. Liebermann, I : Text und Uebersetzung ; erste 
Lieferung. Halle : Max Niemeyer, 1898). It contains the laws of the 
Kentish kings, and of Ine, Alfred, Edward, ^thelstan, and Edmund. 
"We understand that a second part will contain the laws of Edgar, 
jEthelred, Cnut, the miscellaneous fragments, and the Anglo-Norman 
law-books. Then there is a whole volume of apparatus to follow. It would 
be premature to say much on the present occasion, but apparently all our 
best hopes will be fulfilled, and we shall soon have of our Old English laws 
an edition which will take a very high place among the achievements of 
modern scholarship. All that learning and skill and untiring labour 
could do is being done. How much this is we may learn from the first 


sentence. In the only old manuscript of ^thelbirbt's laws there stands- 
a word which begins with M and ends with fri\>, intervening letters 
having disappeared. Hitherto we have had to be content with 
Mynstresfrip and the warning that there was not room enough for so 
long a word. From a sixteenth-century copy Dr. Liebermann learns that 
Francis Tate read the word as McBthlfri\>, and thus the peace of the 
assembly is restored to us from a source to which many editors would 
have scorned to look for assistance. But this only by way of illustration. 
Already we see many interesting corrections of the text, and a careful 
translation which endeavours to render word by word and yet, by means 
of bracketed interpretations, to make good sense. We await the completion 
of the book impatiently, but with full confidence that it will satisfy 
all our expectations and will begin a new era in the study of Early 
English history. 

The thirteenth centenary of the mission of St. Augustine has pro- 
duced, besides the special work of Dr. Mason, on which we commented 
in our last number, two new editions of books illustrative of English 
church history which have long been well known and duly esteemed. 
One of these is the second edition of Bishop Stubbs's Begistrum Sacrum 
Anglicanum (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897), which first appeared in 
1858, and has since been accepted as an indispensable manual for 
ascertaining the dates and particulars of the consecration of English 
bishops, as well as for sundry other matters, such as lists of suffragans 
before the reformation, about which it is hard to collect data from 
scattered sources elsewhere. The chief difference in the new edition is 
that the consecrations in England of Indian and colonial bishops are 
omitted from the regular chronological series, and are only to be found 
in a distinct section arranged under Indian and colonial sees, which 
now appears for the first time, and is due not to the bishop of Oxford 
himself, but to his chaplain, the Eev. E. E. Holmes. Hence the present 
bishops of Manchester and Bath and Wells are not included in the 
main list, but must be sought under the colonial sees of Melbourne and 
Adelaide. The book, however, has been revised throughout. Many new 
notices and references to authorities are added, and many references to 
transcripts of subsidiary value are omitted. The chief changes in detail 
affect the names and dates of Anglo-Saxon bishops, in which department 
the author has been largely indebted to the help of Mr. W. H. Stevenson. 
Sometimes an approximate date is now given, where formerly we had to 
be contented with the year (as in the case of Bishop Alfred of Worcester, 
1158) ; in other cases renewed examination has led to the disappearance 
of an exact date (as happens with the consecration of Bishop John 
Catterick, of St. David's, which was formerly dated on 29 April 1414). 
The only points in which the new edition is not an improvement on the 
old one are its size and arrangement. The handy little quarto of 1858 
has grown a third as large again in the number of pages, and still 
more in superficial measurement ; and the growth has been attained 
mainly by an unnecessary enlargement of type and by much spacing. 
The beautifully clear tabulated arrangement of the old book has 




been abandoned, and its scholarly appearance has suffered not less. A 
heavy black type is now used for the leading dates and names, but 
the result is not really in the direction of clearness ; for the dates 
which ought to have been brought into prominence by means of the 
' indentation ' here adopted fail to catch the eye, since they are now 
preceded by the quite unnecessary letters ' a.d.,' which occupy the open 
space at the beginning of the line. Moreover it is a mere waste of space 
to give all the Christian names of consecrators in full, when they can 
easily bo ascertained by reference to the notices of their own consecrations. 
Nor do we understand on what principle the archbishops alone are 
designated not by Christian names but by surnames. 

The other book to which we have referred is the third edition 
of Dr. William Bright's Chapters of Early English Church History 
(Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1897), which has now been enlarged 
by some fifty pages. Wherever we look we see traces of the professor's 
unwearied care and minute accuracy, and the fresh illustrations from 
varied sources, if not always important, bear testimony to his ceaseless 
activity. From a note to the preface we learn that Professor M'Kenny 
Hughes has not persuaded him that St. Augustine landed at Richborough, 
and that he thinks it ' safer to acquiesce in some form of the Ebbsfleet 
theory ; ' but is there any authority for Ebbsfleet earlier than Dean 
Stanley ? It is a pity that the author had not access to the proof sheets 
of Bishop Stubbs's work, noticed above, for there are about a dozen 
discrepancies in the dates of consecration of the English bishops (pp. 
508-504), in some at least of which comparison might have led to a 
reconciliation. This new edition has a useful map of England, c. 700, 
due to the skilful hand of Mr. Charles Oman. 

Very little information is to be found in any of the earlier books relat- 
ing to the university of Bologna and its doctors about the actual schools 
or buildings — originally the private houses of the individual doctors — in 
which the vast audiences were gathered. Signor Francesco Cavazza has, 
therefore, done well to make the history of these buildings the subject of 
an elaborate and exhaustive study {Le Scuolc dclV antico Studio Boh- 
gnesc. Milano : Ulrico Hoepli, 1896). The task appears to be executed 
with much thoroughness. The book contains a valuable appendix of un- 
published documents and some pleasing illustrations. H. R. 

Mr. Oswald J. Reichel's papers entitled Extracts froju the Pipe Bolls 
of Henry II relating to Devon and The Doincsday Hundreds of Tcignbridge 
and North Taioton, which have appeared in the twenty-ninth volume of 
the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, 
and Art, are not easy to criticise. The subjects are precisely those on 
which local research should be encouraged ; but their treatment is un- 
satisfactory. It is much to be regretted that the Pipe Roll Society has 
not met with more support from those county associations which derive 
from it valuable material for their local history. Mr. Reichel, realising 
the value of that material, has here translated and annotated the Devon- 
shire entries on the Rolls for 1159-11()7, and has done the same in an ap- 
pendix for an ' Account Roll from Testa de Nevil, a.d. 1236.' Unless such 
work as this is done by an expert, the result is worse than useless, be- 


cause it is misleading. Thus on the same page we find such an entry as 
this : * And by a disbursement to Snecca {liberatione Snecce) for convey- 
ing her over sea {transfretatione ipsius) seven pounds ; ' and a note that 

* Eichard de Eedvers was created by Henry I earl of Devon, baron of 
Plymton, and lord of Tiverton,' an old but incorrigible mistake embel- 
lished. ' The canons of the Trinity House ' is an absurd misrendering, 
and so is ' which is in the Mare case ' for the quod est in forulo Mar[cs- 
calli] of the ' Testa.' Mr. Eeichel has read some recent works, such as 
the * Eed Book of the Exchequer,' and acknowledges the help he has re- 
ceived from other workers ; but we fear he is not competent to deal with 
these subjects. On the Devon Domesday, thanks partly to Sir Frederick 
Pollock, a good deal of work has been done. The two papers here 
printed seem very obscure, possibly owing to the fact that they are num- 
bered ' III ' and * V,' so that we are left in ignorance of Mr. Eeichel 's 
principles. They certainly testify to great industry, and all labour ex- 
pended on Domesday identification is welcome. One regrets, however, to 
find them disfigured by such a statement as that ' Earl Brictric's estates 
belonged to his grandfather, Haylward Mere, whom Leland calls Alredus 
Meaw, and who is said to have been also called Snow or Sneaw.' Only a 
few lines lower down we recognise ' Alward Merta and Brictric ' as merely 

* two free men.' The real problem raised by these papers is the old difficulty 
of combining the knowledge of the expert historian with that of the local 
worker. Each can give what the other cannot ; but the co-ordination of 
their labours has not yet been effected. J. H. K. 

Caudatus Anglicus, a medieval slander, by Mr. George Neilson 
(Edinburgh : George P. Johnston, 1896), is a tiirige d part of a paper 
read at a meeting of the Glasgow Archaeological Society, and is a model 
of bright, effective, and scholarly popularisation. Mr. Neilson works 
through the long list of authors who agree that the medieval Englishman 
possessed a tail, as well as the testimony of those who, by bitterly 
resenting the imputation, in some wise increase the consensus of opinion 
by showing that the slander was at least seriously accepted. From the 
first full statement of the story in Wace's ' Brut,' down to the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries rationalists, who admitted that Englishmen 
were no longer tailed men, but suggested, like Major, that they were once 

* caudati,' or, like John' Bulwer, relied on an * honest young man ' in 
Ireton's regiment who made the statement that divers slain Irishmen 

* were found with tails near a quarter of yard long,' Mr. Neilson examines 
and discusses his sources with diligence, yet with the lightness that becomes 
his theme. Were it not for his graceful apologies, we should have ventured 
to criticise some of his translations, but only on quite small points. We 
note with concern that not one of the public libraries of Edinburgh 
01* Glasgow contains a copy of the ' Eoman de Brut.' T. F. T. 

Mr. Henry John Feasey's Ancient English Ilohj Week Ceremonial 
(London : Thomas Baker, 1897) contains a useful collection of inven- 
tories, &c., but the work is done in a somewhat haphazard and uncritical 
manner. The proofs have been very inadequately corrected, and the re- 
ferences do not appear to have been verified. Thus, while there is a good 


deal of matter interesting to the antiquary in the volume, its historical value 
is slight. It is not often that we have seen so many mistakes on two 
consecutive pages as on pp. 190-91 of Mr. Feasey's book. 

The third series of Facsimiles of Boyal, Historical, Literary, and 
other Autograp}is in tJie Department of Manuscrijyts, British Museum, 
edited by Mr. G. F. Warner (printed by order of the trustees, 1897), 
usefully fills up gaps in the preceding parts. We have now a complete 
series of autographs of English sovereigns from Henry V to George III, 
with the exception of Henry VI and George I, but including a specimen 
of that very rare signature ' Jane the Quene.' We cannot here call 
attention to the letters — and there are many of them — especially inter- 
esting for their contents ; such, for instance, is one from Harley to the 
elector of Hanover, announcing the fall of the duchess of Marlborough. 
It is sufficient to say that the selection has been made with great care 
and knowledge, that the plates are finely executed, and that full transcripts 
are supplied in ordinary type. The work is projected to end after two more 
parts, when (at the present rate) we shall have a hundred and fifty fac- 
similes for the modest price of less than two pounds. Such an oppor- 
tunity for acquiring a representative collection of specimens will not be 
overlooked by students or by those who have charge of college and school 

Mr. W. H. Woodward's Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist 
Educators (Cambridge : University Press, 1897) is a thorough and scholarly 
piece of work, which will be read with pleasure and profit by all who are 
interested in the history of classical education, and may serve to convert 
those sceptics who renounce classical studies as being incompatible with 
a practical training for after life. Small as is the volume, it gives 
evidence of a peculiarly close knowledge of the authorities, to most 
Englishmen obscure, while the author has kept at arm's length the 
beguilements of the ' gush ' which has disfigured most books on the 
classical revival. The notes are short, crisp, and well calculated to 
guide the reader to the bibliography of the subject. Some exception 
may be taken to the arrangement of the volume. It opens with its piece 
de resistance, an essay on Vittorino da Feltre, and concludes with another 
on the teaching of other humanists. Between these lie scraps of 
translation, interesting enough, from humanist pamphlets on education. 
If these had been relegated to the third place, the painful impression of a 
broken back would have been avoided. The author's statement (p. 40) as 
to the absolute exclusion of the vernacular Italian from any scheme of 
serious education may perhaps provoke argument. It is, however, 
undoubtedly true if it be confined to the system of Vittorino and Guarino. 

E. A. 

It is with particular pleasure that we direct the attention of our readers 
to an eflfort of patriotic collaboration almost without a parallel in contem- 
porary historical Uterature. Political controversy, and at times the fury 
of war which is one of its ultimate products, have in our own generation 
raged round the historic self-consciousness of the Danish people, never 


content, like European political communities of more recent growth or 
make, with allowing its destinies to be shaped by either a conflict or a 
concert of greater powers. But whatever opinions may have been held 
as to particular developments of theories of national government at home, 
and as to the consequences which they may have contributed to entail upon 
the relations of the state to European politics at large, historical observers 
have rarely failed to take into consideration the influences of a warranted 
sense of past greatness, combined with a singular openness to the advance 
of the intellectual life of the West in almost every field of its activity. 
Of the great undertaking which proposes to present in six divisions 
the history of the Danish monarchy {Danmarks Biges Historic, 
Copenhagen, E. Bojesen) there lie before us a succession of numbers 
belonging to the last three series, designed to cover the periods of 
1588-1699, 1699-1814, and 1814-1864, and edited by Dr. Fridericia, 
Professor C. Holm, and Dr. A. D. Jorgensen, of the Danish Record Office, 
respectively. The first of these begins, accordingly, with the accession 
to the throne of Christian IV, the prince whose splendid ambition has 
constitutedhim, in a sense, the Lewis XIV of the Danish monarchy ; while 
the last already reaches the end of the reign of Frederick VI, one of the 
least fortunate, but by no means one of the least popular, of Danish kings. 
The work is profusely adorned with pictorial illustrations of the progress 
of the national history and the national life, and the very first portrait 
that meets our eye— a true Guelph likeness of the unhappy Caroline 
Matilda — may serve to remind English readers of international relations 
which, notwithstanding far graver historical incidents than the catastrophe 
of this ill-fated princess, have not yet fallen into a condition of coldness. 
We hope to return on a future occasion to this interesting publication, and 
in the meantime wish it a full measure of the success which it ought to 
command both at home and abroad. A. W. W. 

This new edition of Mr. James Waylen's House of Croimoell 
(London : Elliot Stock. 1897) is a great improvement on the old one. 
It has been revised by the Rev. J. G. Cromwell, and much condensed. 
The account of the expedition to Flanders and the capture of Dunkirk, 
which had no connexion with the rest of the work, has been judiciously 
omitted. The omission of the list of public letters, and other documents 
of the same nature signed by Cromwell, is rather to be regretted. The 
editor has added a useful chapter on the origin of the Cromwell family, 
which incorporates the researches of Mr. John Phillips on the Cromwell and 
Williams families. He has also inserted a chapter on the Crom wells of 
America, which is interesting, but fails to prove any connexion between 
these American Cromwells and the Protector's house. There is now 
a good index, so that Mr. Waylen's genealogical researches are made 
intelligible and accessible to any one interested in pedigrees. Altogether 
it is a useful book, and should be considered as a necessary supplement to 
Noble's Cromwell. 

Miss Edith Sichel's The HouseJiold of the Lafayettes (Westminster : 
Constable & Co., 1897) gives an account of the members of the family of 
Madame de Lafayette, a daughter of the duke of Ayen, and of their 


fortunes during the Revolution, but is chiefly a biography of Lafayette 
himself, who, though perhaps the smallest man -whom Fortune in a play- 
ful mood ever raised to so great a position, is in the author's eyes a 
blameless hero. Miss Sichel has skimmed the memoirs of the period, and 
has extracted from them whatever she thought most likely to be enter- 
taining to her readers, and most creditable to the general and his 
connexions. The result, it must be allowed, is eminently readable, even 
though we are somewhat wearied by a constant determination to be lively 
and epigrammatic. The author finds the closest parallel to Lafayette 
in Hampden, but we cease to wonder at this after being told that * in our 
revolution the able men of either side were opposed from the first. 
Falkland, Hyde and Clarendon {sk) never wished to work with Hampden, 
Pym and Hazelrigg.' The generalisations about the French revolution 
are not always more happy ; yet Miss Sichel describes vividly some 
aspects of French society on the threshold of that great convulsion, and 
of the hfe in prison and exile of its victims. P. F. W. 

Old newspaper articles, however good they may have been as jour- 
nalism, are seldom worth reprinting as a book, and the letters which 
Karl Marx contributed to the Nejv York Tribune from 1853 to 185G on 
' the events of the Crimean war ' were not particularly good journalism 
and do not deserve publication under the comprehensive title of The 
Eastern Question (London : Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1897). Marx was 
extremely biassed by his economic opinions, and had little real grasp of 
diplomatic questions. He denounces every one and everything in violent 
language ; for him the peace party is merely ' the hypocritical, phrase- 
mongering, squint-eyed set of Manchester humbugs ; ' the heroic Monte- 
negrins, of whose history he is sublimely ignorant, are ' a set of robbers,' 
and ' a nuisance in Europe ; ' Prince Albert is ' a prohfic father and 
obsequious husband ; ' and the whole war is only a proof of the ' extreme 
impotency of conservative Europe.' Of the Catholic Albanians he has 
never heard. Mrs. Eleanor Marx Aveling and Dr. Edward Aveling, who 
have edited these letters, should correct the two maps at the end of the 
volume. In the second, which professes to give the state of the Balkan 
peninsula in 1897, the railways are not brought up to date ; in the former, 
which represents the peninsula in 1856, railways are inserted which were 
not constructed till within the last ten years. 

There is a noticeable movement now on foot in several of the coun tries 
of Europe, and in certain parts of the United States, in favour of the 
introduction into the schools of instruction in the duties of citizenship. 
Several little manuals of considerable excellence, though each, perhaps, 
with the limitations of a particular point of view, have been written and 
largely brought into use, such as those of M. Bert in France, of Mr. Macy 
and Mr. Dole in America, and the Citizen Reader of Mr. Arnold-Forster 
in England. Such attempts have usually been Umited to the elementary 
schools. But the Prussian school programme of January 1892 directed 
that in the Gymnasien and liealschulen of that state the historical teach* 
ing should be utilised for a hke purpose, and especially that the opportunity 


should be taken to give instruction concerning the development of social 
and economic conditions. These directions were undoubtedly prompted by 
the fear of social democracy ; and critics of the government were of course 
ready to see in the new policy a weapon of ' reaction.' A great deal of 
discussion took place in educational circles as to the way in which the 
regulations should be carried out. Thus, at the conference of school 
directors of the Rhenish province in 1893, the following resolutions were 
passed among others : ' So far as non-German history is concerned, special 
attention is to be given in the upper classes to the French Revolution, and 
its effects on political and social thought in Germany ; ' and ' the merits 
of the Hohenzollern, and their measures for the welfare of the people, are 
to be set forth historically in their natural progress and connexion with 
the development of the power of the state.' Dr. K. Schenk, director of the 
Eealprogymnasium at Grobow, has had the courage to prepare a volume 
of Belehrungen iiher ivirtschaftliche nnd gescllschaftliche Fragcn anf 
geschichtlicher Grundlage (Leipzig: Teubner, 1896), designed especially 
for teachers, together with a companion volume {Hilfshuch) of documents 
and chapters selected from distinguished historians, for class use. The 
volume of Belehrungen is so intensely solemn, so virtuous, and yet 
frequently so commonplace and trivial, so painstaking in showing the 
teacher the sort of leading question he is to ask, and in printing the very 
obvious Ja or Nein to which it is meant to lead up, that it is hard for 
any one not a Prussian teacher to read it with a sober countenance. The 
passion for classification is given full scope : A, B, C are regularly divided 
into 1, 2, 3, and these into a, h, c, and these again into a, y8, y. After 
what we have been told of the peculiar intelligence of German educational 
methods, it is almost a relief to find that even German teaching can 
sometimes be formal and wooden. The author believes that the monarchy 
of the Hohenzollern is alone able to guide Germany into the new era of 
social peace, but only on condition that the upper classes show themselves 
ready for self-sacrifice and the lower classes remain obedient. He ends 
with an impassioned appeal, from which we may quote one sentence, 
which we will not spoil by translation. 

Am Steuer steht ein edles, wackeres Geschlecht, das Deutschland die poli- 
lischeEinheitgegebenhat, wird auch die soziale Einigungund Befriedigung, wird 
auch die innere Eintracht herstellen. In altgermauischer Treue stehen Sie zu 
ihm und helfen ihm, unserem Volke bessere Wege zu bereiten. 

The author's childlike simplicity and inadequate sense of proportion 
give abundant opportunity for easy scorn. But the book seems an 
honest one, if not a learned or clever one ; and the ideal of the social 
monarchy, though perhaps too great and good for political nature's daily 
food, is quite as defensible as the ideal of parliamentarism. Instruction 
of this sort will certainly make boys think, and think, on the whole, in a 
useful way. It may be added that the English reader who takes up the 
book will find food for reflexion in the references to his own country. 
They show what a great many educated Germans sincerely think of us 
and the future of our empire. That they are based largely on misappre- 
hension does not prevent their containing a measure of truth, and they are 
far from comfortable reading. W. J. A. 


* The Dawn of Modern Geography ' 

1. Mr. Le Strange, in reviewing the ' Dawn of Modern Geography ' in 
the July number of the English Historical Review, apparently com- 
plains, in the case of Solinus, that I have • quoted ' only from old editions 
(of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries), and have not 
noticed Mommsen's second edition of 1895. Yet on pp. 247, 249, 251, 
255, and 528 this edition is referred to ; it was the one I used throughout, 
and I should never have thought of recommending any other. In my 
list of editions on p. 528 I thought I had suflSciently ' warned ' the reader 
as to the quality of Mommsen's final edition, compared with others. 
Thus — ' Solinus : six editions previous to Mommsen's, best and last, 
1895.' This final (second) edition of 1895 of course supersedes 
Mommsen's earlier and much slighter edition of 1864, which I have not 
thought necessary to mention separately in the bibliography. As to the 
old editions of Solinus (Salmasius's, &c.), they .'are never ' quoted ' by me ; 
but they are enumerated in the bibliographical note ii. ' on the editions of 
the principal texts ; ' and I hope that students of the subject will not find 
it useless. 

Mr. Le Strange's remark, * taking Solinus, /or cxamjdc,' seems to be a 
siiggestio falsi, as it implies that it has been my constant practice to use 
old editions for the principal texts. On the contrary, the latest editions 
have been employed ; and any one who has read the volume in question 
will be aware of the fact. The case of the Cologne Einhard of 1521, 
mentioned by Mr. Le Strange, is not really to the point ; the page (41) of 
this edition is quoted (unnecessarily) as an addition to the chapter 
reference (33). Pertz, about whom the reviewer displays so much solici- 
tude, is referred to on p. 172, note 1, one of the very places cited by 
Mr. Le Strange. He could not, therefore, have supposed that I was 
unacquainted with Pertz, as he suggests. Einhard was not one of my 
' principal texts ; ' he only gave one point for my subject, and for this I 
had to read through the * Vita Caroli ' — in Pertz, as a matter of fact, 
though a reference has also been given to the old Cologne edition. 

2. The reviewer considers it obvious that I have not read any of 
Mukaddasi, as ' this authority is . . . inaccessible in any translation.' 
But his account of Syria has been translated by Mr. Le Strange himself 
for the Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, and copious extracts from the 
same are given by him in his compilation ' Palestine under the 
Moslems.' No account was attempted of Mukaddasi, who belongs to a 
later period than that included in my volume ; only a passing reference 
was made to him in a note. 

3. The voyage of Moslem merchants from Basra to China was doubt- 
less a longer journey than any undertaken by the ships of Henry the 
Navigator, but it is certainly not true (as the reviewer argues) that the 
former involved new discovery in the same sense as the latter. The 
Basra-China voyage was known and practised long before Mohammed ; and, 
passing to another point, the longest Arab journeys would surely, by any 
fair criticism, be put alongside the greatest of the European ventures of 


the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and not paralleled with merely 
initial enterprises such as those of Prince Henry's seamen. 

4. Mr. Le Strange also says that on p. 443 I have implied that Lane 
is responsible for a statement concerning the chief devil of the Kasil island 
— viz. that his name was Ed-Dejjal, head of the genii in rebellion against 
Allah. But if the reviewer refers to p. 443 he will see that Lane's 
name is never there mentioned or ' implied.' What is referred to 
is Sindbad's own statement that ' the islanders and travellers informed us 
that Ed-Dejjal is in it ' (Kasil). Further, if ' head of the genii in rebellion ' 
is not a tolerably clear synonym for our ' antichrist,' I do not know what 
it is. 

5. * Alkateb ' I never imagined to be a proper name, any more than 
' Alkharizmy,' ' Alkendy,' * Albyrouny,' &c., nor can I understand how any 
fair-minded reader could think so, unless wherever a nickname or surname 
is given without translation this is to be reckoned as proof that it has 
been mistaken for a proper name. 

6. As to * Halwan,' it is (comparatively) spoken of as * close to ' Bagdad, 
being one hundred miles distant, in a note dealing very briefly with the 
position of the chief Nestorian bishoprics scattered all over Asia, and in some 
cases separated by thousands of miles (e.g. Socotra from Singanfu). The 
reviewer will have nothing but H?dwan ; yet Sir Henry Yule writes it 
Halwan, Assemani Halacha, and Al Hariri Hoi wan — ' a town in Irak, on 
the mountains east of Bagdad,' says Chenery (p. 112), defining the position 
of the place, as I have done, by Bagdad. 

7. Though I have confined my reply to these points, there are others in 
which I do not admit the justice of the criticisms of Mr. Le Strange, but 
to enter into them in detail would occupy too much space. I will, there- 
fore, only add that in treating of the early Arab geographers I never 
claimed to write as a specialist, and always spoke of the account I had 
attempted as a ' sketch,' a ' summary,' ' a short review,' a ' supplement ' to 
the real subject of this volume, viz. that account of early Christian 
geography which occupies nearly four-fifths of my space (see pp. 6, 46, 
393, 468, &c.) But of these explanations the reviewer takes no 
notice. C. Eaymond Beazley. 

I AM extremely sorry that Mr. Beazley should feel that my criticisms of 
his work are unfair. In my review I pointed out its many excellent 
characteristics. It is a work of erudition and likely to become a book 
of reference. Under these circumstances it was my opinion that the 
authors quoted should in every case be referred to in the best edition 

1. My point is that, to take the case of Solinus, since we have 
Mommsen's edition of 1895, it is misleading to quote, in any case, the 
editions of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, and unneces- 
sary (except from the bibliographical point of view) even to mention them. 
I mentioned the Einhard of 1521 as a case in point. 

2. Coming to the Moslems, I beg to point out that the whole of my 
criticism centred in this : that I hold that, in any serious work, we have a 
right to know whether authorities are quoted dA first hand or not. Mr. 



Beazlej speaks of Mukaddasi as though he had read him. I pointed 
out why it seemed to me unUkely that he had done so. I have translated 
one chapter of Mukaddasi, it is true, the account of Syria, occupying about 
40 pages out of close on 500 of the Arabic text. If that is all that Mr. 
Beazley knows about Mukaddasi, he is, I venture to think, hardly in a 
position to say what he does of him on p. 425. 

3. As to the Chinese voyages of the Arabs, I still think that, for their 
age, they are comparable to any of later times ; but I only expressed 
my opinion. 

4. As to my criticism about * El Dejjal, head of the genii in rebellion 
against Allah,' the fact is simply this : In Arabic, Dajjal means the 
Antichrist, neither more nor less, as anybody who has a smattering of the 
language can tell Mr. Beazley. To call him ' the head of the genii ' is 

5. To call the geographer Ya'kubi Alkatih was merely instanced to 
show that Mr. Beazley had not a fair hold on his authorities. The said 
Ya'kubi had various names, but to call him Alkatib, * the scribe,' proves 
that Mr. Beazley has no clear idea of whom he is talking, and therefore is 
hardly in a position to instruct the general reader on this point, and pass 
judgment in any way on Ya'kubi's work. 

6. As to Hulwan, I can only repeat it is this or Holwan, but never 
Halwan, and in preference Hulwan the better to distinguish it from 
Helwan near Cairo. I think a place 100 miles off is not ' close,' but 
that is a matter of opinion. 

7. Mr. Beazley has quoted the Kitab al Fihrist, Mukaddasi, Ya'kubi, 
and the rest, as though he had referred | to them ; authorities quoted at 
second hand should, I think, be quoted giving the source whence the 
information is gathered. Guy le Strange. 


1898 195 

Notices of Periodicals 

[Contributions to these Notices, whether regular or occasional, are invited. They 
should be drawn up on the pattern of those printed below, and addressed to Mr. B. L. 
Foole, at Oxford, by the first week in March, June, September, and December.] 

The letter of the people of Jerusalem to the Jews in Egypt (2 Mace. i. 11-ii. 18) : by A. 
BiJCHLEK. — Monatschr. Gesch. und Wissensch. Judenth. xli. 11, 12. 

Polybius : by Sir M. E. Gbant Duff. — Trans. E. Hist. Soc, N.S., xi. 

The origin oftlie Jewish annus mundi : by F. Ruhl [who connects the circulus lunaris 
with the Jewish era, which began (b.c. 3761) with the first year of a lunar cycle. 
This era he takes to be the invention, not of Hillel Hanassi in the fourth century 
after Christ, but of rabbi Adda bar Ahabah in the third, whose lunar cycle agrees 
with the Jewish era ; and he gives reasons for holding that the era was calculated 
from the data supplied in the ' Seder 01am Eabba ' (c. 200 a.d.) The Jewish lunar 
cycle, it is argued, was introduced into the Alexandrian Easter tables ; and the 
Byzantine era, beginning 1 Sept. 5509 b.c, was formed by a combination of this 
lunar cycle with the era of Panodorus, which was thrown back sixteen years, so 
as to begin not only a lunar but also a solar cycle and an indictional and bissex- 
tile series as well.] — D. Zft. Gesch.-Wiss. N. F. ii. 3. 

On two recently discovered Visigothic laws : by K. Zeumer [dealing with the law of 
king Theudis, 546, in the Leon palimpsest, and the title ' de nupciis incestis pro- 
hibendis ' in the Lex Baiuvariorum, which, it is argued, was derived from the code 
of Euric]. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Greco-Roman law in tlie code of the Georgian king Vakhtang VI ; by V. Sokolski. — 
Zhur. Min. Nar. Prosv. Sept. 

On a gloss on Lucan in tlie Bern MS. 370 [explaining ' Gehennas ' (' Gehennas') — ' Bur- 
gundionum clausurae sunt quas inter se et Gallos habent '] : by H. d'Arbois de 
JuBAiNviLLE [wlio assigns the date of the gloss to about 473].— Bibl. Ecole Chartes, 
Iviii. 4. 

The chronology of Ennodius : by F. Vogel [who claims that the order of the manu- 
scripts is substantially the order of composition, and investigates doubtful points]. 
N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Tlie biography of archbishop Andreio of Caesarca in the codex Athous 129 : by F. 
DiEKAMP. — Hist. Jahrb. xviii. 3. 

Note on Jordanes' ' Getica,' i. 6, 7 : by A. Bachmann [who emends the punctuation]. — 
N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

The chronology of Theophancs and of certain letters of tlie popes (726-774) ; by H. 
Hubert.— Byz. Zft. vi. 3, 4. Aug. 

Notes on Einhard's style : by M. Manitius. — Mitth. Oesterreich. Gesch. xviii. 3, 4. 

A new life of Tlieoplianes Confessoj-: printed by K. Krumbacher.— SB. Akad. Wiss. 
Munchen (phil.-hist. 01.) 1897, 3. 

Tlie Xpovoypa<piKhv ffvmofioy of Nikeplwros : by C. de Boor. — Byz. Zft. vi. 2. May, 

Verses on Leiois tlie German : printed by P. von Winterfeld N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Varums readings to Himmar's tract ' de villa Novilliaco : ' by 0. Holder-Eoger.— 
N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

o 2 


Documents sitppUmentary to the ' Diplomata,'' i. ii., in the ' Monumenfa Germaniae 
bistorica : ' by M. Meter, H. Bresslac, and H. Bloch [Henry I — Henry IV : some 
spurious, the origin of which is here examined]. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

On tlie annals of Flodoard : by P. Lauer [who points out that the manuscripts 
of the work bear an incomplete numeration in Greek letters which implies 
that its first year should be 893, not 919 as is the case with the preserved 
text, and infers that Flodoard's work originally began, as Bicher's did, with the 
accession of Charles the Simple. This lost part would presumably be. the source 
of the earlier historical notices in Bicher. The writer, however, suggests, without 
adopting, another explanation of the numeration, namely, that it indicates merely 
the years of the author's life]. — Bibl. Ecole Chartes, Iviii. 3. 

On the teaching oftironian notes in medieval sc}ux)ls : by W, Schmitz [connecting the 
prtvctice specially with Fleury in the tenth century]. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Leo Diaconus and the chroniclers : by G. Wartenberg. — Byz. Zft. vi. 2. May. 

Collation of the Codex Baroccianiis of Johannes Malalas : by J. B. Bury.— Byz. Zft. 
vi. 2. May. 

The canonical collections attiibuted to Ivo of Chartres : by P. Focrnier. IH : The 
' Panormia ' [on its close relation to the ' Decretum,' and on its other sources]. IV : 
The authorship of the three collections attributed to Ivo. [The ' Panormia ' is cer- 
tainly his, probably also the ' Decretum,' and very likely the first two parts of the 
' Tripartita.'] V : The later influence of the collections [evidenced by other com- 
pilations].— Bibl. Ecole Chartes, Iviii. 3, 4. 

0»i so7ne of the sources of Zonaras : by E. Patzio. — Byz, Zft. vi. 2. May (continued 
from V. 1.) 

Brief calendar of 26 papal documents [1126-1193] not registered by Jaffi, and 
LOwenfeld : by E. Schaus. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Biport on travels chiefly in search of imperial constitutions atid ordines '. by J. 
ScHWALM [who prints an order of coronation from the Codex Casanatensis 614, and 
a series of German royal documents, 1270-1312]. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Verses and satires on Borne ; by E. DOmmler [twelfth to fifteenth century]. — N. Aich. 
xxiii. 1. 

Brief Holstein annals [1225 (= 1227), and 1319-1341] : printed by O. Holder-Eooeb. 
N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

On the date of publication of the second edition of the chronicle of Martin of lYoppau : 
by B. Sepp [who argues for 1276]. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Two accounts of the officials of the papal court in tJie thirteenth aiid fourteenth centuries : 
printed by J. Haller.— Quellen und Forschungen Preuss. hist. Inst, in Rom, i. 1. 

Inventory of t)ie cargo and nautical instruments of a ship of Messina cavtured by the 
Genoese [1294] : printed by C. de la Ronciere. — Bibl. Ecole Chartes, Iviii. 4. 

Notarial instrument [1320] contaijiing the notice of Galeazzo ViscontVs consultation of 
Dante in contiexiojt with a project for killing John XXII by magical art : printed 
from the Vatican archives by K. Ecbel. — Hist. Jahrb. xviii. 3. 

The medieval service-books of Aquitainc. : by R. Twigoe. IV : Clermont-Fer and 
[useful notes hastily put together]. — Dublin Rev. N.S. 24. Oct. 

Documatts illustrating the history of the emperor Sigismund [1410-1437] : by W. Alt- 
MANN. — Mitth. Oesterreich. Gesch. xviii. 3, 4. 

A system of shorthand found in a fifteenth-century Italian manuscript of a treatise 
on aXcliemy [Bibl. Nat., Fonds Lat., nouv. acq. 635] : explained by H. Omont. — 
Bibl. Ecole Chartes, Iviii. 3. 

Italian notes on French history : by L. G. PAlissier [documents relating to the 
treasury of war at Milan, 1500-1501, 1504-1505].— Arch. stor. Ital. 5th ser. xx. 3. 

An unpublished despatch of Aleander from his first nuntiature to Charles ^[1520]: 
printed by W. Friedensburo. — Quellen und Forsch. Preuss. hist. Inst, in Rom, 
i. 1. 

A narrative of the pursuit of English refugees in Germany under queen Mary : 
printed by I. S. IjEADAM. — Trans. B. Hist. Soc. N.S. xx. 


The plain of Thebes [in connexion with recent Egyptian exploration]. — Edinb. Kev. 
382. Oct. 

The beginnings of socialism in Europe : by E. Pohlmann. I. — Hist. Zft. Ixxix, 3. 

Astrology in the Roman world : by A. Bouche-Leclkrcq. — Eev. Hist. Ixv. 2. Nov. 

Archccological and epigraphical researches into the history of the Rojnan province of 
Dalmatia : by C. Patsch. — Wiss. Mitth. Bosnian Hercegovina. 1897. 

St. Peter and the foundation of the Hainan church : by F. Bacchus [who argues 
against placing the saint's martyrdom so early as a.d. 64]. — Dublin Eev. N.S. 24 

Early Christian missions in some of tlieir relations to heathen religions. — Church Qu. 
Eev. 89. Oct. 

Decimus Clodius Albinus : by 0. Hip.schfeld. — Hist. Zft. Ixxix. 3. 

Cyprian [on archbishop Benson's work]. — Church Qu. Eev. 89. Oct. 

The youth of the emperor Julian : by P. Allaed. — Eev. Quest, hist. Ixii. 2. Oct. 

Provincial life in the days of St. Basil [illustrated from recent volumes of the ' Select 
Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers '] — Qu. Eev. 372. Oct. 

Historical and legendary controversies between Mohammad ajid tJie rabbis : by H. 
HiRscHFELD. — Jew. Qu. Ecv. 37. Oct. 

Kasia, the poetess, and her works: by K. Krumbaciier. — SB. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen 
(phil.-hist. CI.) 1897. 3. 

Oft the contest] betwec7i Hincmar of Eheivis and his predecessor Ebo and his adhe- 
rents : by K. Hampe [who ascribes the forgery of the bull of Gregory IV in favour 
of Ebo (Jaffe 2583) to Ebo himself, and prints fragments of a newly discovered 
letter of Nicolas I to Charles the Bald (866)].— N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Sabartoiasphaloi [the name given to the ancient Hungarians by Constantine Porphyro- 
gennetos, ' De admin. Imperio,' xxxviii.] : by W. Petz, J. Thury, and C. Fiok [on 
its signification]. — Phil. Kozlony, May 1896 ; Szazadok, Sept. 1896, April, May^ 
Sept., Oct. 1897. 

The proceedings at Canossa in January 1077 : by H. Otto [who agrees with G. Meyer 
von Knonau, against 0. Holder-Egger, that Henry IV encamped at the foot of the 
castle, but rejects the three days' penance]. — Mitth. Oesterreich. Gesch. xviii. 3, 4. 

A hitherto unhnown Messianic movement among the Jetvs, particularly those of Ger- 
many and the Byzantine empire : by D. Kaufmann [based on a document pub- 
lished by A. Neubauer in the same Eeview, 33]. — Jew. Qu. Eev. 37. Get. 

The Egyptian ndgld : by D. Kaufmann. — Jew. Qu. Eev. 37. Oct. {cf. 33.) 

The situation in the Balkan peninsula at the beginning of the thirteeenth century : 
by D. Franic. — Wiss. Mitth. Bosnien Hercegovina. 1897. 

Tlie foundation of the Rumanian state : by L. Kropf [who argues against Xenopol's 
view that an exodus took place from Transylvania under Eadu Negru during a ris- 
ing at the end of the thirteenth century, on the grounds (1) that this rising took 
place among the schismatics of the diocese of Kalocsa {Coloccnsis) and not in the 
Transylvanian diocese ; (2) that the story about Eadu is not mentioned by any writer 
earlier than Luccari, who published his chronicle at the beginning of the seven- 
teenth century ; (3) that both Luccari and the later local tradition, as preserved in 
the travels of archdeacon Paul of Aleppo, make the exodus to have taken place 
with the permission of the Hungarian king's lieutenant ; (4) that the chrysobuls 
of Cimpulung are only known through eighteenth-century copies, the originals (if 
such there were) having disappeared]. — Szazadok. Oct. 

The scale on luhich the ' 7ninuta servitia ^payable on provisiotis of cathedral churches 
and monasteries tuere reckoned : by K. H. Karlsson [showing that the rule was 
to divide half the amount of the ' commune servitium ' by the number of cardinals 
present at the provision, and printing a constitution of Paul II (1470) whereby 
the number of cardinals was for this pui'pose assumed to be always fourteen and 
no more].— Mitth. Oesterreich. Gesch. xviii. 3, 4. 

Peter Paul Vergerius the elder; a contribution to the early history of humanism: 
by K. A. Kopp. II.— Hist. Jahrb. xviii. 3. 

The itinerary of John XXIII; supplementary notices: by H. V. Saueuland.— Hist. 
Jahrb. xviii. 3. 


Ceremonial processions in various countries : by J. Baltocb Paul, Lyon. — Scott. 

Rev. 60. Oct. 
St. Ignatius of Loyola : by C. Mibbt.— Hist. Zft. Ixxx. 1. 
The journey of Edmund Campion from Rome to England [1580] : by J. H. Pollen 

[with two letters from St. Charles Borromeo and Balph Sherwin.]— Month. Sept. 
On some political theories of the early Jesuits : by J. N. Fioois.— Trans. R. Hist. Soc. 

N.S. xi. 
The survivors of tlie Spanish armada in Ireland : by M. A. S. Huhe. — Trans. R. 

Hist. Soc. N.S. xi. 
St. Francis de Sales as a preacher : by H. B. Macket. II. — Dublin Rev. N.S. 24, Oct. 
Negotiations tcith Mdchior von Hatzfeldt touching tlus restoration of Charles II to the 

English throne (1649- 1 650): by J. Krebs [based on documents from the Hatz- 
feldt archives at Calcum near Diisseldorf relating to Charles's attempt to secure 

the militaiy aid of the well-known imperial field-marshal]. — D. Zft. Gesch.-wiss. 

N.F. ii. 3. 
Itiissia and France in the first half of the eighteenth century, continued. — Rnssk. 

Starina. Sept.-Nov. 
Tlie conference of Pillnitz : by 0. Bbowniko. — Trans. R. Hist. Soc. N.S. xi. 
Prmsia, tlic armed neutrality, and the occupation of Hanover, 1801 : by H. Ulmank. 

D. ft. Gesch.-wiss. N.F. ii. 3. 
Carrion-Nisas, an envoy of Napoleon in Spain [1810]': by G. de Grandmaison.— Rev. 

Quest, hist. Ixii. 2. Oct. 
The French i7i Warsaw in the war of 1806-1807 : by N. Schildeb [explaining the 

views of Napoleon on the restoration of the kingdom of Poland] Russk. Starina. 

The tragi-comedy at Bayonne in 1808 : by N. Schildeb [on the intrigues of Napoleon 

with Charles IV of Spain]. — Istorich. Viestnik. Nov. 
Napoleon at Lomzlia in 1812: by N. Schildeb [on his retreat from Russia]. — 

Istorich. Viestnik. Sept. 
Eussia andPcrsia [during the war of 1827] ; by I. Zinoviev.— Russk. Starina. Oct. 
Johann Adam Miihlcr : by A. von Schmid. II. [chiefly on his theological position]. — 

Hist. Jahrb. xviii. 3. 
Wilhelm Wattenbach [t20 Sept.] : by K. Zeumee.— Hist. Zft. Ixxx. 1. 


Confirmation by St. Louis of a treaty between the duke of Brittany and Andri de 

Vitri [1237].— Bibl. Ecole Charles, Iviii. 4. 
The customs of Pouy-Corgelart and Biv^ [in the viscounty of Lomagne] : described 

from charters by F. Fcnck-Brentano. — Rev. hist. Ixv. 2. Nov. 
The Bastille [dealing with materials published by F. Bournon and F. Ravaisson]. — 

Quart. Rev. 372. Oct. 
Margaret of Navarre and tlie Platonism of tlie renaissance : by A. Lefbanc [who 

claims for this queen the honour of introducing the movement into France, and 

emphasises the influence exerted on her by Nicolas Casanus through Bri(;onnet 

and Lef^vre of Etaples]. — Bibl. Ecole Chartes, Iviii. 3. 
TJie commercial life of the Jews in tlie country districts of Languedoc in the seventeenth 

century : by N. Roubin. — Rev. Etudes Juives. 69. July. 
Tlie rebellion at Hesdin; Fargites and tlie first president Lamoignon [1658-1668] : by 

A. DE BoiSLisLE. II Rev. Quest, hist. Ixii. 2. Oct. 

Three letters of liabaut de Saint-Eticmte [1765- 1789], on the position of the protes- 

tants in France : printed by N. Weiss.— Bull. Hist. Protest. Fran?, xlvi. 10. Oct. 
Mirabcau, a victim of tlie leltres de cachet : by F. M. Fling. — Amer. Hist. Rev. iii. 1. 
An inquiry into the state of the parishes t» 1 788 : by C. Bloch [being answers sent 

to a circular issued by the intermediary provincial commission of the Orl^anais to 

the municipalities of the generality, concerning population, agriculture, commerce, 

dc). — Revol. Fran?, xvii. 2. Aug. 


The attitude of the Roman catholic clergy toivards the protestants in 1 789 : by A. Lods 
[illustrating their dislike of the toleration edict]. — K6vol. Franp. xvii. 2. Aug. 

The expenses of the electo?-al assemblies in 1789 : by A. Bkette [based on a correspon- 
dence between the lieutenant-generals of the bailliages and the government, pre- 
served in the Archives Nationales, and illustrating the various money claims 
advanced by different bailliages]. — E6vol. Franp. xvii. 2. Aug. 

The debate and division list on MaraVs accusation [13-14 April 1793] : by F. A. Aulaed 
[a reprint from a rare text, which has not, to the writer's knowledge, been reprinted 
in any collection]. — Eevol. Franp. xvi. 12, xvii. 1, 2. Jtme-Aug. 

Letters from Brest fideris loritten from Paris [August- September 1792]: printed by 
A. CoREE. — E6vol. Franc?, xvii. 5. Nov. 

The Panthion society and the patriot party in Paris : by C. Picquenard [mainly based 
on unpublished police reports]. — E6vol. Franp. xvii. 4. Oct. 

The siege of Toulon:, England and the princes [1793] : by P. Cottin. — Kevol. Franc;, 
xvii. 1. July. 

The ecclesiastical system of Monthdiard [1793-1801] : by J. Vienot. — Bull. Hist. Pro- 
test. Franc;, xlvi. 11. Nov. 

Du Val d'Epremesnil : by H. Carrk. — Eevol. Franp. xvii. 4, 5. Oct., Nov. 

Municipal organisation in Paris during the Thennidorian reaction : by F. A. Aulard 
[showing how most of the functions of the commune were taken over by the central 
government, but two municipal commissions were established, one for police, the 
other for ways and means]. — E6vol. Franc;, xvii. 3. Sept. 

Robert Lindet before and after the 18th Brumaire : by A. Montier. — Eevol. Fran?, 
xvii, 4. Oct. 

The duke of Richelieu and tlie first years of the restoration : by L. Eioult de Neuville. 
Eev. Quest, hist. Ixii. 2. Oct. 

Church and state under Louis-Philippe, from Lamennais to Montalembert : by A. 
Debidour. — E6vol. Fran9. xvi. 12. June. 

G-ermany and Austria-Hungary 

Note on tlic Passau annals : by G. Eatzinger [who discerns passages in Ebendorfer 

and Schreitwein which he considers to be derived not from the Passau annals, but 

from the literary remains of Albertus Bohemus]. — Hist. Jahrb. xviii. 3. 
An unknown manuscript of Felix FabrVs ' Descriptio Theuioniae, Sueviac, et civitatis 

Ulmensis ' [at Cassel] : described by G. Leidinger. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 
The treaty of Ratisbon bctiveen Charles V, Ferdinand, and Maurice of Saxony [1546] ; 

by E. Brandenburg. — Hist. Zft. Ixxx. 1. 
Letter of Maximilian II to Ferdinand I [1562] : printed by H. Kretschmayr. — Mitth. 

Oesterreich. Gesch. xviii. 3, 4. 
Matthias Flacius lUyricus, the theologian, at Strassburg [1567-1573] : by A. Hol- 

laender. — D. Zft. Gesch.-wiss., N.F., ii. 3. 
Documents concerning the reforming work of Felician Ninguxirda, especially in Bavaria 

and Austria [1572-1577]. — Quellen und Forsch. Preuss. hist. Inst, in Eom, i. 1. 
The Carmelite father Dominic a Jesu Maria and the council of war before the battle 

of the Wliite Mountain [1620] : by S. Eiezler [who brings forward new evidence 

that the friar was present at the council]. — SB. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen (phil.-hist. 

CI.) 1897, 3. 
The Prussian campaign of 1758 : by H. L. Tuttle. I. [a posthumous fragment of the 

author's ' History of Prussia ']. — Amer. Hist. Eev. iii. 1. 
The duke of Ziveibrilcken and the mission of count Gocrtz [on the Bavarian ques- 
tion, January-April 1778]: by A. Unzeb [who prints Goertz's final report]. — 

Mitth. Oesterreich. Gesch. xviii. 3, 4. 
The Prussian court in 1797, described from letters of Horazio Borghese, Spanish 

minister at Berlin : printed by C. Kupke. — Quellen und Forsch. Preuss. hist. Inst. 

in Eom, i. 1. 
Ecclesiastical affairs in Austria [1816-1842] from documentary sources : by A. Beer. 

Mitth. Oesterreich. Gesch. xviii. 3, 4. 


Great Britain and Ireland 

A pr<^sal for a bibliography of English history : by F. Harbison.— Trans. R. Hist. 
Soc. N.S. xi. 

The Ecole des Charles and English records : by F. Yobk Powell [who advocates th 
establishment of a school for archivists on the French model].— Trans. B. Hist. 
Soc. N.S. xi. 

The Celtic church in Wales [on J. W. Willis Bund's work].— Church Qu. Rev. 89 

The planting of the English church [in connexion with A. J. Mason's ' Mission of St. 
Augustine ' and W. Bright's ' Chapters of early English Church History.']— Church 
Qu. Rev. 89. Oct. 

Tlie shield-wall and the schiltrum : by G. Neilson.— Antiquary, N.S., 95. Nov. 

Tlie history of tlie diocese of Lincoln. — Church Qu. Rev. 89. Oct, 

Richard Rolle of Hampole : by T. E. Bridgett. — Dublin Rev. N.S. 24. Oct. 

On the ecclesiastical policy of England in tlic fourteenth century : by J. Losebth. I 
Down to the great schism [1378]. [The writer treats the relations of England to 
Rome from the time of Edward I. Incidentally he omits to notice that the clergy 
did not join in the famous protest of the parliament of Lincoln, 1301. He repeats 
the substance of his convincing argument which appeared in this Review in 
April 1896, showing that Wycliffe's * Determinatio contra unum Monachum ' 
(Lewis, ' Life of Wiclif,' app. 30) relates not to 1366, but to a later time, probably 
1377; and maintains that his political career begins with his commission at 
Bruges in 1374. As for the monk whom he opposed. Professor Loserth takes him 
for a friar, which is contrary to English usage : the identification remains a puzzle. 
The writer concludes by an examination of Wycliffe's political doctrine in the 
treatises ' De Dominio divino ' and ' de civili Dominio.' Some documents are 
added, with a calendar of rescripts of Gregory XI relative to England, 1374-1377. 
The monograph is of high importance for the study of the sequence and contents 
of Wycliffe's writings]. — SB. Akad. Wiss. Wien. cxxxvi. 1. 

Inventory and sale of goods at St. Pctci's, Cornhill [1546-1552], II, III. — Antiquary, 
N.S., 94, 95. Oct., Nov. 

ElizabetJian village surveys [illustrated from the muniments of King's College, Cam- 
bridge] : by W, J. CoRBETT.— Trans. R. Hist. Soc, N.S., xi. 

Sir Kcnelm Dighy : by J. Hopwood.— Dublin Rev., N.S., 24. Oct. 

T)ie case of Elizabeth Canning : by C. Kenny [who reargues the cause cilibre of 
1753-1754. and convicts the prisoner]. —Law Qu. Rev. 52. Oct. 

Samuel Butler, liead master of Shrewsbury school [i 798-1836] and afterwards bisJiop 
of Lichfield.— Church. Qu. Rev. 89. Oct. 

Sheriffs and coroners in Scotland : by H. Cowan [who gives some useful particulars 
about the sheriffs, not, however, unmixed with fables].— Scott. Rev. 60. Oct. 


Tite early archives of Florence : by D. Marzi [notices of the various groups of docu- 
ments, twelfth to fourteenth century].— Arch. stor. Ital. 5th ser., xx. 3. 

Documents [1226] used by Corio illustrating tlie history of tlie Lombard league : by F. 
GCtebbock. — N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Tlie acts of tlic podcsta of Savona [1250] : described from a manuscript in the archives 
atSavona by G. Caro.— N. Arch, xxiii. 1. 

Facing Cane and the Guelfo-Ghibelline tears in North Italy : by E. Galu [continued 
to '3951- — Arch. stor. Lomb. 3rd ser. xv. 

The origin of the name' Tlie Two Sicilies:' by G. Romano [who traces to papal in- 
fluence the limitation of ' regnum Siciliae ' to the mainland kingdom, while 
' Trinacria ' designated the island, but shows that this nomenclature was not ac- 
cepted in popular usage. ' Regnum utriusque Siciliae ' came in with Alfonso of 
Aragon in 1442. An unpublished oration of Lorenzo Valla bearing on the ques- 
tion is here printed]. — Arch. stor. Napol. xxii. 3. 


Innocent VI and Joanna I of Naples ; unpublished documents from the Vatican 
archives : printed by F. Cerasoli. II.— Arch. stor. Napol. xxii. 3. 

A commercial ordinance of Trani [1394] : printed by G. Beltrani. — Arch. stor. Napol. 
xxii. 3. 

Letters of Piero de" Medici to Otto Niccolini and Matteo Palmieri [ambassadors at Eome 
1467- 1469] : by GiNEVRA Niccolini [the letters relate to the peace negotiations 
which closed the CoUeonic war]. — Arch. stor. Ital. 5th ser. xx. 3. 

TJie municipality of Milan and its resistance to the Spanish inquisition in 1563 : by 

E. Vekga. [The municipality and nobles dwell on the inevitable ruin of trade. The 
opposition of the Milanese clergy at Milan, Eome, and Trent is notable. Even 
the Spanish governor, the duke of Sessa, disapproved of Philip's project. The 
unpublished bull of Pius IV and the remonstrances of the municipality are printed.] 
Arch. stor. Lomb. 3rd ser. xv. 

Paolo Sarpi : by Horatio F. Brown.— Scott. Eev. 60. Oct. 

Gambling at Naples during the Spanish period : by G. Ceci. — Arch. stor. Napol. xxii. 

3, concluded. 
Freemasonry at Naples in the eighteenth century : by M. d'Ayala. — Arch. stor. Napol. 

xxii. 3. 


Sketches of Russian criminal law according to Busskaia Pravda : by J. Eozhkov 

[from the Eussian code of the eleventh century]. — Zhur. Min. Nar. Prosv. Nov. 
The oldest reductions of the chronicle of Nestor : by A. Shakhmatov. — Zhur. Min. Nar. 

Prosv. Oct. 
The retirement of A. Ordin-Nastchokin [the minister of the emperor Alexis] and his 

relations to the Malo-Biissian question : by V. Einhorn. — Zhur. Min. Nar. Prosv. 

Tlie emperor Paul in his acts and orders. II. [characteristics and anecdotes]. — Eussk. 

Starina. Nov. 
Catherine Nelidov [1758-1839] : by E. Shumigorski [giving details of the private life 

of the emperor Paul]. — Istorich. Viestnik. Oct., Nov. 
Alexander I and his time. I: 1801-1810: by V. Timiriazev. — Istorich. Viestnik. 

Count Speranski and count ArakcJieiev [the two ministers of Alexander I], from the 

recollections of G. Batenkov. — Eussk. Starina. Oct 
The movements of the Eussian army from Moscow to Krasnaia Pakhra [1812] : by 

A. Popov.— Eussk. Starina. Sej)^., Oct. 
Contributions to the history of the reign of the emperor Nicholas I [letters and anec- 
dotes]. — Eussk. Starina. Nov. 
Becollections of tJie Polish insurrection of 1863 : by I. Ponomarev. — Istorich. Viestnik. 

Sept., Oct. 


Spanish historic monuments ; by .1. L. Powell. I : A mosque and synagogues in 

Toledo. II : El Cristo de la Luz.— Antiquary, N.S., 95, 96. Nov., Dec. 
Yoles (Yolande), queen of Aragon : by L. Thalloczt. — Szazadok. Sept. 
Don Alonso de Ercilla [the author of ' Araucana '] and tlie order of Santiago : by 

F. de Uhagon [giving the genealogical proofs of his qualification for admission ; so 
strict was the inquiry, that it occupies 155 pages of print]. — Boletin de la E. Acad. 
Hist. xxxi. 1-3, July-Sept. 

America and Colonies 

The proprietary piwince as a form of colonial government. II : by H. L. Osgood. 

Amer. Hist. Eev. iii. 1. 
The causes of Ktioic -Nothing success in Massachusetts : by G. H. Haynes [explained as 

a revolt of the native-born against Irish Eoman catholic immigrants]. — Amer. 

Hist. Eev. iii. 1. 
Goree and its intermittent dependence on England [1663-1817] : by W. F. Lord. — 

Trans. E. Hist. Soc, N.S., xi. 




IJsl of Recent Historical Ptcblications 


(Including works of miscellaneous contents) 

Babth (P.) Die Philosophie der Ge- 
schichte als Sociologie. I : Ern- 
leitung und kritische Uebersicht. Pp. 
396. Leipzig : Beisiand. 8 m. 

Bboglie (due de). Histoire et politique. 
Pp. 499. Paris : C. L6vy. 7501. 

Fkaccaboli (G.) Dei codici greci del mo- 
nastero del ss. Salvatore cbe si con- 
servano nella biblioteca universitaria 
di Messina. Pp. 28. Florence : tip. 

Lanolois (C. V.) & Seignobos (C.) In- 
troduction aux etudes historiques. 
Pp. 308. Paris : Hachette. 

GoEBEL (H.) Das Philosophische in 
Humes Geschichte von England. Pp. 
114. Marburg : Elwert. 2-40 m. 

Letocbnead (C.) Evolution du com- 
merce dans les diverses races bu- 
maines. Paris : Vigot. 9 f. 

M.VDAN (F) A summary catalogue of 
western manuscripts in the Bodleian 
library at Oxford. IV : Nos. 1G670- 
24830. Pp. 715. Oxford : Clarendon 
Press. 25/. 

Mandakixi (E.) I codici manoscritti 
della biblioteca Oratoriana di Napoli, 
illustrati. Pp. 403. Naples : tip. 
Festa. 4to. 35 1. 

Meixneb (O.) Historischer Riickblick 
auf die Verpflegung der Armeen im 
Felde. II. Pp.196. Vienna: Seidel. 
(4-40 m.) 

Moepubgo (S.) I manoscritti della r. 
biblioteca Kiccardiana di Firenze; 
manoscritti italiani. I, 7. Pp. 481- 
560. Bome : Loescher. 1 1. 

Papadopoulo.s - Keeamecs (A.) lepo- 

tS)V iv Tttls $t0\u}&f,Kais rov ayiarrdrov 
■KarpiapxiKou Bp6yov ruv ' lfpo<To\vfxuy koI 
iri(ii\s TloLKaKrTivi)^ ktroKuyiivuv fAATjvt- 
Kwv KceluiSiv. III. St. Petersburg. (Leip- 
zig : Harrassowitz.) Pp. 440. (20 m.) 

Pebtile. Storia del diritto. II, 1. Pp. 
156. Turin. 

Poole (R. L.) Historical atlas of modem 
Europe from the decline of the Roman 
empire, comprising also maps of 
parts of Asia and of the New World 
connected with European history ; ed. 
by. XIII, XIV. Oxford: Clarendon 
Press. 4to. Each 3/6. 

ScHENK (H.) Bibliotheca patrum Lati- 
norum Britannica, bearb. von. II, 2 : 
Die Bibliotheken der Colleges in Cam- 
bridge. I. Pp. 80. Vienna : Gerold. 
(1-80 m.) 


AbIb; Tabaii continuatus, quem edidit 

M. J. de Goeje. Pp. 213. Leyden : 

Chabot (J. B.) L'^cole de Nisibe; son 

histoire, ses statuts. Pp. 55. Paris : 

impr. Nationale. 
Chijs (J. A. van der). Nederlandsch- 

Indisch Plakaatboek [1602-1811]. 

XV: 1808-1809. Pp.1164. Batavia: 

CoBDEiBO (L.) Batalhas da India ; como 

se perdeu Ormuz : processo inedito 

do secolo XVn. Pp. 76. Lisbon: 

impr. Nacional. 
Dubois (J. A.) Hindu manners, cus- 

toms, and ceremonies. Tr. by H. K. 
Beauchamp. 2 vol. Pp. xxxvi, 730. 
Oxford : Clarendon Press. 

HoMMEii (F.) Die altisraelitische Ueber- 
lieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuch- 
tung: ein Einspruch gegen die Auf- 
stellungen der modernen Pentateuch- 
kritik. Pp. 356. Munich : Lukaschik. 
6-60 m. 

Lane-Poole (S.) Catalogue of the col- 
lection of Arabic coins preserved in 
the khedivial library at Cairo. Pp 
384. London : Quaritch. 

Lapie (P.) Les civilisations tunisiennes. 
Pp.304. Paris: Alcan. 350 f. 




Nachod (0.) Die Beziehungen der 
niederlandischen ostindischen Kom- 
pagnie zu Japan im siebzehnten Jahr- 
hundert. Pp. xxxiv, 444, ccx. Leipzig : 
Friese. 12 m. 

Nizam oul-Moulk (vizir). Siasset 
Nam^h. Traits de gouvernement, 
compose pour le sultan Melik-Chah. 
Texte persan 6dit6 par C. Schefer. 
Supplement. Paris : Leroux. 15 f. 

Peters (J. P.) Nippur, or 'explorations 
and adventures on the Euphrates. II. 
Pp. 420. London : Putnam. 12/6. 

Prasek (J. V.) Forschungen zur Ge- 
schichte des Alterthums. I: Kam- 
byses und die Ueberlieferung des Alter- 
thums, Pp. 84. Leipzig : Pfeiffer. 
6 m. 

Williams (S. W.) A history of China. 
Pp. 474. London : Low. 14/. 


Bahrfeldt (M.) Nachtrage und Berich- 
tigungen zur Miinzkunde der romi- 
schen Eepublik im Anschluss an Babe- 
Ion's Verzeichniss der Consular-Miin- 
zen. Pp. 316, illustr. Vienna. (Paris : 
Welter.) (16 f.) 

Gruppe (0.) Griechische Mythologie 
und Religionsgeschichte. Pp. 384. 
Munich : Beck. 7 m. 

Lanciani (R.), Forma urbis Romae, 
dimensus et ad modulum 1 ; 1000 
delineavit. Milan. 25 1. 

Pallu de Lessert (A. C.) Fastes des 
provinces africaines sous la domina- 
tion romaine. I. Pp. 571. Paris : Leroux. 
4to. 15 f. 

Toutain (J.) L'inscription d'Henchir- 
Mettieh ; un nouveau document sur la 
propri6t6 agricole dans I'Afrique ro- 
maine. Pp. 55. Paris : Klineksieck. 

WooDHOUSE (W. J.) Aetolia, its geo- 
graphy, topography, and antiquities. 
Pp.398. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 21/. 


(For works relating to the history of France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, see 
the special sections below.) 

Andb^ (P.) Geheime Konferensraad 
Carl Georg Andrs. I. Pp. 332. 
Copenhagen. (9 m.) 

Aubigne (Agrippa d'.) Histoire univer- 
selle. IX: 1594-1602; 6dite par A. 
de Ruble. Pp. 486. Paris : Laurens. 

Bain (R. N.) The pupils of Peter the 
Great ; a history of the Russian court 
and empire [1697-1740]. Pp. 318. 
Westminster : Constable. 15/. 

Balme & Lelaidier (p^res.) Cartulaire 
ou histoire diplomatique de Saint 
Dominique. II. Pp. 494. Paris : 
Ann6e dominioaine. 10 f. 

Bang (A. C.) Den norske kirkes geist- 
lighed i reformationsaarhundredet 
[i 536-1600]. Pp. 350. Christiania. 
(15 m.) 

Beaurepaire (E. de). Le marquis de 
I'Isle : documents sur la campagne 
d'ltalie en 1733-1754. Pp.67. Caen: 

Bruckner (A.) Julian von Eelanum, 
sein Leben und seine Lehre; ein Bei- 
trag zur Geschichte des Pelagianis- 
mus. (Gebhardt & Harnack's Texte 
und Untersuchungen. XV, 3.) Leip- 
zig: Hinrichs. 

Caenegem (F. van). Guerre des pay- 
sans [1798-1799]. Brussels: Soci6t6 
beige de librairie. 3-50 f. 

Cais de PiERLAs (E.) La ville de Nice 
pendant le premier si^cle de la domi- 
nation des princes de Savoie ; docu- 
ments inedits. Pp. 558. Turin : Bocca. 
24 1. 

Canal (C.) San Isidoro ; exposicidn de 

sus obras e indicaciones acerca de la 
influencia que han ejercido en la civili- 
zacion espafiola. Pp. 181. Seville : 
' La Andalucia Moderna.' 4to. 

Capitularia regum Francorum denuo 
ediderunt A. Boretius et V. Krause. II, 
3. (Monumenta Germaniae historica.) 
Pp. xxxvi, 471-726. Hanover : Hahn. 
4to. 12 m. 

Chabloz (F.) La bataille de Grandson, 
d'apr^s vingt-sept auteurs. Pp. 226. 
Lausanne : Payot. 16mo. 2-50 f. 

CROATiAE,Dalmatiae,et Slavoniae, Regesta 
documentorum regni, saeculi XIII. 
CoUegit et digessit I. Kukuljevic de 
Saccis. Pp. 461. Agram : Buchhand- 
lung der Actien-Buchdruckerei. (12 m.) 

CusANi ViscoNTi (L.) SuUe ricerche 
compiute dalle flotte inglesi negli anni 
1798, 1799, e 1805. Pp. 30. Leghorn : 
tip. Debatte. 4to. 

Dazio (A.) Le leggi politiche dei Fran- 
chi e quelle dei Borgognoni e dei 
Ripuari. Pp. 37. Lanciano : tip. 

Di'TRRWAECHTER (A.) Die Gesta Caroli 
Magni der Regensburger Schotten- 
legende, zum ersten Mai ediert und 
kritisch untersucht. Pp. 227. Bonn : 
Hanstein. 6 m. 

Fernandez Duro (C.) Armada espafiola, 
desde la union de los reinos de Castilla 
y de Aragon. III. Pp. 522. Madrid : 
Rivadeneyra. 4to. 

FiDis (sancte), Liber miraculorum ; 
publ. par A. Bouillet. Pp. xxxvi, 291. 
Paris : Picard. 7-50 f. 

Franciscana, Analecta, sive chronica 




aliaqne varia doenmenta ad historiam 
fratram minorum spectantia, edita a 
patribus collegii s. Bonaventurae. III. 
Pp. 748. Quaracchi : tip. s. Bona- 
venturae. 12 1. 
Qallieb (A. de). Cesar Borgia, due de 
Valentinois, et documents inMits sur 
sons^jour en France. Pp. 174. Paris: 
Picard. 5 f. 
Gibbon (Edn'ard). The history of the 
decline and fall of the Roman empire. 
Ed. by J. B. Bury. UI, IV. Pp. 508, 
546. London : Methuen. Each 6/. 
Gomez de Arteche y Mono (J.) Guerra 
de la independencia ; historia militar de 
Espafia de i8o8 k 1814. X. Pp. 567. 
Madrid ; impr. del Deposito de la 
Guerra. 4to. 
GossABT (E.) Notes pour servir k 
I'histoire du r^gne de Charles-Quint. 
Pp. 119. Brussels: Hayez. 
Harbison (F.) William the Silent. Pp. 

260. London : Macmillan. 2/6. 
Hassall (A.) A handbook of European 
history [476-1871], chronologically 
arranged. Pp. 383. London: Mac- 
millan. 8/6. 
Hazen (C. D.) Contemporary American 
opinion of the French revolution. Pp. 
315. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Press. 
HiJM.iNS (P.) Histoire parlementaire de 
la Belgique. III. Pp. 202. Brussels : 
Bruylant. 450 f. 
HcME (M. A. S.) Philip II of Spain. 

Pp. 262. London : Macmillan. 2/6. 
Jesu, Societatis, Monumenta historica 
nunc primum edita e patribus eiusdem 
societatis. XLIV : Litterae quadri- 
mestres ex univcrsis praeter Indiam 
et Brasiliam locis in quibus aliqui de 
Societate Jesu versabantur Bomam 
missae. IV: [1556.] Pp. 160. Ma- 
drid : tip. Avrial. 4to. 
Klette (E. T.) Der Process und die 
Acta S. Apollonii. (Gebhardt & 
Hamack's Texte und Untersuchungen. 
XV, 2.) Pp. 136. Leipzig : Hinrichs. 
4-50 m. 
KuRTH (G.) Saintc Clotilde. Pp. 185. 

Paris : Lecoffre. 18mo. 2 f. 
Leicht (P. S.) Diritto romano e diritto 
germanico in alcuni documenti friulani 
dei secoli XI, XII, XIII. Pp. 97. 
Udine : tip. Doretti. 
McGiFFERT (A. C.) A history of Chris- 
tianity in the apostolic age. Pp. 680. 
Edinburgh: Clark. 12/. 
Maonette (F.) Joseph II et la liberty de 
I'Escaut. Pp. 254. Brussels : Leb^gue. 
Maronier (J. H.) Geschiedenis van het 
protestantisme, van den Munsterschen 
vrede tot de Fransche revolutie [1648- 
1789I. Pp. 239, 256. Leyden: Brill. 
MiiAs (N.) Das Kirchenrecht dor mor- 
genlandischen Kirche, nach den all- 
gemeinen Kirchenrechtsquellen und 
nach den in den autokephaleu Kirchnn 
geltendeu Special-Gesetzcn veifasst. 

Uebersetzt von A. E. von Pessic. 
Pp.621. Zara. (Czemowitz : Pardini.) 
(10 m.) 
MoccHEoiANi (P.) Collectlo indulgen- 
tiarum theologice, canonice, ac histo- 
rice digesta. Pp. 1149. Quaracchi : 
typ. S. Bonaventurae. 
MoLTESEN (L. J.) De avignonske Pavers 
Forhold til Danmark. Pp. 250. 
Copenhagen : Gad. 
Moltke's militarische Werkc. I: Mili- 
tarische Korrespondenz. Ill : Aus den 
Dienstschriften des Krieges 1870-1871. 
3 : Waffenstillstand und Friede. Pp. 
541-788. Berlin : Mittler. 5 m. 
MoTTAz (E.) Stanislas Poniatowski et 
Maurice Glayre ; correspondance rela 
tive aux partages de la Polognc. 
Pp. li, 303. Paris : C. L6vy. 18mo. 
3-50 f. 
Naessen (P.) Franciscaansch Vlaanderen. 

Pp. 504. Malines : Dierickx. 5 f. 
NissEN (W.) Die Regelung des Kloster- 
wesens im Bhomiierreiche bis zum Ends 
des neunten Jahrhunderts. Pp. 30. 
Hamburg : Herold. 4to. 2 m. 
NCbnberoer (A. J.) Zur Kirchenge- 
schichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. 
I. 1 : Papsttum und Kirchenstaat. 
1 : Vom Tode Pius VI bis zum Re- 
gierungsantritt Pius IX [1800-1846]. 
Pp. 259. Mainz : Kirchheim. 3 m. 
PaPADOPOCLOS-Kerameus (A.) 'KviKtKra 
'IfpocroXvixiTiKTJs araxvoXoytas fl avK\oyr\ 
avefcSdrwy koX airavMV 'EAAtjvjxwi' avy- 
ypatpaiv irepl rait' Karh ttjv 'Etpav 6p6o- 
id^aiv fKK\i](Tiuv Kol fidMffra t^j twv 
na\ai(TTiva>i>. Ill, IV. Pp. 585, 613. 
St. Petersburg. (Leipzig :Harrassowitz.) 
(20 m.) 
Phillips (W. A.) The war of Greek 
independence [1821-1833]. Pp. 424. 
London: Smith, Elder, & Co. 7/6. 
PiERRUouES (A, D.) Giornali del prin- 
cipe d' Orange nelle guerre d' Italia 
[1526-1530"!. Pp. 79. Florence : tip. 
Pellas. 16'mo. 2 1. 
PoHLER (J.) Bibliotheca historico-mili- 
taris. Systematische Uebersicht der Er- 
scheinungen aller Sprachen auf dem 
Gebiete der Geschichte der Kriege und 
Kriegswissenschaft seit Erfindung der 
Buchdi'uckerkunst bis zum Schluss des 
Jnhres 1880. IV, 2. Pp. 31—60. 
Leipzig : Lang. 3 m. 
Pbecschen (E.) Palladius und Bufinns ; 
ein Beitrag zur Quellenkunde des 
altesten Monchtums. Pp. 268. Giessen : 
Bicker. 12 m. 
Ras (J. de). Mdmoire historique, diplo- 
matique, et critique sur la souverainetfi 
du prince-6v6que de Li^ge dans la 
ville de Maestricht avant la promulga- 
tion de I'ancienne charte [1283]. Pp. 
73. Maestricht : Boosten & Stols. 
Run (G. van). Atlas van Stolk ; kata- 
logus der historic-, spot-, en zinnepren- 
ten bctrekkelijk de geschiedenis van 
Nedcrland, verzameld door A. van 




Stolk Cz. II, Pp. 352. Amsterdam : 

EoME, Christian and ecclesiastical, Hand- 
book to. II : The litm-gy in Rome. 
London : Black. 5/. 

Ross-of-Bladensburg (lieut-col.) The 
Coldstream guards in the Crimea. 
Pp. 312. London ; Innes. G/. 

Sargent (H. H.) The campaign of 
Marengo. London : Paul, Triibner, & 
Co. 6/. 

Sergeant (L.) Greece in the nine- 
teenth century ; a record of Hellenic 
emancipation and progress [i 820- 1897]. 
Pp. 410. London : Unwin. 10/6. 


vicendedella giurisdizione ecclesiastica 
nelle cause del laici. secondo il diritto 
della chiesa e la legislazione, dottrina, 
e pratica italiana dalla fine dell' im- 
pero Carolingio al principio del secolo 
XV. I. Pp. 61. Palermo : tip. Lor- 

SiGMUNDS (Kaiser), Die Urkunden, ver- 
zeichnet von W. Altmann. II : [1425- 
1433]. 1. Pp. 1-240. Innsbruck : 
Wagner. 4to. (14 m.) 

Stein (A.) Johannes Hus ; een tijd- en 
karakterbeeld uit de vijftiende eeuw. 
Pp. 235. Eottcrdam : Daamen. 

Steinmetz (R.) Die zweite romische 
Gefangenschaft des Apostels Paulus; 

eine kirchenhistorische und neutesta- 
mentliche Untersuchung. Pp. 244. 
Leipzig : Deichert. 360 m. 

Stern (A.) Geschiehte Europas seit 
den Vertragen von 181 5 bis zum 
Frankfurter Frieden von 1871. II. 
Pp. 572. Berlin : Hertz. 9 m. 

Strobl (A.) Aspern und Wagram ; kurze 
Darstellung der Ereignisse in den 
Schlachten von Aspern und Wagram 
[1809]. Pp. 65, illustr. Vienna : Seidel. 
(2-40 m.) 

Tridentinische Urbare aus dem dreizehn- 
ten Jahrhundert. Von C. Schneller. 
Pp. 283. Innsbruck : Wagner. (6 m.) 

TivoLLiEB (J.) Monographic de la vallee 
du Queyras (Hautes-Alpes) ; suivie 
d'un aper^u sur les anciennes institu- 
tions brianQonnaises et sur I'etat poli- 
tique, social, et ecclesiastique du Quey- 
ras avant 1 789. Pp. 368. Gap : Jean 
& Peyrot. 18mo. 3-50 f. 

Uppstrom (W.) Sveriges rikes Lag, 
gillad och antagen pi riksdagen ar 
1734, af konungen stadfastad den 23 
januari 1736 jemte forordningar och 
stadganden som utkommit till borjan 
af januari 1897. XIIL Pp. 1307. 
Stockholm : Beijer. 

Ward (W.) The life and times of car- 
dinal Wiseman. 2 vol. London : 
Longmans. 24/. 


Amiens, Documents pour servir a I'his- 
toire de la revolution francjaise dans la 
villed'. Ill: Registresaux deliberations 
del'administration municipale. (Annie 
1790.) Pp. 438. Paris: Picard. 
7-50 f. 

AssiEE (A.) Pierre de Cugnitjres, les otages 
de Champagne a Londrcs. Paris : 
Lechevalier. l6mo. 2-50 f. 

AcLARD (F. A.) Etudes et le^-ons sur la 
revolution francjaise. II. Pp. 307. 
Paris : Alcan. 3-50 f. 

La socifcte des Jacobins ; recueil de 

documents pour I'histoire du club des 
Jacobins de Paris. VI : [mars a novem- 
bre 1794]. Pp. 811. Paris: Cerf. 
7-50 f. 

Baston (abbe), chanoine de Rouen. Me- 
moires d'apres le manuserit original 
publ. par J. Loth et C. Verger. 1 : 1741- 
1792. Pp. xxxix, 438. Paris: Picard. 

Brossard (J.) Regeste ou memorial histo- 
rique de I'eglise Notre-Dame de Bourg. 
I. Pp. 549. Bourg-en-Bresse : impr. 

Caknot (Lazare). Correspondance gene- 
rale, publiee avec des notes historiques 
et biographiques par E. Charavay. Ill : 
(aout-oct. 1793). Pp- 623. Paris: 
Leroux. 12 f. 

Cocabd (E.) Inventaire sommaire des ar- 
chives departementales anterieures .\ 
1790. Seine-et-Oise : Archives civiles 

(Serie E, articles 5864-6930). Pp. 
Ixxx, 431. Versailles : Cerf. 4to. 15 f. 

CouRET (A.) Un fragment inedit des an- 
ciens registres de la prevote d'Orieans, 
relatif au reglement des frais du siege 
de 1428 -1429. Pp.48. Orleans : Her- 
luison. 1"50 f. 

D GRAND (G.) Inventaire sommaire des 
archives communales anterieures a 
1790. Ville d' Amiens. Ill: Serie BB 
(39 a 323). Pp. 540. Amiens : impr. 
Piteux. 4to. 

Fleury (general conite). Les grands 
terroristes ; Carrier a Nantes [1793- 
1794]. Paris: Plon. 7-50 f. 

Souvenirs. I : [1837 -1859]. Paris: 

Plon. 7-50 f. 

Guerard (L.) Documents pontificaux sur 
la Gascogne, d'apres les archives du 
Vatican. Pontificat de Jean XXII 
[1316-1334]. I. Pp. Ixxx, 258. 
Paris : Champion. 8 f. 

GuiLLON (P.) La mort do Louis XIIL 
Paris : Fontemoing. 5 f. 

Lacroix (S.) Actes de la commune de Pa- 
ris pendant la revolution, V : 2^ as- 
sembiee des representants de la com- 
mune ; Conseil de ville ; Bureau de 
ville [15 avril-8 juin 1790]. Pp. 763. 
Paris : Cerf. 7-50 f. 

Lumbroso (A.) Miscellanea napoleonica 
in. Pp. 235. Rome: Modes & 
Mendel. 3-50 1. 




Napolkon I". Lettres in^dites [an VIII- 
1815]. Publi6es par L. Lecestre. 2 vol. 
Pp. 392. 431. Paris : Plon. 15 f. 

Lettres, ordres, et d^crets [18 12- 

1814] non ins6r6s dans la ' Correspon- 
dance,' recueillis et publics par le vi- 
comte de Grouchy. Paris: Berger- 
Levrault. 2-50 f. 

Pkucier (P.) Cartulaire du chapitre de 
I'^glise cath^drale de Ch&lons-sur- 
Marne, par le chantre Warin. Pp. 74. 
Paris : Picard. 3-50 f. 

Perkins (J. B.) France under Louis XV. 

2 vol. London : Smith, Elder, & Ck). 16/. 
Petit (E.) S^jours de Jean II [1350-1356]. 

Pp. 28. Paris : impr. Nationale. 
S6joursde Charles VIII [1483-1498]. 

Pp.64. Paris: impr. Nationale. 3 f . 
SiCHEL (Edith). The household of the 

Lafayettes. Pp. 354. Westminster : 

Constable. 15/. 
Stoddard (E. V.) Bertrand du Guesclin, 

constable of France ; his life and times. 

Pp. 301. London : Putnams. 10/6. 

(Including Austria-Hungai-y) 

Anoeli (M. von). Erzherzog Carl von 

Osteneich als Feldherr und Heeres- 

organisator. V. Pp. 285, Ixxviii. 

Vienna : Braumiiller. (8 m.) 
Badex, Beschreibung von Miinzen und 

Medaillen des Fiirstenhauses und Lan- 

des. 1. Pp. xxxvii, 122, plates. 

Aaran : Sauerlander. 4to. (40 m.) 
Beyer (C.) Ludwig II, KonigvonBayern. 

Pp. 176. Leipzig : Fock. 3 m. 
BiERMAXX (G.) Geschichte des Protes- 

tantismus in OesteiTeichisch-Schlesien. 

Pp. 223. Prague : Calve. (5 m.) 
Frankfurt an der Oder, Acten und 

Urkunden der Universitat, hsg. von 

G. Kaufmann und G. Bauch. I, ). 

Hsg. von G. Bauch. Pp. 8t. Breslau : 

Marcus. 3 m. 
Hansekecesse. VIII : Die Eecesse und 

andere Akte der Hansetage [1256- 

1430]. Pp. 832. Leipzig : Duncker 

& Humblot. 4to. 28 m. 
Leipzig, Die Matrikel der Universitat, 

hsg. von G. Erler. II : Die Promotionen 

von 1409-1559. (Codex diplomaticus 

Saxoniae regiae. II, xvii.) Pp. xciv, 

756. Leipzig : Giesecke & Devrient. 

4to. 40 m. 
Lt^ECK, Urkundenbuch der Stadt. X. 

3, 4. Pp. 161-320. Liibeck : Schmer- 

sahl. 4to. Each, 3 m. 
Maoirus (A.) Herzog Wilhelm von Wiirt- 

temberg, k. und k. Feldzeugmeister. 

Pp. 378. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 

7-50 m. 

Manns (P.) Geschichte der Grafachaft 
Hohenzollern im fiinfzehnten und sech- 
zehnten Jahrhundert[i40i-i6o5]. Pp. 
332. Heckingen : Walther. 5 m. 

Marcks (E.) Kaiser Wilhelm I. Pp. 370. 
Leipzig : Duncker & Humblot. 5 m. 

Oer (F. von). Fiirstbischof Johannes 
Baptist Zwei-ger von Seckau in seinem 
Leben und Wirken dargestellt. Pp. 464. 
Graz : Moser. (6 m.) 

Prutz (H.) Aus des Grossen Eurfiirsten 
letzten Jahren ; zur Geschichte seines 
Hauses und Hofes, seiner Begierung 
und Politik. Pp. 410. Berlin : Beimer. 
7 m. 

BiETScHEL (S.) Markt und Stadt in ihrem 
rechtlichen Verhaltnis ; ein Beitrag 
zur Geschichte der deutschen Stadtver- 
fassung. Pp. 233. Leipzig: Veit. 
6 m. 

Schmidt (C.) Les seigneurs, les paysans, 
et la propri^t^ rurale en Alsace au 
moyen age. Pp. xxxvi, 290. Paris. 

Tetzner (F.) Geschichte der deutschen 
Bildung und Jugenderziehung von der 
Urzeit bis zur Errichtung von Stadt- 
schulen. Pp. 404. Giitersloh : Ber- 
telsmann. 5*50 m. 

Thomas (M.) Markgraf Kasimir von Bran- 
denburg im Bauernkriege. Pp. 79. 
Breslau : Schletter. 1-30 m. 

Zenker (R. V.) Die Wiener Bevolution 
[1848] in ihren socialen Vorans- 
setzungen und Beziehungen. Pp. 296. 
Vienna : Hartleben. (6 m.) 


Atkinson (T. D.) Cambridge described 

and illustrated, being a short history 

of the town and university. Pp. 

xxxvii, 528, illuslr. London : Mac- 

millan. 21/. 
Atlay (J. B.) The trial of lord Cochrane 

before lord Ellenborough. Pp. 529. 

London : Smith, Elder, & Co. 18/. 
Barbk (L. a.) Kirkcaldy of Grange. Pp. 

157. London : Oliphant. 1/6. 
Biography, Dictionary of national. Ed. by 

S.Lee. LIII : Smith— Slauger. Pp.485. 

London : Smith, Elder, & Co. 15/. 

Brou (P.) Saint Augustin de Canter- 
bury et ses compagnons. Pp. 212. 
Paris : Lecoffre. 18mo. 2 f. 

Bcshell (W. D.) Harrow octocentenary 
tracts. IX : The vicarage. Pp. 27. 
Cambridge : Macmillan & Bowes. 1/. 

Camm (B.) a Benedictine martyr in 
England ; being the life and times of 
dom John Boberts. Pp. 317. London : 
Bliss, Sands, & Co. 

CoNYBKARE (E.) A history of Cambridge- 
shire. Pp. 307. London : Stock. 

DiTCHfiELO (P. H.) The story of our 




English towns. Pp. 308. London : 
Kedway. 6/. 

Egebton (H. E.) a short history of 
British colonial policy. Pp. 503 
London: Methuen. 12/6. 

Falklaxds. Pp. 193. London : Long- 
mans. 10/6. 

Fleming (D. H.) Mary queen of Scots 
from her hirth to her flight into 
England : with notes, documents, and 
an itinerary. Pp. 556. London : 
Hodder & Stoughton. 7/6. 

Hekon (J.) The Celtic church in Ire- 
land. Pp. 440. London: Service & 
Paton. 7/6. 

Kingston (A.) East Anglia and the 
great civil war. Pp. 407. London : 

Lees (J. C.) A history of the county of 
Inverness. Edinburgh : Blackwood. 

Liebermann (F.) Die Gesetze der Angel- 
sachsen. I : Text und Uebersetzung. 
1. Pp. 191. Halle : Niemeyer. 4to. 8 m. 

LosEBTH (J.) Studien zur Kirchenpolitik 
Englands im vierzehnten Jahrhundert. 
I : Bis zum Ausbruch des grossen 
Schismas [1378]. Pp.135. Vienna: 
Gerold. 3 m. 

Mahcks (E.) Konigin Elisabeth von 
England und ihre Zeit. Pp. 131. 
Bielefeld : Velhagen & Klasing. 3 m. 

Mayo (J. W.) Medals and decorations 
of the British army and navy. Pp. 
Ixxxviii, 617. Westminster : Con- 
stable. 63/. 

Newdigate-Newdegate (lady). Gossip 
from a muniment room, being passages 
in the lives of Anne and Mary Fytton 
[1574-1618] ; ed. by. Pp. 172. Lon- 
don: Nutt. 4to. 7/6. 

Nicholas (sir Edward), secretary of state. 
Correspondence. Ill: July 1655- 

December 1656, Pp. 307. London : 
Camden Society. 4to. 

Norman (P.) London signs and inscrip- 
tions. Pp. 237. London : Stock. 3/6. 

Patent rolls, Calendar of the. Edward 
IV : 1461-1467. Pp. 731. London : 
H. M. Stationery Office. 15/. 

Privy council of England, Acts of the. 
Ed. by J. E. Dasent. XVI: 1588. 
Pp. xliii, 477. London : H. M. 
Stationery Ofl&ce. 10/. 

Searle (W. G.) Onomasticon Anglo- 
Saxonicum; a list of Anglo-Saxon 
proper names from the time of Beda 
to that of king John. Pp. Ivii, 601. 
Cambridge : University Press. 4to. 

Stratford-on-Avon, The registers of. 
Baptisms [1558-1652]. Transcribed 
by R. Savage. Pp. 188. London ; 
Parish Register Society. 

Taunton (E. L.) The English black 
monks of St. Benedict ; a sketch of 
their history from the coming of St. 
Augustine to the present day. 2 vol. 
Pp. 310, 367. London : Nimmo. 21/. 

Townshend (Dorothea). Life and letters 
of Endymion Porter, sometime gentle- 
man of the bedchamber to king Charles 
the First. Pp. 272. London : Unwin. 

Wheatley (H. B.) Historical portraits. 
Pp. 288. London : Bell. 10/6. 

Winchester, Documents relating to the 
history of the cathedral church of, in the 
seventeenth century. Ed. by W. R. W. 
Stephens and F. T. Madge. Pp. 244. 
London : Simpkin. 15/. 

The registers of John de 

Sandale and Eigaud de Asserio, bishops 
of Winchester [1316-1323], with docu- 
ments, ed. by F. J. Baigent. Pp. 804. 
London : Simpkin. 21/. 


Abate (A.) Cronache savonesi [1500- 

1570] accresciute di documenti inediti, 

pubblicate di G. Assereto. Pp. 355. 

Ancona (A. d'). Documenti sulla univer- 

sita di Pisa nel secolo xv. Pp. 14. Pisa : 

Mariotti. 16mo. 
Branchi (E.) Storia della Lunigiana 

feudale. I. Pp. 687. Pistoia : Beggi 

Tommaso. 16mo. 
Carini (I.) Gli archivi e le biblioteche di 

Spagna in rapporto alia storia d' Italia 

in generale e di Sicilia in particolare. 

II, 3. Pp. 401-603. Palermo : tip. Lo 

Falcando (Ugo). La historia o liber de 

regno Sicilie, et la epistola ad Petrum 

Panormitane ecclesie thesaurarium. 

Nuova edizione a cura di G. B. Sira- 

gusa. (Fonti per la storia d' Italia. 

Scrittori. Secolo xii.) Pp. xlv, 197. 

Rome : Istituto Storico Italiano. 4to. 

FioRiNi (V.) Gli atti del congresso cispa- 
dano nella citta di Reggio [27 dicembre 
1796-9 gennaio 1797]. Pp. 175. Rome: 
tip. Voghera. 16mo. 2 1. 

FoRCELLA (V.) & Seletti (E.) IscHzioni 
cristiane in Milano anteriori al nono se- 
colo. Pp. XXX, 278. Codogno : tip. 
Cairo. 12 1. 

Gherardi (A.) Le consulte della repub- 
blica fiorentina. XXXII : Indici. Pp. 
673-712. Florence: Sansoni. 4to. 41. 

GoRi (A.) Storia della rivoluzione italiana 
durante il periodo delle riforme [1846- 
14 marzo 1848J. Pp. 518. Florence: 

HoRRiuGE (F.) Lives of great Italians. 
Pp. 472. London : Unwin. 7/6. 

Lazzarini (V.) Marino Faliero ; la con- 
giura. Pp. 205. Venice : Visentini. 


Maioccbi (B.) Antiche iscrizioni ticinesi. 
I : Iscrizioni ticinesi anteriori al secolo 
settimo ancora esistenti nella cittA di 
Payia. Pp. 59. Pavia : tip. Artigianelli. 

. Francesco Barbavera du- 
rante la reggenza di Caterina Visconti 
secondo i document! dell' archivio civico 
di Pavia. Pp. 47. Turin : Paravia. 

Mancini (G.) Cortona nel medio evo. Pp. 
396. Florence : Carnesecchi, 6 1. 

Mazzatinti (G.) Cronache forlivesi di Ber- 
nardi Andrea [1476-1517], pubblicate 
ora per la prima volta di su I'autografo. 
I, 2. Pp. 379. Bologna : Deputazione 
di storia patria. 

MiNccci DEL Rosso (P.) Di alcune colonic 
greche nello stato di Siena sotto il go- 
vern j mediceo. Pp. 20. Siena: tip. 

MoxTicoLo (G.) I capitolari delle arti ve- 
neziane sottoposte alia Giustizia e poi 

alia Giustizia Yecchia dalle origini al 

1330. I. Pp. Ixxx, 412. Rome : tip. 

Forzani. 12 1. 
MusATTi (R.) La storia politica di Venezia 

secondo le ultima ricerche. Pp. 512. 

Pasolini (P. D.) Caterina Sforza : nuovi 

documenti. Pp. 152. Rome. 
ScARAMczzA (S.) Italicac res. I. Pp. ex, 

752. Vicenza : tip. Rumor. 4to. 
Venice. — Relazione di Andrea Giustinian 

e Ottaviano Yalier ritornati da siadaci 

avogadori ed inquisitor! in Dalmazia, 

Albania, Corfii, Zante, Cefalonia [1576]. 

Pp.38. Venice: tip. Emiliana. 4to. 
ViNcENTi (G.) La contea di Nola dal 

secolo XIII al xvi ; ricerche storiche e 

feudali. Pp. 95. Naples : Goppini. 

16mo. 2 1. 
Zamboki (F.) Gli Ezzelini, Dante, e gli 

schiavi. Pp. clxxxvi, 516. Florence. 


Casoraik (H. R.) Les Sulpiciena et les 
pretres des missions ^trang^res en 
Acadie [1676-1762]. Pp.462. Quebec: 
Pruneau & Kirouac. 

Church (W. C.) Ulysses S. Grant and the 
period of national preservation and re- 
construction. Pp. 473. London : Put- 
nam. 5/. 

CoLECcioN de documentos relatives al 
descubrimiento, conquista, y organiza- 
cion de las antiguas posesiones espa- 
nolas de Ultramar. II* serie. X. Pp. 
cxi, 563. Madrid. 4to. 

Fabie (A. M.) Ensayo historico de la legis- 
lacion espauola en sus estados de 
Ultramar. Pp. 336. Madrid. 4to. 

FiSKE (J.) Old Virginia and her neigh- 
bours. 2 vol. Pp. 318, 421. London : 
Macmillan. 16/. 

Gomez Carrillo (A.) Historia de la Ame- 
rica Central [1502-1821]. IV. Pp. 359. 
Guatemala: tip. Nacional. 4to. 

Johnston (H. P.) The battle of Harlem 
Heights [16 Sept. 1776J, with a review 
of the events of the campaign. Pp. 
234. New York (London : Macmillan. 

Medina (J. T.) Coleccion de documentos 
inMitos para la historia de Chile, desde 
el viaje de Magallanes hasta la batalla 
deMaipo[i5i8-i8i8]. XI-XIIL Pp. 

557, 448, 491. Santiago de Chile : impr. 

Elzeviriana. 4to. 
Medina (J. T.) Juan Diaz de Solis ; es- 

tudio historico. 2 vol. Pp. ccclii, 252. 

Santiago de Chile. 
Molina Solis (J. F.) Historia del descu- 
brimiento y conquista de Yucatan. Pp. 

Ix, 911. Madrid. 4to. 
ScnouLER (J.) Constitutional studies, 

state and federal. Pp. 332. New 

ScuDDER (H.) A history of the United 

States of America. Pp. 536. New 

York. 12mo. 
Theal (G. M'C.) History of South Africa 

under the administration of the Dutch 

East India Company [1652-1795]. 2 vol. 

Pp. 459, 462. London : Sonnenschein. 

Tyler (M. C.) The literary history of the 

American revolution [1763- 1783]. 

2 vol. II: 1776-1783. London: 

Putnam. 12/6. 
Vaogioli (F.) Storia della Nuova Ze- 

landa e dei suoi abitatori. II. Pp. 548. 

Parma : tip. Fiaccadori. 
Wharton (Anne H.) Martha Washington. 

Pp.320. London: Murray. 5/. 
White (H. A.) Robert E. Lee and the 

southern confederacy. Pp. 467. Lon- 
don; Putnams. 5/. 

The English 

Historical Review 

NO. L.— APRIL 1898 

The Early History of Babylonia 


IN a previous paper I described some of the important new 
materials for the history of the Babylonian plain which have 
been the fruit of the American excavations at Nuffar. I shall 
now pass to the French discoveries at Tell Loh. Before doing so 
it will be convenient, however, to state shortly the present 
position of the much-debated question as to the affinities of the 
language of primitive Chaldea, and the racial connexion of the 
people who spoke it. 

Among the earliest discoveries of the Assyriologists was the fact 
that the syllabic and phonetic characters in which the Assyrian and 
Babylonian inscriptions were written were merely modified and con- 
densed forms of ideographs, very much as was the hieratic writing 
of the Egyptians, which was derived from the hieroglyphic script ; 
and a considerable number of these primitive ideographs wore re- 
covered. On examining the ideographs which represented objects 
and ideas graphically, it was speedily discovered that the sounds 
which the characters bore in the Assyrian and Babylonian inscrip- 
tions had in most cases no connexion whatever with the names of 
the objects (represented by the primitive ideographs) in the same 
languages, and the conclusion forced itself upon Dr. Hincks and 
others that the writing was not home-made among the Assyrians 
and Babylonians, but had been borrowed by them from some race 
in whose language the names of the objects represented and the 
sounds of the characters corresponded. 

This hypothetical language was presently found to have left a 
very large number of actual specimens in texts composed entirely 

VOL. XIII. — NO. L. P 


in it ; and not only so, but a large number of dictionaries and 
vocabularies were recovered in which the words were explained by 
the corresponding terms in Babylonian and Assyrian. For this 
primitive language Dr. Hincks proposed what has turned out to be 
the not very fortunate name of Akkadian ; and it was gradually 
shown that the Semitic Assyrians and Babylonians had derived 
not only their writing, but a considerable part of their literature 
also, from this language, and that in all human probabiUty the 
main part of the culture and civilisation of the Assyrians and 
Babylonians was borrowed from the so-called Akkadians. 

This fact was a stumbling-block to some, who were loth to 
believe that the Semitic races, to whom the lamp of culture seems 
at certain historical periods to have been especially entrusted, should 
have borrowed their early culture and letters from others. Among 
them, one of the most learned and acute was the distinguished 
Hebrew scholar, M. Halevy, of Paris. Before he had studied 
Assyrian he committed himself to the extraordinary position that 
this so-called Akkadian language was no language at all, but a 
cryptic form of writing, invented by the Semitic literary men of 
Babylonia, just as Sanscrit was declared by Dugald Stewart to 
have been a mere invention of the Brahmins. This extraordinary 
contention he has fought for with pertinacity and ingenuity in the 
teeth of every kind of evidence. For a while his view acquired a 
somewhat factitious importance from the fact that Professor 
Friedrich Delitzsch, the Assyrian lexicographer, gave him some 
countenance ; but he also has now abandoned him and reverted 
to his older view, which is that of every other Assyriologist of 
any repute ; and well may it be so. That in very primitive times 
the Assyrians should have commenced by inventing cryptic 
ideograms in which the sound and sense were entirely at variance ; 
that they should have constructed not merely characters and 
words, but a whole grammar and syntax ; that they should 
have carefully and painfully prepared vocabularies and dictionaries 
of this tongue, and taken the trouble to translate a large number 
of documents out of it — these are staggering facts in themselves 
which could be supplemented by many others. But that they 
should have had the wit and inspiration to construct a cryptic speech 
which corresponds in vocabulary and grammar so closely to a well- 
known non-Semitic form of human speech far removed in every way 
from it, and should then have employed it not for secret or religious 
writings, but for the ordinary everyday work of life — for conveying 
land and for all the deeds and documents which have been 
preserved in tens of thousands, in which peasants and merchants 
recorded their homely arrangements and their daily business 
transactions — assuredly transcends all human possibilities. 

"Wh^n it was seen that the oldest literature and records in the 


Babylonian lands were enshrined in an unsuspected language, and 
that materials for its study abounded, it was natural that it should 
attract the attention of scholars. Oppert, Sayce, Lenormant, 
and Hommel especially addressed themselves to the 'comparative 
affinities of the tongue, and speedily concluded that its nearest 
living allies were to be found among the languages of northern 
Asia. This view was first emphasised by Oppert. The great bulk 
of these latter tongues belonged to one generic class, separated 
into two well-marked divisions, one including the Turkish and 
Mongolian and Manchu languages, and the other the various forms 
of Finnish speech. The chief contention has been whether the 
so-called Akkadian speech belonged to the former or to the latter 
of these divisions. Lenormant favoured the Finnish affinity, 
which was disputed by the Finn scholar, Donner. Others, and 
notably Hommel, have favoured and apparently established on scien- 
tific and permanent grounds the Mongolo-Turcic affinity of the 
language. Mr. Sayce says of Hommel's researches in this field : 

He has succeeded in discovering the leading laws of phonetic change 
between Akkado-Sumerian and the modern Turkish dialects, and has 
thus fulfilled the primary conditions of proof demanded by linguistic 
science. The structure, the grammar, the phonology, the vocal harmony, 
and the vocabulary, all go to show that the primitive language of Chaldea 
is a remotely ancient representative of the Altaic form of speech. 

Such I believe to be the truest and best conclusion from the facts. 
I ought to mention that the latest and one of the most elaborate 
examinations of the problem is to be found in a work on the in- 
scriptions of Shamas shumukin, the king of Babylon, by Lehmann, 
who of course strongly supports the conclusions of the great mass 
of Assyriologists. Let us now turn to another side of the issue. 

Every one who has written about the origin and relationship of 
the primitive people of Chaldea has been apparently baffled by the 
contradiction between the physical character of the race and its 
language. The language, as we have seen, is closely allied to that 
spoken by the Turks ; the appearance of the people is entirely 
different from that of any Turkish race. As we have seen,^ they 
were probably chocolate or black in colour, while the shape of their 
faces and their general appearance were in marked distinction from 
that of the so-called Turanian races. I would venture upon a 
suggestion to which the key seems a long way off. It was first 
elaborated by Baron Eckstein, more than forty years ago, and was 
supported by two such famous explorers as Lepsius and Sir Henry 
Eawlinson. In India we find that there have been two civilised 
peoples, who have affected its history and who constitute the 
elements best worth studying in the population of the country. 
These are the so-called Aryans of northern India, or Hindostan 

» Ante, p. 3. 



proper, speaking languages derived from Sanscrit, and south of the 
Vindhya hills an entirely different race, divided into several sections, 
all related to each other, possessed of a very old culture, having a 
remarkably dark chocolate complexion, and now speaking languages 
all known generically as Dravidian, of which the main forms or 
dialects are Tamil, Tclugu, Canarese, and Malayalim. Some look 
upon these tribes as aboriginal ; others, on the other hand, have 
argued that they were not aborigines, but invaded the country at 
a very early time, before the Aryans did so, and settled where they 
are now found. For our present purpose it is only material 
to reaUse that this Dravidian stock at one time extended 
much further than it does at present — that it forms the basis 
of the population of Hindostan proper, as well as of southern 
India, and that the lowest, or Sudra class, in most parts of 
western and southern India is essentially of Dravidian blood, the 
Aryan elements forming a mere veneer and covering. Next it is 
material to remember that this primitive Dravidian stock, which 
underlies the population of so much of India and retains its old 
language only in the south, once existed much beyond these limits. 
For the most part the tribes of Beluchistan speak dialects of 
the Iranian or Persian section of Aryan tongues, but their gene- 
rally dark complexion and physical features betray their origin as 
one foreign to the Aryan stock. And in the mountainous provinces 
of Sarawan and Jhalawan, the very kernel of the country, there 
still survives a tribe — the Brahuis — whose language, although 
corrupted and overlaid by Persian, Afghan, and Hindu elements, is 
still substantially, as Bishop Caldwell showed, a Dravidian speech. 
There can be little doubt from their geographical position that 
the Brahuis form the aborigines of the country. They are specially 
described as differing from the other Beluchis by their thick-set 
frames, larger bones, and shorter figures, while they are also of 
much darker colour, and among them persons of fair complexion 
are never found. It seems plain that the Dravidians of India 
and this dark race of Beluchistan were at one time in geographical 
contact, and that the two have been isolated by the encroachment 
of the Aryan races, both of the Sanscrit and Iranian stocks. 

Herodotus, in enumerating the satrapies of Darius, tells us 
the seventeenth satrapy comprised the Paricanians and Asiatic 
Ethiopians, and they furnished a tribute of 400 talents.' These 
Asiatic Ethiopians, he again tells us, were associated with the 
Indians, and differed from the African Ethiopians only in their 
language and in their hair. The eastern Ethiopians had straight 
hair, while the African ones had it curly.' Eennell and Eawlinson 
agree that these Asiatic Ethiopians of Herodotus must have 
occupied the tract intervening between Eastern Persia, or Carmania, 

» Herodotus, iii. 94. » Ibid. vii. 70. 


the modern Kerman, and the mouths of the Indus. Here alone, 
out of India, could blacks (at this tnne) have been found. Eawlmson 
urges that they were the ancestors of the Brahuis and represent 
the people of Kusan or Kush mentioned in this district in 
Sassanian times. The same district was the Gedrosia of the 
historians of the campaigns of Alexander the Great. 

When we get further west than Beluchistan, into Kerman and 
Fars, or Persia proper, we reach a district which has been more 
completely aryanised by the Iranian race, which is of course domi- 
nant in Persia. But there is every reason to believe that these 
Iranians were invaders, whose advent cannot be placed further back 
than the seventh or eighth century b.c. 

Who, then, occupied Fars and Kerman before the Iranian 
invasion ? Unfortunately we have no linguistic honlders like that 
formed by the Brahui in Beluchistan ; but we have remains of 
another kind — namely, the physical features of the inhabitants of 
the coast — which distinctly point to these districts having been 
occupied at one time by a black race. This race we cannot help 
connecting with their black neighbours further east, whom we 
have already described. Traces of it grow more abundant as we 
travel northwards along the eastern shores of the Persian Gulf, and 
reach the province of Arabistan, corresponding to the Susiana and 
Elam of ancient writers. I will quote from the latest authority on 
the ethnography of these parts, namely, M. Dieulafoy : — 

At Dizful, Susa, Kona and Earn Ormuz in Susiana ; at Gourek, 
Haaram, Linga, and Bender Abbas in Fars and Kerman, live Negritoes 
crossed with Aryans or Arabs, and partially also with Baktyaris. . . . 
My wife and I had found a Negrito mixed people in the villages between 
Bushire and the southern flanks of the mountains^of Fars. Afterwards 
came the mission to Susiana, which found the same mixed Negritoes 
between Bender Abbas and Dizful, where there still live from 15,000 to 
20,000 degenerate Negritoes.* 

Of these types he gives several figures. The survival of a black 
race in these parts is not our only evidence. M. Dieulafoy says 
elsewhere : 

The discovery in the Parthian necropolis of the Memnonium (at Susa) 
of Negrito skulls ; the Negroid type of the Elamites as depicted on the 
Assyrian sculptures ; the famous frieze of black Susian archers, dating 
from the time of the Acha^menian dynasty, confirm the statements of the 
classic writers about the Oriental Ethiopians. ... The Khusis, abject, 
ugly, and of a copper colour approaching to black, who, according 
to Yakut, in the tenth to the thirteenth century still lived on in these 
countries, were no doubt the ancestors of the black race we still find 
there.'' Ibn Haukal, an Arab geographer of the tenth century, speaks of 
the language of the Khuzi of Khuzistau as dififerent from Hebrew, Syriac, 
or Farsi. 

* L'Acro^U de Swe, 8. * Qujitrem^ye, Jot{rn. des Savants 1840, pp. 411, 412, 


M. Dieulafoy concludes that Susian Negritoes occupied the eastern 
shores of the Persian Gulf from the Tigris to the Persian Gulf.*^ 
It may be noticed that Strabo, Pausanias, and Diodorus Siculus 
tell us that Memnon took 10,000 Ethiopians and Susianians to 
the siege of Troy. These must have been the black Susians. 
Ethiopians were represented on the vase which the sculptor 
.Phidias put into the hand of the figure of Nemesis, carved from 
a piece of marble which the Persians had brought with them 
to the field of Marathon ; and Memnon's own father, Tithon, who 
by some is made the brother of Priam, is said by Aeschylus to 
have married a Kissian woman, i.e. a woman of Kush. 

It is clear, therefore, that we have good warranty for extending the 
black race from Cape Comorin as far as the Tigris, and it does not 
seem improbable that this race originally was Dravidian in blood. 
This brings us immediately into contact with the black race which, 
as we have seen, occupied Chaldea at the earliest period to which 
we can carry back our story. Assuredly the facts point to this race 
also having belonged to the same stock — a stock to which the writer 
of Genesis gives the name of Cush, just as Herodotus gives the name 
of Kissia to Susiana, and as the Arab writers give the name of 
Kusan to Beluchistan. 

This conclusion, however, unlocks only one half of the riddle. The 
black people whom we have called Cushites, so far as the foregoing 
evidence goes, were probably Dravidians in blood ; but the language 
spoken by the primitive race of Chaldea was, as we have seen, of 
Turkish or Mongolian affinities. How is this to be reconciled ? 
The history of the Cushites, so far as we know it, is that of a race 
which has been continuously encroached upon by its more vigorous 
neighbours — in India by the Hindu Aryans coming from the north ; 
in Persia by the Iranians, also coming from the north. In Susiana, 
and, as I believe, also in Chaldea, the race which pressed upon them 
in the first instance was that of the true Elamites, a race of 
mountaineers who occupied the Zagros and other highlands behind 
and to the north of the Tigris lowlands, and whose language is 
preserved in the third column of the Behistun inscription, which 
was a close ally of the language of the primitive Chaldeans, and 
belongs to the same Turkish stock. The ancient authors who 
speak of Elam describe it as peopled by two races : the Elamites 
proper — the Elymaeans of Herodotus and later writers, by whom 
the mountaineers seem to be meant ; and the Kissians — the people 
of the Susianian plain and the lowlands between the Tigris and 
the Persian Gulf and the mountains, who were otherwise called 
Ethiopians by the Greeks. Ezra (iv. 9) distinguishes the Elamites 
and Shushanchites — that is, the mountaineers from the people of 
the plain. In my view, the Kissians of Susiana and the Cushites of 
• L'Acropole de Suse, 27, 28, and 38. 


Chaldea were of the same race, and both were overwhelmed and 
conquered at a very early time by the Elamites. In the heroic 
legend of Gilgamish, which goes back beyond the present reach of 
history, we find him struggling with Kumbaba, the king of the 
Elamites, and the struggle of the children of Cush with the children 
of Elam seems to be the earliest real event of which our available 
legends tell us. 

This being so, we may perhaps find in the corresponding case 
of the people of Ceylon a clue to the puzzle we started to explain. 
In blood they are like (what I take the people of Chaldea to have 
been) Dravidians, but in language they speak a tongue — Cinghalese — 
which is very Aryan in vocabulary, but which has Dravidian traces 
in its grammar, and which is due to the conquest of the Dra vidians 
of the island by the Aryans. Thus would I explain the language of 
the Chaldeans as the result of the conquest of the original Cushite 
race by the Elamites ; and when that language is better known it is 
not improbable that it will be found to have a Dravidian sub- 
stratum, perhaps a well-marked one, together with a strongly 
Turanian vocabulary and syntax. This I would propose at present 
as the most probable solution of the problem. 

We have not quite completed our survey. The conclusion 
seems reasonable that just as the Aryans pushed the Dravidians of 
India into its southern provinces, and the Dravidians of Beluchistan 
into the mountains and towards the seaboard, so did the true Arabs, 
the so-called Yoktanids, push the primitive folk who occupied the 
greater part of Arabia more and more towards the sea coast. The 
seaboard of Arabia, from the Euphrates right round to the Bed Sea, 
and even up to the gulf of Akaba, was undoubtedly in early times 
occupied by a dark race known as Himyarites, &c. They were 
originally, so far as we can judge, a non-Semitic people, but were 
gradually infused with Semitic blood, and their speech was gradually 
overlaid by Semitic elements, so that the race became what their 
descendants, who migrated to Africa, namely, the Abyssinians, 
largely are— a race of Cushite blood and descent, speaking to a large 
extent a Semitic language. The Abyssinians still have as neigh- 
bours, however, tribes and races more or less sophisticated, but 
belonging very largely to this same Cushite stock, namely, the 
Gallas and Somalis in the east and south, and the Bisharas, 
Hadendowas, and other Ethiopic tribes proper on the western 
seaboard of the Bed Sea and further inland. We may therefore 
suppose that once a more or less continuous dark race belonging to 
the same branch of the human family occupied the maritime 
districts bordering on the Indian Ocean from Cape Comorin to 
Southern Abyssinia. It was this race, to which the name Cushite 
is given, which occupied such a large place in the earliest traditions 
Qf human culture, and which was the fertile piother of many 


inventions and of many new departures in the history of our 

The beginnings of human history in Babylonia and elsewhere 
are very largely the history of the appropriation of this culture by 
the light-coloured races — by Aryans, Turanians, and Semites. The 
appropriation had long begun when we first meet with available 
records ; and in the flat lands of the Euphrates and the Tigris, at 
the time we are writing about, we seem to have reached the second 
chapter of the story. In the first, the Cushites were conquered by 
and coalesced with theElamites; and in the second, the mixed race 
thus formed was being invaded and sophisticated by the Semites. 

Let us now turn again to the results of recent research in the 
Babylonian plain. At one time it would appear that the main 
branch of the Tigris, instead of flowing along its present stately 
channel, the Shatt al Arab, along which no ruin-heaps or traces of 
old towns occur, turned aside at Kut al Amara and followed the 
course of the now shrunken stream known as the Shatt al Hai 
{i.e. the River of the Serpent, so called from its meandering course) . 
The Shatt al Hai has itself, no doubt, had vicissitudes, and, like 
most rivers running through deltas, has shifted its course more or 
less. While M. de Sarzec, the French vice-consul at Bussora, 
seems to argue as if the Shatt al Hai was originally a canal, Mr. 
Eassam distinctly contradicts him, and says that no artificial 
banks &c. are to be found on it. As it leaves the Tigris, and for 
a short distance on its way, it almost rivals that famous river in 
size ; but it presently shrinks into a smaller space, and divides 
into two branches a few hours' journey below Shashtra, and joins 
the Euphrates by two outlets, one between Es Sheyak and Nasrieh 
and the other an hour's journey below Nasrieh. In very early 
times its waters apparently flowed along a now forsaken bed, 
described by M. de Sarzec as some distance from the present left 
bank of the river. It is near this old river-bed, on its left bank 
and between the villages of Zirghul and Tell Loh, that lie the 
scattered mounds of Tell Loh, explained by Schefer as meaning the 
Mound of the Written Tablet. They are more than six kilometres 
in extent, and are distant about twelve hours' journey from the 
mounds at Warka (the ancient Erech). 

The mounds at Tell Loh were opened a few years ago by 
Mr. Eassam, who secured a few objects from them for the British 
Museum ; but they have been only really explored in quite recent 
years by M. de Sarzec, who has pursued his digging there with 
great patience and scientific care since 1877, and has unearthed a 
very important series of artistic remains and inscriptions. These 
are being published in a most admirable work by the very competent 
hands of M. L. Heuzey, whose commentary upon them is as learned 
as it is iDgenious. It is chiefly from their combined labours that 


we have recovered some notion of the appearance and surroundings 
of Chaldean towns and buildings at the beginning of history, such 
as I embodied in my previous paper. To that account I would 
add a description of a modern Chaldean town, which probably 
gives us a very effective echo of what its predecessor was like six 
thousand years ago, namely, the modern Bussora. 

The walls of Bussora (we are told) have five gates, and are, at the 
lowest computation, about seven miles in circuit. Two canals cut from 
the river surround the town on either side, and, uniting beyond it on the 
western side, form a complete ditch to the fortifications. The houses are 
meanly built, partly of sun-dried and partly of burnt bricks, with flat roofs, 
surrounded by a parapet ; and the bazaars, though stocked with the 
richest merchandise, are miserable structures, not arched as in Baghdad 
and the Persian towns, but covered with mats laid on rafters of date 
trees, which hardly afford protection from the scorching rays of the sun ; 
the streets are irregular, narrow, and unpaved, and the town is disgust- 
ingly filthy. Of the vast area within the walls, the greater proportion is 
occupied with gardens and plantations of palm trees, intersected by a 
number of little canals. 

The inscriptions found in the mounds at Tell Loh speak of two 
towns which were apparently in close proximity. Of one of these 
the name was read Girsu by Amiaud and by M. Heuzey, but 
Hommel and Jensen have suggested that it ought to be read 
Sugir. In this Hilprecht agrees ; and he further argues that this is 
the original form of the famous name which was corrupted by the 
Semites into Sumer or Shumir, and which, as Dr. Haigh was the 
first to show, is the same as the Biblical Shinar. This view is 
ingenious, but is surrounded with considerable doubts, and I would 
therefore prefer to retain the original transcription of the name, 
i.e. Girsu, until some definite evidence is forthcoming. It is curious 
that the God who was especially cultivated by the early kings to be 
presently referred to was always called by them, not by his specific 
name, but by the appellation Nin Girsu, or E Girsu, i.e. the lord of 
Girsu.^ He was the son of In lil, or II HI, the great Bel of Nippur, 
and answered to the Marduk or Merodach of the later Babylonians, 
which may, indeed, have been his actual name. Girsu was 
apparently the ecclesiastical capital of the kingdom we are dealing 
with, as Nippur was of that of Kengi, and it has been suggested 
that it was situated where the mound of Tell Id is now situated, 
where there has been found an inscription of a later king, named 
Dungi, recording the building of temples at Girsu. While Girsu 
was probably their ecclesiastical capital, the secular capital was 

' The first particle in the name is generally read Nin. Mr. Pinches suggests that it 
should be read E, since the character Nin has, as glosses show, the value of e in certain 
names of gods ; but until a definite conclusion is possible it is better to retain the con. 
ventional word so widely used, 


called Shir pur la, or Sir pur ra.* Its ruins are apparently enclosed 
in the mounds at Tell Loh. 

Mr. Pinches has discovered in a bilingual text a phonetic tran- 
script of the name Shirpurla which reads Lagash ; and it ought to 
be noted that Hommel long ago read the same name on a signet 
cylinder belonging to a person whose name is erased, and who 
called himself patesi of Laghash. The cylinder is also marked by 
the figure of a spread eagle with a lion's head, of which other 
examples have occurred at Shirpurla, and which seems to be the 
emblem of the god Nin Girsu. Lagash is like UmUash and other 
similar names, and may be of Elamite or Kassite etymology. It 
seems to have been a later name given to the earlier Shirpurla. 

According to Hilprecht, the remains found at Tell Loh are 
younger than the very oldest records he has published from 
Nufi'ar, while they may possibly overlap with the later ones already 
described. M. F. Thureau Dangin contests his proofs, although he 
does not definitely separate himself from his conclusions. As we 
have seen, the earliest records we possess point to a struggle between 
two rival communities in Lower Babylonia, Kish and Kengi, in 
which the rulers of a third country, whose name is doubtfully read 
as Gisban or Upi, took a part. The more recent discoveries, and 
especially an inscription to be presently described,' make it 
absolutely plain that Hilprecht's identification of Gisban or Upi 
with Harran cannot be sustained. It is quite clear that this 
Gisban or Upi and the territory controlled by the old people who 
lived at Tell Loh were in proximity, if not in contact with each 
other, and it tends to support Father Scheil's conjectures about its 
position. It would also seem from M. Thureau Dangin's criticism 
that there is not yet much foundation for the opinion that the 
people of Gisban or Upi were Semites or a semitised community. 
They would rather appear to have been of a very similar stock to 
their enemies and rivals at Shirpurla, as would in fact be judged 
from their appearance on the carvings where the two are repre- 
sented. It may be, indeed, that by Gisban or Upi we are to 
understand the districts of Susiana, still known in the time of 
Herodotus as Kissia, and its borders, the flat plain betw^een the 
Tigris and the Kurdish mountains ; and that the struggles with 
Gisban or Upi, instead of meaning the advance of the Semites, 
meant pressure from Elam. 

^ So,Messrs. Pinches and Boscawen read it. The former explains it as meaning the 
City of the Raven, while the latter makes it mean City of Bright Light or Pyropolis. 
Hommel says it was written Sirgurla, but pronounced SirguUa. Oppert agrees with 
him, Comptes Rendus, 1896, pp. 331-2. Amiaud and Winckler read the name as 
Sir bur la, but Hommel says bur is a late Semitic corruption of the original gur. 
See Records of the Past, n.s. i. 43 ; Kcilinschr. Bibl. iii. 5 ; Hommel, Gesch. p. 200 
note, p. 281 note, and p. 292 ; and Babyl. Record, vii. 2. Its name perhaps survives 
in that of the village of Zirghul already named. 

» Below, p. 228. 


Among the various rulers whose remains have been found at Tell 
Lohj Dr. Jensen placed first one whose name has been generally read 
UruKagina.'° Hilprecht on palaBOgraphical grounds does the same, 
and further urges, as we have seen, that he lived later than the 
earliest rulers of Kengi and Kish whose inscriptions have been found 
at Nuffar, but may have been contemporary with the later ones. 
M. Heuzey in his latest notice of this king disagrees with the 
writers just named, and is disposed to put him later. It is not 
impossible that he represents the old primitive dynasty who were 
expropriated from Nippur by the men of Kish. It is at least 
curious that the name of his special patron-god — In shag — seems 
to be the same as the first two syllables in the name of the 
oldest king of Nippur — In shag sag ana ; while the old supreme 
god of Nippur, In lil, was treated as the supreme god at Tell Loh 
by the kings and patesis there. Uru Kagina, as well as one of his 
successors, built a shrine for In lil, and another of them, Eannadu, 
calls himself mupada Inlila gc. 

In one inscription, which is apparently his oldest record, Uru 
Kagina calls himself king (lugal) of Girsu. This inscription has 
been found on the fragments of a very large clay votive cone. 
The inscription on it, which is fragmentary, was published by 
Amiaud, whose insight into these ideographic inscriptions was 
remarkable, and whose early death was deplorable. Such readings 
are, of course, partially tentative only. The inscription, according 
to Amiaud, records the dedications and building of certain temples 
with their appurtenances. The first three lines are mutilated 
and missing, and no doubt when complete contained, as his other 
inscriptions contain, a reference to the god Nin Girsu, for whom 
Uru Kagina tells us he built or rebuilt his temple, and also built 
the an ta shur ra, apparently a storehouse of provisions, such as 
was attached to various temples, and also his palace (ih gal or e gal) 
of Ti-ra-ash. Uru Kagina then goes on to say he had built a 
temple for the goddess Bau (she was especially worshipped at 
Kish). Here there is a lacuna, in which it is probable that there 
was a reference to a temple built for the god Gal-alimma. When 
it begins again the inscription describes his building a temple for 
Dun Shagana (who is elsewhere called a son of Nin Girsu). This 
temple was called Ak kil. He also made some amulets (probably 
tablets of black and white stone, or of metal, which were placed 
under the foundations of the temple, are meant). ^^ In this temple 
he apparently set up shrines for three lesser gods, of whom nothing 

'" The first part of his name is uncertain. It was read Lugh by Oppert, but the 
reading Uru has been generally adopted. It apparently meant ' man ; ' Kagina means 
* mountain,' and occurs sometimes as an appellation of a god, in which way it is dou t- 
less used here, where it stands probably as an appellation of In lil, 

" See Records of the Past, n.s. i. 71. . . 


more is apparently known than their names, which have been read 
Za za uru, Im ghud en, and Gim mur ta en a. He then goes on 
to say he built a temple for the god Nin sar, a dependent (perhaps 
sword-bearer) of the god Nin Girsu. Here again we have a 
lacuna, which apparently contained a notice of the building of a 
temple to another god subordinate to Nin Girsu, for whom he 
also built a great tower or ziggurat. The inscription then tells us 
how Uru Kagina had built an imsagga (*? image) for the god In Hi 
in his temple of E Adda {i.e. the Temj)le of the Father), by which 
a daughter temple of that so called at Nippur is perhaps meant ; 
and further, how he excavated the canal Ni na ki tum a for the 
goddess Nina, at the mouth of which he placed some building. 
This canal has been supposed to be the Khaussar, or river of 
Nineveh. Amiaud argues, however, that it may have been a choked- 
up canal found by M. de Sarzec near Tell Loh.''^ 

It is a great pity that this inscription is so much mutilated. The 
gap, however, can partially be filled up from a second inscription on a 
buttress found at Shirpurla. In this second inscription, in which the 
beginning is less injured, the god Nin Girsu is apostrophised as the 
warrior of In lil {i.e. of the great Bel of Nippur). The first thirteen 
lines of the two inscriptions were virtually identical, except that on 
this second one Uru Kagina calls himself king of Shir pur la, 
instead of king of Girsu. Line 1 4 refers to the god Gal alimma, whose 
name doubtless occurred in a gap at this point in the first inscrip- 
tion. This line is a solitary one, however, intervening between 
two lacunae. In the remaining part of the inscription the building 
of temples is mentioned ; one to the god Ninsar, who is described as 
sword-bearer (?) to Nin Girsu, and another to a lesser god, whose 
name is lost, apostrophised as the well-beloved of Nin Girsu, in the 
latter case a ziggurat or tower being added to the temple. Reference 
is next made, as in the previous inscription, to the temple of In 
lil known as E Adda ; and finally we are given the name of the 
great temple of Nin Girsu at Shirpurla, i.e. E melam kurra (the 
Temple of the Brilliance of the Mountain). This inscription breaks 
off abruptly and was never finished ; perhaps a sign that the reign 
of Uru Kagina, who erected the buttress on which it was inscribed, 
also came abruptly to an end while the building was being erected. '^ 

A third inscription of the same king is preserved in the collec- 
tion of M. de Clercq, and has been recently published in facsimile, 
with a long commentary, in the magnificent catalogue of that 
collection by M. Menant. It has been translated by Menant, by 
Oppert, and by Amiaud. Their translations differ a good deal in 
details, but are substantially agreed. I prefer to follow Amiaud. 
As in the preceding inscription Uru Kagina speaks of constructing 

'- E. de Sarzec, Dicouvertos en Chaldic, plate 32 ; Becords of the Past, n.s. i, 71, 72. 
" tiecords o/ the Past, n.s. i. C9-7;, 


certain works which we cannot be quite clear about ; one of these 
has been translated ' a House of Abundance.' This seems to have 
been a storehouse of provisions, like a tithe barn of a medieval 
monastery. From this inscription we further learn that the temple 
of the god Gal alimma was known as Erne gal ghush an ki, and 
on it he also claims to have built the temple of Eninnu or * the 
Fifty,' which name Heuzey treats as a synonym of that of the 
Temple of the Brilliance of the Mountain already named. Perhaps 
the most interesting paragraph in this inscription is the last. In 
some way or other each of the early kings of this dynasty, and 
perhaps of other dynasties, had a special god of his own — a deiis 
domesticus ; whether he was a form or emanation of some other 
known god I cannot say. In this case Uru Kagina apostrophises 
In Shagh (or In dun, Nin Shagh or Nin dun, as his name is 
variously read), and he apparently prays that In Shagh will con- 
tinually during the life of the king prostrate himself on his behalf 
(i.e. mediate) before the god Nin Girsu.'^ A fourth inscription with 
the name of Uru Kagina occurs on a piece of a broken alabaster 
or calcite vase in the British Museum (N. 12030 + 82. 7. 14. 1018), 
a tracing of which has been kindly sent me by my friend Mr. L. W. 
King. It is mutilated, and we can only learn from it that Uru 
Kagina, who calls himself king (lugal) of Shirpurla, dedicated the 
vase to Nin Girsu. This is probably the oldest object from Babylonia 
in the Museum. A fifth inscription of the same king has been 
recently discovered at Tell Loh, and is now at Constantinople. It 
is not yet published. 

M. Heuzey has figured and described certain bas-reliefs which, 
from their style and from their having been found below the remains 
which date from the time of another king named Ur Nina, must 
be placed at the beginning of the art of sculpture as discovered at 
Tell Loh. These we may provisionally place under Uru Kagina. 
One of them '^ is a broken tablet with the very rude represen- 
tation of four figures, forming part, no doubt, of what was once 
a considerable group. M. Heuzey has explained the figures as 
representing part of the story of the hero Gilgamish and the goddess 
Nina or Ishtar. She is seated, and wears the divine horned and 
plumed biretta on her head, from which her hair falls down in two 
tresses behind. Her left arm and hand are enveloped in a mantle, 
while in her right one she holds an object which she is offering to 
a little figure, apparently of a naked child, of which only the upper 
and mutilated half remains. The latter seems to be holding an 
object in front of his face ; perhaps he is the prototype of Adonis, 
namely, the Tammuz of the Chaldean myths. Standing with his 
back to the goddess is the naked and bearded figure of the hero 

" Records of the Past, n.s. i. 68 and 69. 
" See Dicouvertes en Chald4e, i. fig. 1 


wearing a flat biretta and holding a club in his right hand, with 
which he is threatening a prisoner whose hands are bound in front 
of him. He is beardless, and may represent one of the Elamites 
against whom the goddess summoned Gilgamish to succour her. 
The curious bas-relief is figured by M. de Sarzec (pi. 1, fig. 1), and 
is described on pages 103-105 of his text. On the same plate is 
shown a fragment of a small basin of dolomitic limestone, on 
which is figured a large bird with its wings closed. 

On the succeeding plate (1 his, figs. 1 a and h) we have repre- 
sented on one side of a quadrilateral plaque a very primitive 
figure. The sculpture is in low relief, and it represents a person 
whose sex is doubtful. On its head are two tall plumes ; the 
bust is nude, while its petticoat is tucked up at the waist. The 
garment is formed of a sort of lozenge pattern and decorated with 
a fringe. The hair of the figure, tied up by a ribbon, falls in a 
bunch on the neck. In front of the figure, which is standing to the 
left, stand three great poles, which are fixed in the ground. The 
figure holds one of them in its left hand ; two of them are 
apparently terminated at the top by knobs or bulbs, and no doubt 
represent colossal ceremonial maces. The top of the third one is 
broken ofif. It probably bore the principal symbol. M. Heuzey 
thinks these maces mark the entrance to some sacred building, and 
that the figure is that of a worshipper. He compares the scene 
with that represented on a very early cylinder figured by him 
(plate 30, fig. 16), where a god, and not a worshipper, stands in 
front of similar uprights, two of them being evidently colossal 
maces, and the third being surmounted by what looks like a plant, 
from which depend two twisted cords or banderolles. They seem 
to me to recall the two pillars of Akhiz and Baaz which stood in 
front of the Jewish temple. The two surfaces of this plaque have 
inscriptions upon them, but these are so much decayed that they 
are illegible. The sign for statue, says M. Heuzey, occurs several 
times, as does the name of the god Nin Girsu."' The tablet doubt- 
less contained a list of the offerings made to the god, for the signs 
of numerals occur frequently on it. 

On plate 1 bis, fig. 3, is represented a fragment of some curved 
stone object, probably a cistern or large bowl, with a frieze of figures 
in relief, of which other fragments have recently been found. The 
relief represents a procession of figures, some of them with long 
beards and with their hair arranged in a series of rolls, others clean- 
shaven. They are bare at least to the waist, and have the aquiline 
noses and projecting eyes characteristic of all the early figures. 
The greater part of them have their hands clasped on their breasts in 
the attitude of supplication. This is the case with five of the bearded 
figures, and with two others whose faces and heads are shaved. 

•• Op cit. 166. 


They seem to represent two files of prisoners marching towards 
each other, and it may be that the bearded ones represent CushiteSj 
and the others Elamites. The two files of figures are apparently 
being conducted by two guards or officers, who are meeting each 
other. One of them wears plaited hair, but has his head and face 
shaved and carries a lance. The other leader, who seems a 
superior person, has plaited hair and a short beard, and he carries 
a sort of curved sceptre on his right shoulder and an object like a 
wreath in the other hand.'^ Heuzey calls attention to a figure 
like the bearded ones which is in the British Museum and was 
figured by F. Lenormant ; '^ it has some characters on its shoulder. 

In addition to the sculptures in stone we also have remaining 
from this very early period a number of small figures made of 
copper (as the analysis shows), whose exact motive is not yet 
quite explained. The upper parts of the most ancient of these 
figures as they are shown by M. Heuzey (vide pi. 1) represent 
females. Their hair falls over their necks in a kind of thick wig, 
and is represented with wavy horizontal undulations like the 
figures on the carved bas-relief already mentioned, while their 
hands are crossed over their breasts. The human figures are the 
terminals or heads of what are in essence copper nails, and they 
were pushed into the ground. M. de Sarzec tells us these figures 
are always found in groups forming concentric circles, and occur 
notably at the four corners and below the pavement of very ancient 
buildings, and in the present case occurred below the constructions 
of Ur Nina to be presently named. These magical nails, he says, 
pushed into the ground seem as if they had been used as a menace 
to the subterranean demons. M. de Sarzec mentions having found 
them in situ and looking like bundles of asparagus. The figures 
are cast, and it would seem the moulds were used only once, since 
there are no duplicates, and all vary somewhat from each other. 

This completes our information about Uru Kagina, and exhausts 
the objects assignable to his reign. At present he stands alone. 
Hilprecht, on palseographical grounds, says he was closely united in 
time with the series of kings beginning with Ur Nina, to whom we now 
turn ; and there does not seem to be any good reason for Maspero's 
view that he was separated by several centuries from them. 

Of the ruler whose name was read Urghanna by Hommel, but 
who is generally known as Ur Nina (the man of the goddess Nina), 
which is Oppert's transcription of the name, we have not only in- 
scriptions but also stone carvings. In his inscriptions he styles 
himself king {lugal) of Shirpurla, and tells us his father was called 

" See Heuzey, plate 1 bis, fig. 2, and plate 1 ter, figs, la and 16, and the de- 
scriptions, pp. 166 and 196, &c. 
" Bev. Arch. N.S. 1868, xviii. 23. 


Ninighalgin," and his grandfather Gursar. As neither of them is 
given a title, it seems to follow that neither of them was a ruling 
sovereign, and that Ur Nina was the founder of a new line. 

The most important remains of Ur Nina's time are some lime- 
stone slabs of different sizes, figured by Heuzey and by Maspero. 
They are pierced with a hole, no doubt meant to peg them against 
the wall or to the ground. On one of these slabs the subject is 
divided into two friezes, an upper and a lower one. In each of them 
the king is represented of double the size of the other figures, whom 
he in each case faces. In the upper frieze he is standing, bare to 
the waist, holding his left hand to his breast, while with his right 
he supports a basket on his head. He is dressed in a skirt 
composed of three successive frills of a peculiar stuff, identified by 
Heuzey with that called khaunakis by the Greeks and formed of 
bunches of wool fastened on to some kind of cloth. In each case 
the figure is barefooted. In the lower frieze, instead of a basket 
on his head, the king holds a drinking vessel of the shape of the 
cups, of which we have many alabaster fragments, made of calcitc 
or alabaster, and which seem to have been used in Egypt as 
well as in Babylonia. In each case the king is accompanied by 
a small standing figure, similarly dressed and holding a cup in 
each hand, who is doubtless a chamberlain or cupbearer. In front 
of the king and facing him is a row of standing figures similarly 
dressed to himself. In one case five such figures are represented, 
and in the other four only ; the first one in the upper row is larger 
than the rest. Ail but one, like him, are clean shaven, both head 
and face being cleared of hair. Seven of these figures cross their 
hands upon their breasts in the attitude of reverence. 

A second tablet, similar in most respects to the one here described, 
but unfortunately broken in two, was found in the same place. In 
this the king was apparently turning in the same direction as the 
others, and did not face them. These two plaques are further 
interesting from the inscriptions they bear. The principal in- 
scription on the former reads : ' Nina ur (for Ur Nina), king Qugal) 
of Shir pur la, son of Ni ni ghal gin, son of Gursar. He built the 
temple of the god Nin Girsu and the lesser lustral basin.* In 
another place, behind the king's head and above his knees we 
read : * From Magan, the mountains, all kinds of wood he has 
brought,' while in a third place we read, ' The temple of the goddess 
Nina he has built.' This inscription seems to be a condensed copy 
of the longer one to be presently named. The second inscription 
is similar, except that in it we are told Ur Nina built a tower in 
stages, or ziggurat, apparently for the temple of Nin Girsu. 

'* The name has also been read Nigaldini, and by Hommel, Ohalgenni. Boscawen 
says it means ' The Lord has established the oracle.' Thureaa Dangin says the name 
ought to be read Ni gu dan, since Go = ni + hal. 


■ Turning to the figures, other than that of the king, the first 
one in the plaque first named seems clearly a woman, with 
a woman's breasts and with her hair contained in a cap or 
chignon. Her robe, instead of being folded round her waist as in 
the case of the other figures, is fastened at one shoulder, having 
merely the right arm bare. Like several of the other figures, 
it is accompanied by two wedge-shaped characters which have 
been read * son,' but which seem really to mean a child of either sex. 
And it would seem that this figure, which has its hands folded 
across its breast in the usual attitude of reverence, and which is 
named Lidda, was really the daughter of Ur Nina. Immediately 
behind her, and holding a cup like a chamberlain, being thus dif- 
ferent in pose from the rest of the figures, is apparently Ur Nina's 
eldest son, who is called A-kurgal. His name is qualified with the 
term * son.' The next figure is labelled Lugal . . . (the second 
character has not yet been read). This is also qualified with the 
term * son.' The fourth is styled Da ku ra ni or A kurani, and the 
fifth Mu ri kur ta, both similarly qualified. In the lower frieze 
the three figures are respectively named Nunpa, . . . ud bu, and 
Nina ku tur da, the second name having only been partially read. 
All three are qualified with the term * son.' The fourth figure has a 
name not hitherto read. It is unqualified with the term * son,' but 
has some alternative appellation, either marking rank or relation- 
ship. The two chamberlains are respectively named Danita or 
Anita (meaning according to Oppert * in his hand ') and Sa gan tuk. 
According to one of these plaques, therefore, Ur Nina had seven 
sons and probably one daughter. It is curious to find the name of 
one of the sons compounded with the word lugal, meaning king, 
showing that the term was used as a name or appellative as well 
as a title. On the second plaque three of the sons are named 
Lugal . . ., Muri kurta, and Akurgal, each one being qualified 
with the ideograph for son. The two former are figured in the 
upper frieze, and preceded by an official or servant, whose name 
has not been deciphered, and are followed by a servant carrying a 
baton to which is attached a cord. On his robe is an inscription 
which seems to contain the word Magan, and implying that he 
came from the country so named, and was probably an envoy. 
A similar figure is sometimes represented on the seal-cylinders 
following a princely personage. The lower frieze of the second 
plaque contains four figures. The first one is labelled Danita or 
Anita, being no doubt the chamberlain so called, mentioned in the 
first tablet. The second figure seems to represent the same person 
as one figured in the first tablet (lower frieze, fig. 1). In neither case 
can the name at present be read. It consists of two characters. After 
him comes the king's son, Akurgal ; and lastly is a scribe named 
Nam ib, who is entitled Tip sar, a style very frequently found on 

VOL. XIII. — NO. L. Q 


the seal-cylinders, and in this case preceded by the character lu, i.e. 
' man.' In the third and smaller plaque the king occupies both friezes, 
while the other figures are arranged in two rows, two in the upper 
and three in the lower. The figures all face the same way, and 
all have their hands crossed on their breasts in the attitude of 
profound respect or adoration. In both cases the friezes seem to 
represent acts of primitive worship or of some solemnity, in which, 
as Maspero says, the king, acting as officiating priest, has laid aside 
all the insignia of royalty, and is clad as an ordinary priest, with his 
breast and his feet bare and carrying the heavy laden kufa, or 
reed basket, on his head as if an ordinary slave. 

"With these plaques, according to M. Heuzey, were found a num- 
ber of objects all dating from the same reign, namely, some bricks 
from the corners of buildings erected by Ur Nina, and which bear 
the following inscription : Ur Nina, king of Shirpurla, son of Nini 
ghalgin, has made the Ap Girsu. This enigmatical construction, it 
has been suggested by M. Oppert, may be connected with one of the 
reservoirs or basins called apzu, but was most Ukely a building con- 
taining a bath. There were also three stone sockets for gates, one 
in the shape of a boundary stone and inscribed with his name ; a 
fragment of an onyx cup dedicated by him to the goddess Bau ; 
four lions' heads, perhaps the ornaments of a throne (one of these 
in the Louvre bears the name of Ur Nina, another one at 
Constantinople is inscribed Magan), and two fragments of sculptured 
tablets with figures of animals. There were also found several 
copper figures, more or less of the form already described as 
magical nails, and bearing the name of Ur Nina.^" The figure- 
heads are, as in the earlier ones, those of females with busts that 
are bare, having wavy hair flowing down their backs, and very 
pronounced noses. Round the waist in these statuettes is fastened 
a flat rim of copper, prolonged into the shape of a bird's tail. 
This contrivance was meant to sustain the votive tablets, whose 
central perforation fitted over the bronze figure, and which con- 
tained a list of Ur Nina's various buildings. The statuettes them- 
selves sometimes have the name and title of the king inscribed on 
them, while on the copper rim we have the name of his father and 
the mention of the enigmatical edifice called Ap Girsu in the 
inscriptions, around which these small figures with the plaques 
were planted at intervals. 

In addition to these works of art there were also found some 
plaques with inscriptions, unaccompanied by any reliefs or sculpture. 
The most important of them is inscribed on a broken triangular 
piece of Umestone, and is written in characters enclosed in oblong 
cases arranged in parallel columns, more or less broken. The 
inscription is a very difficult one, and has been unravelled only 

* See Dicouvertes, pi. 2 ter, 3, 


after many efforts. The translation given by Hommel in his 
history, he frankly treats as provisional. A new translation was 
given by Amiaud in the * Kecords of the Past,' new ser. vol. i. This 
was again revised by Boscawen in the * Babylonian Eecord,' and 
by Jensen in the ' Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.' The inscription is 
written in five columns, the first two of which alone are fairly perfect. 
It is figured in M. de Sarzec's work (plate 2, fig. 1). In it the king 
claims to have built a temple for the god Nin Girsu. He also 
built a palace here called an E-gal, i.e. * great house.' He also built 
a temple for the goddess Nina, and added a ziggurat or tower in 
stages to it. He further mentions the names of two other 
temples which he built or restored — one the temple of Ekhud, 
already named, and another whose name is obliterated. To this he 
seems to have also added a watch-tower or observatory. Ekhud, 
it will be remembered, was the name of the Temple of the Seven 
Spheres at Borsippa. Like Uru Kagina, Ur Nina claims to have 
built or repaired a shrine or house of Ti ri ash or Til ra, and a 
temple for Gatumdag (who is elsewhere called the mistress of 
Shir pur la). He constructed a great laver or lustral basin for it, 
and built a storehouse or produce barn, and stored up seventy 
measures of grain in it. He further tells us how he brought wood 
from Magan, and built a wall for Shir pur la, and also made a 
small lustral basin, which he had placed in the temple of Nina ; 
and he also dedicated two statues, one apparently to the goddess 
Nina, and the other to the goddess Gatumdag. 

A second tablet on the same plate of M. de Sarzec's work is 
oblong in shape, and merely contains the name of ' Ur Nina, son 
of Nini ghalgin,' with an apparent reference to some brick structure. 

Another tablet of Ur Nina was published by M. de Sarzec, and 
has been translated by Oppert to the following effect : 

Ur Nina, King of Shir pur la, son of Nini ghalgin, son of Gursar, has 
built the temple of Nina. He has sculptured the goddess Nina. Two 
statues of her he has made. The small apzu (or lustral basin) he has 
made. Forty ur (?) for the goddess Nina he has made. He has built 
the Temple of the writing desk (bureau) and the wall of Shir pur la ; the 
Royal God of the town he has sculptured. He has brought stone from 
the mountains of Magan. 

This tablet was found with two others of a similar purport but 
more condensed. 

This completes the material at present available for illustrating 
the story of Ur Nina. Although he had several sons, we have no 
inscriptions or remains dating from the reign of any of them. On 
the other hand, relics of his grandsons abound ; some of especial 
interest have recently been discovered. It is not improbable, 
therefore, that on his death the kingdom of Shirpurla passed for a 
while into the hands of strangers, and it would seem that it was, in 



fact, conquered by a ruler of Kish, as we saw in our previous paper 
that Erech and Nippur were similarly conquered. A recently 
discovered tablet speaks of a ruler of Kish at this time as Mesilim. 
He was not only king of Kish,' but also had authoiity at Shir- 
purla, over which the hegemony of Kish seems to have extended 
<iuring his reign. A very interesting notice of this king occurs in 
an inscription lately published by M. Thureau Dangin. It refers 
inter alia to a struggle between him and the patesi of Gisban or 
Upi. In it we read that at the instigation of In lil, the god of the 
country, the two gods of the toicns, Nin Girsu {i.e. the god of 
Shirpurla) and Kir sig, apparently the god of Gisban or Upi, agreed 
to define their respective frontiers : 

Mesilim, the king of Kish, at the instance of his own god, Kadi, there- 
upon duly marked out the limits of the two countries. Ush, the patesi of 
Gisban, moved by ambition, displaced M^silim's boundary stone [or per- 
haps it should be read, crossed his frontier] and entered the plain of 
Shir pur la. Mesilim, at the instigation of the god Nin Girsu, the 
warrior of the god In hi, attacked the men of Gisban. He uttered an 
imprecation in the name of the god In lil against them, defeated them, 
and he finally raised funereal tumvdi over their dead in the plain.'*' 

However enigmatical this may be, it is assuredly full of interest. 
It is very curious to see how the gods are made the immediate 
actors in the drama, and to be told how after the battle great 
mounds were raised over the dead. This is not the only record 
we have from Mesilim's reign. There also remains to us a very 
curious mace-head of stone, representing four lions biting each 
other's backs, and arranged in a continuous frieze round the stone 
mace-head. This mace-head is not pierced through, but has a 
hollow socket, and opposite the hole there is a representation of 
the lion-headed eagle which has been treated as the special emblem 
of Shirpurla. The inscription on this mace has been only recently 
definitely interpreted by M. Heuzey. It reads : * Mesilim, king 
(lugal) of Kish, has presented the (lion-headed mace ?) of the god 
Ningirsu to the god Ningirsu ; Lug shug gur being patesi of 
Shirpurla.' " This seems to show that the king of Kish having 
conquered Shirpurla, the patesi of that place became his feudatory, 
or perhaps he appointed a patesi of his own there. In the next 
paragraph of this very interesting inscription we find that Shir- 
purla is under the control of Eannadu, a son of Akurgal and 
grandson of Ur Nina, and we also have an account of his inter- 
course with his neighbours, about which a good deal of new 
information has recently accumulated. 

Henry H. Howorth. 

" Comptes Rendtis, 1896, p. 594. » Rev. d'Assyriologie, iv. 35. 

1898 229 

The Parlemeiit of Paris 

AMONG historical parallels or contrasts, few can be more striking 
or instructive than those presented by a comparison of the 
French and English parliaments. Starting from very similar 
origins, these bodies began early to diverge and at length attained 
positions almost diametrically opposed. The one became the chief 
support of a centralised and absolute monarchy ; the other made 
itself the guardian of national rights and has eventually, to a large 
extent, superseded the crown. Not to go farther back than the 
thirteenth century, the occasional assemblies summoned by the 
sovereign in that creative age had both legal and political duties to 
perform. The object of these assemblies was discussion on matters 
of public import ; the name originally given to the meeting was 
gradually transferred to the body of persons which met ; and the 
subjects of their discussions were gradually restricted. The one 
body confined itself practically to the legal side, the other to the 
political. Each, however, retained some recollection of its dual 
nature : the French * parlement ' never altogether forgot its poli- 
tical connexions ; the English * parliament ' — a part of it, at least 
— still discharges some legal functions. But the name is now 
forgotten in the country of its origin, excepting as a foreign word, 
whereas the country which borrowed it has now seen its own 
interpretation, in one form or another, adopted in half the civilised 
states of the world. 

The greater importance of the political assembly in modern 
times has naturally distracted attention from its judicial congener. 
Countless writers have explored the history of the British parlia- 
ment from every point of view, but we have had to wait long for 
an authoritative treatise on the nature and the powers of the great 
French law-court. As an offshoot and an instrument of the 
absolute monarchy, it long shared the odium which overtook all 
monuments of the ancien regime, and such attention as was paid 
to it was concentrated rather upon its accidental political activity 
than on its permanent and essential characteristics. It is only in 
recent times that a school of research has arisen across the Chan- 
nel, which is eager to do justice to the great institutions of medieval 
France, and which has shown itself capable of combining Teutonic 
thoroughness with literary qualities all its own. One of the latest 


outputs of this school is a history of the parlement of Paris,' by M. 
Aubert, which, it may fairly be said, has given us for the first 
time a clear view of that institution during the early centuries of 
its existence. It is from the pages of this work that the facts to 
which I shall have occasion to refer are mainly drawn. 

These two closely packed volumes can hardly be said to form 
an entertaining book. They have little charm of style ; there are 
no lively incidents or picturesque descriptions to lighten the route ; 
the author rarely makes general reflexions, and never allows him- 
self or his readers the diversion of contrast or illustration drawn 
from the institutions of neighbouring countries. But the treatise 
has the great merit of being clear, precise, scholarly, and, to all 
appearance, exhaustive. The complicated subject is set forth in 
admirable order and without any superfluities either of matter or 

M. Aubert is already known to students of French constitutional 
history through his preliminary labours on the subject which he 
has made his own — the history of the parlement of Paris. Two 
volumes issued in 1887 and 1890, on the organisation and compe- 
tence of the parlement, form the basis of the present book. The 
period covered by those volumes (1314-1422) is more restricted 
than that of the later work, and within it the author has little to 
add — except as to the details of procedure — to what he has already 
told us. But his ' Histoire du Parlement ' completes the subject, 
so far as its most important period, its growth and establishment, 
are concerned. 

Of the importance of the subject there can be no doubt. No 
law-court in Europe has had a greater or more honourable history 
than the parlement of Paris ; none, since the time of the Romans, 
has developed a more complete and consistent body of law ; none 
has followed out the maxims of its original with more effect, or 
accomplished more remarkable political results. For the French 
monarchy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is the true heir 
in spirit of the Roman Empire — not that effete and disunited polity 
which claimed its name ; — and the French monarchy at its height of 
power, in France and in Europe, is largely the work of the parlement 
of Paris. This political importance of thearli ment was, it is 
true, indirect. It consisted in supporting and elevating, not in 
opposing and depressing, the monarchy. Those whose attention 
was chiefly concentrated on its period of decline, and who sympa- 
thised with its futile efforts after political independence in the time 
of the Fronde and of Louis XV, have been inclined to over-estimate 
its influence when thrown into the scale of opposition. Regarded 
from this point of view, * its political role,' as M. Aubert says, * has 

• Histoire du Parlement de Paris de Vorigine d Francois I (1250-1515), par 
F^lix Aubert. 2 vols. Paris (Picard), 1894. 


been much exaggerated, and, well considered, was without serious 
effect.' But it is difficult to exaggerate its influence on the other 
side. The admirers of its (so-called) constitutional action have not 
only been guilty of exaggeration, they have mistaken and distorted 
the true vocation of the parlement. M. Aubert, in his preface, 
does not dwell upon this point ; but it was hardly necessary to do 
so, for his whole work is a commentary upon the text. From the 
outset, indeed, the parlement displayed a high sense of its own 
importance, and this led it not unfrequently into conflicts with the 
monarchy, even in early days, on matters of detail or in particular 
cases — conflicts in which it was almost invariably worsted. A very 
large part of its labours was also employed in determining matters 
in which the crown was not directly concerned — in maintaining 
order and doing justice throughout the kingdom. It was, doubt- 
less, with both these objects in view — its own independence and the 
maintenance of law — that it came into opposition to the monarchy 
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But such were not 
its original aims or functions. To put it shortly, its business was 
to defend and to enlarge the rights of the king against all comers, 
and to defend the rights of the king's subjects against every one 
but the king. In the troubled times which are covered by 
M. Aubert's review it could hardly have done a greater service to 

The mistaken panegyrics which have been lavished on the 
parlement of Paris have contributed not a little to divert attention 
from its organisation and its true attributes. ' To understand that 
body, we must make a study of detail, and divest ourselves of pre- 
conceived ideas. Its importance will not thereby be diminished ; it 
will stand forth clearly as the great instrument of centralisation 
and of government under the ancient monarchy.' The author 
accordingly divides his work into three books, treating respectively 
of the organisation, the competence and attributes, and the pro- 
cedure of the parlement. 

The origin of the parlement, like that of the great central law- 
courts of this country, is to be found in the * Cour du Eoi.' The 
necessity of subdividing its fast-increasing duties led to the esta- 
blishment of distinct bodies — the great council, the chambre dcs 
comptes, the parlement. So the great council, the exchequer, the 
curia regis (specially so called) arose in England. The parlement, 
* to which were entrusted judicial questions, became a sejDarate 
body in the reign of St. Louis, but one may fairly say that its 
separation was in contemplation from the end of the twelfth century.' 
For a long time, as in England, and apparently for a somewhat 
longer time than in England, the fusion of personnel was combined 
with a distinction of duties. As in England, too, the judicial section 
for a long time retained the special title of curia regis. The pro- 


cess of subdivision took place somewhat later than in this country 
"What Henry II had done in the twelfth century, Louis IX and 
Philip III did in the thirteenth. In an ordinance of 1278 * the 
main outlines of the parlement are clearly distinguished.' After 
various experiments, Philip V in 1319 finally established the three 
great divisions— the grand' chambre, or court of pleas ; the 
chambre des enquetes; and the chambre des requetes. During 
another generation the * maitres ' were not definitely attached to 
one or other chamber, and their number varied. By the great 
ordinance of 1345 the number was theoretically fixed. The sacred 
quota of one hundred was supposed to be maintained, but in point 
of fact it was never, during the middle ages, exactly stable. 
During the English occupation of Paris the numbers were largely 

For a long time the three chambers sufficed ; the Hundred 
Years' War and the Burgundian troubles reduced the authority of 
the monarchy. But with its recovery business increased, and the 
chambers had to be multiplied. Charles VII divided the court of 
inquests into two ; other subdivisions followed, until there were as 
many as seven or eight distinct courts ; but the grand' chambre 
was always one. The grand' chambre, in which the king and 
the peers of France sat, though only on great occasions, held an 
undoubted pre-eminence ; * it represented the unity of the parle- 
ment.' Like the other chambers, except the Tournelle Criminelle, 
it contained both lay and ecclesiastical members. Its composition 
was finally determined by the great ordinance of Montils-les-Tours 
(1454), but this ordinance does not seem to have been strictly 
observed. It alone took cognisance in first instance of causes 
which concerned the king, the royal domain, and the persons or 
corporations under the protection of the crown ; it also received 
appeals from the sentences of seneschals and * baillis,' from the 
courts of inquests and requests, from the judges of the royal or 
seignorial * Grands Jours ; ' and it alone pronounced definitive judg- 
ments. It dealt especially with the affairs of the peerage ; * it was 
to the parlement of Paris alone that the peers of France resorted 
for the settlement of their personal affairs.' For criminal cases, 
the grand' chambre was accustomed, during the thirteenth and 
fourteenth centuries, to delegate powers to commissions of its lay 
members, who discharged their duties in the so-called Tournelle 
Saint-Louis. Early in the sixteenth century this system of delega- 
tion ceased, and a distinct court, the Tournelle Criminelle, came 
into existence, but it always remained subordinate to the grand* 

The chamber of inquests, like the criminal court, began 
as a delegation of the grand' chambre, but early in the four- 
teenth century it became a distinct and permanent court. After 


undergoing many minor changes, it was divided by the great 
ordinance of 1454 into two sections, which subsequently became 
three. This chamber arose from the necessity of making inquiries 
into the particulars of cases brought before the parlement, and 
to this business it was originally restricted. But after becoming 
a distinct court, it took cognisance of all cases which were to be 
decided on the basis of an inquiry ordered by the parlement, or on 
which written evidence had been tendered to the court of first 
instance. * It always remained exclusively a court of counsel 
(ehambre de conseil) ; it did not hear the parties before making its 
inquiry ; it did not order the inquiry ; and it only gave judgment 
when the grand' ehambre had declared the instruction terminated, 
and handed over to it the decision of the matter.' In theory, it 
never enjoyed a vacation ; during the fourteenth century it acted 
as a vacation-court on behalf of the rest. Though subordinate to 
the grand' ehambre, it seems to have had a full sense of its own 
dignity, and doubtless of the value of its emoluments, for on several 
occasions it strenuously resisted — though with little success^the 
efforts of the crown to control its appointments or to add to its 

The chamber of requests, originally a delegation, was consti- 
tuted as a distinct court in 1296. Subsequently divided into two 
sections, one for the langue d'oc, the other for the langue d'oil, it 
was re-united in 1318, and remained one till the time of Henry III. 
In 1580 a second chamber was created, and this continued to exist 
till the dissolution of the eighteenth century. Like the other 
divisions of the parlement, the chamber of requests was often 
involved in disputes with Louis XI, who appears to have encroached 
more than any other sovereign on the independence of the legal body. 
In numbers, it was far the smallest of the chambers, and though 
forming unquestionably a section of the parlement, ' the tie which 
united it with the other chambers seems to have been a very loose 
one.' The examination of petitions, and of decisions upon them, 
formed its original business ; in this respect, as well as in some 
others, it has analogies with our court of chancery. It dealt 
specially with cases in which princes of the blood, royal officials, 
and privileged persons or bodies were concerned. 

One of the most remarkable characteristics of the parlement of 
Paris, and one which distinguishes it from almost all other supreme 
legal bodies, is its control over its own appointments — a control 
which almost amounted to the right of co-optation. The process 
by which it obtained this right is one of considerable interest. 
The members of the parlement were originally nominated by the 
crown. Philip VI adopted a system under which candidates were 
* presented,' first by a commission, afterwards by the chamber con- 
cerned, the crown reserving only the right of choosing among thei 


candidates presented. In the. middle of the fourteenth century, 
the democratic tendencies which prevailed in France, as in contem- 
porary England, led to election by the parlement itself, and this was 
confirmed by an ordinance of 1389, the crown reserving only the 
formal right of appointment. The restoration of royal power after 
the English wars made a change in favour of the king. Charles VII 
revived the practice of appointment on presentation. ' The chamber 
concerned chose three persons, of whom the king appointed one,' 
and he rarely went beyond the list submitted to him. Louis XI, 
indeed, abused his powers, but the parlement recovered its rights 
after his death, and though disputes occurred throughout the six- 
teenth century, the parlement appears to have practically made good 
its position. The importance of this right in its bearing on the 
political claims subsequently put forward by the parlement need 
hardly be pointed out. 

Its independence was also secured by the irremovability of its 
members. Though nominally holding office only from a particular 
king, and undergoing the form of confirmation at the hands of his 
successor, the doctrine that the judges were appointed pro vita ant 
culpa gradually made way, and was practically established by the 
end of the middle ages — two centuries before it was established in 
this country. Naturally, the two rights of co-optation and irre- 
movability led to some abuses, especially that of nepotism. Father 
and son frequently acted together as members of the parlement, 
though not in the same chamber. The Cabochian ordinance (1413) 
laid down the rule that not more than three members of one 
family should be councillors at the same time, but the rule was not 
unfrequently broken. The high places of the French law became 
almost an appanage of a limited number of families. Hence 
the noblesse de la robe, a noblesse which, no doubt, had its 
high traditions and obligations, but was not without its shady 

The salaries of the councillors were fixed by Philip the Fair. 
Lay members received 10 sous, clerical members 5 sons a day ; 
and these sums did not vary during the next two centuries. On 
the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the presidents received 
high wages — the chief president had 1 ,000 Uvres a year — while all 
alike enjoyed valuable exemptions from taxation — taille, gabeUe, &c. 
— as well as other privileges. During the English wars the scanty 
salary often remained unpaid. But lawyers can generally take 
care of themselves, and the parlement was no exception to the rule. 
They received special payment for special work ; an addition was 
always made for sittings after dinner. In the fourteenth and 
fifteenth centuries, when the finances were in unusually low water, 
the practice was established of receiving presents, called epices, from 
successful litigants. Such presents were not given before the case 


was decided, but the abuses to which the practice might lead are 
obvious. Efforts were made to put a stop to it, but in vain ; the 
insolvency of the crown and the non-payment of salaries were made 
the justification of a custom which continued to exist after the excuse 
had passed away. Presents of an even less defensible nature were 
also frequently made, at least in the latter part of the middle ages. 
Such dons corrompables were, indeed, forbidden by the parlement 
itself, but *if proper precautions were taken, it winked at the 
practice.' The traffic in places, the elections to which were often 
affected by influence of great persons, who doubtless received valu- 
able consideration for their assistance, points not obscurely to the 
existence of this evil. * It is unfortunately certain,' says M. Aubert, 

* that the councillors received presents without scruple.' In this, 
however, the French parlement was not peculiar, and in the matter 
of the epices, at least, its members might have had recourse to a 
defence afterwards used by no less a man than Bacon. 

*In the thirteenth century the king often presided in the 
parlement,' for it was, indeed, nothing but the judicial section of his 
court. But gradually this practice was given up. Special sessions 
were at first held, at which the more important business was done 
in the king's presence, but these too eventually ceased, except on 
those rare occasions when the king held a lit de justice. These 
appearances were generally made when important political business 
was on hand, when a great edict was to be registered, or (latterly) 
when the resistance of the parlement was to be overawed. Such 
resistance was also not unfrequently overborne, or evaded, by an 

* evocation,' that is by calling up a case from the parlement to the 
king's own council. This was done not only in individual cases, 
but sometimes by a general edict covering a whole class of matters. 
Louis XI frequently used, or abused, this right ; his successors were 
less arbitrary, or less firm. 

After the king, the chancellor was the chef par especial du parle- 
ment, but 'the direct and constant authority belonged to the 
presidents,' especially to the * premier president,' the rest being in 
the position of his lieutenants. The chief president * presided in 
the grand' chambre, but his authority extended over the whole 
parlement, and he was subordinate to the chancellor alone.' He 
must have been a splendid personage, in his scarlet robes lined 
with ermine, and his round hat of black velvet, decorated with gold 
lace, a costume which appears to have been de rigueur, not to be 
laid aside even under the severest domestic affliction. The presidents 
not only presided in court, but specially supervised the execution of 
their decrees, and had wide powers, including even the right of 
imprisonment, over the other members of the parlement. 

The procurator-general and the king's advocates — called col- 
lectively the gens du roi — were appointed with the special duty of 


watching over the king's interests after he had ceased to be present 
in person. The procurator's duty was to uphold the rights of the 
crown, to maintain the integrity of the royal domain, and to 
prevent any diminution of the royal revenue. This duty enabled 
him to intervene in cases before the parlement whenever he saw 
fit. His advice was taken before the registration of letters granting 
exemptions or any other privileges, and even before the conclusion 
of treaties with foreign powers. With the same object he super- 
vised the doings of the seignorial courts, and restricted the eccle- 
siastical tribunals ; he inquired into abuses of patronage, and 
examined papal bulls. Conjointly with the chancellor he watched 
the proceedings of the parlement itself, and called it to order if it 
neglected precedents or broke through regulations. The avocats 
du roi, answering in some degree to our ' king's counsel,' assisted 
the king's proctor in carrying out these important and onerous 
duties. Into the copious details furnished by M. Aubert concerning 
the advocates and proctors in general, and the various officers of the 
parlement — the notaries, recorders, ushers, &c. — it is not necessary 
here to follow him ; for these details are rather of an antiquarian 
nature, and have little political importance. For the same reason 
I shall be pardoned if I merely refer to the elaborate account of 
procedure before the parlement, which occupies about half of his 
second volume, since it deals with a subject of legal rather than 
historical interest. 

The latter half of the first volume, which deals with the 'com- 
petence and attributes' of the parlement, is perhaps the most 
important part of the book. The area over which the jurisdic- 
tion of the court extended was conterminous with France ; its judicial 
powers were of the widest ; while a great mass of administrative 
business passed through its hands. ' Emanating from the " cour 
du roi," the parlement retained the unlimited competence of that 
court. The district under its control comprised not only the royal 
domain, already [i.e. in the thirteenth century] considerable, but 
also the territories indirectly subject to the crown. The parlement 
represented and acted for the king ; his sovereign judicial authority 
was delegated to it. The definitive triumph of the right of appeal, 
of the theory of " prevention " [right of inquiry and action in the 
case of crimes the authors of which were unknown] , of the juris- 
diction in regard to privileged persons, and above all of the system 
of " cas royaux," assured the preponderance of the parlement.' As 
a court of first instance it took cognisance of all cases * evoked ' to 
it by the king, and also of pleas of the crown. It may perhaps be 
doubted whether, as M. Aubert says, ' the theory of the " cas royaux " 
was borrowed from the legislation of the Roman emperors,' but 
doubtless, whatever its origin, the principles of Roman law largely 
influenced its development. The list of ' cas royaux ' is a long one, 


perhaps even longer than that of the ' pleas of the crown ' in this 
country ; it was gradually extended, till * in the sixteenth century it 
included all crimes and grave misdemeanours,' as well as a large 
number of civil causes, such as mortgages, legitimations, university 
matters, &c. 

The jurisdiction of the parlement extended in one form or 
another over the whole kingdom. In order to facilitate adminis- 
tration the kingdom was divided into * bailliages ' and * sene- 
chaussees.' The number of these districts was gradually enlarged 
until, under Louis XII, there were thirty-four of the former class 
and seventeen of the latter, besides the ijrevdte of Paris and two 
* gouvernements.' This was exclusive of the area covered by the 
provincial parlements — those of Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, 
Dijon, Eouen, and Aix— established between 1420 and 1501. These 
provincial parlements had restricted areas, embracing altogether 
not more than one third of the kingdom, but the parlement of 
Paris was very jealous of their power. It not unfrequently 
'affected to forget their existence,' a fact of which Louis XI took 
care forcibly to remind it. 

The bailiwicks and other administrative districts covered the 
immediate domain of the crown, but the action of the parlement 
extended also to the domains of the great feudatories. In some 
cases the nearest * bailli ' could define the exemptions and franchises 
of the great fiefs ; while in all cases the seignorial high courts — 
often called ' grands jours,' e.g. in Auvergne — were subject to an 
appeal to the parlement. Even the great dukes of Burgundy, of 
Brittany, and Lorraine, recognised this judicial subordination ; the 
kings of England, as feudatories of France, had good cause to 
know its political importance. Naturally, the parlement itself was 
careful to maintain and to enlarge its appellate and other jurisdic- 
tion ; here the king's rights and its own closely coincided. The 
king's advantage was not so clear in the warfare which it constantly 
waged with the other supreme courts — like itself, the emanations 
of royal power — such as the courts of the constable and the 
marshal, and most of all with the chambre des comptes. In these 
disputes the crown had often to interfere, and it was only gradually 
that a compromise was effected. In cases of doubt, the two bodies 
cut the knot by an interchange of members, thus forming a sort 
of joint court, a proceeding which may be compared to trials before 
the exchequer chamber in England, e.g. in the famous shipmoney 

The administrative powers of the parlement were hardly less 
important than the judicial. By virtue of its supreme appellate 
jurisdiction, it revised the judgments of the ' baillis ' and other royal 
officials. The general supervision of these functionaries was a 
natural consequence of this judicial superiority. As guardian of 


the king's interest, the parlement looked closely into provincial 
administration : in the latter part of the fourteenth century it even 
elected the * baillis ' and seneschals. Charles Yll deprived it of this 
right, but the newly appointed ofiScial took the oath before the par- 
lement, which also conducted the formalities connected with his 
appointment, and defined or altered the limits of his jurisdiction. 
The town of Paris was in many respects controlled by the parlement. 
The markets, quays, and main streets were under its supervision ; it 
had the general direction of the police ; it regulated the performance 
of stage-plays by the students, and kept prostitutes within bounds. 
It looked after the provisioning of the metropolis ; it supervised the 
sale of corn, wood, salt, &c. ; it enforced upon the bakers regula- 
tions similar to those of the English * assize of bread ; ' it even 
regulated prices. It shared with the chambre des comptes the 
general control of the bonnes villes. It watched over public in- 
struction, and gradually substituted its own jurisdiction for that of 
the ecclesiastical courts in cases concerning the universities, at 
least by way of appeal — a process facilitated by the fact that 
members of the universities were under the special protection of 
the crown. It also acted as a tribunal of commerce, prohibited 
combinations for the purpose of raising prices, and occasionally 
acted as a court of international law, settling disputes between 
French and foreign merchants. 

In the struggle between the crown and the church respecting 
clerical immunities and jurisdiction — a struggle not less keen, at 
one time, in France than in England — the crown naturally relied 
upon the support of the parlement, and though many members of 
that body were ecclesiastics, their support, as lawyers, was given to 
the king. * It is during the reign of Louis VI that we find the first 
instance of an appeal from an ecclesiastical court to the curia 
regis (1132).' During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the 
conflict was continuous; the parlement carried on the work of 
limitation which the curia regis had begun. In criminal cases the 
French kings were more successful than their English contem- 
poraries ; no St. Thomas was murdered in France. The French 
parlement succeeded in establishing its jurisdiction over the clergy 
in * cas royaux,' at least to a very large extent. A sort of compromise 
was made, it is true, but it was a compromise very Uke that 
vainly attempted in the Constitutions of Clarendon — a compromise 
practically establishing secular control. The criminous clerk, if he 
could prove his orders— and the proof seems to have been less 
formal than in England — was handed over to the ecclesiastical 
judge, but the latter ' could not give judgment without the presence 
of royal judges, and the procurator-general reserved the right of 
subsequent j^roseeution ,' In disputes between the representatives 


of the crown, e.g. the provost of Paris, and the bishop, the parle-- 
ment intervened directly. 

In regard to real property claimed by ecclesiastics, the parle- 
ment attained success at a later date. While in England this 
branch of the dispute ended in favour of the king's courts as early 
as the end of the twelfth century, in France the parlement does not 
appear to have established its jurisdiction till 1377. In that year 

an edict prohibited the cognisance of real and possessory actions by eccle- 
siastical courts, even if such actions were brought against clerics, as also 
of cases touching feudal rights and rents on immovable property ; and 
this regulation was subsequently maintained. 

So complete, however, did the control of the parlement become, 
that it fined and even imprisoned bishops who ventured to oppose 
it. * Matrimonial and testamentary cases were the last and greatest 
subject of dispute,' but here again the secular courts were more 
successful in France than in England. From the fourteenth cen- 
tury onwards, such cases — which Edward I deliberately left to the 
church — were gradually drawn into the jurisdiction of the parle- 
ment. The parlement also settled disputes between bishops and 
their chapters, or between clerical dignitaries and the inferior 
clergy ; and it regulated the right of sanctuary. In a word, * by 
the end of the fifteenth century, the struggle between the king's . 
courts and the ecclesiastical tribunals had been decided in favour 
of the crown.' 

A similar spirit was shown in regard to the relations between 
the crown and the papacy : 

Jealous of their authority, and desirous of restraining ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction, the kings of France possessed, in the councillors of the 
parlement, auxiliaries who were learned both in the Eoman and the canon 
law, and passionate defenders of Gallican liberties. The theory of these 
liberties formulated by the parlement resembled, in its vagueness and 
elasticity, the theory of the ' cas royaux,' and could be used to win for 
the crown equally important advantages. Under pretext of defending 
these liberties, the parlement did not hesitate to blame the conduct of the 
popes, and to encourage the monarchy to resist them. 

The parlement was reluctant to register the letters of papal 
legates, even when commanded by the sovereign ; it scrupulously 
examined papal bulls ; it protested against papal taxation. During 
the long period of the exile at Avignon, and still more during the 
great schism, it made use of the difficulties in which the papacy 
was involved, to confirm and widen the liberties of the Gallican 
church. * The famous pragmatic sanction of Charles VII was 
welcomed by the parlement, and its revocation by Louis XI was, 
vigorously resisted.' It refused to register the revoking edict, and 
never acknowledged its validity. On their side the popes were 
naturally anxious to cquciUate this powerful and stubborn body, 


and while zealously defending or enlarging the national indepen- 
dence, the parlement, both individually and as a corporation, made 
its own profit out of the situation. It was even able to bring its 
influence to bear on the affairs of the church at large ; the pro- 
ceedings of the councils of Basel and Constance were regularly 
communicated to it, and its deliberations on the questions under 
debate were not without effect. 

The importance of the attitude which the parlement thus main- 
tained, towards the papacy and towards the church in France, can 
hardly be over-estimated. The predominance of the secular power 
within the nation, and the independence of the national church as 
against Eome, were fairly established in France at a period when 
this was far from being the case in England. It is not too much 
to say that the divergent fortunes of the reformation in these two 
countries were largely the result of this difference. England — or 
at least the English crown — had to conquer by a violent convulsion 
that independence which the sovereigns of France had already, to 
a sufficient extent, obtained by a gradual evolution. 

Much of what has been already said goes to show the vast, if 
indirect, political influence exercised by the parlement of Paris. 
To its more immediate and direct influence M. Aubert finds it un- 
necessary to devote more than one short chapter. 

The political rdle of this powerful court was about this time [the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries] greatly extended, but we must be 
careful not to exaggerate it. While its pohtical influence was the conse- 
quence of successive usurpations, and while it is clear that the parle- 
ment, as a purely judicial and administrative institution, had no claim to 
meddle in politics, we must recognise that it was inevitably drawn on to 
this by the tacit acquiescence of the sovereign, and by the force of events. 
To the presidents and councillors of tbe parlement the kings confided 
important diplomatic missions ; they were summoned to discuss political 
questions along with the great council or the states-general ; they were 
appointed to arbitrate in political disputes ; projects of law and treaties 
with foreign powers were submitted to them, and they were authorised to 
discuss such matters before registration. Thus called on to register all 
the acts of the government, the parlement ended by regarding as indis- 
pensable what was nothing but a formality, a measure of precaution. 

A high, if incorrect, notion of political importance was the 
natural outcome of the introduction, for autocratic or other pur- 
poses, of a legal body into politics. If Louis XI did not scruple 
to make use of the parlement to abrogate the treaty of Con- 
flans, that body naturally declined to be left in the background 
when its assistance was less indispensable. Its duty, as the guar- 
dian of royal rights and property, obliged it to interfere when 
grants of land or privileges were in prospect. It possessed and 
constantly exercised the right of remonstrance against what it held 
to be injurious alienations of royal domain. The protests might 


be overridden, but the right to make them remained, and was even 
confirmed by ordinance in 1493. Eegistration might be regarded 
as a formaHty, but it was none the less a practically indispensable 
one ; for what was the value of a grant or a pledge if the sovereign 
who might subsequently wish to recall it could shelter himself 
behind a technical omission ? 

Hence a real and direct political influence, which, given a 
favourable opportunity, might make itself inconveniently felt. The 
parlement owed its elevation to the crown ; the crown owed much 
of its power to the parlement. It was only natural that when the 
monarchy was in difficulties, as in the religious wars, and still 
more during the Fronde, the parlement assumed an attitude which 
threatened its creator. Legal technicalities were similarly utilised 
in this country. It must not be forgotten that in the English 
parliament, under the first two Stewarts, purely technical argu- 
ments and legal precedents were made to subserve political pur- 
poses, and applied to the solution of grave political problems. 
Between the lawyers of Paris and the lawyers of the long parlia- 
ment there was not so wide a difference as at first sight might 
appear. But the unrepresentative character of the French par- 
lement, its purely legal composition, and above all the traditions 
handed down by centuries of devotion to the crown, were fatal to 
its political claims. The objects of the parlement and those of the 
nobility, which for a moment was its ally, were radically divergent, 
and the monarchy speedily recovered its superiority over a combi- 
nation which possessed no elements of permanence. 

It is not in these ill-considered and unsuccessful attempts at 
self-assertion that the greatness of the French parlement is to 
be found. It is in the assistance which it gave to the monarchy 
in evolving order out of disorder, unity out of disruption, law 
out of anarchy. ' In the parlement the monarchy found 
its most powerful weapon of conquest. It was by its means 
that the crown extended its authority over the whole of France, 
and laid the bases of a centralisation which eventually was 
to be pushed to excess. It was the great instrument by which 
pacification and national unity were accomplished.' We have 
every reason to be grateful to M. Aubert for drawing a clear 
and striking picture of this great body, and for placing its various 
features, with abundant detail, in the dry light of sober and 
laborious research. As a study of the combined development of 
law and government, it presents at every turn illustrations and 
comparisons highly interesting to the student of constitutional 
history, especially that of this country. If the book loses some- 
what by the author's exclusive adherence to the subject before him, 
the reader will find, perhaps, all the more pleasure in discovering 
these points of contact for himself. G. W. Prothero. 

VOL. xm. — no. l. b 


TAe Cossacks 
in the Early Seventeenth Century 

THE Ukraine, or Border, was almost as fruitful a soil for adventure 
and disorder in the seventeenth century as the home of our 
own Armstrongs and Scotts. The very word * Kazak ' can hardly 
be better expressed than in the Scotch phrase ' landlouper,' an 
Ishmael whose hand is against every man, and every man's against 
him. The Cossack's opponents were mainly Russians, but he 
included in the term of contempt Lyakhi (generally accompanied 
by the epithet * devilish ') not only those who had remained true to 
the old faith, and those who had been forced by the Polish sove- 
reignty into the adoption of Romanism, but also those who as 
protestants had an equal hatred for the papacy and the Greek 
church alike. They also frequently qualified this name of abuse 
with the word Pajiy, which we may parallel with * landgrabbers.' 
There lay the sting. The Kazak was a landless man, while his 
opponent had much to lose. 

From the plains of the Donets to the Carpathian Mountains the 
orderly portion of the community on the one hand were sowing the 
seed and reaping the harvest, while the disorderly portion were 
watching them with looks of mingled envy and hatred, and cursing 
them as the spoilers of the poor and defenceless. The demagogues 
of the Ukraine had forgotten the time when the Tartars of the 
Crimea had literally depopulated Kiev, and their devastating raids 
had spread terror to the westernmost confines of Russia, and the 
still more recent period when the * border ' of Lithuania and Poland 
had been Volhynia, and the outposts of Europe against the Asiatic 
had been Bar and Kamieniec. It was Lithuania and Poland that 
had turned the wastes of the Dnieper, the terror of the traveller, into 
a comparatively settled and orderly region, where their subjects, 
almost exclusively Russian, were able to live and to increase even 
during the most furious outbreaks of the so-called national spirit 
of the Cossacks. On the other hand the Poles had not shown 
one great qualification for rule, in that they had not succeeded in 
winning the hearts of their subjects, and no doubt this was due to 
two glaring defects in the composition of their empire, diversity of 
race and diversity of rehgion. This was the weak point in the 


Polish armour, and the Cossacks struck at it again and again, though 
from no higher motive than the thirst for plunder. Yet to them 
the unity of Eussia is undoubtedly due. How little they really 
cared for religion may be judged from the fact that their clergy, 
notably the metropolitan Job Boretski, implored them in vain when 
a favourable opportunity arose to help in establishing a Christian see 
among the Circassians. 

A regular force was maintained in the country, to which it was 
considered a privilege to belong, and the number of these ' enrolled ' 
(reestrovye) men-at-arms was supposed to be 6,000 ; but as a matter 
of fact so eager were the Cossacks to give a show of legality to their 
appearance in arms at all seasons that they far exceeded the pre- 
scribed limit. Following the example of the gentry (szlachta) of 
Poland proper, whose name for themselves was sicawola ('liberty '), 
they demanded and obtained similar privileges, and used them 
for even worse purposes. But what most of all caused their numbers 
to swell were the Tartar raids, which, devastating the country and 
leaving the survivors homeless, forced the latter into the ranks of 
the ' broken men ' who had no means of livelihood but their swords. 
Among them were to be found numerous representatives of good 
families, even the best, such as the Zborowskis. When meditating 
an outbreak their favourite plan was to spread reports that the 
Tartars were coming, and take advantage of the panic thus 
produced to lay hands on all they could. This state of things 
reigned not only in the Ukraine proper, but throughout Podolia, 
Red Eussia, Volhynia, and White Russia. 

Khmelnicki is generally looked upon as the deliverer of his 
country from the Polish yoke, but there were several other leaders 
whose toils made his work possible, and whose warlike capacity and 
daring excelled his. * The father of the Cossacks ' (Kazatski Batko) 
was superior to them only in the greater amount of blood he shed. 
It was their failures that taught him his lesson, their smaller but 
harder-earned successes that made his final success possible. It 
was they, too, who first entertained the idea of calling in the Tartars 
to aid them against the common foe. Kosinski especially anticipated 
him in this respect, and also in that of readiness in the last resort 
to submit to the Muscovite rather than the Pole. Where he had the 
advantage of his predecessors was in being utterly indifferent to 
principles, or the means by which he gained his ends. Probably 
his success would have been impossible but for the obstinate 
refusal of the Poles themselves to see their danger. Foremost 
amongst those who warned them of it was Stanislaw Koniecpolski, 
who on his return from captivity in Constantinople became the last 
and most resolute hero of the attempt to stem the rising tide of 

The Dniester was then the southern boundary of Poland, and 

B 2 


on the far side of it lay what was called Euminia, the rulers of 
which maintained mercenary armies in no way behind the Cossack 
sea-rovers or even the Tartars in rapacity and cruelty. At this 
time the inhabitants of Moldavia were called 'Volochs' or 

* Wallachs,' a name probably identical with the German Welsch, 

* unintelligible,' while those of the modern Wallachia were called 
« Multani.' 

It was the happy lot of Koniecpolski to steer the ship of state 
through the storms that now threatened her. It was not the 
Cossacks alone that he had to contend with. The Swedish king, 
Gustavus Adolphus, whose successor, Charles X, was destined to ride 
in triumph into Warsaw, threatened him on the one hand, while on 
the other Moscow was preparing to avenge the support given by 
Poland to the false Demetrius. And still another enemy was fast 
arising in the shape of the so-called Budjak horde, an agglomera- 
tion of Tartar and Euminian outlaws. 

In spite of the slender means at his command and the meagre 
way in which his forces were equipped, Koniecpolski showed him- 
self at least a match for Gustavus Adolphus. Moscow, as it proved, 
was not strong enough to do more than threaten, and in 1623 a 
peace was concluded with Turkey, which averted all danger from 
that quarter. But Turkey's dangerous and disobedient vassal, 
Mirza Kantemir, had still to be reckoned with. However, the in- 
stances of Koniecpolski prevailed on the sultan and the khan of the 
Crimea to do their best to keep him in order, and the Polish flying 
columns did the rest. 

But it was the Cossacks themselves that called forth to the 
utmost the warlike qualities of this great leader. In themselves 
the Cossacks were not very redoubtable to a foe who was on his 
guard, but the support they constantly received in secret from 
Russia and Turkey alike made them so. As for the church, it 
naturally preferred that they should be on the side of orthodoxy 
against heresy, and so incited them to inflict as much damage as 
possible upon the Poles. Not content with this, the Cossacks began 
to assert their independence by concluding treaties without the 
cognisance of the Polish government ; they were not bound by 
any very strict allegiance to the crown. By their tenure they were 
at liberty to transfer their services elsewhere at their pleasure, and 
so troublesome had they made themselves that the crown had 
more than once been on the point of requesting them to go. They 
were quite determined not to go empty-handed, and their in- 
tention was to take with them the peasants who inhabited the 
urban districts, where they were allowed free quarters on condition 
of their feudal service as frontier guards. 

On the other hand the Cossacks, troublesome as they were, could 
not be dealt with at haphazard. The chui-ch especially was very 


much on their side, in spite of the frequent complaints it had to 
make of them, and ready to resent any curtailment of their rights. 
Nor were the citizens and small landowners of the Ukraine hehind 
the church in wishing them well, for they had many interests in 
common ; the half piratical, half commercial cruises made by the 
Cossacks in the Black Sea, much as those of our own smugglers, 
brought profits in which their sedentary neighbours shared. In 
as far as they were rebels against the Polish crown the settled 
population was against them, but as soon as they ceased to act 
against Poland that population was all in their favour. It was easy 
for the central authority to issue orders that these pirates should 
be arrested and severely punished, but the people who were charged 
to execute these orders lived among the culprits, and under conditions 
which made them look with a lenient eye on misdeeds the produce of 
which went to fill their purses. Many officials, both high and low, 
favoured them. 

The immediate obstacle to the efibrts of Koniecpolski lay in the 
Budjak Tartars. Without their support the Cossacks would be 
comparatively easy to deal with, while both Turk and Tartar made 
the Cossack depredations a pretext for reprisals on Polish territory. 
The rebels counted among their ranks only such representatives of 
the Eussian clergy, gentry, burghers, and peasantry as might be 
called the prodigal sons of those classes. The royal hetman, on 
the other hand, had all the landowners, including the orthodox 
monasteries, all the staider burghers, and such of the peasantry 
as preferred recognised to self-constituted masters, as well as the 
* tame ' Cossacks, who had recently done yeoman service against 
Kantemir. When the king's envoy appeared at Zaporog to 
demand the reduction of the armed force to its legal dimensions, 
the Cossacks should have sent out a manifesto appealing to all 
' the dwellers on the Little Eussian border ' to rally ' in defence of 
their faith, their honour, their goods, and their lives,' such as 
that with which Khmelnicki v/as credited by the Archaeological 
Commission.^ Time enough they had to raise the country, but 
the event proved that the mass of the population was not well 
disposed towards them. But they were now at the zenith of their 
fame, and, like the Turks, believed that the whole world trembled 
before them. 

They tried to secure a retreat for themselves, in case of 
failure, in the Moscow territory by assurances of fidelity, and urged 
the Crimean Tartars to join them, but were wise enough not even 
to ask for aid from Kiev. Even from a financial point of view, form- 
ing as they did a rebellious state within a state, and mainly depending 
for their supplies on booty, they could not count on any support 

' This was a clever literary forgery, issued in 1853, but not discovered for ten 


from the Ukraine. The inhabitants of that region were willing 
enough to profit by then* depredations, and to make them advances 
(adminicula) for the purposes of their maritime raids, but in 
such a struggle as was now pending it would have been too much 
to expect them to side openly with the enemies of peaceful trade. 
The very appearance of a royal hetman in the. Ukraine, armed as 
he was at such times with the power of a dictator, was sufficient to 
awe its inhabitants into submission, and to put a stop to all 
thoughts of lending a hand to their Cossack brethren. 

But 1625 was not a lucky year for the Cossacks in other ways. 
The storms and the Turkish galleys sent their pinnaces to the 
bottom. The Capitan pasha, Eidjeb, whom they had defeated 
at Kafifa the year before, had forty-three galleys, and some galleons, 
and after long cruising about the mouths of the Dnieper brought 
them to action at a place called Kagaraman, though he had only 
twenty-one of his galleys with him, the rest having dropped off in the 
search. The Cossacks eagerly accepted battle, having twenty boats 
to each galley of their enemies, and the weather being calm, but for 
which they would have had no chance. Only nine of the galleys 
had their proper complement of janissaries on board. Both sides 
fought fiercely, but more especially the Cossacks. Recognising the 
admiral's galley by the three lanterns on the poop, they swarmed 
round her bow and sides, thus avoiding the fire from the stern. 
Many fell, but 200 bold spirits succeeded in clambering on board, 
and a bloody fight took place, the deck being strewn from bow to 
mast with corpses. To add to the difficulties of the crew, the 
slaves, mainly Cossack captives, refused to row, and were only 
by their irons prevented from springing overboard. The other 
galleys were convinced that she was being sunk, when by a last 
desperate effort the janissaries gained the upper hand. The deck 
was cleared of the assailants, and a double broadside, well aimed, 
sank many of their boats. The galley of the admiral's lieutenant 
was in similar danger, and shook off her assailants in the same 
way. But many others were in the hands of the enemy, and the 
Turks were beginning to fall on their faces in despair and call upon 
Allah, when a breeze springing up filled their sails, thus enabling 
them to assist their consorts. With revived energy they fell on the 
Cossacks, and soon many boats were abandoned or shattered, while 
their drowning crews strewed the water. Out of 300 Cossack boats 
not more than thirty escaped, and these had to be beached so as not 
to fall into the hands of the pursuers, while 170 remained in the 
hands of the victors, together with 780 prisoners. 

Nothing daunted by this heavy blow, the Cossacks turned to 
meet their enemies on land. The Tartars of the Crimea attempted 
a diversion, but were bought off by Koniecpolski. He continued to 
ftdvance, overcoming obstacles resolutely, in spite of the quartan 


ague which racked him throughout the campaign, and from Bielaia 
Tserkov sent a fresh offer to the Zaporog Cossacks, telling them 
that he wanted their services for the Swedish war, and that he 
was reluctant for this reason to use force. He, however, still 
continued to advance. A league from the town of Kanevo he 
was met by a deputation, entreating him not to attack them for a 
while, as they were unable to determine what side to take, owing to 
the absence of their hetman, Khmailo. The prayer was granted, 
but a body of some 3,000 men who had caused trouble in the town 
and been expelled was pursued by ten squadrons under the command 
of Odriwolski and brought to bay. They formed a strong laager, 
into which a son of Prince Czetwertinski leaped his horse, but 
being unsupported was taken prisoner, and proved a very useful 
hostage. After this the insurgents crossed the Moshna unmolested, 
and harassed Odriwolski severely in his pursuit. 

Meantime the main army had crossed the Eoss. The Cossacks 
spread the most horrible reports of the atrocities it was committing ; 
and these were believed in many quarters, even at Moscow, where 
they were spread by the conj&dential agent of the metropolitan of 
Kiev, Father Philip, who must have known well enough how 
little the Cossacks were to be relied on for veracity. The strange 
thing is that these alleged atrocities have continued to be believed 
in down to our time by many men of intelligence, notably Gogol. 
But no material aid was given to the insurgents, while the royal 
army received reinforcements in the shape of various notables 
charged with the suppression of the revolt and their followings. On 
4 Oct. Odriwolski, who led the advance guard, reported to the 
hetman that a large Cossack force was assembled in a camp 
near Krylov, on the outskirts of the ' desert plains,' i.e. the 
uninhabitable part of the Steppes. The hetman halted and 
awaited still further reinforcements. Here a Cossack envoy had 
an audience of him, announcing that the hetman of the Zaporog 
was already on the move with an armata, which included not 
only artillery but field deputies with full power to make treaties. 
Two days later a fresh deputation came to entreat him to wait till 
the Zaporog hetman and deputies arrived, and to restrain his 
soldiers from pillage and outrage in the unprotected towns in the 
meantime. He agreed, but shifted his camp to a stronger position 
on the arm of the Dnieper. The hetman seemed in no hurry to 
arrive, and he himself continued to temporise. On the 14th he again 
shifted his camp to within a league of the Cossacks, but that very 
day the long-expected Khmailo arrived and pourparlers commenced. 
The Pole knew that the insurgents had asked for Tartar aid, and 
had expected that Khmailo would bring it, but it was his policy to 
ignore their conduct. 

At the conference the royal commissioners reminded the 


insurgents of their various crimes and treasons, and demanded 
that they should surrender the ringleaders, more particularly the 
envoys sent to ask aid from Moscow, should burn their war boats 
in the presence of nominees of the commissioners, and pledge 
themselves to undertake no further raids, should reduce their 
standing force to 4,000, and acknowledge the nominee of the 
crown as their hetman. In return they were promised that the 
subsidy previously agreed on should be paid, and continued, on 
condition of their properly guarding the Niza and keeping the 
Tartars out of the Zaporog, and holding the * enrolled ' forces not 
required for this purpose at the disposal of the royal hetman. 

The Cossacks asked time to consider these terms, and on the 
17th sent to inform the commissioners that they were not disposed 
to concede a single point. Their envoys were detained in camp 
till the following day by Koniecpolski, who meanwhile ])repared for 
battle. On dismissing them the following morning he said, * Our 
sabres shall be on your necks, since you will not obey, and the 
fault be on your own heads.' The chronicler declares that * the 
envoys wept on hearing these words.' 

No sooner were they gone than the whole army was in motion. 
Zamoiski with his own regiment led the right wing, and the 
renegade Cossack Bieletski the centre, at the head of the troops of the 
princes Z bar aj ski. They were followed by 800 foreign infantry, under 
captains Butler and Vinteroy. Then came the artillery, followed 
by Zamoiski's German infantry, led by Pfitting, some squadrons of 
Hungarian cavalry, and the pick of the feudal horsemen. At an 
interval came the contingents of the magnates of Kiev, Volhynia, 
Black Russia, and Podolia. The general, with his own regiment 
and artillery, held himself in reserve. 

They crossed a marshy belt of country in this order, and then 
the Polish leader donned his coat of mail and casque to join the 
coming fight. The weather remained bright and clear. Seeing 
that the ground was all open for the movement of troops, he 
ordered various single regiments to advance to the attack. The 
Cossacks resisted stubbornly, and threatened the flank and rear of 
the assailants. In spite of the best efforts of the feudal levies, 
supported by the foreign mercenaries, they were driven back by 
the heavy fire, and the Cossack sallies wearied out the Polish 
troops. All day the fight rolled to and fro. Koniecpolski himself 
tried in vain to find a weak point at which to break in. The 
battle, however, had given time for his transport trains to come up 
unmolested. The next day he spent in preparing fascines and 
casting ball ammunition. In the meantime the weather changed. 
A fierce gale carried bhnding showers of sleet over the plains, 
and impeded the soldiers in making approaches to the rebel 
camp, while it was known that the, Cossacks had tried to break out 


in the direction of the Dnieper under cover of the storm. This 
was, however, probably only a feint. Their real object was to 
make their way to a place called the Bear's Den, where amidst 
dense jungle and treacherous swamps a small plot of firm ground 
gave just space enough to erect an earthwork into which the 
fugitives might crowd and bid defiance to pursuit. This fen was 
sometimes called the Woodcock's Haunt, probably from some old 
Pecheneg of the time of Sviatoslav, who found it a safe retreat 
even from the most determined pursuer. It was only some two 
leagues distant, but the way lay over ground as dangerous to the 
pursued as the pursuers. However, Khmailo, trusting to his 
knowledge of the country and the extreme difficulties it would present 
to a pursuing force, determined to make the attempt, and under 
cover of night started for the refuge, bag and baggage, without his 
flight being discovered. 

But the Cossacks little knew what an able leader they had to 
deal with, or what his followers were capable of when their reputa- 
tion was at stake. The flight of Khmailo was discovered by the 
Germans whom Koniecpolski had sent forward to reconnoitre the 
camp before dawn. He had a number of groslwvye, or paid 
Cossacks, with him, and also the Podolian regiment, which had 
had long practice in pursuing the Tartars, and which was really 
composed of Cossacks, only that they had been brought up in a 
civilised way. He had with him able leaders for such work in 
Khmeletski and Bieletski, both professional raiders ; and he himself 
had recently shown in the pursuit of Kantemir of how much he was 

The rebels had just got their impedimenta across a marsh that 
lay about a league from their camp when Stanislaw Polocki came 
up with them with 1,500 men-at-arms. The rear-guard, composed 
of infantry, offered a stubborn resistance, but being no longer under 
cover they fell in heaps, though they stood their ground till the 
Polish general came up with the artillery. Then they scattered, 
making good use of their knowledge of the surrounding cover. 
Meanwhile Khmailo had got across another fen, half a league 
further on, leaving 2,000 cavalry to cover his retreat at this point. 
They, in their turn, held their ground till the artillery came up. 
From this point the pursuers could see at half a league's distance 
the Bear's Lair, which was so nomine et re, as an eye-witness 

On approaching the PoHsh leader found the way blocked by a 
semicircle of wagons, with some 2,000 more horsemen behind 
them. The defence of this marshy Thermopylae enabled Khmailo to 
complete the last passage in safety. He soon put the old earth- 
works, which rose out of the very waters of the fen, in a posture of 
defence. Seeing no other alternative, Kopiecpolski determined to 


attack them, late as it was, and a struggle ensued even more 
stubborn than that at the former camp. After various attacks 
and counter-attacks the Poles, driving in a sally with their whole 
force, entered the entrenchments with the fugitives. The Cossacks 
gave way before their onslaught, and their assailants, pressing the 
attack, found themselves floundering in the quagmires on the far 
side. The Cossacks now became in turn the assailants. The tall 
bearded figure of the Polish leader was conspicuous even in the 
turmoil of battle, and became the mark for every Cossack petronel. 
It was with difficulty that he was extricated from the mHtr. Yet 
in the main his object was attained. The Polish artillery had 
swept the camp from three sides, and it was littered with dead and 
untenable. The Cossacks still kept up a withering fire from rifle 
pits, but they knew that a fresh assault must result in extermination, 
and they asked for quarter. It was at once granted. Night fell, 
a night of misery to both sides, though more particularly to the 
royal army, less accustomed to hardship. The wounded had 
already suffered terribly from the cold, and the night brought 
snow to add to their sufferings. 

The Cossacks, however, still evaded complete submission. They 
pretended they were afraid to face the wrath of the Polish leader, 
and the latter, suspecting a trick, gave orders to prepare fascines 
for the dreaded assault, which, however, he was in no mood to 
carry out, as he wanted assistance from the rebels in his Swedish 
campaign. He therefore sent Bieletski and Khmeletski, whom he 
knew to be popular among them, into their camp, to warn them 
that he must proceed to extremities unless they completed their 
submission. The threat and the preparations sufficed. A scale of 
pay was then arranged for the rebels — 700 gold pieces a year for 
their leader, 100 for the quartermaster and the provost-marshal, 
and 50 to each of the colonels. The other terms were the same as 
before, and the Cossack envoys agreed to them all with the exception 
of two, viz. giving up the ringleaders of the piratical raids and 
reducing their standing force to 4,000 men. They further prayed 
that their subsidy might be increased by 50,000 gold pieces, as so 
many of them were homeless ; that they might be allowed to elect 
their own chief; and that the republic would allow them free 
quarters in some of the principal towns during the winter, for they 
had most of them no roofs over their heads, and especially 
for the deputies and their attendants. Lastly, they prayed that 
the women, children, and cattle which were detained in the camp 
might be restored to them. 

The women, however, were in no hurry to be given up. As 
to the surrender of the pirate leaders, the commissioners felt bound 
to give way, as there were instances of as bad or worse license 
among the gentry of their own country. AH the more resolutely 


did they insist on the reduction in the standing force. At first 
they stood out for 4,000, then they agreed to 5,000, and finally 
refused to accede to any excess over 6,000. The remaining repre- 
sentations were disregarded. 

In considering the conduct of Koniecpolski we must remember 
on the one hand that he and the magnates who followed him could 
not fail to have a certain admiration for the Cossacks as brave 
soldiers, and so look somewhat leniently on their irregularities. 
They themselves were the ardent champions of the rights of the 
gentry, and thus could sympathise with those who boldly maintained 
similar rights. On the other hand the knowledge of an under- 
standing between the Crimean Tartars and the rebels, which had 
gone to such a length that Shagin Ghirey had promised to allow 
them to plunder as much as they liked in Turkey, in consideration 
of being left to do as he pleased in Poland, gave the hetman no 
alternative but to put such a bargain beyond the reach of possi- 
bility. On 28 Oct. he set his army in motion for the return march. 
There were still some 20,000 men in the Cossack camp, but 
Khmailo had been replaced in the eldership by Michailo Doroshenko, 
at the instance of the Polish leader. Such was the end of the 
revolt of Khmailo. 

By the beginning of 1626 the task intrusted to Doroshenko of 
inquiring into the titles by which land was held in the Ukraine was 
completed. The treasury had in its hands the title deeds of the 
estates which the Cossacks held by right of martial prowess, with 
a list of the tenantry and an account of the feudal tenures by 
which the various estates, with the privileges attaching to them, 
were held. 

As we have seen, 6,000 Cossacks were enrolled on the roster as 
soldiers. The rest had no legal existence, but were to be counted 
with for all that. The Polish body politic was not strong enough 
to rid itself of its parasites, of which the Cossacks were the most 
tenacious. The circumstances which had admitted of their rise 
and spread, till they became a source of danger, were still un- 
changed. One thing which prevented the taking of such measures 
against them as should render them innocuous was the Swedish war, 
which had furnished the opportunity for the punitive expedition 
against them. Large numbers of the disbanded Cossacks streamed 
across the country to the seat of war, but, though they had been 
liberally provided with all necessaries, railed everywhere at the 
'landgrabbers,' and scattered discontent against them broadcast along 
their path. They declared the gentry, wherever they came, did not 
leave the poor Cossack even pasture for his horse. That such a 
statement has been preserved for us by the oral handing down of a 
ballad is sufficient proof of the effect it must have produced at the 
time. Even in White Eussia, which had suffered so much from 


Nalivaiko and his men, these reports were greedily listened to, not 
least by the clergy, who had most cause of complaint against the 
predatories. The Swede was not slow to take advantage of the 
discontent, and sent an embassy to Zaporog to stir up the Cossack 
zeal for the Greek church against the catholics. His representations, 
however, were rendered futile by the abrupt close of the war. 

The war came to an end, but not the difficulties of the dauntless 
Koniecpolski. There was still no money in his chest, and having 
saved the country from its foes without he had now to save it from 
the wrath of its own indignant soldiers. His gi-eat services were 
repaid by his fellow nobles with slander, and history has hitherto 
passed him by slightingly. The gentry were loud in outcries for 
payment for their sacrifices, while Ferdinand H, who, especially in 
1620 and 1625, had rendered invaluable services to Sigismund by 
lending him mercenaries, was now equally urgent for his reward. 
The German and Polish soldiery proposed to seize one of the most 
flourishing provinces as a pledge for their arrears of pay, and their 
requisitions were as much dreaded by the peaceful inhabitants as 
the horrors of regular warfare. But Koniecpolski averted the 
danger. At his suggestion the most influential of the German 
leaders were at once transferred to the national force, the 
* Kwarciane Wojsko,' as it was called, from being paid out of a 
fourth of the revenues from the domains, and two bodies of 600 
Germans apiece were ordered for frontier service, to be at the dis- 
posal of the royal and Lithuanian hetmans. The gentry who had 
served in the war were promised an * assurance ' {i.e. a solemn oath 
that they should have the next right to such public offices as might 
fall vacant), provided they returned at once to then* allegiance. 

Having thus taken the heart out of the mutiny, the question of 
arrears of pay was quietly deferred till the next diet, the crown 
hetman having, however, to ofi'er his own estates as security. This 
was one of the cases where the gentry, more especially those of the 
Russian provinces, forgot their own interests and were true to their 
country. The eastern provinces were only too apt to forget what 
they owed to Poland, and to be ready to join hands with any one 
who was disposed to attack that country, and they had their reward 
in the treachery with which the Cossacks repaid their assistance. 
However, for the time being the latter were in great request as 
auxiliaries. In Livonia fighting had been going on with the Swedes 
even while the revolt of Khmailo was in progress, and as soon as it 
was over the magnates had hastened to secure the services of a 
large number of Cossacks who were thus set free. Not only so, but 
when, in 1629, the truce came to an end, the Cossacks of the Black 
Sea made their appearance in the Baltic, and attacked the Swedes 
with great success. 

"While the attention of Poland was turned in this direction the 


Ukraine, disregarding the lesson of the Bear's Lair, acted as an 
independent principaHty, and gathered men who were longing, like 
true Cossacks, to earn their living by the sword for an inroad into 
Turkish Wallachia. A successful raid was made on the town of 
Tegito, which added much to the temporarily obscured reputation 
of the Cossacks and furnished a theme for the ballad-mongers. 

Doroshenko and his ' enrolled ' forces were not behindhand. 
Under pretence of checking the pirates he moved on the Niza and 
destroyed the new Turkish castle of Islam-Kermen. Just about this 
time Mahomet Ghirey had been turned out by Kantemir, and Janibek 
Ghirey put in his place ; and the deposed khan called the Cossacks 
to his assistance. Doroshenko with 4,000 of his ' regulars ' retook 
from Kantemir the guns he had captured from Zukowski, but fell 
himself in the action, and his men, under the leadership of a newly 
chosen hetman, Gritsko the Black, released the two captive Ghireys 
and returned to Zaporog with Shagin, while his elder brother went 
in search of help to the Great Nogais. 

From the cataracts (Zaporog means ' beyond the cataracts') the 
Cossacks sent a letter of justification to the king. They promised 
to conquer the Crimea for him if he would grant them admission to 
the royal army. For his part Shagin offered homage to the king on 
behalf of himself and his brother. The letter is still extant in which 
the royal officials advised the king to let them have their way, and 
the advice was followed. All the time the government was assuring 
the Porte that they had no proof of any communication between 
Cossacks and Tartars. 

Hopes were now high in Zaporog, but the party of the new khan, 
being informed of their intentions, made a devastating inroad into 
Bed Bussia. Khmeletski, however, whom Koniecpolski had appointed 
his lieutenant on the frontier, was worthy of his trust. He was 
not only always on the alert, but knew how to draw both Poles and 
Cossacks to his standard, and he had inflicted a bloody defeat on the 
Tartars at Bielaia Tserkov in 1626. He was to distinguish himself 
still more in 1629. His plan was to fall upon them in detail, and 
the event proved that this was easily done. At Dobrovoly Kante- 
mir's youngest son sustained such a crushing defeat that he with 
difficulty escaped into the woods with two followers. Liubomirski 
fell on the second, Mamhet, near the mouth of the Dniester, and 
scattered his following not less completely, he himself being taken 
prisoner and killed in a dispute as to who was his rightful captor. 
Khmeletski then caught the main body near Burshtyno, on the 
Lina, and rescued a number of prisoners, Polish and Bussian, 
amounting to 10,000, besides women. It is said that one of the 
Cossack scouts fell into the Tartar's hands before the battle, and 
protested so vehemently that the Polish force was not advancing 
^gainst them that they were thrown quite off their guard. 


Khmeletski showed himself as great a master of the arts of 
peace as those of war, and the Ukraine was never so prosperous or 
tranquil as under his rule. He was humane, chivalrous, and 
scrupulous, and the terror of evil-doers. But in spite of his best 
eflforts his soldiers committed many irregularities, thus furnishing 
the Cossacks, who had still arms in their hands, with some ground 
for discontent. An attack was made on a portion of the army of 
occupation near Kiev, and the peasants joined in it. As usual the 
Cossacks spread reports grossly exaggerating the arbitrary acts 
committed by the soldiers, and asserted that some Kussians among 
the latter had warned the metroi)olitan that they were sent thither 
expressly to exterminate him and his flock. The attack, serious 
or not in its immediate results, was the signal for a revolt which 
was wide-spread indeed. Gritsko the Black, the new * elder,' 
was, however, determined to put down the rising, as his duty 
demanded ; but the rebels denounced him as a secret Uniat, or 
favourer of the catholics, and took advantage of the unpopularity 
thus caused to break into his house and inflict terrible tortures 
on him. 

The news of the rising soon reached Koniecpolski, and he took 
immediate measures for its suppression. Kanewski, the starosta 
of Zwenigrad, and Lash Tuchanski were selected to command 
the punitive expedition. This Lash, who was constable of the 
Ukraine, was a remarkable man. Nursed in the rough school of 
the border, he was one of the most trustworthy of Koniecpolski's 
lieutenants. He had collected a following of beggared, gentry, 
refugees from Wallachia, and Tartar adventurers, and, it must be 
added, Cossack cut-throats. He was disliked but respected by his 
neighbours, whom he treated in very high-handed fashion, though 
his extravagance had loaded him with debt and left him poor. 
Though he was fighting against the Cossacks, he would have been 
more in his place in their midst, but by some strange irony of fate 
he remained a loyal subject. 

The rebels took the field to meet him with a train of artillery. 
They started from Zaporog under the leadership of one Taras, of 
whom nothing is known but that from his surname, Teodorowich, 
he must have been a Polish gentleman. Unlike previous revolts, 
this was recruited mamly from the urban population, and religious 
grievances were made the pretext for it. Boretski, the metro- 
poHtan, helped it on both by his counsels and his sympathy. The 
arrival of Lash and some other commanders at Kiev cleared the 
right bank of the Dnieper of the ' non-enrolled ' Cossacks. As for 
the * enrolled ' men, 2,000 remained true to the royal hetman, 
but the rest crossed the Dnieper to join Taras Teodorowich. The 
latter entrenched himself at Pereyaslav and vainly endeavoured to 
prevent the passage of the royal and feudal forces. Koniecpolski, 


following close on Butler and Zolbowski with his own and other 
magnates' followers, crossed near Kiev and blockaded Pereyaslav. 
Three weeks the blockade lasted, the Cossacks making sorties and 
keeping the besiegers on the alert by trying to cut off detachments. 
At the end of that time, finding that they were outnumbered four 
to one, and that no help was coming to them, the rebels came to 
terms. One condition of these was that the * non-enrolled ' should 
disperse to their homes. Those of the * enrolled ' who had joined 
the rising were readmitted on taking the oath of allegiance afresh. 
Arendarenko was proclaimed elder in the room of Taras, as ' a man 
who had shown his fidelity, valour, and experience in the wars of the 
state.' He bound himself to exclude from Zaporog all Cossacks 
not in the royal service, to enrol no volunteers or such as had 
been excluded from the regular roster, and to punish any one who 
should be found doing so. His men swore to burn all their boats 
and to have no dealings with those who were not in the service of 
the crown. 

Of course after such a surrender open resistance was out of the 
question, but underhand opposition was inevitable as long as the 
Cossack nature remained what it was. The courtyards and home 
farms of the gentry, the frontier towns of the kingdom of Moscow, 
the * free quarters ' on the Don were all full of non-enrolled 
Cossacks, while they swarmed on the 700 streamlets which were 
the tributaries of the Dnieper. Even in the huts of the Crimean 
and Budjak Tartars they were to be found, as Tartars were often to 
be found at Zaporog in the guise of Cossacks, forming the connect- 
ing link between Europe and Asia. If Turkey had been destined 
to triumph over Slavism, we may be sure that the descendants of 
the Cossacks of that day would have been more Turkish in their 
cruelties than the Turks themselves. If, on the other hand, the 
catholic world had conquered the orthodox, we may be sure that 
these same Cossacks would have been known to history as the 
staunchest champions of Catholicism and the Polish nation. 

In the spring of the year 1631 Boretski died, and thus an end 
was put for the time to the rising hopes of the South Kussian 
church. There was no longer any cohesion among the Cossacks ; 
all that they could do was to wait for better days and to keep alive 
in their ballads and legends the memories of past glories. For the 
moment all talk of religious liberty, all hope of obtaining aid from 
Moscow was abandoned. 

Sigismund III was now dead, and had been succeeded by his 
son Wladislaw IV, a pupil of the Jesuits. His bringing up had had 
the effect of thoroughly disgusting him both with priests and with 
courtiers, and making him an ardent sympathiser with freedom. 
He was a Cossack in heart, in habits, and in his love of war. He 
was fonder of the Zaporozci even than the terrible but sympathetic 


Koniecpolski. The fourteen years' truce was up in 1632, and in 
true Cossack spirit he began to arm against Moscow, a threat 
which was met by the despatch of a Muscovite force to seize 
Smolensk. Radziwill, whom Sigismund had made an enemy of, 
and his friends the Zaporog Cossacks, were only too eager to tender 
their services to the new ruler. It was determined to enrol 15,000 
Cossacks for the purposes of the war. They responded readily, 
forgetting their late tacit alUance with Moscow, and surpassing 
their neighbours in warlike zeal. Besides those in the direct 
service of the king many joined his standard under the banners 
of the various magnates, conspicuous among whom was Zukowski's 
nephew Danilovich, the son of a Russian voivod. The disciples of 
the orthodox church were taking arms against their brethren in the 
cause of catholic Poland. 

The Russian leader, Shein, unable to face "VVladislaw in the 
field, was forced to raise the siege of Smolensk, and the Cossack 
flying columns cut his communications with Moscow. Making their 
headquarters at Viasma, the latter scoured the country, efifectually 
preventing Shein from receiving supplies. He was forced to keep 
within his camp, his movements being hampered by a large siege 
train, and unable even to send a message for help. A force was 
sent to his relief by the tsar, but was defeated. His provisions 
were exhausted, nor could he get any wood to resist the approach- 
ing rigours of winter. Famine and cold soon caused all sorts of 
diseases to break out in his camp. The men died like flies within 
the entrenchments, while their feeble sallies were easily driven ^ in, 
not without loss, by an enemy emboldened by success. According 
to Polish authorities more than a half of his men perished, and at 
last he could muster only some 9,000. To save the remainder he 
agreed to terms, which were to surrender fugitives, to set free his 
prisoners, and to yield his arms, colours, and his scanty remnant 
of stores to the conquerors. On 10 Feb. he made his humble sub- 
mission, laying thirty standards at the feet of "Wladislaw, who 
received them on horseback, a degradation which even his great 
services could not atone for in the eyes of his countrymen. 

In March of the same year Wladislaw moved on Bielaia, but met 
with an unexpectedly stubborn resistance. The fortress was taken, 
but it cost so much blood that his chancellor said the * White ' 
Town had better be rechristened 'Red.' The feudal army lost 
heavily during the siege from cold and privation, but the Cossacks, 
like salamanders, kept themselves warm by the heat of the buildings 
they set on fire. Their ravages struck terror into the Muscovites 
and enabled the Polish army to penetrate unopposed into the very 
heart of Russia. Had Wladislaw been less of a Cossack and more 
of a disciplinarian, it would have gone ill with Russia. But the 
two nations, apart from that, were not fated to be allowed to fight 



it out. The Poles were checked in mid-career by the news that the 
Turks, at the instigation of the protestant powers, were threatening 
to seize their most fertile provinces. So Wladislaw hurriedly 
concluded, on the strength of his cheaply earned success, a * per- 
petual ' peace with Russia at Polyanovo. Smolensk and several other 
towns, with a slice of territory some 400 square leagues in extent, 
were ceded to him. Thus Russia abandoned her hardly earned 
conquests, and those who were mainly instrumental in wringing 
them from her were the very rebels against the Polish crown who 
had but lately looked humbly to her for support. 

While Wladislaw was thus engaged the more desperate of the 
Cossacks, who had refused to be included in the convention of 
Pereyaslav, were making themselves the scourge of the Black Sea. 
The Turks made reprisals by letting loose on Poland the man who 
had been an object of dread to their own frontiers. This was the 
famous rebel Abaza Pasha. Forces were collected from Rumelia, 
Bulgaria, Moldavia, and Wallachia, and placed under his command 
for the purpose. As usual the movement was heralded by a 
Tartar raid. The notorious ' Bloody Sword ' swooped down on 
unprepared Podolia, and after devastating the country for six 
leagues beyond the border retreated across the Dniester with such 
rapidity that he had already regained a place of safety before the 
news of his raid reached Koniecpolski. The latter had not taken 
part in the Russian campaign, of which he disapproved, thinking 
that Moscow was the most trustworthy ally of Poland against 
the dangers constantly threatening from the Black Sea. As usual 
he was on his guard, knowing how fallacious was the peace con- 
cluded with the Turk. * Kanishper,' as the Turks called him, 
hastily collected 2,000 men and crossed the Dniester for a counter- 
stroke. Laden with booty, the horde moved but slowly, and had got 
no further than Sasov Rog, in the Bessarabian forests, when it was 
surprised by the Pole. Everything was at once in confusion, and 
the mirzas alone made any real resistance, and that only until the 
fall of Kantemir's son-in-law. The booty was all recovered, but 
the country from which it had been taken was a mass of smoking 

This raid enabled Koniecpolski to measure the extent of 
the danger that threatened him. His urgent appeal for as- 
sistance met with little response, but with such forces as he 
could muster he took up a strong position near Kamieniec, within 
sight of the ground where twelve years before the invasion of 
Osman II had been arrested. His opponents included almost the 
whole warlike population of the Balkan peninsula. Abaza was 
accompanied not only by Kantemir, eager to avenge his late 
defeat, but by the hospodars of both Wallachia and Moldavia. In 
all their followers were computed at 50,000 men. When the armies 
VOL. xm. — NO. L. s 


came in sight, various skirmishes took place, followed by a serious 
attack, which was repulsed with loss. The confederates were dis- 
heartened. Abaza was afraid of a panic among his troops, who 
lacked cohesion, and the fidelity of the Wallachians was doubtful. 
He retreated to Mohiliewo, destroying some villages on his road, 
and thence withdrew beyond the Dniester. Koniecpolski followed, 
but at a respectful distance. The chronicler admits that he had 
been within a hair's-breadth of destruction. His tireless energy and 
exceptional strength had alone saved him. 

Amur ad IV now prepared to take the field in person at the head 
of his troops. Forces were concentrated at Adrianople, and an 
envoy, Murtoza Aga, was sent to Warsaw to threaten the Poles 
with destruction unless they consented to exterminate the Cossacks 
as an independent tribe, to pay tribute to the Porte, and accept the 
Mohammedan faith. But news being at the same time received of 
the king's victory over Shein the proposals were received with 
mocking laughter. The whole country was called to arms, and 
the king repaired to Lwow (Lemberg), where the troops that had 
taken part in the Moscow campaign were assembled. At the same 
time there was in both countries a strong party that wished for 
peace. For once the privileges which the Polish magnates had 
secured for themselves were used to good purpose. Abaza, too, 
was no longer in favour at Constantinople. A successful intrigue 
was set on foot against him, and he was secretly strangled. A 
gorgeous public funeral and costly monument deluded the un- 
initiated into the idea that his death was natural and deeply re- 
gretted in the divan. 

Both sides agreed to concessions on the occasion of the renewal 
of the peace for the tenth time. Poland was to coerce the Cossacks, 
and Turkey the Tartars. As a matter of fact all that was avoided 
was a declaration of war between the two powers. The lawless 
inhabitants of the frontiers continued their depredations, as before, 
quite unconcerned as to the injunctions of the central authority on 
either side. 

Koniecpolski had long had a plan in his head, somewhat similar 
to that by which the pacification of the Scotch highlands was 
secured in the next century. He proposed to build a fortress on 
the Dnieper, which should not only prevent the lawlessly inclined 
from reaching Zaporog, but cut off the supplies of timber which 
were floated down the river for boat-building. A certain Captain 
Mariet offered to carry the plan into execution, on condition of being 
appointed commandant and allowed to maintain a German garrison 
there. The place was called Kodak, but was almost a terra incog- 
nita to the central authority. We may gather that his * fortress ' 
was not only a military but a commercial establishment. At any 
rate the Cossacks were furious against him, and openly threatened 


vengeance unless he changed his conduct. He totally disregarded 
these threats. The fortress was duly built, and its German garrison 
set about its duties with true western thoroughness. Communication 
was cut off between the Ukraine and Zaporog, and an old Cossack 
offender, Dniepro Slavuta, imprisoned. Now Zaporog was quite 
dependent on the outside world for supplies of men. As the Cos- 
sack song put it, * All the rivers in the world flow into the Black 
Sea.' The timber could reach them by a roundabout route, but 
provisions, especially drink, were hard to obtain except from the 
upper Dnieper. The chain had been cunningly forged, but at all 
hazards they must shake themselves free. 

The leader of the Black Sea pirates at this time was Samuel 
Sulima, a man well known in the Mediterranean and especially at 
Venice, which took a keen interest in Zaporog, and even at Eome. 
The Cossacks were ready to follow him anywhere. He was deter- 
mined to put a stop to Mariet's * tyranny,' and collecting 6,000 
' independent ' Cossacks he stormed the place, drove out the garri- 
son, and shot the commandant. Public opinion declared that he 
ought to have tortured and hanged him. 

Just at this time the war with Sweden broke out afresh. 
Radziwill was at once joined by 1,500 men from the Niza, and by 
his exertions boats were equipped for their use on the Niemen. 
The Cossacks were thus transformed from refractory subjects into 
indispensable auxiliaries, and reckoned on a free pardon for their 
rebellious acts. But by the representations of the English and 
French ambassadors the truce was renewed for twenty-six years, 
and so there was no further need for their services. The forces 
collected for the war were now turned against them. The news of 
their advance reached the Ukraine just as the country was ringing 
with the latest exploit against Mariet, very much ideahsed, of course. 
The appearance of the royal hetman on the scene caused an abrupt 
transformation. All those who had anything to lose, or were but 
half-hearted, hastened to wash their hands of what had just been 
vaunted as a glorious feat of arms. Sulima and his comrades 
found themselves abandoned, and before long seized and conducted 
to Warsaw by their own fellows. 

The culprits pretended complete ignorance of the authority on 
which Mariet had acted, and urged that they had only defended them- 
selves against an illegal interference with their rights. Their defence 
did not improve their position. The members of the diet ^vere furious 
against them for the damage caused both by direct Cossack depre- 
dations and by the reprisals to which their piracy had led. In spite 
of the representations of their admirers and the intercession of the 
king they were all condemned to death. The catholics were able 
to offer Sulima no better consolation than to receive him into the 
bosom of their church. As he was being led to execution he made 

£! 2 


only one request, that the medal given him by Paul V might be 
buried with him. It is doubtful whether it was granted. The 
Lithuanian chancellor records that he was decapitated and then 
quartered, the quarters being hung up at the four corners of the 
city, ' a mournful and revolting sight.' He records also that many 
looked on him as a martyr. This chancellor was a devout catholic. 
The chancellor of the kingdom, Tomasz Zamoiski, went further in 
his sympathy, and asked a pardon for one of the other sufferers, 
Paul But, notorious in Cossack story as Pavliok, and his prayer 
was granted. 

There was for the time a lull over the country. The hopeless 
failure of the projected revolt had struck terror, and a momentary 
reaction in favour of order was the result. No external enemy 
threatened Poland. Sweden was occupied elsewhere, Moscow 
humbled, though secretly meditating revenge. In 1634 'perpetual' 
peace with Turkey was once more ratified. There seemed no 
reason why the freedom from disturbance which this fruitful land 
alone required for its prosperity should not be lasting. 

It was said of Wladislaw, even before he came to the throne, 
that he was a man devoid of religion. This was so far true that 
he was a staunch upholder of religious toleration. By this means 
he conciliated Moscow, and it seemed as if Poland would gain more 
by the arts of peace than by the sword inherited from Boleslaw the 
Brave. Clemency unhappily is not always appreciated by its 
recipients, and it was to its exercise on Pavliok that Poland was to 
owe the shattering of the fair promise which her outlying province 
was now showing. H. Havelock. 

1898 261 

Nelson and the Neapolitan Republicans 

THE story of Nelson's dealings with the last remnant of the 
Neapolitan republic has been told frequently ; but there is 
this excuse for touching on certain points once more, that the 
principal Italian evidence has been completely passed over in 
England. No notice has ever been taken of Euffo's documents and 
reminiscences, published by his secretary and literary executor, 
Sacchinelli, ' Memorie sulla vita del Cardinale Euffo.' No notice has 
been taken of the royal letters to Euffo, or of Hamilton's to Acton, 
published by Dumas, ' I Borboni di Napoli,' vol. iv.* And except 
for some inade{[uate quotations by Captain Mahan, no notice has 
been taken of Hamilton's correspondence in the Eecord Office 
(' Sicilian Papers,' vol. 45). 

The main outlines of the story are, of course, well known. 
Nelson, sailing from Palermo on 21 June 1799, after an interview 
with the Sicilian king, and arriving in Naples on 21 June, sus- 
pended and later on annulled a treaty which Cardinal Euffo, the 
king's vicar-general, had concluded with the republicans in the 
two forts, Nuovo and Dell' Uovo. (1) Had Nelson received legal 
powers over Euffo ? (2) Had this treaty been effectively executed, 
or did things remain hi statu quo ? (3) Were the republicans 
given due warning that the treaty was suspended, or deliberately 
allowed to quit their forts under the impression that it was still in 
force ? (4) And what were the circumstances under which Nelson 
hanged Caracciolo, the republican admiral ? Such are the four 
chief questions which present themselves, and, in the light of the 
new evidence, call for re-examination. 


Those who maintain that Nelson had full legal powers have 
relied mainly on a letter of Acton's, 1 Aug. 1799, in which he 
refers to Nelson's having had authority to arrest Euffo, the vicar- 
general : 

Your lordship's and Sir W. Hamilton's observations on these events, 
on your arrival in Naples Bay, rose his majesty's suspicions. ... It 
was in your lordship's power to arrest the cardinal, and send him to 

' I have to acknowledge the kind assistance which has been given me in verifying 
Dumas, and in other matters, by Signor Capasso, keeper of the Neapolitan Archives, 
and by Signor Maresca, Marchese di Cameranno. 


Palermo. . . . The cardinal yielded to your wise and steady declara- 

This letter of Acton's, however, when it is examined a little 
closer, proves that Nelson did not leave Palermo with authority to 
arrest Ruflfo, but received it only on 30 June. For, in the first 
place, Acton states that it was letters written * on arrival in Naples 
Bay ' that first raised the king's suspicion against Ruffo ; and this 
statement must be taken in conjunction with the fact that the 
voyage from Naples to Palermo generally took three days.^ In the 
second place the extant correspondence between Naples and Palermo, 
especially Nelson's and Hamilton's letters of the 29th, leaves no 
room for the arrival of such authorisation previous to 30 June. 
Moreover, Acton notices that the cardinal escaped arrest by yield- 
ing ; and he was certainly still resisting on 29 June.'* 

This inference from Acton's letter is amply confirmed by 
Hamilton's despatch to Grenville of 14 July.^ There Hamilton 
explains what a quandary Nelson found himself in from 24 to 30 
June, having all the will in the world to supersede the cardinal, 
but lacking authority to do so : 

The cardinal, finding soon that the whole confidence of the people 
was withdrawn from him, and reposed entirely on Lord Nelson and his 
majesty's fleet, endeavoured to throw the whole weight of afiairs on his 
lordship, and by that means cause inevitable confusion ; but we contrived 
to keep everything going on decently by supporting the vicar-general 
until we had answers from their Sicilian majesties at Palermo, to whom 
we had painted exactly the state of affairs, and the confusion at Naples, 
preventing at the same time his eminence from doing any essential mis- 
chief, and recommending to their majesties in the strongest manner to 
show themselves in the Bay of Naples as soon as possible, by which 
means and by that alone all would be calmed, and the cardinal's 
dangerous power die of a natural death. By the return of the vessel that 
carried our letters to Palermo, Lord Nelson received a letter from the 
king, in which he thanked his lordship for having saved his honour, 
approved all that had been done, and sent letters with full powers to 
appoint a new government, and even to arrest the cardinal if Lord 
Nelson should think it necessary to come to that extremity.*' 

* Nelson DespatcJies, vol. vii. addenda, p. 186. 

' As this point becomes of considerable importance, it may be noticed that though 
the distance, about 210 miles, might, with an exceptional wind, be covered in 24 
hours, there is no evidence of such speed having been obtained 14-30 June. Twelve 
voyages can be calculated, and the record is as follows : Six times 3 or 2| days, four 
times 2| or 2, twice 3J or 4. Nelson's voyage, 21-24 June, represents the average. 

* Refusing to publish Nelson's proclamations (Hamilton's Despatch to Grenville, 
14 July), and issuing counter proclamations of his own (Dumas, iv. 92). 

* Sicilian Papers, vol. 45, R.O. 

* On the same day, immediately after writing this official despatch, Hamilton 
wrote a private letter to his nephew Greville, in which he says, ' We (Nelson, I, and 
Emma) had full powers ' (see Morrison Collection, p. 405). As this loose and 
inaccurate summarisation has been appealed to by Nelson apologists, it may be 


After this clear evidence of Acton's and Hamilton's it will 
scarcely be wondered at that the first intimation which Kuffo re- 
ceived from Palermo, enjoining submission to Nelson, was a letter 
of the king's dated 27 June, and despatched simultaneously with 
the secret orders for his arrest : 

I have heard with inexpressible satisfaction of the arrival of my 
frigate from Naples, and from the same that the worthy and faithful 
Lord Nelson has safely arrived there with his squadron. I have read 
the declaration which he sent to you in the form of observation, than 
which I cannot conceive anything more wise, reasonable, adapted to the 
purpose, and truly evangelical. I do not doubt that you will have imme- 
diately conformed thereto, and have instantly acted in accordance. Other- 
wise that would be which cannot be, after the many proofs of fidelity and 
attachment which you have given me in the past. The Lord preserve 
you, as with all my heart I desire.^ 

Thus it is plain from the evidence of Acton's letter, Hamilton's, 
and the king's, that Nelson's legal powers arrived only on 30 
June, and that his interference with Euffo's authority, previously 
to that date, was flagrantly illegal. Euffo's commission as vicar- 
general was absolute, and nothing less than a foi'mal cancelling 
of his powers (such as actually took place on 27 June), and a 
conferring of those powers on Nelson, could have justified the latter 
in the course that he took on his arrival at Naples. 

There would be some partial justification if, as was alleged after- 
wards. Nelson found that Euffo w^as granting an amnesty in contra- 
vention of * the king's distinct orders.' But this plea, too, falls to 
the ground when we find that, although the king and queen were 
burning to see justice executed, and had so expressed themselves to 
Euffo,*^ yet their desire to recover Naples was still stronger. We 
have evidence that, if he judged it absolutely necessary, Euffo had 
their authorisation to offer departure * even to the leaders.' ^ 

noticed that Hamilton goes on to observe that he is too tired to travel again over the 
same ground covered by his despatch ; and he refers Greville to the despatch for fuller 
particulars. In fine, the letter is to be interpreted by the despatch, not the despatch 
by the letter. 

The ground on which Captain Mahan has questioned the trustworthiness of the 
despatch will be examined presently, and I shall endeavour to show that though 
Hamilton makes gross mistakes as to dates, such as a careless person, writing three 
weeks after the events and without a diary, might be expected to make, yet that his 
trustworthiness as to matters of fact has been questioned without just cause. 

' George Rose's Diaries, i. 230. It is scarcely necessary to point out that this 
letter and the extracts from Dumas, Sacchinelli, &c., that follow, are not original, but 
translations from the Italian. 

" Such informal expression of wishes, however, could in no case affect formally 
conferred powers. 

" Cf. ' instructions ' for the proposed expedition to Naples, 10 June (Rose's Diariex, 
i. 235-6). Strictly speaking, these instructions apply to the hereditary prince, who was 
to command this expedition, and not to Euffo ; but what might be done by the prince 
might very much more be done by Ruffo unreinforced. It is to be also noted in this 
connexion that the queen, writing to Lady Hamilton on the 18th (Brit. Mus. Egerton 


It remains then to ascertain what Nelson's commission, received 
on 21 June, actually was ; and the exact aspect which Neapolitan 
afifairs presented to the Palermo court at the particular moment 
when he departed. The evidence shows that the king had heard 
of Euffo's negotiations and offers of an amnesty on the 17th, and 
had heard of them with considerable annoyance, but had also heard 
of the negotiations proving abortive, and of the recommencement 
of hostilities : 

It is impossible that you can have promised an amnesty to Caracciolo, 
&c. It would do the greatest harm to let those rabid vipers Uve, especially 
Caracciolo, who knows our coasts so well.'" 

Still, there was no loss of confidence in Rufifo. Nelson is only 
sent to strengthen the cardinal's hands : 

Upon the cardinal's letter of the 17th arrived to-day and those of 
Procida of the 18th, we find that . . . the republicans . . . broke the 
truce. The republicans are making continual sorties. The cardinal 
seems in a disagreeable position. His majesty, on this circumstance 
especially, accepts the kind offer of Lord Nelson to present himself before 
Naples and procure the intimation for surrendering." 

The same situation is depicted in Hamilton's letter to Nelson 
of 20 June, except that here personal dislike to Rufifo reveals 
itself : 

By latest accounts the royalists and the Jacobins are fighting it out. 
Without Foote the cardinal would have done little.'^ 

On the 21st the queen writes to Rufifo cordially, explaining the 
precise feelings of the court and the directions given to Nelson, 
without any hint of interference with the cardinal's jurisdiction : 

Nelson will summon them to surrender, and if they refuse he will 
force them, obstinacy being now superfluous and injurious. . . . One 
can treat with S. Elmo, which is in the hands of the French ; but the 
other two castles, if they do not surrender immediately and without con- 
dition to the summons of Admiral Nelson, will be taken by storm and 
treated as they deserve. . . . The news of Caracciolo's flight grieves me 

That no news of the resumption of negotiations had reached 
Palermo is also shown by a letter of the same date as the queen's, 
which Nelson addressed to Duckworth : 

MSS. 1616), speaks without blame of Buffo having offered an amnesty after the 
capture of Naples on 14 June ; that the intimation to Buffo on the 21st, that no terms 
were to be offered but unconditional surrender (Dumas, iv. 76), is made as for the 
first time ; and that her reproval of Buffo, dated the 25th (Maresca's II Cavaliere 
Michcroux, p. 222), blames him not for disobedience, but for acting without sufficient 

'" The king to Buffo, 20 June, Dumas, iv. 75. 

" Acton to Hamilton, 20 June, Despatches, iii. 391. 

'•-• British Museum Add. MSS. 34912. '» Dumas, iv. 76. 



All is undone again, though they [the rebels] had in some measure 
agreed to terms. Therefore his majesty has requested my immediate 
presence in the Bay of Naples.'^ 

Further there is the evidence of Hamilton's despatch to Gren- 
ville of 14 July. This is less valuable, being written later, when 
the situation had completely changed. In summarising, he errone- 
ously imputes to the Sicilian court on the 21st suspicions of Kufifo, 
which, although entertained by himself and Nelson for some time 
past,'^ were only entertained at the court six days later (as Acton's 
letters prove), and for which, jealous captiousness apart, there was 
previously no adequate reason. Also he imputes to the court an 
eagerness for the expedition to Naples which was felt rather by 
Nelson,'^ In other respects Hamilton confirms what has been said 
before : 

Their Sicilian majesties having received alarming accounts from Naples 
that the Calabreze army, after their entry into Naples, was plundering the 
houses of that city and setting them on fire under the pretence of their 
belonging to Jacobins, and that Cardinal Kuffo, elated with his unexpected 
successes, was taking upon himself power, far beyond the positive instruc- 
tions of his sovereign, and was actually treating with his Sicilian majesty's 
subjects in arms, and in open rebellion against him, earnestly entreated 
Lord Nelson to go immediately with his entire squadron to Naples, and 
prevent if possible the cardinal from taking any steps, or coming to any 
terms with the rebels, that might be dishonourable to their majesties, 
and hurtful to their future government, and to assist in the reduction of 
the French garrisons, and in bringing the Jacobin rebels to justice. 

In this connexion one ought also to notice that in the * Obser- 
vations ' which Nelson drew up at sea, on first hearing of the 
armistice,^^ we find him fishing about for some theoretical basis for 
the action he proposed to take ; and arguing that if the French fleet 
arrived it might relieve the garrison in spite of the armistice, so he 
on the other hand might compel them to surrender : he could hardly 
have failed to mention his viceregal powers had he possessed any. 

'* Despatches, iii. 384. 

" Hamilton writes to Nelson on 17 June : ' Your lordship sees that what we sus- 
pected of the cardinal has proved true, and I dare say when the capitulation of Naples 
comes to this court, their majesties' dignity will be mortified. You see the business 
was done the 14th, and had we arrived the 15th, we could only have modified the 
cardinal's terms. His eminence was resolved to conquer Naples himself. No matter, 
so long as the business is done ' (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 34912). Nelson's correspon- 
dence with Troubridge in March (see Despatches) shows that he detested the cardinal 
personally ; and this jealous desire to deprive Euffo of the honour of delivering the 
coup de grdce to the republic is a factor to be kept in mind. 

'* ' My resolution is fixed. For God's sake suffer not any one to oppose it. I 
shall not be gone eight days. No harm can come to Sicily. I must go. It will 
finish the war. It will give a sprig of laurel to your affectionate friend.' — Nelson to 
Hamilton, 20 June. Despatches, vol. vii. addenda 185, 

" Despatches, iii. 384-6. 


Again, he would surely have mentioned them a day or two later 
when he had his famous interview and collision with Eufifo.'® 

In fine, the entire evidence not only does not support the idea 
that Nelson had any viceregal powers, even informally conveyed or 
verbally, previous to 30 June, but, by showing exactly what his 
commission was,'^ practically precludes them. Hamilton's own 
justification of the opposition to Eufifo on the occasion of the inter- 
view undoubtedly represents the exact and entire position : * Their 
majesties' opinion and intentions we both knew were contrary.' '^^ 
Nelson himself fell back on the wild absolutist doctrine that * as 
to rebels and traitors, no power on earth (neither vicar-general 
nor treaty) has a right to stand between them and their gracious 
king.' ^^ The whole fact of the matter is that the situation 
anticipated and provided for on 21 June at Palermo was radically 
different from that which Nelson found on his arrival. Simply, he 
knew what the king's wishes were ; and he regarded them as para- 
mount to every other consideration whatsoever.'^^ 

'* We possess four separate accounts of this interview. Nelson's is found in his 
letter to Keith (Despatclies, iii. 390-3) ; Hamilton's, in his despatch to Grenville of 
14 July ; Lady Hamilton's, in J. Harrison's Life of Nelson, which was compiled under 
her eye at Merton ; and Buffo's, in Sacchinelli. 

•• As is very clearly done by the queen's letter, above quoted, written at the 
moment of Nelson's departure. 

** Hamilton to Grenville, 14 July. 

*' Despatclics, iii. 384. 

" Paramount even to the consideration that the treaty had been countersigned by 
Foote, commander of the British squadron at Naples. The main points as to the 
validity of Foote's act are as follows : — 

1. That though in Foote's commission, and in Troubridge's, to which he 
succeeded, no power to treat had been explicitly conferred (see Foote's Vindication, 
p. 107, &c. ; Despatches, iii. 308, 310), yet that on the other hand it had not been 
explicitly withheld, as e.g. was afterwards done in Hoste's case {Despatches, iii. 388). 

2. That the fact of being left in command of an English squadron, unable to com- 
municate with his superiors within much less than five or six days, necessarily implied 
some power to act in certain emergencies, and within certain limits, as England's 

3. That on 29 April we find Nelson distinctly stating that absolute power of 
pardon had been granted to Troubridge, which power would devolve on Foote : ' A 
very handsome order of the king is come out, stating the few exceptions to pardon ; 
and even those, or any one whom Troubridge says pardon, it is done by the instru- 
ment' {Despatches, iii. 341). 

4. That when the news of Foote's terms to Revigliano and Castellamare, precisely 
similar to those afterwards granted to Dell' Uovo and Nuovo, was received in Sicily, 
not a word was said as to his having exceeded his powers (see Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 
34912 ; Despatches, iii. 392). 

5. That it is a pure cavil to say, as Nicolas does, that if Foote had felt that he had 
definitely pledged English honour he would have protested vigorously at the time ; for 
Nelson sent him to Palermo on June 28, before the decided infraction of the treaty, 
and sent him out of the bay again immediately on his return. Foote had fully 
explained to him all the circumstances of his signature. 

6. That having been unreservedly charged to co-operate with Kuffo for the recovery 
of Naples, Foote had really no alternative but to comply when Buffo requested him to 
give the republicans this guarantee for which they stipulated. If the French fleet 
had arrived, as was half expected, ftud had found the republicans, owing to Foote's 




Leaving now the question of Nelson's legal powers, there comes 
the second and still more important question, Was the treaty which 
he suspended, and afterwards annulled, ever properly executed ? 
Whatever excuses may be made for, in extreme cases, annulling a 
signed treaty, it is agreed on all sides that at any rate the status 
quo mnsi be absolutely restored ; and the following extracts will 
show that in the present case such execution had taken place as 
rendered any real restoration of the status quo — even if Nelson had 
attempted such a thing, which he did not — absolutely impossible. 

Hamilton, in his despatch to Grenville of 14 July, states : 

When we anchored, the capitulation had in some measure taken 
place. . . . The others [i.e. those rebels who did not wish to emigrate] 
had already been permitted with their property to return to their homes, 
and hostages [i.e. the four notables covered by article viii.] had been sent 
into S. Elmo. 

Eicciardi and Davanzati, prisoners on the polaccas, memorialised 
Nelson during July as follows : 

After the arrival of the British fleet, the capitulation was begun to be 
put into execution. The garrisons of the forts on their part set at liberty 
the state prisoners and the English prisoners of war (in accordance with 
article ix.), and gave up to the troops of his British majesty the gate of 
the royal palace which leads to Castel Nuovo. ... By these transactions 
the articles of the capitulation which were signed have been ratified by 
Russia and England, the troops of which powers have received the 
prisoners, and taken possession of the gates of the castle.^^ 

Further testimony of Eicciardi' s will be found in * Memoria sugli 
avvenimenti di Napoli,' printed in the 'Archivio storico per le 
Province Napoletane,' anno xiii., 1888, pp. 72-3 : 

The capitulation was signed. . . . The promised hostages were forth- 
with handed over [into S. Elmo], and successively on the part of the 
patriots, the state prisoners and the Enghsh prisoners were set at liberty. 
While the two garrisons remained in their respective forts, awaiting the 
vessels, Nelson arrived. 

abstention, still in possession of the forts, it cannot be questioned that Foote would 
have been censured severely. 

7. That, in any case, before the treaty could be properly abrogated, reference to 
Keith, commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean, was necessary, as Nelson himself 
implicitly acknowledged in his written declaration to Kuffo (Vindication, p. 15). But 
while he wrote off to the Sicilian king on 24 June, his earliest letter to Keith, dated 
27 June, was not despatched till the 30th or later, as the postscript proves [Despatches, 
iii. 390-3). What Keith's answer would have been, and how far Nelson was guided 
by English injunctions in the extreme course he took, may be judged from the follow- 
ing : ' For God's sake do not let those good people [king and queen] carry their heads 
too high. Let them return on any terms that are tolerable.' Keith to Nelson, 
29 June, Vindication, p. 87. And again : ' Advise those Neapolitans not to be too 
sanguinary. Cowards are always cruel.' Keith to Nelson, 12 July, DespatcJies, iii. 419, 

*' Sketches of Manners in the French Bepuhlic, by H. M. Williams, ii. 325. 


Foote states,*^ and his whole statement, written in 1810, is pre- 
faced by an appeal in corroboration to all the surAiving captains 
who had served with him at Naples (p. 29) : 

The truth is that some parts of the agreement had been performed, 
and actual advantage was afterwards taken of those parts of the capitu- 
lation that had been executed to seize the unhappy men, who were thus 
deceived by the sacred pledge of a capitulation into a surrender of every- 
thing that can affect a human being in the most critical moments of his 

Again, in writing to Nelson on 26 June,^^ Foote informs him that 
he had made use of Nuovo as a temporary detention house tor 
prisoners whom he had taken from other forts on the bay : 

The officers and men belonging to the late republican garrisons of 
Revigliano and Cast^ellamare, who wish to go to Toulon, are in the Castel 

Micheroux writes to Usciakoff on 24 June : 

We are masters of all the forts except S. Elmo, which we shall soon 
attack. This moment the fleet under Admiral Nelson comes into port." 

Wade writes to Hamilton on the evening of the 24th or morning 
of the 25th that the forts are now practically defenceless : 

In order to avoid the danger that might happen to the city by Lord 
Nelson's firing on the Castel dell' Uovo and the Castel Nuovo, still in 
possession of the Jacobins, upon my arrival here I applied to Cardinal 
Ruffo offering my services in hopes he would condescend to grant me a 
few troops in order to take possession of those castles : but he not only 
declined it, but absolutely refused that any of his majesty's subjects 
should be employed in breaking a treaty authorised with his signature.** 

Ruffo writes to Nelson on the evening of 25 June, that he will 
restore the status quo if Nelson persists in his not yet expHcitly 
abandoned plan of breaking the treaty : 

That suspending the execution of the treaty, the cardinal was re- 
placing the enemy in the position which they stood previous to the 
treaty, and finally would withdraw his troops from the posts last occu- 
pied, and would entrench himself with all his army, leaving the English 
to conquer the said enemy by them selves. ^'^ 

Again, in his final appeal to Nelson on 29 June not to sully his 
glory, Ruffo reminds Nelson of the precarious position in which he 
is placing ' the hostages [in S. Elmo].' ^ 

" Vindication, p. 48. =* Ibid. p. 142. 

*• Ck)iTected from the original, Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 34912. 

*' Ibid. It is proper to add that some one has written in the margin, ' Oh, 

Micheroux, how can you tell such d d lies ! ' But that Micheroux is practically 

correct, at any rate with regard to a strategical surrender of Nuovo, is proved by the 
corroborative testimony. Is there not prob{ibilitT that some correspondent surrender 
had taken place at Dell' Uovo ? 

» Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 34912. 

* Sacchinelji, p. 254. ' * Ibid. p. 264. 


Troubridge writes to Nelson on 3 July that he has been 
interrogating a man from S. Elmo as to the treatment of the 
hostages ; and this man is * a hostage's servant . . . servant of 
[Marshal] Micheroux.' =*' 

Nor must we pass over the evidence of the historian Botta, who 
was a contemporary and a careful investigator, and had plenty of 
opportunities to ascertain the exact facts : 

On one side the hostages were conducted into S. Elmo, and on the 
other side the royalists entered the two castles. ... At this point Nelson 

With regard to all these testimonies as to a real execution of the 
treaty which Nelson violated, it must be observed not only that the 
witnesses above quoted were qualified, none better, to be certain of 
the facts of which they spoke, but also that, though writing quite 
independently, their testimonies are corroborative of one another. 
The affair of the hostages, as to which there is general agreement,^^ 
may be glossed over as not very important ; but the surrender of 
the Porta Keale, as to which the two memorialists are corroborated 
by the wider statements of Foote, Micheroux, Wade, Eufifo, and 
Botta, was a strategic surrender of capital importance. And the 
third point — the departure of those not intending to emigrate — is 
more important still ; for, taking this statement of Hamilton's in 
conjunction with his further indication ^^ that only 700 and odd were 
made prisoners on 26 June, and with Kicciardi's again and again 
repeated statement that there were 1,500 in the castles previously,*' 

" Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 34912. This Marshal Micheroux was cousin of the 
Cavaliere Micheroux elsewhere mentioned, and was one of the four hostages named 
in article viii. The fact of his presence in S. Elmo is also shown by Troubridge's 
intercepting a letter from one cousin to the other (Troubridge to Nelson, 1 July). 
Further evidence as to the four hostages being in S. Elmo is to be found in the 
cavaliere's letters (Maresca's II Cavaliere Micheroux, p. 238). 

'^ La Storia d'ltalia, iii. 402. 

'^ The slight discrepancy as to time, whether before Nelson's arrival or after, may 
be explained easily. The object of the memorialists was not so much to show that 
the treaty had been executed, as that it had been executed with English as well as 
Russian sanction. It would seem that on this point they made a mistake ; but it is 
possible that some of the hostages, other than the four, went off later than the others. 
And similarly with regard to the surrender of the Porta Keale : several strategical 
points must have been surrendered before Nelson's arrival ; so Foote's evidence and 
Micheroux's, Wade's, Euffo's, and Botta's proves ; but this particular point of vantage 
may have been surrendered later, or the English marines may have subsequently rein- 
forced the Russians, who were first in possession. It maybe noticed in this connexion 
that Nelson gave Pali, the chief of the lazzaroni, 100 marines on the evening of the 
24th {Morrison Collection, p. 411), 

'* Despatch to Grenville, 5 Aug., R.O. 

'* Memoria, pp, 73, 83 ; H. M. Williams, Sketches, i. 179-80, 208, 220. Ricciardi 
makes a mistake indeed in supposing that 1,500 were embarked on 26 June ; but then, 
though he was in a position to know the exact number of the original gai'risons, he 
was not in a position to know the exact number of those who walked off home, or 
were fellow-prisoners with himself on the polaccas. Incidentally he really confirms 
Hamilton's estimate, 700, for he states that after Nelson had extracted the chief rebels, 


it seems to follow that on 26 June the garrisons were at less than 
half strength. 

As this matter of the departure of the non-emigrants is crucial, 
the stahis quo being altered thereby radically and irretrievably, it 
may be well to furnish what further information is forthcoming. 
We find, then, from the verhale drawn up by Minichini, Micheroux's 
delegate, that when Dell' Uovo was taken possession of there were 
still thirty-four non-emigrants there who elected not to embark ; ^ 
but this can be explained by the extreme difficulty of egress from 
Deir Uovo, the single way of escape being guarded by the Calabresi, 
whose massacre of republican prisoners Euffo had all along found 
himself powerless to prevent.^^ In the accounts of the surrender 
of Nuovo we do not hear of the non-emigrant class at all, though 
in the natural course of things there were probably a few who re- 
mained to the last ; and the only reference to any which I can dis- 
cover is a slight notice of Ricciardi's,^^ that presently non-embark- 
ing republicans were * shut up in the dungeons of their respective 
forts.' On the whole, then, it may be concluded that more than half 
the garrisons had quitted when Nelson took possession, and this is 
really a considerable under-statement ; for besides those who, as 
Hamilton states, quitted under treaty conditions, there were also 
great numbers who left the castles in consequence of the nego- 
tiations being opened, and with Euffo's express sanction and gua- 
rantee. It must be remembered that the amnesty basis had been 
conceded on the ITth,^'' so that when negotiations were resumed on 
the 19th, the preliminaries were already settled : 

From the moment they began to treat about a capitulation, a great 
many began to make their escape ^° from the two castles, and the number 
will increase more and more under the favour of the night. We have 
placed some officers round Castel Nuovo to receive these voluntary 
prisoners, and to assure them that they shall be forgiven ; and this seems 

ex-officials of the republic, reckoned by another rebel at 84 (Colletta, History of 
Naples, i. 364), from the polaccas and taken them on board of English ships, the re- 
mainder was about 500 {Meinoria, p. 83 ; H. M. Williams, SketcJies, i. 208, 215). The 
only question is whether in speaking of the 1,500 intending emigrants Bicciardi is 
referring without distinction to the total number of persons in the castles at the 
moment the treaty was signed ; or whether his words are to be taken quite literally, and 
we are to suppose that there were 800 who put down their names in the ofllcial list of 
intending emigrants (see Foote's Vindication, p. 193), and afterwards, perhaps at sight 
of the English sails, changed their minds. In the latter case, we must add to the 800 
those who elected not to emigrate from the beginning. It is perhaps worth adding 
that 1,400 seems to have been the normal figure for Nuovo, and 200 for Dell' Uovo 
{Dcsjxitches, iii. 317) ; also that besides the actual garrisons in the forts when the 
treaty was signed, there was a considerable number of civilian refugees. 

** Sacchinelli, p. 257. 

»' Vindication, p. 181. *• Afeinoria, p. 74. 

*• Ruffo to Foote, 17 June. Vindication, p. 179. 

* Fuggirc. The context shows the reason for this way of speaking to be that 
Nuovo was placed in extreme peril by attacks of the unmanageable Calabresi. The 
word has been wrongly translated, as though it were equivalent to descrtare. 


to succeed very well. And should those who have not yet fled find the 
same safe asylum on the sea, I believe that the French (in S. Elmo), in 
case of their being disposed to recommence hostilities, would find the two 
castles empty.'* ^ 

Against all this evidence, so far as it has been hitherto noticed, 
as to the ample execution of the treaty which Nelson violated, only 
two objections have been brought forward. With regard to the one, 
brought forward by Nicolas, that execution as to the matter of the 
hostages and the Porta Eeale was of no force, having taken place 
after Nelson's arrival and his suspension of the treaty, it has 
already been shown that the memorialists probably made a mistake 
as to date, and clear proof will be brought forward presently that 
Nelson did not really suspend the treaty till the night of the 26th. 
Nicolas should have noticed how unaware of any such suspension 
the wording of the memorialists shows them to have been. With 
regard to the second objection, brought forward by Captain Mahan, 
that Hamilton is not trustworthy, since, in addition to the points of 
execution already mentioned (as to which, by the bye, his evidence 
is corroborated), he reckons the actual embarkation, there is, I 
think, room for reconsideration. Here are Hamilton's words : 

When we anchored . . . fourteen polaccas had taken on board the 
most conspicuous and criminal of the rebels that had chosen to go to 
Toulon. . . . There was no time to be lost, for the vessels were on the 
point of sailing.'' 2 

Now, clearly the impression which these words at first sight 
convey is utterly wrong, for there is no manner of doubt that, while 
Nelson arrived on 24 June, the real embarkation did not take place 
till the evening of June 2G. But as Hamilton at once proceeds 
to state that Nelson extracted the guiltiest of the rebels imme- 
diately {i.e. compresses, as it were, in an hour events which 
extended over four days, for the extraction of the chief rebels 
from the polaccas only took place on 28 June), it seems more 
reasonable to suppose that some partial embarkation took place 
before Nelson's arrival, than that Hamilton invented facts out of 
absolutely nothing. This view is corroborated when we find Pepe, 
one of the garrison of Nuovo, affirming that the embarkation began 
on 23 June, probably on board of the three polaccas first sig- 
nalled : *^ 

Towards evening the patriots began to evacuate the castles. . . . The 
anticipations of a favourable breeze alone prevented them from imme- 
diately weighing anchor. On the following day Nelson's fleet made its 

<• Ruffo to Foote, 19 June. Vindication, p. 184. 

*- Hamilton to Grenville, 14 July. 

*^ Vindicatioii, p. 193. 

^' General Pepe's Memoirs, i. 105, published 1847. Pepe also states that during 


Similarly, Colletta says that ' they departed . . . and only waited 
for the wind.' *^ And similarly Botta : 

The repubUcans embarked. . . . They waited for a good breeze. At 
this point Nelson arrived. He declared the republicans prisoners, both 
those who had already embarked, and not yet started, and also those who 
had not yet repaired to the ships.^*' 

Thus Hamilton's testimony as to the commencement of the em- 
barkation, confirmed as it independently is by Pope's, CoUetta's, 
and Botta' 8, does not necessarily weaken his testimony as to the 
other points of execution, but probably adds one point more to 
them. Further, the very exaggeration shows how far Nelson's 
adviser was from regarding any execution of the treaty as a bar to 
breaking it. 

Lastly, there remains the testimony of Baillie and Achmet, the 
Eussian and Turkish commanders, who along with Foote had 
countersigned the treaty in the name of their respective sovereigns. 
Their testimony indeed is indirect, merely of the nature of com- 
ment, but it cannot be passed over as immaterial, considering that 
they had all the facts of the case, as it presented itself on 25 June, 
before them. They protested to Nelson that any \dolation of the 
fully concluded treaty * would be an abominable outrage against 
public faith.' *^ 


Leaving now the question of the execution of the treaty, we 
come to the third and most important point of all — the circum- 
stances under which the remnant of the garrisons embarked on the 
afternoon of 26 June. Did they come out unconditionally, as 
Nelson afterwards stated,'** 'to be hanged or otherwise as their 
sovereign thought proper ' ? or were they, as Foote stated,*^ * taken 
out under pretence of putting the capitulation I had signed into 
execution ' ? 

It is true that when he arrived on the 24th, Nelson immediately 
signalled to Foote to take down the flag of truce, and declared his 

the interval 19-24 June, Ruffo called on the garrisons of Pescara and Civitella to 
surrender on the same terms as those that were being granted to Knovo and Deli' 
Uovo ; and that they surrendered under this quasi -guarantee (Metnoirs, i. 105, 108). 
If Pepe be correct, we practically have here one more example of irretrievable execu- 
tion ; for though the treaty with Nuovo and Dell' Uovo was still incomplete, its 
amnesty basis was already settled. Pepe's evidence is confirmed by Botta (Storia 
d'llalia, iii. 402, 413). 

*» History of Naples, i. 364, published 1834. Colletta is inaccurate on many 
points, but there is no reason for discrediting him as to a matter which came under 
his personal observation. He does not seem to have been in garrison, but certainly 
e was in Naples at this moment. 

" Storia d'ltalia, iii. 402, published 1820. 

«' Sacchinelli, p. 251. 

« Despatclies, iv. 232. • Vindication, p. 39. 


intention of breaking the armistice (so he styled the treaty) by an 
attack upon the castles ; but Euffo inflexibly refused to co-operate, 
and his refusal forced Nelson to abandon this design. It is also 
true that on the morning of the 25th Nelson prepared a declara- 
tion for Euffo to send to the garrisons : * Lord Nelson will not 
permit them to quit or embark. They must surrender to his 
majesty's royal mercy ; ' but Euffo refused to act as an agent, and 
there is almost conclusive proof that the declaration was never 
served.-^" In the afternoon, however, of the 25th,^' Nelson had a 

*" Nelson subsequently asserted that after Euffo's refusal he sent the declaration 
direct to the castles in his own name {Despatches, iv. 232) ; but at this time, owing to 
Fox's public indictment, he was in the position of defendant, and his assertion must 
be accepted with reserve. The reasons against the declaration having been sent 
directly to the castles are : 

(a) That Euffo's refusal to co-operate rendered it quite impossible to prevent 
republicans quitting by land. Only 100 English marines had been landed, and such 
prohibition would have been a complete hrutum ftilmen. 

(b) That Euffo's letter to the governor of Nuovo, written late on the evening of 
the 25th, and the latter's reply, presently quoted, convey the very distinct impression 
that the governor only now for the first time learnt, at any rate officially, that there 
was a hitch about the treaty. 

(c) That Albanese's letter, presently quoted, of 29 June, protesting against the 
delay in sailing, is incompatible with the idea that any such declaration as the above 
had been received by the republicans previous to their embarkation. 

{d) That Nelson, writing to Keith, only states that the republicans quitted under 
the ' opinion ' delivered to Euffo : ' Lord Nelson found a treaty entered into, &c.' 

It may further be observed that though the original copy of the declaration, at the 
Eeeord Office, commences with ' Declaration sent, &c.' (' Summons ' has been erased), 
yet that this descriptive headline is obviously a post-addition, and may be adequately 
explained by the fact of the declaration having been sent to Euffo. It is also to be 
noted that the declaration does not seem to have been, like the companion declaration 
to S. Elmo, entered in the Order Book (see Despatches, ii. 386). Thus, in fine, 
Nelson's assertion appears inaccurate, and this impression is strengthened when we 
consider the context in which it occurs : ' The whole affairs of the kingdom were at 
the time alluded to absolutely placed in my hands. ... I sent in my note, on which 
the rebels came out. . . . There has been nothing promised by a British officer that 
his Sicilian majesty has not complied with,' Cf. ' not executed, therefore not a capi 
tulation ' (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 34991, p. 314). At first Nelson contented himself by 
denouncing the treaty as ' infamous ; ' then, when accused by Fox and in H. M. 
Williams's Sketches, he made these bold general assertions ; then he maintained silence. 

^' A digression as to the accuracy of this date is necessary, for a great deal depends 
upon it ; and historians vary strangely, some putting the interview on the 24th, and 
some on the 26th. It may be observed then : 

(a) That though all the accounts of this interview and of the negotiations pre- 
cedent are continuous, suggesting at first sight that the interview took place on the 
day of arrival, yet that this inference cannot be correct, for we are told that the car- 
dinal came on board only ' after much communication ' {Despatches, iii. 892) ; and 
Hamilton's first letter to him is dated 5 p.m. (see Sacchinelli's appendix). It may be 
added that Nelson's letter to Duckworth, written on the morning of the 25th, shows 
that he and the cardinal have not yet met {Despatches, iii. 387) ; and that the copy of 
the declaration which, previous to the interview. Nelson had requested Euffo to send 
to the garrisons is dated June 25. 

(6) That the log of the ' Foudroyant,' which has been appealed to as proving that 

the interview took place on the 26th, proves on the contrary that it took place on the 

afternoon of the 25th. The nautical day, it may be observed, commenced until the 

beginning of this century with p.m. of the day previous, being reckoned from noon to 

VOL. XIII. — NO. L. 1 


long stormy interview with Euffo, and gave him the following 
opinion in writing : 

Lord Nelson found a treaty entered into which he is of opinion ought 
not to be carried into execution without the approbation of his Sicilian 

With regard to which opinion, it is to be particularly observed that 
in tha four accounts of the interview that we possess there is no 
whisper of getting the garrisons out of the castles and detaining 
them on shipboard. Why should there be ? For suspension of the 
execution of the treaty implied a preservation of the present position. 
Such was the situation on the evening of the 25th, but on the 
morning of the 26th Nelson executed a complete volte-face. The 
fact of the matter seems to be that Hamilton had succeeded in 
impressing on him the extreme danger of an open rupture with the 
cardinal, such as now seemed imminent, especially after the arrival 
of the cardinal's ultimatum (see above, p. 268), in which he threatened 
to restore the status quo. Hamilton had probably pointed out, too, 
that what could not well be done by force might be * decently ' done 
by a feint." At all events, whoever deserves the credit of originating 
it, that plan had been adopted ; and accordingly, on the morning 
of 26 June, ' after much reflection,' -"^ Nelson authorised Hamilton 
to commence new operations with the following note to Kuffo : 

noon. Thus, at noon on the 2Gth the master would make up his log for that date, 
starting from the noon of the 25th. The entry for the 2Gth is as follows : ' p.m. 
Saluted the grand cardinal of Naples with 13 guns. a.m. Four men punished for 
drunkenness.' This nautical reckoning also explains why the written opinion above 
given, which Nicolas cites from a copy from the Order Book, should be dated the 
26th, while he himself dates the interview on the 25th (Despatclies, iii. 497). In the 
absence, however, of the Ordci- Booh (the authorities at the Admiralty believe it to 
have been destroyed), the authenticity of the date ' 2Gth' is rendered doubtful by the 
fact that Nelson sent Keith a copy of the opinion without any date at all (Brit. Mus. 
Add. MSS. 34912). It is scarcely necessary to add that the correspondence of the 
26th, presently quoted, precludes BufFo's visit on that day, and that the logical place 
for it is the afternoon of the 25th, Nelson in the morning having refused to deal with 
any one except the cardinal (Sacchinelli, pp. 251-2). 

« Despatches, iii. 390-3. 

" Cf. supra, p. 262. ' We contrived to keei) everything going on decently by sup- 
porting the vicar general.' Again (to Greville, 14 July, Morrison Collection, p. 405) : 
' Nothing but my phlegm could have prevented an open rupture on the first meeting 
between Cardinal Ruffo and Lord Nelson.' Again (to Acton, 27 June. Dumas, iv. 87-9) : 
• It has been necessary for me to interfere between the cardinal and Lord Nelson : if 
not, all would have gone wrong from the first ; and the cardinal has written to thank 
me.' It is Hamilton's singular shamelessness that makes me think that he was the 
originator of the ruse. We presently find him describing it unblushingly (see p. 278). 
We have already heard him boasting that the treaty which Nelson violated had 
been most effectively executed, and even exaggerating the amount of execution (see 
p. 271). Notice, too, his comment when Nelson had extracted the chief rebels 
from the polaccas : ' It is a good thing that we have the chief culprits on board at the 
moment of attack on S. Elmo, for thus we can chop off a head for every shot that the 
French fire on Naples ' (to Acton, 29 June. Damas, iv. 101). 

»' Dumas, iv. 87-9. 


Lord Nelson begs me to assure your eminence that he is resolved to 
do nothing which can break the armistice ''■'' which your eminence has 
accorded to the chateaux of Naples.'"'*' 

Evidently Euffo replied taking exception to this assurance of 
Hamilton's as inadequate, for Nelson presently writes himself : 

I am just honoured with your eminence's letter, and as Sir W. 
Hamilton wrote this morning that I will not on any consideration break 
the armistice entered into by you, I hope your eminence will be satisfied 
that I am supporting your ideas. I send once more Captains Troubridge 
and Ball." 

These two captains, who had previously been accredited by 
Hamilton as ' thoroughly informed of the sentiments of Lord 
Nelson,' came to Kufifo and completed the impression which the 
letters above quoted would naturally convey. They verbally assured 
him that Nelson * would not interfere with the execution of the 
capitulation.' ^^ The following paper, founded on their verbal 
assurances, was then drawn up ^^ for them to sign : 

Captains Troubridge and Ball have authority on the part of Lord 
Nelson to declare that his lordship will not oppose the embarkation of 
the rebels and of the people who compose the garrisons of the castles.**" 

Troubridge and Ball demurred to signing on the ground that 
such formal signature would be an extension of their powers, 
having probably been forbidden to sign anything whatever. (Or 
was it with an inkling of what was to happen that they shrank 
from committing themselves more than they could help ?) But 
though Troubridge and Ball left the paper unsigned, the exact 
accuracy of Kuffo's report of their verbal assurance, ' Lord Nelson 
will not oppose, etc' (for it is on Buffo's testimony, recorded by 
his literary executor, Sacchinelli, that the above facts rest), is 
specifically confirmed by a letter of Hamilton's, to be quoted pre- 

After these letters of Nelson's and Hamilton's, and the supple- 
mentary explanations of the two captains, Euffo could not reason- 
ably raise further objections. That declaration of Nelson's ' will 

" So Nelson had persisted in styling the treaty (cf. Dcspatclies. iii. 390-3). 

*» Sacchinelli, p. 255. 

*' This letter is printed in Despatches, iii. 384-5, but it is misdated and misplaced, 
so that its whole significance is lost. Ruffo's letter, to which it is a reply, has been 
destroyed (see p. 282, note 101). 

*" Sacchinelli, p. 25C. 

*» Sacchinelli, lighting on the paper after RulTo's death, supposed the writing to 
be Troubridge's. Examination, however, at the British Museum has shown me that 
the handwriting is identical, not with Troubridge's, but with ihat of a letter in English 
from Euffo to Nelson, labelled ' copy.' It would seem then that the above paper was 
drawn up either by Ruffo's then secretary, or by an English-paid interpreter who 
accompanied the two captains. 

•*" See facsimile in Sacchinelli's appendix. 

T 2 


not permit them to embark,' even if it had been directly sent, was 
now distinctly rescinded. That written opinion, * ought not to be 
carried into execution,' was rescinded too, for the two captains 
promised not only that Nelson * would not oppose ' the execution, 
but also that he would land five hundred marines to assist/'' Ruffo 
was completely deceived ; and after deputing Micheroux to inform 
the garrisons that they must embark immediately,*''^ he wrote ofif to 
Hamilton thanking him for having used his moderating influence,*'' 
and saying what a relief to his mind it was that affairs were being 
so happily concluded."* 

Accordingly Micheroux and the two captains visited the castles, 
and delivered Kuffo's message. What grounds had the republicans 
for suspicion ? It is true that, the night before, Ruffo had written 
to General Massa, the governor of Nuovo, informing him that 
Nelson * has shown himself unwilling to recognise the treaty,' and 
offering the garrisons a safe-conduct over land ; *'' but this intima- 
tion was all too vague, and whatever disquietude it left must have 
been dissipated by the assurances of the two captains. How 
unaware the republicans were of Nelson's real intentions is con- 
clusively shown by the fact of their rejecting Ruffo's generous 
proposal, and complete misunderstanding of its true motive : 

We have given your letter the interpretation which it deserves. 
Standing firm to our duties, we shall religiously observe the articles of 
the treaty that has been concluded, persuaded that an equal obhgation 
ought to bind all the contracting parties who have solemnly intervened. 
For the rest, we are not to be surprised or intimidated, and shall resume 
the hostile attitude if you attempt to constrain us by force.^^ 

What the king's mercy meant, the republicans knew right well ; 
and as sane men it cannot be doubted that, on the afternoon of the 
26th, they would have preferred availing themselves of Ruffo's offer, 
never withdrawn, to coming out unconditionally, ' to be hanged 
or otherwise as their sovereign thought proper.' 

Once the polaccas were provided, the republicans were obliged 
to embark then and there, for by any delay they would have 
infringed the treaty themselves, and consequently have rendered 
themselves liable to immediate attack. Any suspicion that may 

•' Dumas, iv. 87-9. 

'- The captains visited Buffo in the afternoon, as Nelson's letter shows. The 
garrisons embarked at four or five p.m. 

" Dumas, iv. 87-9. 

•' Hamilton's reply of 27 June deserves quotation : ' I can assure your eminence 
that Lord Nelson congratulates himself on the decision which he has taken not to 
interrupt your eminence's operations, but to assist you with all his power to terminate 
the aSair which your eminence has so well conducted up to the present. We are too 
happy to have contributed to your eminence's tranquillity.' (Sacchinelli, p. 259.) 

" Sacchinelli, pp. 252-3. To make the retreat safer, Buffo had further issued a 
proclamation forbidding interference with republicans in the streets under pain of 
death. « Ibid. 


have been roused during the actual evacuation by non-fulfilment 
by the English of the ' honours of war ' stipulation must have been 
counterbalanced by its fulfilment by the Eussians. At Nuovo we 
have the evidence of Eicciardi and Davanzati : 

The troops of his majesty the emperor of all the Eussias attended 
the march of the garrison with the honours of war out of the forts, on the 
side of the Arsenal of Marine, where they grounded their arms and em- 

At Deir Uovo, we have the evidence of Minichini's verhale,^^ 
that the conditions of the treaty were still more formally observed ; 
for, owing perhaps to the English marines arriving late, it was 
here the Neapolitan authorities who took possession. A pledge was 
given, when L'Aurora, the commandant, handed the keys over, that 
the thirty-four non-emigrants should be sent home within six 
hours.*^^ Whatever else^it may be, the verbale is evidence that the 
Neapolitan authorities and the garrison were under the impression 
that the treaty was being executed. 

It was not until the fourteen polaccas were anchored under 
English guns, instead of being allowed to sail, that the republicans 
realised that they were prisoners."** On the 29th they inconsciently 
complain of the delay in sailing, 'although the wind is propitious.' ^^ 
And if any lingering doubt remain that this result was brought 
about, not by a series of accidents, but by deliberate design, it 
is taken away by Hamilton's reference in his letter to Acton of 
28 June : 

*' H. M. Williams, Sketches, ii. 325. CoUetta confirms this statement {Hist, of 
Naples, i. 364) ; but on the other hand Pepe (Memoirs, i. 66) and his colleague 
Albanese (Sacchinelli, pp. 262-4) appear to deny it. Such divergency, however, in 
this and other matters, does not really invalidate the republicans' testimony in the 
slightest ; for each man could only bear witness to the little bit of the scene which he 
saw. Those in one castle would not know what passed in the other ; and the circum- 
stances of embarkation on 23 June were very likely not identical with those of 26 
June, &c. &c. That Eicciardi and Davanzati are correct in this particular matter of 
' the honours of war ' is almost proved by the before quoted protest of the Russian 
and Turkish commanders, which concludes with a declaration that they, Baillie and 
Achmet, are for their part ' determined to execute the treaty religiously.' (Sacchi- 
nelli, pp. 251-2.) 

"' Sacchinelli, p. 257. 

*° 'At 11 o'clock.' Doubtless the stipulated-for delay was due to the desire of the 
republicans for the protection of night. See above, p. 270. 

"" If any one, playing with words, argues that in Nelson's letter about not breaking 
the armistice, the word ' armistice ' is to be taken in its strict sense, and not in the 
sense in which Nelson had been employing it, then even so there was now a distinct 
breach of faith, when Nelson laid hold of the polaccas and detained them. The 
armistice was technically broken just as much by this forcible detention as it would 
have been by an assault on the castles. The only difference was that the republicans 
were now disarmed and helpless. It is true that even in the castles they would have 
stood little chance if attacked, but they were desperate men with no trust in royal 
mercies, and according to Pepe had sworn to follow the example set by the republicans 
of Vigliena, and blow themselves and their assailants up together. 

'' See Albanese's letters, Sacchinelli, pp. 262-4, ... 


Lord Nelson kept the promise he had given to the cardinal. He did 
not oppose the embarkation of the garrisons, but the garrisons once 
embarked, it became patent what he had done with them.^^ 

Thus, following the Italian documents, we are irresistibly 
brought back to Foote's view " that the garrisons were enticed out 
of the castles * under pretence of putting the capitulation I had 
signed into execution.' And from the first it was really in the 
nature of things almost inevitable that this view should be con- 
firmed, for it comes to us not on one man's authority, but, as said 
before, with the implied authority of every surviving captain, Trou- 
bridge among others, who had served at Naples^* It was not till 
that generation had completely passed away that Foote's accuracy 
was challenged. 


Leaving now the question as to the embarkation of the 
garrisons, we come to the fourth point : How far was Nelson 
justified in the matter of Caracciolo? On the one hand it has 
been stated that he acted * from a strict sense of duty,' and * it is 
difficult to see what else he could have done ; ' while on the other 
hand his action has been represented as the culmination of ille- 
gality, unfairness, and cruelty. The chief points are as follows : 

1. If what has been already said as to Nelson's lack of warrant 
previous to 30 June be correct, then the dragging of Caracciolo from 
Ruffo's jurisdiction during the night of 28 June was consummately 
illegal.^^ Eufifo had disregarded Nelson's requests to hand Caracciolo 

" ' Si vede che ne aveva fatto.' Dumas, iv. 94-6. 

" Vindication, p. 39. 

'* I was told by one of Foote's daughters that the proof-sheets of the Vindication 
were submitted to every Naples captain within reach ; and that the only objection 
was, ' We know all this, so what is the good of publishing ? Wouldn't it be better to 
let the Naples affair bury itself ? ' 

" As the question of the arrival of Nelson's powers is now narrowing itself down 
to a question of hours, some further remarks are necessary as to the exact dates of the 
Naples-Palermo correspondence (Brit. Mus. Eg. MSS. 1616) published by Pettigrew and 
Gagni^re. There is, it may be added, this further excuse for going into minutiae, 
that the dates, when properly fixed, explain the exact sequence of Nelson's proceedings. 
The queen's frenzied letter of the 25th, urging Lady Hamilton to ' recommend to Lord 
Nelson ' the utmost severity, and referring to a letter of the king's to Nelson (now missing) 
as about to be enclosed in the same packet, mentions as the last news the receipt of 
intelligence from the cardinal dated the 21st, that a treaty favourable to the rebels was 
half concluded. The arrival of this letter can be exactly fixed on the morning of the 28th, 
from Hamilton's letters of this date to Rnffo and Acton, mentioning receipt of the 
king's letter (Bose's Diaries, i. 238 ; Dumas, iv. 94-6). It may be added that the 
king's letter would seem from these references to have been a comparatively mild one, 
and merely disapproving of Kufifo's action, the real wishes and feelings of the court 
being expressed by the queen to her deputy ; and also that Hamilton's mode of refer- 
ence, ' Deducing (rilevando) that his majesty has quite disapproved . . . Lord N. 
felt himself sufficiently authorised to make himself master of the polaccas,' is fatal to 
the idea that it was in this letter that Nelson's powers were enclosed. It is further 
noteworthy that in mentioning certain modifications of Buffo's power which are under 


over/'^ and had issued a proclamation forbidding any arrests 
without his personal authority.'^ According to d'Ayala'^ his niece 
had offered the prince letters of safe-conduct. Under these circum- 
stances Nelson's emissary effected the arrest by night, or in 
the grey hours, took his prisoner a circuitous route in order to 
escape the cardinal's notice, and embarked him secretly at the 

2. Nelson decided that Caracciolo was not covered by the 
treaty of capitulation, and exempted this point from the cognisance 
of the court-martial, on the ground that he had left Nuovo 
previously.^" It would seem, however, that Caracciolo was still 
covered by article vii. : 

The same conditions shall take place with respect to the prisoners 
which the troops of his majesty and his alHes may have made before the 
blockade of the forts. 

To make this article mean that the royalists, while releasing 

contemplation, the queen speaks in such a way as to preclude the idea that Euffo's 
deposition and arrest were as yet thought of. The copy of the treaty that follows, 
with the queen's annotations, is undated ; but as Hamilton, in his private note to 
Grenville of 14 July, K.O., mentions that it was enclosed in a letter (now missing) 
docketed ' 5,' the queen's letter of the 25th being docketed ' 4,' and as Thurn des- 
patched a copy of the projected treaty (signature took place the following day) on the 
22nd (Maresca, pp. 197, 222), which the queen's letter of the 25th shows that she had 
not yet become acquainted with, it may be fairly concluded that the annotated treaty 
was sent off to Lady Hamilton on the 26th. The date of its arrival is fixed by 
Hamilton's letter to Acton of the 29th, in which he acknowledges Acton's of the 26th 
(Dumas, iv. 100). It is thus clear that at the moment of Caracciolo's arrest the king's 
judgment on the treaty as finally concluded had not yet been received. Nelson was 
still waiting for the answer to his communications sent off on the 24th, and still 
without legal powers. 

'« Eose's Diaries, i. 238. 

" Nelson to Acton, 29 June. Dumas, iv. 92. 

'" Italiani benemeriti, p. 139. Cf. Intorno alia storia di P. CoUctta, annotamenti 
di P.C. Ulloa, p. 151. Ulloa confirms d'Ayala as to the fact that assistance was given, 
though disagreeing as to the manner. D'Ayala and Ulloa are late authorities, but 
they carefully gathered up the Neapolitan tradition, not yet extinct. The present 
Principe di Macchia is a direct nephew of Caracciolo. 

''" Sacchinelli, p. 267. Maresca suggests, on the strength of a report mentioned in 
the Diario napolctaiio, that Caracciolo was first detained for some days as the 
cardinal's prisoner (p. 218) ; but Sacchinelli's clear evidence, confirmed by d'Ayala and 
Ulloa, shows that he was brought from his hiding-place to the ' Foudroyant ' direct. 

™ Hamilton to Grenville, July 14. Caracciolo fled on the 17th according to the 
old story, which date is confirmed by the above quoted letters of the king and queen 
of the 20th and 21st. Probably there was at first some hitch about including him in 
the amnesty (see Maresca, p. 219), and he withdrew in order to relieve his comrades 
of embarrassment. But it is certainly unreasonable to deduce from his subsequent 
course that he regarded himself, and was regarded by Ruffo, as not covered by the 
treaty when completed. The danger of being murdered sufiiciently accounts for his 
hiding ; and he had additional reason for doing so after Nelson's suspension of the 
treaty, when Kuffo sent him word to fly (Ulloa, p. 151). Further, there is considerable 
doubt with regard to that letter suing for pardon, which Clarke and McArthur say that 
he wrote to Euffo on the 23rd, for in this letter Caracciolo, whose age was about 47, 
is represented as referring to his forty years' faithful service ; and so it is at any rate 
clear that Clarke and McArthur never had the letter in their hands. 


all the prisoners they already had, were at liberty to arrest as many 
more as they liked, is to reduce the article to nonsense. What 
was clearly intended by the framers of the treaty was an amnesty 
both for the republicans inside the forts and for those without. 

3. Caracciolo was put on trial within an hour of his delivery, 
when, in Hamilton's words, he was ' half dead ' from exhaustion, and 
obviously in no state to answer interrogatories. Hamilton, describing 
his condition during trial, repeats, ' He is half dead already.' *' 

4. The particular line of defence adopted, that in obeying a 
de facto government which enforced mihtary service he had obeyed 
unwillingly and on pain of death,*^ was one which required docu- 
ments and witnesses, but he was denied the opportunity of pro- 
ducing either. It may be added that evidence of his having served 
unwillingly at first and attempting to resign is still extant.'*' 

5. The judges who tried him were the officers on whom he was 
accused of firing, so that impartiality was out of the question ; and 
Thurn, the president of the court, according to the common and 
never contradicted report of the time,"* was his personal enemy. 
Even as it was, Caracciolo was condemned only by a majority.*' 
And the excuse which apologists have put forward, that Caracciolo 
made no protest against the constitution of the court, falls to the 
ground in the light of the protest recorded by G. Parsons,*"^ the 
appeal for a second trial, recorded by Clarke and Mc Arthur," and 
Hamilton's statement, ' He wished to be tried by English officers.' "* 

6. The condemnation had been predetermined, as we have seen 
from the king's letter and the queen's of 20 and 21 June (see p. 
264) ; and Hamilton, writing to Acton on 27 June, two days before 
the arrest, foreshadows the details of the execution : * He will j)ro- 
bably be hung from the fore-mast of the " Minerva," where his 
body will remain till sunset.' *° 

7. It may be regarded as a mere technical irregularity that 
Caracciolo was tried on Nelson's own ship ^° (i.e. under English juris- 

"' Hamilton to Acton, 29 June. Dumas, iv. 101. 

" See Thurn's report to Iluffo, Sacchinelli, pp. 265-6. 

*' See letters of Troubridgc and Nelson, Pettigrew, i. 251 ; DespatcJics, iii. 341. 

*' Coco speaks of ' 1' antica gelosia di Thurn ' {Saggio Storico, ed. 1865, p. 427. 
Cf. Vindication, p. 101). 

« Thurn to Ruffo, Sacchinelli, pp. 265-6. 

•* Nclsonian Reminiscences, p. 2, &c. Parsons writes floridly, and certainly puts 
sensational expressions into the prince's mouth, which, in their precise form, it is 
most unlikely that he ever uttered. But, although he evidently worked up his 
material, there is no reason to doubt Parsons's substantial accuracy. His report of 
the trial does not differ from Thurn's more than cases reported in a law journal and 
a newspaper. 

"' Clarke d McArthur appear to be trustworthy at this point, having derived 
their information from Parkinson, to whose care Caracciolo was committed. 

"" Dumas, iv. 101. »» Ibid. iv. 87-9. 

•" Pepe and others have stated that Nelson exercised a pressure on the court 
martial, inducing its members to change an original sentence of exile into one of 
death ; but this statement is uncorroborated. Convening the court on board the 
' Foudroyant ' was a precaution which was perhaps unnecessary. 


diction), and that the orders for trial and execution were issued by 
Nelson, not in his capacity of Sicilian commandant, but as English 
admiral ; but it must be regarded as something more than an 
irregularity that firing on a ship, which, though Sicilian, was at 
the time acting as auxiliary to the English squadron, and under 
the orders of the English commandant. Captain Foote, formed the 
main point of the charge on which Caracciolo was condemned.^^ And 
when everything possible has been said on the question as to how 
far England had refused to recognise the republicans as belligerents, 
the fact remains hateful that Nelson hanged the admiral of a force 
that was fighting against England. 

8. The hurry of Caracciolo's execution has been excused by 
some supposed parallel in the case of mutineers. But the cases 
are not at all analogous. Mutiny is often like a spark in a powder 
magazine, that must be stamped out instantly ; but Caracciolo was 
no mutineer, and from crushed Naples there was no longer any 
danger whatever to be apprehended. How little this mutiny excuse 
was dreamt of at the time, how unprecedented the hurried execu- 
tion really seemed to all onlookers, may be judged by the following 
extract from Hamilton's letter to Acton of 29 June : "'^ * Thurn 
observed that it was customary to grant the condemned twenty-four 
hours to provide for their souls, but the orders were maintained, 
although I supported this opinion of Thurn' s.' 

9. It has been urged that, whatever irregularities were com- 
mitted, Caracciolo's desertion of his master's cause when it appeared 
hopeless "^ disentitles him to sympathy. But a good deal is to be 
said in favour of his view that the king's shameful flight from 
Naples released subjects from their allegiance.^^ At any rate, one 
must make allowance for the effect which the king's cowardice 
would naturally produce on such a brave man as Caracciolo, who 
was also indifferent as to politics. And one must remember too 
(again following the line of defence sketched in * Nelsonian Eeminis- 
cences '), that the alternative to doing as he did was, by making his 
escape to Procida, to make a supreme act of sacrifice, and beggar his 
whole family for the sake of this poltroon whom he depised, for the 
republic had decreed to confiscate the property of all emigres. That 
he took office under the republic with real reluctance there is no 
reason to doubt ; only, as Thurn pointed out with fatal precision, 
his reluctance was not deep-rooted enough to induce him to make 
his escape to Procida, or act unfaithfully to his new masters.^^ And 
when ultimately he took an active part in the defence of the city, 
it was when Naples was threatened with the unutterable horrors of 
a sack by the convicts and banditti, whom Buffo had recruited in 
Calabria, and whose atrocities, extending even to cannibalism, 

>*' Sacchinelli, pp. 265-6. '^ Dumas, iv. 111. 

*' Despatches, iii. 341. »* Nelsonian Eeminiscences, p. 2, &c. 

" Sacchinelli, pp. 265-6. 


threw those of their Turkish colleagues completely into the 

10. It was a general impression at the time that the dhioncment 
was in some measure due to Lady Hamilton ; •'" and the accuracy 
of this impression is somewhat confirmed by the queen's letter of 
2 July,^^ in which she expresses herself as ' penetrated with 
gratitude.' * I know how your excellent heart must have suffered, 
and this increases my obligation.' 

With regard to the pictorially interesting point of Lady Hamil- 
ton's appearance at the execution, Clarke and McArthur state,^ 
* Of her being present there cannot be the least doubt ; ' and these 
words were written in 1809, while Lady Hamilton and most of the 
Naples officers were still alive. On the other hand, apologists have 
adduced a story of Lord Northwick's, related many years later, that 
he was dining with Lady Hamilton in the cabin when the signal- 
gun was fired. Which witness is to be believed? Not Lord 
Northwick, I submit, for he states that it was on the ' Agamemnon ' 
that this dinner took place ; that the king and queen were present 
too ; and proceeds with a story of how he once met Nelson in Paris ! '"" 
The real origin of Lord Northwick's dinner-party is probably to be 
found in the foolish fabrication, purporting to be a manuscript of 
Harryman's, which was offered for sale by Evans, the ' Old Curio- 
sity ' dealer, and printed in ' The Nelson Coat,' 1846. 

Thus in the end, with regard to Caracciolo no less than other 
matters, the e\idence which apologists have neglected brings us 
back to a belief in the perfect accuracy of Foote's ' Vindication.' 
What apologists have done all through is to avail themselves of the 
gaps which a century's lapse has left in the old incriminatory 
evidence,"" and, pre-convinced that such evidence against the hero 
must be false, they have neglected to look in those directions where 
the gaps were likeliest to be supplied. F. P. Badham. 

•• Maresca, p. 240. CoUetta says, ' I saw it.' 

"' Vindication, p. G7 ; Ndsonian Reminiscences, p. 2, Ac. 

"x Brit. Mus. Eg. MSS. 161G. 

»» Life of Nelson, ii. 188. 

'"• Frith's Reminiscences, i. 145-6. 

'" These gaps, however, are not entirely due to wear and tear, as may be seen by 
examining the already mentioned collection of the queen's letters to Lady Hamilton 
(Brit. Mus. Eg. MSS. 1616). A daily correspondence was kept up, and Lady Hamilton, 
we are told (see Hamilton's private letter to Grenville, 14 July, R.O.), treasured the 
queen's letters most scrupulously. Now in this collection, at the most critical point, 
six letters are missing, viz. those of 26 June to 1 July ; and it is not merely an infer- 
ence that such letters once existed. We have the direct evidence of the docket- 
numbering, and of Hamilton's private letter above mentioned, where some of them 
are explicitly referred to— referred to, moreover, as of peculiar interest. It is at least 
a curious coincidence that the king's letters to Nelson of 25 and 27 June are missing 
too ; also Acton's (we specifically hear of three) and Buffo's (we hear specifically of 
three) to Nelson and Hamilton. 

1898 283 

Notes and Doatments 


The date of the death of Leo the IsauriaUf and the length of the reign 

of Artavasdiis. 

Having occasion to study the correspondence of the archbishop 
Boniface while preparing the final volume of my book * Italy and her 
Invaders,' I have lighted upon two subscriptions of papal letters 
which appear to me to confirm the theory advanced by my friend 
Professor Bury as to some of the dates recorded by Theophanes. 
The question turns upon a certain discrepancy between two 
methods of computing the year in which a given event occurred, 
and requires us to decide which of the two (apparently) conflicting 
dates we will adopt and which we will reject. 

As is well known, Theophanes (who lived in the latter half of 
the eighth and the early part of the ninth century) styled his 
history a Chronographia, and presents throughout a strictly annalistic 
arrangement, prefixing to each year its proper number (according 
to his computation) from the creation of the world and from the 
birth of Christ, and interweaving information as to the regpal years 
of the emperors and the episcopal years of the great patriarchal 
thrones of the east. In the eighth century the rule for reducing 
the chronology of Theophanes into the received chronology of 
Dionysius Exiguus is to subtract 5,492 years from his * year of the 
world,' or add eight to his year post natum Christum. Thus (to 
take a date about which there is no dispute) the downfall of 
Justinian II is placed by Theophanes atmo mundi 6203, anno 
Christi 703. Subtracting 5,492 from the former date, or adding 
eight to the latter, we get by either process 711 for the year of the 
deposition of the last emperor of the Heraclian dynasty.* 

Sometimes, however, Theophanes mentions also 'the year of 
the indiction ' in which a particular event occurred. The indiction, 
as all students of imperial chronology know, was a cycle of fifteen 
years. It was instituted for purposes of taxation, and at the end 
of each cycle a revision of the assessments of the tax-payers was 

' As, however, the years of Theophanes run from 25 Sept., we must remember 
that three months and six days of his anmis mundi belong to the year preceding that 
given by the above method. Thus in strictness the annus mundi 6203 of Theophanes 
should be called a.d. 710-11, 


supposed to be made, and the sum then fixed as the quota of 
taxation due from a particular piece of property continued to be 
paid for the fifteen years following. Like our own fiscal year, this 
' year of the indiction ' did not correspond with that of the calendar 
year, but ran from 1 Sept. in our year to 31 Aug. in the next. 
Thus every calendar year belongs for eight months of its course to 
the year of the indiction, and for four months to its successor. 
This system of indiction was reputed to begin in the year 312. 
We are never told how many indictions had already elapsed before 
any given event, but only that it happened in such and such a 
year of the indiction.^ In order, therefore, to turn an indiction 
year into a year of the Christian era, it is necessary first to add 
some multiple of fifteen (what multiple our knowledge of history 
must inform us) to 312. On 1 Sept. of the year so obtained 
the indiction cycle began, and for the beginning of any other year 
of the same cycle we must, of course, add its own number viintis 
one.' That will be the date if the event happened between 
1 Sept. and 31 Dec, but if it happened in any of the first 
eight months of the year we must, of course, add one to the 
previous result. Thus if Theophanes tells us that a particular 
event occurred on 18 June in the ninth indiction, and we have 
reason to believe that it was somewhere between 730 and 750, we 
add (say) 28 x 15 or 420 years to 312, and obtain 1 Sept. 
732 for the starting point of the cycle. The ninth year of that 
indiction would, therefore, run from 1 Sept. 740 to 31 Aug. 
741 ; and, as the event occurred on 18 June, we see that (if we have 
hit upon the right cycle) it must have been 18 June 741. 

Now then comes our difficulty. There is such an event — namely, 
the death of the great iconoclastic emperor Leo III — which is 
assigned by Theophanes to 18 June in the ninth indiction, there- 
fore in 741 ; but the year of the world which stands at the head 
of this entry is 6232, and the year of Christ is 732, i.e. a.d. 740. 
In this dilemma almost all previous historians have stuck to 
the indiction and thrown over the annus mundi and annus 
Christi, and accordingly one sees in all text-books of history 741 
assigned as the date of the death of Leo the Isaurian. Professor 
Bury, however, in his * History of the Later Boman Empire,' has 
shown powerful reasons for reversing the process, rejecting the 
indiction and keeping the a.m. and a.c. dates. Strongest of all 
is the argument derived from the eclipse of the sun mentioned by 
Theophanes as having occurred at 4 p.m. on Friday, 15 Aug. 6252 
anno mundi. This corresponds with our a.d. 760, and in that year 

' It should be stated that by a puzzling looseness of expression the term ' indic- 
tion,' which should apply to the whole period of fifteen years, is almost always used 
■of oneyear in it. Thus ' the 12th indiction ' means ' the 12th year of the indiction.' 

' I have t^ken a few sentenpes here from my Letters' of Cassiodorus, p. 125. 

1898 IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY : " : 285 

such an eclipse did take place on that day, and very nearly at the 
same hour.'' This seems to show convincingly that Theophanes 
has got his creation years right at this point, though if we count 
by his indiction years the entry would be thrown onward into 761, 
when no such eclipse occurred. 

We come back, then, to the question of the true date of the death 
of Leo III, and in order to show the bearing of the subscriptions 
of the papal letters on the subject I will very briefly abstract the 
events of four years in the ' Chronographia ' of Theophanes. 

A.M. 6232, A.c. 732 (=a.d. 740). In this year, which was the 
24th of that most wicked tyrant Leo [Theophanes was a devout 
image-worshipper and can hardly find words to express his detestation of 
the iconoclast emperors], ' there was a terrible earthquake on 26 Oct. 
in the 9th indiction [740]. The emperor laid on additional taxes, 
in order to pay for the repair of the walls, ruined by the earthquake. 
This Leo on the 18th June in the same 9th indiction [741] died, both 
body and soul, and his son Constantine succeeded to his tyrannical power. 
Bloody and cruel wild beast, tyrant, not lawful emperor, accustomed 
from his infancy to the invocation of demons, versed from his childhood 
in all those studies which destroy the soul,' &c. &c. The well-affected 
party, hating him at the very beginning of his reign for his innate trucu- 
lence, arranged for the transfer of the empire to Artavasdus Curopalata, 
who had married his sister Anna. 

A.M. 6233, A.c. 733 (=a.d. 741). On 27 June in the 10th indiction 
(=A.D. 742) Constantine goes into the Opsician theme (Bithynia, &c.) 
on a campaign against the Saracens. Constantine writes a letter to 
Artavasdus desiring him to send his sons, pretending that he wishes to 
see his sister's children. Artavasdus suspects that they are desired as 
hostages and the demand drives him into revolt. He accordingly 
marches against Constantine, who flies to Amerium, in the Anatolian 
theme (Phrygia), then under the government ofLonginus. He wins over 
the troops there by lavish promises. Many severe engagements between 
the soldiers on both sides. Artavasdus is proclaimed emperor in Con- 
stantinople, restores the sacred images, flogs and imprisons the friends of 
Constantine. Constantine, attended by the armies of two themes, the 
Anatolian and the Thracesian, arrives at Chrysopolis (Scutari), but takes 
nothing by his motion and returns into winter quarters at Amerium. 

A.M. 6284, A.c. 734 (=a.d. 742). In the May of this year Arta- 
vasdus goes to the Opsician theme, ravaging Asia on his way and 
reducing it under his subjection. At Sardis he is met by Constantine, 
who wnvsts him in an engagement and pursues him as far as Cyzicus. 
At Cyzicus Artavasdus goes on board a swift cutter and escapes to Con- 
stantinople. In the month of August of the same 11th indiction^ [743 sic] 
Nicetas, the son of Arta/asdus, who is generalissimo of his forces, meets 
Constantine in battle at Modrine,*^ is defeated by him, and takes to flight. 

* It was at 3 p.m. instead of 4 p.m. 

* Three codices (Vaticanus Palatinus 395, Coislinianus 133, and Monacensia 
Graec. 391) here, according to De Boor, omit the numeral ' 11th.' 

* On the borders of Phrygia and Bithynia (?). ■ , 


Lamentations over the horrors of this civil war ; men of the Armenian 
theme on the one side, of the Anatolian and Thracesian themes on the 
other, slaying one another in this quarrel which the devil had stirred up 
to destroy Christianity. 

A.M. 6285, A.c. 735 (=a.d. 743). In the month of September in the 
12th indiction (=a.d. 743) Constantine goes towards Chalcedon, crosses 
the Dardanelles at Abydos with the help of Sisinnius, general of the 
Thracesian troops, and blockades Constantinople from the land side. The 
citizens begin to be sore pressed by famine, and an attempt to introduce 
provisions into the city is defeated by the Cibyrrhoeot fleet, stationed at 
Abydos. Artavasdus opens the gates and makes a sortie, but is repulsed 
with much loss. He is successful, however, with some fire ships which 
he sends against the Cibyrrhoeot fleet. Severe famine in the city, so that 
a modius of barley is sold for twelve nomismata [230Z. 8s. the quarter^]. 
The chief citizens escape secretly and in disguise from the city. Nicetas, 
generalissimo of the forces of Artavasdus, collects the soldiers scattered 
at Modrine and comes to Chrysopolis. He retreats, is pursued by Con- 
stantine as far as Nicomedeia, defeated, taken prisoner, and exhibited in 
chains to his father on the wall. At last, on 2 Nov., a sudden attack 
at evening is made on the landward wall and the city is taken. 
Artavasdus escapes to the Opsician theme, and afterwards takes refuge in 
the fortress of Puzane (?), where he is captured. He and his two sons 
are blinded and exhibited to the people, chained, at a great chariot race 
in the hippodrome. Slaughter, blinding, mutilation, plunder of those 
noblemen and citizen^ who had sided with Artavasdus. 

Such is the record given by Theophanes of the four years 
which include the death of Leo III, the accession of his son, the 
rebellion of Artavasdus, the suppression of that rebellion, and the 
restoration of Constantine. They were four years full of events, 
and it is quite impossible, if any reliance at all is to be placed on 
the * Chronographia ' of Theophanes, to crowd them into three. 
Yet this is what has been done, I believe, by nearly all the 
historians who have condescended to notice the question at all 
Finlay,* Schlosser,^ Baronius,'" the editor of Gibbon,'^ the author 
of the article ' Artavasdus ' in Smith's * Dictionary of Greek and 
Roman Biography ' all give 741 for the date of the accession of Con- 
stantine Copronymus and 743 for the date of his suppression of the 
rebellion of Artavasdus. This, I venture to suggest, is an impossible 
mode of settling the question. You must either, with Professor 
Bury, fix the death of Leo III in 740, in which case you can keep 
743 for Constantine's recovery of the throne, or if you fix 741 for 

' In the siege of Eome by Totila the famine price of wheat rose only to seven 
aarei ( = nomismata) for the medimnus ( = 6 modii). This famine was, therefore, 
fourteen times as severe as that. 

' History of Greece (ed. 1877), vol. ii. pp. 45-49. 

* Geschichte der bildersiilnnendcn Kaiser, pp. 201-12. 

'• Annales Ecclesiastic}, s.a. 741 and 743. 

" Smith's Gibbon, vi. 83. Gibbon himself has only a very slight undated notice 
of the rebellion of Artavasdus (ibid. p. 143). 


the former event you must, in defiance of the indiction date as well 
as of the era dates furnished by Theophanes, push on the latter 
event to 744. 

This conclusion is powerfully supported by the subscriptions 
of two letters from Pope Zacharias to the archbishop Boniface. 
In one of these letters ^^ the pope congratulates the apostle of 
Germany on the support rendered to him by Pippin and Carloman, 
and confirms the consecration by Boniface of three metropolitan 
bishops to whom he grants the pallium. The subscription of the 
epistle is as follows : 

Data X Kalendas Julias imperante domno piissimo augusto Artavasdo 
a Deo coronato magno imperatore anno III post consulatum eius anno 
III sed et Nicephoro '^ magno imperatore anno III indictione duo- 

In another letter Zacharias expresses his astonishment that 
Boniface, after asking for the jyallium for three metropolitans 
(Rouen, Reims, and Sens), should now ask for it for one of them 
only, the archbishop of Rouen. He expresses his indignant 
surprise that Boniface should have hinted that he sold these 
dignities for money, but in conclusion he entrusts to Boniface the 
care of the churches of Gaul as well as of Bavaria. This letter '* is 
subscribed — 

Data Nonas Novembris imperante domno piissimo augusto Artavasdo 
a Deo coronato magno imperatore anno tertio post consulatum eius anno 
tertio sed et Nicephoro magno imperatore eius filio anno tertio indictione 
tertia decima. 

The date of the first letter, * tenth from the kalends of July, 
twelfth indiction,' according to the ordinary computation should 
correspond with 22 June 744. The date of the second letter, 
'nones of November, thirteenth indiction,' should correspond 
with 5 Nov. 744. But according to the received chronology 
Artavasdus and his son were utterly overthrown on 2 Nov. 743, 
and were soon after blinded, imprisoned, exposed in chains to the 
derision of the populace of Byzantium. However slowly news 
may have travelled from the new to the old Rome, it is incon- 
ceivable that twelve months after their fall an astute person like 
Zacharias should still be dating his letters by the years of those 
* God-crowned august and most pious emperors ' who had been 
for a whole year groping, eyeless, through the prison vaults of 
Byzantium. Here again, therefore, we are met by the same inevi- 
table alternative. Either postpone the capture of Constantinople, 
in defiance of all the dates in Theophanes, to 744, or admit with 

'2 Numbered 57, and printed on pp. 313-14 of Epistolae Mcroicingici et Karolini 
Aevi, vol. i. in Mo7i. Germ. Historica. 

" Nicephorus was a son of Artavasdus associated with his father in the empire. 
'* No. 58 in Mon. Oerm. Historica {tcbi sup-a, pp. 315-16). 


Professor Bury that something has happened to the indictions in 
middle of the eighth century, which causes them to register one 
year earlier than they ought to register according to the usual 

I remark also that the dating of these letters * in the third year 
of Artavasdus ' fully confirms us in the conclusion which we draw 
from the text of Theophanes that the rebellion of the Armenian 
curopalata was a long and serious business, not crushed out in 
seventeen months, as the received chronology requires us to believe. 
I do not know that we have sufficient data to enable us to 
determine the exact chronology of the rebellion, but I suggest that 
it may probably have shaped itself something like this : — 

740. 18 June. — Death of Leo III. Accession of Constantino V 
(autumn of this year). The image- worshipping party begin to 
conspire for the elevation of Artavasdus. 

741. 27 June. — Constantine starts for war with the Saracens 
in Asia Minor. 

741. July. — Artavasdus proclaimed emperor. 

742. May. — Artavasdus defeated at Sardis by Constantine. 
Flees to Constantinople. 

742. August. — Nicetas, son of Artavasdus, defeated at Modrine. 

743. September. — Constantino crosses the Dardanelles and lays 
siege to Constantinople. 

743. 2 November. — Capture of Constantinople. Fall of Arta- 

The two letters of Zacharias will then on Professor Bury's theory 
fall on 22 June and 5 Nov. in this year, 743, the latter being dated 
by the year of Artavasdus, though that usurper had in fact fallen 
three days previously. It must be admitted, however, that even so 
there is a difficulty as to the dating of the earlier letter on 22 June 
in the third year of Artavasdus, since the third would not, according 
to the above table, begin till (at earliest) July 743. The difficulty 
arises from the words of Theophanes which describe the setting forth 
of Constantine to war rw 'lowi'qy firjvl siKoarfi s^Sofiij t^s sirtKeiva 
BeKuTTjs tvSiKTicovos. I thiuk we must suppose either (1) that this 
going forth to war was really in the previous year (740), or (2) that 
Theophanes was mistaken as to the month, or (3), which is perhaps 
the most probable, that Zacharias had been ill informed as to the 
exact date of Artavasdus's usurpation, and dated his accession too 

'^ Since writing this note I have read a much more elaborate article on the 
same subject by M. H. Hubert in the Byzantinische Zeitschri/t (vi. 491-505), to 
which my attention was called by Mr. Poole. He has gone far more thoroughly into 
the subject than I have done, but it is to me most satisfactory to find that he arrive 
substantially at the same conclusions as those indicated above, and that he thoroughly 
accepts Professor Bury's theory that the annus mundi of Theophanes is a safer guide 
than the indiction. 




A word or two in conclusion as to the possible cause of this 
confusion in the indictions (for I think no one who examines care- 
fully these pages of Theophanes will deny that there is confusion). 
Professor Bury suggests, it seems to me with great probability, that 
this confusion, which begins with the year 727, or more strictly 726, 
was the result of the financial reforms or readjustments made in 
that year, which were, as we know, profoundly unpopular, and 
caused revolts in several provinces of the empire. May not, he 
suggests, the emperor have forced two indiction years, two taxing 
years, into one, and so have got the taxes twice over ? In that 
case the year 726 would include three instead of two indiction 
years, beginning with the tenth and ending with the twelfth 
indiction, and the following indiction years would all correspond 
with an annus Domini one year earlier than we should have 
expected. The suggestion is a brilliant one ; and we, who have 
seen that extremely clever chancellor of the exchequer, the Right 
Hon. Robert Lowe, collect from a patient British public five- 
quarters of income tax in one calendar year, cannot deny its 
possibility. But it is only a suggestion as to the cause of the 
discrepancy. The discrepancy itself, and the results which flow 
from it, remain unaffected by the fate of any conjecture as to its 
cause. In any case it seems to me that this three years' usurped 
rule of Artavasdus, the Armenian image-restorer, deserves more 
attentive study than it has received from some previous historians, 
especially from Gibbon, who, as I have before observed, barely 
condescends to notice it at all. 

For clearness sake it may be well to exhibit the years referred to 
in tabular form, rendering the indiction year by that which usually 
corresponds to it, not by that with which, according to Professor 
Bury's theory, it corresponded from 727 to 773. 

Year of the World 

Year after Christ 








Sept. 737-Aug. 738 




Sept. 738-Aug. 739 




Sept. 739 -Aug. 740 




Sept. 740-Aug. 741 




Sept. 741-Aug. 742 




Sept. 742-Aug. 743 




Sept. 743 -Aug. 744 




Sept. 744-Aug. 745 

The Year of the World and Year after Christ of Theophanes begin on 25 Sep- 
tember. The year of the Indiction begins 1 September. 

Thos. Hodgkin. 

VOL. XIII, — NO. L. 



Although the bull said to have been issued by Sylvester II to the 
first king of Hungary is admitted by competent authorities to be a 
forgery, presumably of the seventeenth century,' it may not be 
without interest to give a short account of the present state of 
the controversy among Hungarian scholars relative to the question. 

The orthodox story is that the son of the last duke of Hungary, 
the latter having embraced Christianity, applied to the pope about 
the year 1000 for a crown, which request was readily granted. 
The crown was subsequently united with another sent by the 
emperor of the East to Geza I (after 1074), and the two diadems 
thus conjoined form the present ' holy crown ' or ' St. Stephen's 
crown,' used at the coronation of the kings of Hungary. Accom- 
panying his gift Sylvester II is said to have issued a bull investing 
Stephen and his successors with the full powers of a papal legate ; 
and in token of this office the Hungarian kings have ever since 
borne the title of ' Apostolic King ' and enjoyed the privilege of 
having an apostolic double cross carried before them on solemn 
occasions. The double cross appears as the principal charge on 
the sinister half of the Hungarian escutcheon. 

In 1880 a committee was appointed by the Hungarian Academy 
of Sciences to examine the coronation insignia, and the results of 
its inquiries were published by Dr. Arnold Ipolyi, bishop of Neusohl, 
one of its members.^ The official position this prelate held in the 
Eoman church has probably biassed him in favour of the old view, 
but the facts contained in his book can lead only to the conclusion 
that, even if the story related in the legend of the Ufe of the king is 
true, and Sylvester II did really send a crown to Stephen, not a 
vestige of it can be seen in the present * holy crown.' This con- 
sists of a crown of Byzantine workmanship,^ which was originally 
open {i.e. a * Stephanos'), but was subsequently transformed into a 
closed crown {i.e. a * stemma ') by having two cross-bands sur- 
mounted by a cross soldered to the open hoop. The bands are 
embellished with the images of the Saviour and eight apostles in 
enamel of apparently western design, if not workmanship. It is 
difficult to believe that the crown sent by Sylvester was broken up 
and that only a small portion of the material was embodied in the 

' Ja£F^, Regesta Pontificum, i. (ed. 2, 1885) 497 ; Wattenbach in Monum. Germ. 
Hist., Script, xi. (1854) 233, n. 35. 

* A magyar szent koivtta cs a korondzdsi jelvi'nyek leirdsa ^s tOrt^nete. Buda- 
pest, 1886. The Hungarian coronation insignia have been described also by Canon 
Bock, Ivanfi, Dr. Hampel, Charles Pulszky, and others. 

' The Byzantine crown is embellished with the images (in enamel) of various 
Greek saints in addition to those of the donor Michael Doukas. his son Constantine 
Porphyrogennetos (the younger), and the king of Hungary, whose image bears the fol- 
lowing inscription in Greek characters : FEnBITZ A'C mcTOC KPALHC TOTPKIAC (of 
Turkey, i.e. Hungary) 


existing crown, as the hoop which formed the base of the original 
diadem, and probably also the images of four of the apostles, are 
missing.'* Hence it is probable that the bands in question originally 
did not form part of a crown at all, but were merely utilised in 
transforming the open crown into a closed one, and that probably 
the images of the other four apostles were on the extremities of the 
existing bands, but were cut off. 

Some Hungarian writers are beginning to doubt whether Syl- 
vester ever did send a crown to Stephen. For when Gregory VII 
claimed Hungary as a fief in 1074 he made no allusion to any 
such gift. The only Hungarian crown mentioned in his corre- 
spondence is the one which together with a spear was forwarded to 
Kome by the emperor Henry III, after his victory at Menfo in 1044, 
where he had the good fortune to capture the Hungarian king Aba 
with his crown and spear. Nor did Gregory refer to any bull or 
any other document.'' 

As regards the title of * apostolic king ' another Hungarian 
bishop, Monsignor Fraknoi, has lately published a volume on the 
wider subject of the history of the Hungarian king's powers as 
patron of the state-church, a treatise based to a large extent on 
hitherto unpublished material.^ The author shows that the title in 
question was assumed only a few centuries ago, and that at the 
outset it was a mere title, conferring no privilege whatever on the 
bearer. The first attempt to obtain an official grant or acknowledg- 
ment from Rome was made by Louis II when Pope Leo X granted 
to Henry VIII of England the title of 'defender of the faith.' 
Another attempt — again ineffectual — was made by Ferdinand III 
in 1627. Some years later, in 1649, we find the Hungarian prelates 

* Dr, Ipolyi gives an illustration of the crown as he thinks it may have looked 
when received from Sylvester. Another such imaginary sketch figures in Dr. Bock's 
latest contribution to the literature of the subject {De corona S. Stepluxni, Aachen, 
1896), in which he still maintains that the cross hoops forming the upper portion of 
the crown were made in Rome at the end of the tenth century. On the other hand 
N. P. Kondakov, basing his opinion on the style of the workmanship only, assigns 
them to the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century {Byzantir.ische 
Zellen- Emails, Frankfurt, 1892, p. 239). Julius Pauler, the author of the latest 
standard book of history of Hungary during the reign of the Arpad dynasty, surmises 
that it was the crown sent by Sylvester that was captured by the German emperor at 
M6nf6 and returned by him to Eome. Not a vestige of it is known at present. Ac- 
cording to Ciampini the spear was still in existence in his time {De saciis acdificiis, 
Romae, 1693, p. 79). 

'^ In 1074 the pope writes to King Solomon of Hungary as follows : * Siout a 
maioribus patriae tuae cognoscere potes, regnum Ungariae sanctae Eomanae ecclesiae 
proprium est, a rcge Stephano olim beato Petro cum omni iure et potestate sua 
oblatum et devote traditum.' In the next sentence he states that ' Henricus [III] piae 
memoriae imperator, ad honorem sancti Petri regnum illud expugnatum victo rege 
[Ovone] et facta victoria ad corpus beati Petri lanceam, coronamque transmisit ; et 
pro gloria triumphi sui illuc regni direxit insignia, quo principatum dignitatis eius 
attinere cognovit.' See Jaffa's Monumenta Gregm-iana p. 128 (Berlin, 1865). 

" A laagrjar kirdlyi kegyiirijog szcnt IstvdntOl Mdi-ia Terizidig, by W. Frakn6i. 
Budapest, 1895. 



engaged in a controversy with the pope, defending their king's right 
to nominate candidates to vacant sees or to translate bishops as he 
pleased by virtue of his power as apostolic king. In reply, the pope 
denies the existence of any such power or the validity of any such 
title, and refers the Magyar prelates to the * Annals ' of Baronius 
and to the * Life of Saint Stephen, the king,' by Hartvicus, both of 
which authorities make the investiture with the title of * apostolic ' 
and with legatine powers a purely personal distinction conferred on 
Stephen, and not transmitted to his successors J Again no reference 
was made by either party to any bull of Sylvester II, though the 
text of that famous document had already, in 1644, been published 
— and at Rome — by the Jesuit Melchior Inchofer in his * Annales 
Ecclesiastici Eegni Hungariae.' " The right to the title of * apostolic 
king ' was, in fact, not acknowledged by the pope till 1758, when, 
as almost the first act after his accession, Clement XIII granted it 
to Maria Theresa and her successors on the throne of Hungary, 
together with the privilege of having the apostolic double cross 
borne before her and them by a bishop. In his letter the pope 
refers to the practice and privilege as one the origin of which is 
unknown to him. The double cross among the coronation insignia 
is quite modern. 

On the other hand, the apostolic double cross as an heraldic 
charge first appeared on a seal of Bela IV in 1243. From that 
date onward for about seventy years it formed the sole charge in 
the royal arms until the first Angevin king, Charles Robert, dis- 
continued its use, and resumed that of the more ancient shield 
barry of eight, with which he impaled his own coat of lilies. 
The regular use of the arms of Hungary as they are arranged at 
present dates only from the reign of ' king ' Maria Theresa. 

Bishop Fraknoi does not mention the fact that not even Stephen I 
himself made use of the title of * apostolic king.' It is true that 
in a document attributed to him he is made to style himself * Dei 
miseratione et apostolicae Sedis gratia Hungarorum Rex,' but the 
charter in question is a clumsy forgery. Apart from its glaring 
anachronisms the document displays ignorance not only of the for- 
mulae used in Stephen's chancery, but also of the history of the 
religious house in whose favour it was fabricated. There are about 
half a score of undoubtedly genuine charters by Stephen extant, 
and in all of these he is simply styled * Stephanus, Dei Gratia 

' The author of the life was a Bishop Hartvicus, who dedicated his book to Coloman, 
king of Hungary (1095-1116). For the latest phase of the controversy about the 
authorship see the Acta Sanctorum, November, t. ii., p. 479, which gives a bibliography 
of the literature down to 1894. Since then further contributions on the subject 
have appeared by Julius Pauer and Dr. Kardcsonyi in vol. xxviii. of the Szdzadok, by 
R. F. Kaindl in vol. Ixxxi. of the Archiv/Ur usterr. Gesch., 1895, and by Kentrzynski in 
vol. xxxiv. of the Bozprdtvy of the Cracow Academy, 1897. 

* I have not been able to see the original edition. The book was reprinted in 
1695-97 at Pressburg. 

4 . 


Ungariae Rex,' or by the grace of God ' Pannoniorum Eex' or 

* Hungarorum Rex,' &c.^ 

As for the ' Bull of Sylvester II,' nobody seems to have heard 
of it until Inchofer published its text in 1644. The editor admits 
that he had not seen the original himself, but, as far as we can 
understand him, had only a copy supplied to him by Raphael 
Levakovics, a Franciscan friar of Croatian origin, living at Rome, 
and taken from a transcript made in 1550 by the Hungarian bishop 
Verancsics (Nicolaus Verantius) from the original, which was then 
in the muniment room of the chapter of Trau in Dalmatia, but was 
subsequently, it is said, transferred to Venice with the rest of the 
more important documents belonging to the chapter. There is no 
record of any one else having seen the original, and moreover, if 
Verancsics did see it, it must have been at some other date, as he 
spent the whole of the year 1550 in Hungary, only occasionally 
visiting Vienna. He had a friend at Trau, Andronicus Tranquillus, 
but the extant correspondence with him is silent about the discovery 
of such an important document as the ' bull ' of Sylvester. Other 
suspicious features are that in the preamble the Hungarians are 
described by the pope as a people unknown to him (' ignota nobis 
gens '), and Stephen's envoy is styled * bishop of Kalocsa ' (episco- 
pus Colocensis) — as though Gerbert had never heard anything 
before about the Magyars and their inroads into Germany and 
various other parts of western Europe, and as though there could 
have been a bishop of Kalocsa without any knowledge of him in 
Rome. Finally Dr. Karacsonyi has shown ^^ that in its structure 
the bull totally differs from the formulae strictly observed in the 
chancery of Sylvester II, and that the forger copied some of the 
passages from letters of Gregory VII and others from the legend of 
king Stephen, the latter not from any of the older texts, but from 
one published with certain emendations of style by Lawrence 
Surius in 1576. Dr. Karacsonyi prints the text of the ' bull ' in 
three different types to distinguish the various elements. The lines 
(sometimes only isolated words) which supply the links by which 
the passages taken from Gregory's letters and the 'Life ' by Hart- 
vicus were connected by the forger, are printed in ordinary type and 
form a very small portion of the whole document. 

Dr. Karacsonyi did not go into the question who was the 
forger, but Fraknoi supplies a clue to the authorship. He prints 
an extract from a letter written by Levakovics from Vienna to 
Cardinal Aldobrandini, in which the writer says that he has 

* given ' {i.e. sent) to the Hungarians the text of a letter of Pope 

" All his charters but one are in Latin. In the only Greek charter extant he 
styles himself ' iydi ^Te<t>avos xP^'^'^^"-^^^ • • • XP'^^ irao-^s Oi'y7p/oj.' 

'* Szent-Istvdn kirdly oklevclei is a Szilveszter abulia, Budapest, 1891, 


Sylvester, which will convince them that their opinion about the 
extent of the power and rights of their king in spiritual matters is 
erroneous. He promises to take care to have the letter in question 
published in some way or other. It was his original intention to 
aver that the letter had been discovered in Rome, but on second 
thoughts he dared not do so without the cardinal's consent." 
Aldobrandini's reply has not yet been discovered. The conclusion 
at which Fraknoi arrives is that Levakovics was not himself the 
forger, because if a man is too scrupulous to spread a false report 
about the place of discovery without the sanction of his superiors, 
it is not likely that he will actually forge a document. It may, 
however, be urged that the friar was not above telling a deliberate 
falsehood, and was only afraid of the consequences of fixing upon 
Rome as the place of discovery without the previous knowledge and 
consent of his superiors. Fraknoi's other contention that Rome 
had no hand in the perpetration of the forgery, is no doubt correct. 
The document, if genuine, would have materially assisted the case 
of the king of Hungary, who was just at that period, in 1644, 
engaged in a controversy with Rome regarding his claim of legatine 
privileges. When Gregory YII intended to lay hands on Hungary 
as a fief, he based his claim upon the fact — then well known, 
according to him, at the Hungarian court — that Stephen I had 
offered his kingdom to St. Peter. The forged bull also mentions 
this donation, and a few lines lower down makes the pope return 
the gift to Stephen and his legitimate successors, stipulating, how- 
ever, that every lawfully elected king of Hungary should, at his 
accession, either personally or by envoys renew the declaration of 
obedience and reverence as subject of the Holy Roman Church. 
In continuation Sylvester is made to concede to Stephen and his 
heirs and legitimate successors the very power and privileges 
which were refused in the seventeenth century. Had Rome 
been anxious at that particular time to produce false evidence in 
support of the cause against the king of Hungary, the tenor of 
such document would have been totally different from that of the 
false bull of Sylvester. 

With regard to the question as to what were the rights conferred 
upon Stephen by Pope Sylvester in ecclesiastical matters, the king 
in his charters constantly refers to some papal authority,'^ but no 
contemporary record exists defining the character and limits of 

" * Gran persuasionc hanno gli Ungheii che ncssun diritto abbia il papa al regno 
loro, essendo convertiti dai suoi re. Per generare a loro opinione migliore ho dato 
certe lettere del papa Silvestro e procurero che vengano al publico in qualche maniera. 
Pensava di promalgarle come trovate a Boma ; ma senza la permissione e saputa di 
Tossignoria illustrissima non mi fidai, come Monsignor Ingoli, al qaale indrizzo la 
copia, tatto ragaaglier4.' The date of the letter is not given. 

'^ Some of the expressions used in his charters are ' auctoritate Bomanae Eccle- 
siae ; ' or ' cum consensu Sanctissimi Apostolici et in presentia eius nuncii ; ' or 
' consensa et confirmatione Auctoritatis Apostolicae.' 


such authority. There is, however, ample evidence forthcoming to 
prove that Stephen had powers conferred on him equal to those of 
a papal legate a latere. Apart from the passage contained in his 
life ^^ we have, for instance, the testimony of Pope Urban II,''' of 
King Bela IV of Hungary, ''^ the latter not contested by Gregory IX, 
and above others that of Pope Paul II, who, in 1465, refers to some 
canons wherein it had been placed on record that Stephen had 
acted as the representative of the Roman See, and had held the 
office of a papal legate."^ In Dr. Karacsonyi's opinion, such powers 
were not conferred on Stephen until about the year 1031. 

Lewis L. Kbopf. 


No one who looks through the Domesday valuations in Oxfordshire 
can fail to notice that, while in general they are about the same 
T.R.E. and T.R.W., in many good-sized manors the valet is much 
above the valuit. The low early values cannot be due to Norman 
ravages, for they all presumably go back to T.R.E. , and in many 
cases we have full triple valuations, nor did William in his 
march to London go west of a line drawn from Wallingford to 
Buckingham. The distribution of these manors is worth noting, 
and I will add after each the valuations in pounds, beginning with 
the earliest. They lie (a) down the Cherwell ; Drayton (5-8), 
Adderbury (12-20), Deddington (40-40-60), Somerton (9-12), Tew 
(20-20-40), Sandford St. Martin (10-20), Aston (10-14), Barton 
(12-20), Heyford (8-10-12), Middleton (18-18-30), Tackley (8-8-17), 
Weston (8-12), Shipton (2-4), Islip (7-8-10), Beckley (5-8) ; with 
a few further west, Chipping Norton (16-22), Chadlington (8-14), 
Tainton (10-10-15), Norton Brise (9-13), Stanton Harcourt 
(30-30-50) ; {h) from Oxford down the Thames ; Baldon (4-4-7), 
Brook Hampton (6-10), Ascott (5-8), Newington (11-15), Crow- 
marsh (10-10-20), Newnham (12-17), Mongewell (10-14), Goring 
(10-10-15), Whitchurch (15-20), Mapledurham (8-8-12), Rother- 

'^ The pope is niacle to say : ' Ego sum apostolicus, ille [Steplianus] vero nierito 
Christi apostolus . . . quapropter dispositioni eiusdem . . . ccclesias Dei simul cum 
populo utroque jure ordinandas reliuquimus.' Endlicher, Monumenta, 172. 

" The pope writes in 1096 as follows : ' Quicquid honoris, quicquid dignitatis pre- 
decessor tuus Stephanus ab apostolica nostra ecclesia promcruisse dignoscitur.' Fejer, 
Codex Diplom. Hung. ii. 15. 

'^ Bela IV having been asked by the pope to occupy schismatic Bosnia, he begs, in 
1238, for legatine powers in Bosnia, similar to those once enjoyed by Stephen (in 
Hungary), and to be allowed to have a cross borne before him and his army when 
proceeding through Hungary to the conquest of the new province. Theiner, Vet. 
Monumenta Hung, illustr. i. 171. 

'* ' Legimus . . . [Stephanum] vices apostolicae sedis . . . et officium legacionis 
accepisse, quod etiam in canonibus memoriae proditum invenitur.' Monum. Vaticana 
Hung. ser. I. vol. vi. no. 54. 


field (7-10), Checkendon (18-26-26) ; (c) along the road from 
Wallingford to Bledlow ; Ewelme (2-4), Britwell (2^-5), Watling- 
ton (6-6-10), Pirton (16-25-30), Shirborn (4-4-6), Lewknor 
(10-20-20), Aston (15-15-20), Stoke (7-10), Chinnor (6-10), 
Sidenham (10-16), but valuations of this kind do not extend 
further into Bucks. All these manors together, containing 585 
team-lands, valuerunt 443^Z., valent 7061. or 24s. per team-land. Mr. 
Maitland's average for the county is 24«. 6(/., so that the higher 
valuations of 1086 cannot be due to exceptional improvement in 
the river valleys. The first group must, I think, mark the path of 
the northern insurgents to meet Harold at Oxford in 1065, while 
(h) and (c) appear to be traces of a raid still nearer to London, or 
possibly of Harold's own followers, if there is anything in William 
of Malmesbury's story that he had an army with him. 

The damaged belt, apart from outlying cases to the west, is not 
wide, and is not, like much of Northamptonshire, entirely wasted, 
the percentage of damage being nearly the same as that done by 
the Normans on their march to London. It looks as if the mass 
of the northerners waited in Northamptonshire, while the leaders 
were followed to Oxford by their more immediate and perhaps better 
controlled followers. The figures confirm Mr. Parker's suggestion 
that Oxford probably suffered a good deal at the hands of the insur- 
gents, but point to some other, or at least some additional, cause for 
the decay of the 478 houses, forming two-thirds of the city, which are 
recorded in Domesday as * vastae et destructac' ' At Northampton, 
occupied by these same insurgents, and at Exeter,'^ besieged and 
taken, though it is said not plundered, by William, the decrease in 
the houses was at most twelve per cent. Lath and plaster was easy 
to rebuild. The towns must have depended mainly on the country 
round them, and in Oxfordshire, as in Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hants, 
Wilts, and Bucks, the damages of 1065-70 had been repaired by 
1086, probably much earlier.' We know too that other towns had 
recovered. On their way to London the Normans took and half 
destroyed Pevensey, which had 52 houses T.R.E., but only 27 
' when received,' burnt Dover, no doubt occupied Chichester, the 
centre of a ravaged district, and passed through Guildford and 
Wallingford; yet Domesday shows plainly that there was no perma- 
nent decay at Pevensey or Chichester or Wallingford, and implies, 

' Early History of Oxford, chap, x., where authorities are collected, and p. 233. 

* ' Vastatse [i.e. still in 1086] 48 domus postquam rex venit in Angliam ; ' there may 
well have been many more wasted in 1067. 

* Jones, D.B. for Wilts, p. Ixxvi. Evidence for thft other counties and for 
William's march to London was given in the January number. Pirton, mentioned 
above, was valued at 16/. T.R.E., but at 2oZ. ' when received,' which was presumably 
in 1072, on the death of Stigand, the former tenant, who was allowed to keep much of 
his property, but it may have remained for several years in the king's hands. 
Lewknor, however /10-20-20), belonged to Abingdon T.R.E. Ahingd. Chron. i. 459. 



I think, that there was none at Dover and Guildford, where not a 
word is said of the king's houses being decayed, though it is mentioned 
that their number had been reduced in other ways. On the other 
hand, though the general valuations give no sign that Dorsetshire 
was visited by any army, half the houses in Dorchester and Ware- 
ham, and nearly as many in Shaftesbury, were * entirely destroyed 
since the time of Sheriff Hugh.' It is not clear that the 478 houses 
in Oxford were actually burnt out or abandoned ; they were only 
* so waste and destroyed that they cannot pay geld,' and destructae 
liiay mean no more than destitutae. Of Eobert d'Oilgi's houses only 
8 were vastae, 26 others were hospitatae, though from poverty they 
could not pay geld, and {jmce Mr. Parker) seem presumably in- 
cluded in the 478, for the other 243 houses in the town did pay.'* 
In any case, as the county recovered, the town should have re- 
covered its trade, its population, and its prosperity. Must we 
not attribute the continued decay of Oxford in 1086 to loss of its 
political importance, to the pressure of increased taxation, or 
to the extortions of sheriffs, as to which the Saxon chronicler in 
summing up the reign makes special complaint, that the king 
recked not how sinfully they gathered money or how much wrong 
they did? The last cause appears to have naturally suggested 
itself to the Domesday commissioners, for we are expressly told 
that the decay of 74 houses at Lincoln was due 'not to the 
oppression of sheriffs and officers, but to misfortune, poverty, and 
fire.' At Norwich the burgesses are said to be omnino vastati by 
Earl Eoger and fire and the king's geld and Waleran ; while the 
description of the Dorsetshire boroughs seems to point to Sheriff 
Hugh. The country manors were protected by powerful owners, 
but on the towns king and sheriff pressed heavily, and it seems 
better, in the south, to attribute the poverty of some of them in 
1086 to this cause and to fires rather than to the ravages of twenty 
years before. F. Baking. 


Professor F. Patetta's paper on * Vacella, giureconsulto Manto- 
vano del sec. XII.,' in the Atti della R. Acmd. di Torino, xxxii. 
(1896-7), contains an ' Instrumentum sententie late contra epi- 
scopum Mantuanum, in palatio comunis Mantue 1189 ; ibi fuere 
Vacella et Bartholomeus iudices Mantuani.' This document, now 
printed for the first time, shows that Vacarius is not, as I supposed 
in this Review, 1896 (p. 307), the only name of a Lombard jurist 
to whom the abbreviation * uac ' might refer, and that my misgivings 

* D.B. 158, a. 2 ; Early History of Oxford, pp. 227, 248. So, too, at Shaftesbury, 
in the quarter of the abbess, there were 111 houses [sound] and 42 omnino destnictae, 
yet she ' had there 151 burgesses and [only] 20 mansiones vastae.^ 


{ib. n. 19) about the possibility of * uaccell ' being another form of 
* Vacarius ' were but too well founded. This judge at Mantua, who 
is certainly not to be identified with the English Vacarius, is 
probably, as Professor Patetta shows, the author of the * Contraria 
Legum Longobardorum.' The theory that Vacarius came from' 
Mantua or had written about Lombardic law must therefore be 
abandoned. F. Liebermann. 


Wharton, in his * Anglia Sacra ' (ii. pp. v-vi), selects, as a specially 
bad case of charters forged to secure exemption from episcopal 
jurisdiction, the papal bull which, in the twelfth century, St. 
Augustine's abbey at Canterbury claimed to possess, and in virtue 
of which its abbots refused profession of canonical obedience to 
the archbishops. He printed a charter (containing two documents) 
which related to the forgery ; and the same charter (now ' Cart. 
Ant. A. 62 ' at Canterbury) is printed in the appendix to Dr. Shep- 
pard's * Literae Cantuarienses ' iii. 367. It appears to me that his 
comments upon it (i. pp. lix-lxi), are based upon misapprehension. 

The charter, as I have said, contains two documents, both dated 
by the editor * circ. 1155.' It will, I think, be found that they are 
widely different in date and occasion. The first is a letter from 
Hugh, archbishop of Eouen, to Adrian IV, and must therefore 
belong to 1154-1159. It seems to me most natural to connect 
it with Silvester's obstinate appeals to the holy see concerning his 
benediction, as abbot of St. Augustine's, which was eventually 
carried out by archbishop Theobald 'iuxta mandatum Domini 
Papae Adriani' (' Literae ' iii. 367). It would thus be the arch- 
bishop of Rouen's letter which influenced the pope in his decision. 

The bishop of Evreux's letter to Alexander III, which is the 
second of the two documents, must obviously be much later, for 
the facts that he was bishop and that he speaks of * Beatum 
Thomam ' prove that it cannot in any case be earlier than 
1170. Dr. Sheppard's conclusion (i. pp. Ix, Ixi) is that 

It is probable that the process took something of the following form : 
(1) the narrative written down in the very words of the archbishop and 
bearing his seal was sent to Christchurch. Then (2) the bishop of Evreux 
must have been armed with papal authority to enable him to compel the 
production. (3) Lastly, as the command of the king is so clearly insisted 
on as a condition for the burning, the bishop must have carried the forged 
privilege to the king's presence, and there destroyed it, &c. 

For, according to the writer, 

The abbot of St. Augustine's, upon being required to do so, produced 
his privilege of exemption, which, being recognised as the bull forged by 



Guernon, was by command of the king, and by the hand of the bishop of 
Evreux, handed over to be burnt ' (p. Ix). 

Now of all this there is not a word in the document as I read 
it. The bishop of Evreux (Giles) merely says : — 

Privilegia [sic\ autem quae ex confessione Gaufridi Catalaunensis 
episcopi, in praesentia sanctae recordationis Innocentii Papae, adulterina 
probata sunt, et praedicto Domino nostro Archiepiscopo reddita, de 
mandato eiusdem Domini iiostri igni comburenda propriis manibus 

The king, it will be seen, is not mentioned. The mandatum was 
that either of Becket or of the archbishop of Eouen. I gather 
from the document that it was the latter, and that he gave his 
nephew the ' privilegia ' to burn. I see no evidence that Giles 
visited Canterbury, or that he compelled the production of the bull 
to St. Augustine's, or indeed that it was burnt. And I think this 
letter of his to the pope was probably written in connexion with 
the renewed struggle on Roger becoming abbot of St. Augustine's 
in 1178. J. H. EouND. 


In an earlier number of this Eeview,' I ventured to suggest that 
the discovery of assessments among unpublished records might 
show that the justices of the peace had acted upon their legal 
powers before the days of Elizabeth. A fortunate accident enables 
me now to point to one instance, printed indeed over forty years 
ago, but buried in a local archaeological journal ^ until a short time 
ago, when in modernised form it reappeared in the * Notes ' of a 
local weekly newspaper.^ In 1853 a note relative to labourers' 
wages, as fixed by the justices of the peace for Norfolk in 9 Hen. VI, 
was communicated to the Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological 
Society by Sir Henry Ellis, who derived his information from a 
volume in the British Museum.^ He merely gives the text of the 
ordinance, and it may therefore be of interest to indicate the 
connexion in which it is found. Among various treatises bound 
together is one in a fifteenth-century hand described in the cata- 
logue as a * registrum chartarum de villis, terris, maneriis, liberta- 
tibus, privilegiis, aliisque ad iura episcopi et conventus Eliensis 
spectantibus.' It deals more particularly with the manors of the 
hundred and a half of Mitford in Norfolk, held by the bishop of 

* English Histobical Review, ix. 313. 
^ Norfolk Archceology, iv. 862, 

* Norfolk and Norwich Chronicle, 30 Oct. 1897. I am much indebted to 
J. C. Tingey, F.S.A., Hon. Curator of the Norwich archives recently placed in the 
Castle Museum, who drew my attention to the ' Note.' 

* Cott. MSS. Dom. A. xv. f. 1376, 


Ely, gives the names of persons owing suit, mentions various pay- 
ments due from the several manors, and adds some miscellaneous 
information apparently for the guidance of Henry Sharington, 
the bishop's bailiflf."* Among other things, disconnected from any- 
thing that precedes or follows, is the following ordinance : — 

Ordinac fact' j) Justic pacis in Com Norflf sup stipendiis Artificiar' seruieu 

at labor Anno ix"" Regis H. Sexti. 
It is ordeyned that a plowman a shepherd a carter a maltester' the best 
shall take xiijs. iiijc?. in the yere and mete and drynk and clothyng and 
the secundary %s. and mete and drynk. 

A woman seruant of husbondrye the best shall take xs. and mete and 
drynk and clothyng. 

A laborer a dycher a waller an hegger a dawber shall take in the 
wyntersday jd. ob. and in the somersdaye ijff. and a secundary laborer 
a dycher a waller an hegger a dawber shall take in the wynterday jd. 
and in the somersday jd. ob. and mete and drynk. 

A Baylly of husbondrie shall take in the yere xxd and mete and drynk 
and clothyng. 

A Thatster shall take in the wynters day jd. ob. and on the somers 
day \jd. and mete and drynk. 

Masons leyers reders tylers sail take on the wyn?esdayes ijd. an on 
the somersday ijd. ob. and mete and drynk. 

A Carpenter a sawer shall take on the wyntersday ijd. and on the 
somersday iijd. a secundary Carpenter a sawer shall take on the Wynters 
daye ijd. and on the somersday ijd. ob. and mete and drynk. 

The thressyng of a q*r^ "Whete Rye mestelyon pesou and benes and 
the syeng of the same iiijd. withoute mete. 

The thressyng and the syeng of a q*r? Early and ote ijd. wyth oute 

This, then, is a copy of a very early assessment of wages, being 
the earliest instance which we as yet know, in which the justices 
acted upon the powers conferred by 13 Eic. II st. 1. c. 8, a statute 
which, according to the recital in 6 Hen. VI c. 3, had not been 
executed owing to the omission of any penalty for non-observance. 
The latter measure, designed to remedy this defect and passed as a 
temporary act, was confirmed by 8 Hen. VI c. 8 ' until the king 
hath otherwise declared his will in the full parliament.' In less than 
two years there appeared this ordinance for the regulation of wages 
in Norfolk. That the wages thus fixed were actually paid cannot 
perhaps be proved, but the inclusion of the ordinance among 
entries of payments and dues is surely not without some signifi- 
cance as indicating that the assessment was held to be binding. 
Was it not as important for the bishop's bailiff to know the price 
payable for labour on the episcopal estates as to be acquainted with 
other payments due from those same estates ? Apart from any 
value as ftn instance of local regulation, the assessment is of some 

» Blomefield, Hist, of Norfolk, v. 1178. 


interest as bearing witness to that rise of wages in employments 
outside the cloth trade which is indicated by the difference in the 
maximum rates laid down by 12 Eic. II c. 4 and by 23 Hen. VI c. 12. 
Thus the bailiff who in 1388 receives 13s. M. and clothing once a 
year can in Norfolk in 1431 command 20s. and meat and drink 
and clothing. The best ploughmen, shepherds, carters, and 
maltsters receive 13s. 4d., meat, drink, and clothing; the secondary 
10s. with similar allowances, as against 10s. in 1388 for master 
hines, carters, and shepherds, and 7s. for drivers of ploughs.*^ The 
value of women's work has risen from Qs. to 10s. and allowances 
for the best, a price at which it remains in later fifteenth-century 
legislation. That this rise was not entirely due to local causes 
may be inferred from 23 Hen. VI. c. 12, which fixing general maxi- 
mum rates more minutely than 12 Eic. II c. 4 shows in some 
cases an advance on those actually assessed by the justices in 
1431." The following extracts from the later statute may suffice for 
purposes of comparison : — 

Wages by the Year. 

Bailiff of husbandry . . . 28s. 4d meat, drink, 5/- for clothes. 

Chief hind, chief shepherd, carter 20s. „ „ 4/- „ 

Common servant of husbandry . 15s. „ „ 40f7. „ 

Woman Servant .... 10s. „ ,, 4s. „ 

Infant under 14 . . . . (is. „ „ 3s. ,, 

Wages by the Day. 

With food Without 

Free masons or master carpenter . . Ad. 5^d. 
Master tiler, slater, rough mason, mesne 

carpenter, and others in building trade Sd. i^d. 
Every other labourer .... 2,d. S^d. 
Special harvest rates are mentioned. 


With food Without 

dd. 4|(Z. 

2ld. id. 
Ihd. 3d. 

To attempt any proof of a continuous rise in wages * during the 
fifteenth century is beyond the scope of this note, but such a conclu- 
sion seems to be warranted by a perusal of the statute book, apart 
from the evidence adduced by Thorold Eogers in his great work, 
and it is therefore an open question whether the legislature of the 
period deserves the unqualified condemnation he has passed upon 

° 12 Ric. II. c. 4 seems to exclude food and clothing ; it draws no distinction between 
best and secondary servants, and only deals with day labourers in general terms. 

' The averages given by Thorold Rogers of daily wages for 1431, Agric. and 
Prices, iv. 514, seem slightly higher than those fixed by the justices for a county in 
which the rate of payment was high : ibid. p. 501. 

* 11 Henry VII c. 22 shows a further advance in some directions on 23 Henry VI 

' Whatever the motive may have been, the rise was not due to a rise in the prices 
of food. As Thorold Eogers points out, provisions were extraordinarily cheap, and 


So far as Norfolk is concerned, we know as yet of no further 
assessment for a period of one hundred and eighty years, but after 
the confirmation of the Elizabethan Act by James I the Norfolk 
justices were certainly not entirely unmindful of their duties, for 
in 1610 they issued an assessment, a copy of which has survived to 
our own day among the county records kept in the shire hall at 
Norwich.'" Ellen A. McArthur. 


In the fifty-first volume of the * Dictionary of National Biography,' 
Mr. A. F. Pollard contributed a life of Katharine, the wife of 
Edward Seymour, earl of Hertford, known in her maiden days as 
Lady Katharine Grey. On the death of her sister, ' Queen Jane/ she 
succeeded to a strong reversionary claim to the throne under the 
settlements made by Henry YHI and Edward VI ; and it will be 
remembered that there was one other sister, the diminutive Lady 
Mary, who shared the birthright with Jane and Katharine, and 
also the misfortune which attended it. Lady Katharine's pathetic 
story has been told more than once, and the intention here is only 
to refer to the latter years of her life — those of her imprisonment 
for clandestine marriage with the earl of Hertford — in order to 
correct an error partially repeated in the notice above referred to.' 
Sir Henry EUis, in 1827, showed what the circumstances really 
were by printing among his * Original Letters ' several found in the 
Lansdowne collection referring to Lady Katharine, and three — one 
of these a petition to the queen — written by her own hand. Sir 
Henry also printed an extremely interesting and touching narrative 
of her death in 1568, which, it cannot be doubted, was drawn up at 
the time ; ^ and Camden in all probability had knowledge of it when he 
thus wrote, the English edition of his * Annales ' being now quoted : 

wheat, which from 1260 to 1400 had been 5s. lO^d. a quarter, was 5s. llfrf. from 1401 
to 1540. Ecoii. Interpr. of Hist. p. 330. 

'* The reference to an assessment for 1630, mentioned by Miss Leonard in the 
January number of this Review, points to an assessment for Norwich, a separate 
county from that of Norfolk. [Mr. J. C. Tingey has kindly communicated the text of 
the assessment of 1610, which will appear in our next number. — Ed. E. H. i?.] 

' Misrepresentation of her imprisonment and the place of her death was made by 
Camden, who wrote of it in his Annales, probably not more than forty years after the 
event. His error, that she died in the Tower of London, was repeated by all subsequent 
historians down to Bayley, who published his History of the Toicer in 1825. It had 
been detected, however, by a writer in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1823 (vol. 93, 
pt. 2, p. 11), who had discovered in the Rcyce MS., deposited at the Heralds' College, 
that Lady Katharine's death occurred at Yoxford in Suffolk. 

' Of this document (printed in Original Letters, 2nd ser. ii. 288) there are two 
copies in the British Museum, Harl. MS. xxxix. 373, and Cotton MS. Titus, C. 7, 
125. In the heading of the Harleian copy it is said that Lady Katharine died a prisoner 
in the Tower ; but that this is an erroneous addition to the original is evident from 
the title of the Cotton copy, which does not slate where her death occurred. 


* She [Lady Katharine] was committed to the Tower, and after certain 
years being taken with a grievous sickness, she craved pardon of 
the Queen before Hopton, Lieutenant of the Tower, that she had 
contracted marriage without her privity, and, with obtestations 
commending her children and Hertford's Hberty to her protection, 
slept piously and peacefully in Christ.' This is just as represented 
in the important paper above referred to, and as it does not mention 
where the death occurred, only that it was in Hopton's presence, 
Camden, knowing him as lieutenant of the Tower, naturally inferred 
that there Lady Katharine died. 

Though the major part of the error was corrected many years 
since, yet it is sometimes even now repeated in its entirety, notably 
in the latest edition of Burke's 'Extinct Peerage.' The minor 
part — that though Katharine did not die in the Tower, she was at 
the time in charge of the lieutenant — survives, and is that which 
Mr. Pollard has perpetuated. Sir Owen Hopton has been the 
stumbling-block, and to reconcile the poor lady's death in the 
presence of the lieutenant of the Tower, though not at the Tower, 
Mr. Pollard adopts the conjecture of an author of 1848,^ viz. that 
Sir Owen, out of pity for his poor prisoner's declining state, removed 
her from the Tower to his own country house, Cockfield Hall, at 
Yoxford, in Suffolk. The fact is that Sir Owen had no connexion 
with the Tower until three years later. This, and a fuller acquaint- 
ance with the last four years of Lady Katharine's life, might have 
been gathered from the * Calendar of State Papers, Domestic,' and 
here, in order to show clearly that those years were not passed in 
the Tower, it may be permitted to the present writer to indicate 
the places of the state prisoner's detention. 

After two years' imprisonment in the Tower — August 1561 to 
August 1563 — Lady Katharine was, on account of the prevalence of 
the plague, transferred to the custody of her own uncle. Lord John 
Grey, at his seat, Pyrgo in Essex. It seems to have been a curious 
selection, for Lord John had been implicated in the desire to 
supplant the Tudors by the Greys, and had narrowly escaped with 
his life. This, however, was in Queen Mary's time, and that he 
had gained the favour of Elizabeth appears in the fact that she had 
granted him possession of Pyrgo, an ancient royal estate adjoining 
Havering-at-Bower. The prisoner remained at Pyrgo about fifteen 
months ; there are several sorrowful letters * written thence by 
herself or by her uncle to secretary Cecil, imploring the queen's 
pardon, and the draft of a petition to that effect. The uncle's 
death in November 1564 caused her transference to other quarters, 
and a letter by Cecil of 26 November shows that she was then with 
' Mr. Petre,' i.e. Sir William Petre.^ It has been supposed that her 

* G. L. Craik, Romance of the Peerage, vol. ii. 

* Lansdownc MSS., printed by Sir Henry Ellis in Original Letters, 2nd ser. vol. ii. 


stay with Petre was but temporary, and that it was at this time 
she was recommitted to the Tower. For this, however, tliere is no 
evidence, and as eighteen months later we find her being trans- 
ferred by Petre to another custodian, it may fairly be thought 
that the interval had been spent in his charge. No letters 
have appeared as witnesses of Lady Katharine's sojourn at 
this time, but we are tempted to conclude that it was at Ingate- 
stone, Sir William Petre's seat, which, as being only eight or 
nine miles from Pyrgo, was convenient for the transfer ; and Ingate- 
stone lay between Pyrgo and Gosfield, where we afterwards find the 

Sir John Wentworth of Gosfield was an elderly man of infirm 
health ; he was most unwilling to accept the charge, but, notwith- 
standing his supplication to the Privy Council to be relieved, it was 
forced upon him. His letter of 14 May, 1566,* forwarded one he 
had received from Sir William Petre preparing him for Lady 
Katharine's reception, and then or very shortly after she arrived. 
The distance from Ingatestone (where we suppose the prisoner to 
have been) to Gosfield was twenty-one miles, and it formed another 
stage in the continued journey from the Tower to Suffolk, the final 
bourn. It is evident that at this time the poor lady's health was fast 
declining. Her entreaties to the queen for pardon and restoration 
to her husband had been disregarded. No letters of hers later than 
those from Pyrgo have been discovered, and it would seem that 
heavy despondency now consumed her vitality ; ' the torment and 
wasting' of her frame had been her own description of her 
state. Sir John Wentworth's plea of ill-health appears to have 
been well founded, for in the year following he died, while Katha- 
rine was still under his roof. This event must have caused her 
additional distress; a second time, so it would seem, responsibility 
had harassed her custodian to death. Yet, as wrote Roke Green, 
the executor and steward, * her Ladyship's behaviour had been very 
honourable and quiet, and her servants very orderly.' 

Lady Katharine had been at Gosfield Hall seventeen months, 
and was now (October 1567) committed to her last keeper, Sir Owen 
Hopton. To him the Queen's command was repeated — not to suffer 
his prisoner to have conference with any stranger, or any resort to 
be made to her other than by himself and his household. The 
long journey of fifty-three miles between Gosfield and Yoxford was 
made in two days, the intervening night being passed at Ipswich. 
The suffering traveller was conveyed in a ' coche ; ' but if a vehicle on 
wheels, what was such at that time, and what were the roads ? That 
the tax on the poor lady's waning strength hastened her end seems 

» This and other papers afterwards referred to are among the State Papers. Tran- 
scripts were contributed by the writer to Notes and Queries, May-Augast 1895, and 
these seem to have escaped Mr. Pollard's notice. 


evident in the fact that she lingered but fourteen weeks at Cock- 
field Hall ; and though a physician was twice brought by Sir 
Owen from London, death could be but little retarded. She died 
at nine o'clock in the morning of 27 Jan. 1568, in the presence of 
Sir Owen Hopton and her attendants. That is learnt, with other 
most interesting and touching particulars, in the contemporary 
account to which reference has been made. In it the reader will 
not fail to find the traits of a noble and gentle woman, a faithful 
and affectionate wife and mother, a not unworthy sister of the wise 
and pious Jane, who, fourteen years before, had with quiet courage 
died on the scaffold. She was buried in Yoxford Church with the 
honours due to one of royal blood, but did not finally rest there ; 
for at a time of which there is no record, either at Yoxford or 
Salisbury, her remains were transferred to the Seymour tomb in 
the cathedral of that city.*' 

Error has also attended the history of Lord Hertford, and is now 
repeated by Mr. Pollard in the ' Dictionary of National Biography.' 
To Camden, as in Lady Katharine's case, the misrepresentation is 
traced. Li the words of the translator, Hertford * was clapt up in 
the same Tower [as his wife], and kept in prison the space of nine 
years.' This has been repeated again and again, and Mr. Pollard 
reproduces the modification that the earl, after two years' imprison- 
ment in the Tower, was, on account of the plague, placed under the 
custody of his mother, the duchess of Somerset, and her second 
husband, Francis Newdigate, at Hanworth in Middlesex ; that the 
next year he was sent back to the Tower, and that he there remained 
until his wife's death. This is v/rong. Hertford, released from the 
Tower in August 1563, did not return to it until a much later period 
of his life, a period entirely distinct from that in question. The 
mistake hinges on one made by the compiler of the ' Calendar of 
State Papers, Domestic,' who, having found the draft of a Privy 
Council order of 26 May, 1564,^ the destination of which had been 
left blank, filled in between brackets ' Lieutenant of the Tower ; ' it 
was very natural and excusable, considering that Hertford's nine 
years' imprisonment in the Tower was current history. But Cecil's 
letter of 26 Nov. 1564, the bearing of which on Lady Katharine's 

" Very interesting particulars of tlie obsequies are found with the State Papers, of 
which tlie writer's transcripts will be found in Notes and Queries, 3 Aug. 1895. 
Although at Yoxford there appears on the registers only that of burial, ' 21 Feb. 15C7 ' 
[n.s. 1568], there is tradition of the removal. The Reyce MS. says : ' There lie buried 
in the church and chancel of Yoxford the botvels of the Lady Katharine,' etc., and 
until a few years back the villagers pointed to a 'black stone' as covering the 
depository of her ' heart.' It is distressing to add that the stone, and other most 
interesting Yoxford memorials, have been swept away by the flood of modern 
' restoration.' 

' This draft, though indexed with State Papers, Domestic, is found with State 
Papers, Borders (vol. viii. fol. 80 verso), on account of its being written on the back 
of a paper of that series. 

VOL. XIII. — NO. L. X 


story has been shown, also indicated Hertford's sojourn ; he was 
not in the Tower, but ' remained with Mr. Mason,' i.e. Sir John 
Mason. It is thus clear that the order of six months previous had 
eventually been addressed to Mason, with whom the earl * remained ' 
when Cecil wrote. The correction made, there is no ground on 
which to base Hertford's recommittal to the Tower at this period, 
and, on the contrary, the ' State Papers ' inform us as to the places 
of his detention, in the same manner as they indicate those of 
Lady Katharine. 

After being about nine months at Han worth, he was placed, as 
shown, in the charge of the eminent Sir John Mason ; this was in 
May 1564. Sir John died in April 1566 ; and Hertford's quarters 
were not immediately changed, for two months later, viz., 24 June, 
he wrote from * my Lady Mason's house in London.' * In 1567, 
and until the end of February 1569, he is found at * Oldthropp 
[=Althorp], Sir John Spencer's house ; ' there he must have been 
when his wife died, not in the Tower as represented. The same 
year, September 1569, he wrote from Wulf Hall (' Wollfhaull'), 
his own ancestral home in "Wiltshire, and he was there at the end 
of 1569, engaged in pulling down the old house and building a new 
one, rather more than a mile distant, in Savernake Forest.^ The 
new house was called Tottenham Lodge, and * from my park at 
Tottenham ' Hertford wrote 10 June, 1571." 

In the letter last referred to he expresses his continued sorrow 
for want of the queen's favour, and therefore it may be supposed 
that, thougli he had l)cen living two years (1569-71) on his own 
estate, his liberty was still restricted. That he counted these two 
years in the term of his imprisonment is clear from a statement he 
made in 1573 (regarding the line which had been imposed on him, 
and which to a very large extent was eventually remitted), wherein 
he pleaded that he had * patiently abided Her Majesty's heavy dis- 
pleasure in prison, ten years lacking one month.' ^ His committal 
to the Tower had been in August 1561, and as the whole term of 
imprisonment was ten years less a month, it follows that his restora- 
tion to freedom was in July 1571. And that it was so appears in 
the fact that he received his degree of M.A. at Cambridge 30 Aug. 
1571. Thus Hertford's nine years' imprisonment in the Tower is 
disproved. He was there but two years, and afterwards for nearly 
eight years his liberty was restricted to certain places, in custody 
or under surveillance. After 1571 he appears to have recovered 
the queen's good graces ; a royal visit to him at Tottenham Lodge 
was discussed in 1582, but the accomplishment of the favour was 
not until September 1591, when with magnificence and wonderful 

* State Papers, Domestic 

• Letters found at Longleat; see Wiltshire Archtwlogical, dc. Magazine, xv. 140- 
207 ; Wulf -hall and tlie Seymotirs, by Kev. Canon J. E. Jackson, F.S.A. 


pageantry the earl received Elizabeth at Elvetham, his seat in 
Hampshire. It was his second wife, Frances, daughter of Lord 
Howard of Effingham, who then, as wrote the chronicler, * most 
humbly on her knees welcomed Her Highness as she alighted from 
horseback at the hall door, and was by the Queen most graciously 
embraced.' '" But four years after this happy event Hertford was 
a second time in disgrace, apparently in connexion with the claim 
to the succession of his son, Lord Beauchamp, as heir to his 
mother, Katharine Grey. The * State Papers ' show that he was 
committed to the Tower towards the end of 1595, and released 
3 Jan. 1596. 

His second wife died in May 1698, and in December 1600 he 
took for third wife another Frances Howard, daughter of Viscount 
Howard of Bindon. But his only children were the two sons born 
to him in the Tower by Katharine Grey, and as the sad penalty of 
a life prolonged to eighty-three years they both predeceased him . 
He lived during the greater part of the reign of James I ; was 
ambassador to Brussels in 1605 ; high steward to Anne, queen 
consort ; lord lieutenant of Somerset, of Wilts, and of the cities of 
Bristol, Bath, Wells, and Salisbury.'^ Holding these offices, we 
may credit him for ability without giving perfect credence to the 
panegyrics engraved on his sumptuous tomb in Salisbury Cathe- 
dral. He died 6 April, 1621. His second and third wives lie in 
Westminster Abbey, and the reader of the Salisbury inscription, 
interested in the sad story of Katharine, his first choice, learns 
with satisfaction that it is her remains that have been gathered 
here, and that it is her effigy in marble that reclines beside her 
husband's. The words that tell this are touching : ' Having 
experienced the vicissitudes of mutable fortune, they, as in the 
harmony of their living union, here at last rest together.' '^ 

W. L. Button. 

A royalist account of the withdrawal of the king s forces 


The original of the subjoined letter, addressed, it would seem, to 
Prince Piupert, belongs to Mr. Edward A. Serel, and was lent to me 
by him, to bring before the annual meeting of the Wells Natural 
History and Archaeological Society, on 27 Jan. 1898. 

James Coleman. 

May it please y highnes — 

It is time that I give you some account of our actions lieare. I re- 
mained before Taunton euer since I receiued orders for the bloekinge of it 

'" Nichols, Progresses, iii. 103. 
" Doyle, Official Baronage. 

'^ For the inscription, in Latin, see The Histoi-y . . , of the CatJiedral Chitrch of 
Salisbury, London 1723. The copy in the Brit. Mus. bears the press mark 295, 1. 23. 


uppe, & had now reduced them to that misery, that it was impossible for 
them to haue held out a week longer, but in this time of there necessity 
there Parham* ffrends were soe mindefull of them that they drew out all 
the force they were able out of Portsmouth Southampton Poole Wareham 
^^ch I heare they have slighted) Weymouth and Lyme besides some horse 
& ffoot W^'' come from London, accompanyed w*** the countenance & 
afsistance of all those Gentlemen who have estates in this County and are 
now in rebellyon. 

The horse are comaimded by Coll Vandruske, the ffoot are tinder 
severall Comaundes, according to the places from whence they are Drawne 
and they name Sydenham Comaunder in Cheefe, but I beleeue hee only 
beares the title for the conductinge of them to the releefe of Taunton, &. 
some other will shortly be sent to take that charge. 

S"^ Lewis Diues kept his horse about Shirbourn & came not uppe 
towards us that wee might unite before the enemy was ffallen betweene 
us, & Coll. Bampfeyld by S"" John Berkley's order marcht off from Chard, 
w^ hee did not vntill the enemy came to Crewkerne. The enemy by both 
there reportes was about 8000 horse & ftbot. 

I findinge that Shirbourne fforces came not to ioyne w*** mee, & that 
S' John Berkleys fforces under the comaunde of Coll Bampfeyld were by 
his order marched towards Exceter and that I was exposed w*** my small 
force against the power of Taunton w<='» had as many ffoot as I had, & 
all these w'" came to releeue it, yet I stayd untill the enemy came w^'^in 
two myles of mee & then I rise from my quarters & brought of all my 
gunnes and Carriages w"'out losse of a man, yet the enemy sallyed 
imediately uppon mee but they were soe hungrye that they could not 
followe us by any house but that they sought for bread, & by that meanes 
they gaue vs the better opportunity of cominge off & lost some of there 
own men w**' the Bread in there mouths Soe that I am Marched againe 
vnto Bridgewater hauinge reduced the towne & Castle of Taunton \'nto 
an impofsibillity of holdinge out fine dayes longer. I send unto his ma^^** 
Comifsioners to sende me some ayd but there men are not yet raysed & 
I ^\'ish they had neuer gone about it in the way they proposed for then I 
am sure wee had not beene in soe ill a Condition as now wee are. 

Coll Bampfeyld in his march towards Exceter turned againe & alteringe 
his resolution came &, ioyned w"^ mee but it was after I was drawne off. 
wee are now about this towne &; I beleeue S*" Lewis Dives his horse wilbe 
w**' vs this night & S"* ffrauncis Hawley hath promised to adde somthinge to 
our strength both of horse &, foot & I beleeue soe united wee shalbc able 
to face the enemyc, & I hope beato Lim out of the Countrye, but wee shall 
doe this much the better if his ma*^ shall sende some forces this way as if 
they did intend to come to ioyn w*** vs but I beleeue there appearinge 
either in the hither part of Wiltsheare or on the edge of Dorsetsheare will 
diuert them I have wasted much araunition in this buissnes & I beseech 
your highnes to take some course that I may bee suplyed either from 
Exceter or Bristoll. 

I shall send your highnes dayly advertisement of what I understand of 
the enemye's motion & designe. And I shall beseech your highnes to look 
uppon this buisnies w"> soe much providence to preuent what mischeife 


may thereby ensue as a thing soe considerable in its relation to his ma*y^* 
affayres that if the enemye should be master of the feyld all that his ma*y 
can hope for of leuyes & recrewts in the West is Endaunger^^ to bee lost. 
This I leave to your highnes consideration & myselfe to bee ever disposed 

by your hignes Comaunder 
Edmund Wyndham 

Bridgewater 14^ Dec. 

I came off from Taunton yesterday beinge the 13*^ of Decemb. 

Endorsed. West Bridgewater Dec. 14, 1644. 


The following fragment of an autobiography of William King, 
archbishop of Dublin, is contained in a volume of his letters in the 
Armagh Library (G. I.i.) . It was communicated by the late Eev. J. W. 
Stubbs, D.D., Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin ; and the 
proof has not only been revised by his son, Mr. William C. Stubbs, 
but has also been most kindly collated with the original by the Eev. 
W. Moore Morgan, LL.D., prebendary and librarian of Armagh. 
The manuscript being autograph, it has not seemed desirable to 
correct the archbishop's somewhat eccentric Latinity. 

Quaedam meae vitae insigniora. 

Ipse natus Calendis Mail 1650 patre lacobo eiusdem nominis avo et 
proavo familia antiqua de Burras in Scotia septentrionali. Pater licet 
presbyterianae sectae rigidissime adhaerens, tamen solemne eoruni 
foedus inire noluit eo tempore in Hiberniae septentrionalibus partibus 
omnibus eius sectae sequacibus sub excommunicationis cuiusdam poena a 
suis impositum. Inde mihi baptismum recusabant per sex menses, nee 
alio qui administraret comparante tandem amicis pro me spondentibus et 
absente in bello patre, baptisatus utcunque fui. 

Prima infantia morbis conflictatus sum, ita ut de vita mea desperatum 
est, debilisque corpore per aliquod tempus parvam mei spem feci. 

Anno 1653 memini turn puer eclipseos fere totalis quae circa id tempus 
contingit, et quae matri et caeteris multum terroris incutiebat ; memini 
belli et militum, quorum reliquiae aliquae adhuc regionem peragrabant. 

Anno 1655 scholam missus discere omnino recusavi et obstinate 
ludimagistrae restiti, licet verberibus me ad discendam urgebat sed frustra ; 
fessa igitur destitit. 

Anno 1658 iam coli regio Tironensis post helium incipiebat, ubi 
pater sese transtulit, et alia schola etiam sub ludimagistra constituta, in 
earn missus sum, sed eodem successu : verberibus quidem coactus alpha- 
betum memoriter recitare didici, sed ne litteram distinguere potueram. 
Saepe solus flebam, et censui ex malo animo et odio in me parentes meos 
me ad discendum literas cogere, cum in iis neque sensum nee usum 
inveniebam, neque tam hebes eram quin in iis rebus qua ratione coniuncta 
erant licet cum labore progressum ali quern facere potui. 

Post vero anni dimidium experiundo insumptum tandem alphabetum 


didici et literas numerando verba pronunciabam, et cum catechismus West- 
monasteriensis in manus meas datus est, verba non intelligebam, uec capax 
intelligendi quae legebam omnino aversatus sum libros. Contigit quodam 
die Dominico me in horfco cum foemina quadam spatiari ; ingressi vero 
lucum consedimus, scripturas sacras legebat ilia, et inter legendum somnus 
obrepsit ; decidentem e manibus librura sustuli, et principium eius more 
meo literas numerando verba pronunciabam, deprehendi statim sensum 
aliquem in eo contineri quod nunquam ante observaveram ; captus vero 
novitate enixe me ad legendum accinxi et ea dormiente tria priora 
capitula percurri, in paucissimis haerens. Quamprimum domi con- 
stitutus Biblia comparavi et subitos progressus in legendo feci, et omnes 
aequales praetergressus spem feci me doctrinae capacem esse. 

Per bellum duodecennale turbatis rebus publicis, aedificiis igne con- 
sumptis, et culturii terrae neglecta, liorrebant omnia ; omnis literatura et 
erudiendi pueros opportunitas cessabant ; tota igitur iuventus datil 
occasione ad ludum properabat ; ad foeminam ludimagistram septuaginta 
aut octogiuta discipuli utriusque sexus congregabant, plerique puberes et 
venereas res meditantes ; iuvenili petulantia sese ioculariter tanquam 
coniugcs appellabant et ludicra matrimonia inibant. Ipse licet puer 
tanquam sacerdos eos jungebam, et nescio quo fato pro presbytero 
me designabant, caeterum multi qui sic ioco coniuncti serio relicta statim 
schola coniugio copulabantur. 

Anno 1659 dissoluta ea schola per aliquod tempus otiabar et oblivis- 
cebam quod didici, donee alia schola sub magistro in vicinia apertii, 
iterum pensum id curabam, et peiore fato magister neque bene legere nee 
scribere intelligens severitate sola insaniebat ; nihil igitur progrediebar 
nisi quod aliquando a schola fugitivus legebam vitas illustrium virorum 
scriptas per quendam Clark et alios historicos libros aut fabulosos quos 
domi inveni. Scribere tentans miseras et maxime rudes literas formabam, 
et saepe earum causa vapulans pennas et atramentum horrebam, magistro 
ignaro et ad corrigendum quam instruendum aptiore et magis prompto. 

Anno 1660, restituta regia familia, alia fiacies rerum incipiebat et sero 
in septentrionalibus partibus mutatio introducta est. Incertis vero rebus 
et fluitantibus neque scholae reformatae erigebantur nee satis firmae in 
statu in quo erant manebant ; iam curabantur, iam negligebantur, 
parum igitur proficiebam, aliquando frequentans, aliquando vacans. 
Anno 1664 quidem arithmeticam discere incipiebam ; magister nihil ultra 
quinque generales regulas callebat, eas docuit certo pretio assignando 
quadrantem anni unicuique regulae me non admisso ad legendum eo 
quod non satis distincte scribere didicissem, nee licebat inspicere dis- 
centes, id enim si fecissem et ille qui admisit et ipse qui fecissem 
simul vapulassemus ; sed nescio quo casu nactus librum arithmeticum 
per quendam Record scriptum eiusque proprio marte regulas arithme- 
ticas summit voluptate didici usque ad extractionem radicis quadraticae 
nee cuiquam id indicare ausus ne vapularem. 

Anno 1662 nactus magistrum Latine scientem me ipsi discipulum dedi. 
Accidentia discere coepi Maii 18 et omnes Anglicas regulas cum declina- 
tionibus et coniugationibus memoriter callui ante finitum mensem 
Augustum et magister me idoneum praestaturum ad academiam adeimdam 
intra annum iactabat. Satis rationes regularum et genium linguae 


capiebam et iungere verba per regulas ut fieret syntaxis tentabam ; at 
magister alio se contulit et iam vacuus tempus et quae subito didicissem 
cito perdebam. Circa vero mensem Novembris constituta schola apud 
Dungannon ibi me contuli, et malo fato magister Scotus et suorum mirator 
non me progredi sinebat sed dedit mihi in nianus Despauterii grammaticam 
Latinam scilicet et cogebat ut memoriter earn repeterem cum interim 
nihil in ea intelligebam. Inutili eiusmodi opere totum annum insumpsi, 
mihi valde laboriosum, nee perfectius quid de lingua intelligebam quam 
cum primum incepi, excepto quod Latina quaedam verba memoria 
tenebam. Post Corderio opem dedi, deinde Psalmis Davidicis, et Ovidii 
epistolis, quae omnia satis prompte memoriae commendabam, multis in iis 
non intellectis et magistro non minus ignaro ; demum Metamorphoses 
Ovidii et Virgilium aggredior et tandem Horatium et Persium, paucis in 
iis intellectis, sed memoriae commissis, praeter Horafcium, cuius odas tenere 
memoria non poteram offensus versibus quos quasi duros et non currentes 
ut hexametri et pentametri solent, respuebam. 

Anno 1665 translationibus operam dedi et ex iis paulatim 
discebam aliquid linguae Latinse, et tunc relectis poetis melius sensum 
eorum callebam, ubi dubitabam interrogatis peritis me expediebam 
et iam aliis doctior prodii. Virgilium cum voluptate legebam simul et 
Ovidium et Psalmos Davidicos heroico carmine scriptos et Sapphicos, 
caeteris neglectis utpote dure euntibus ut mihi videbatur, at Horatius non 
tam placuit quia minime intellectus. 

Anno 1667 Collegium Sanctae Trinitatis adivi, admissus 18 die Aprilis, 
tutorem nactus Carolum Cormacinm, socium seniorem, qui iam Collegium 
relicturus minime pupillos curabat ; \ix aliquem progressum feci ante 
hyemem sequentem. Sed cum nulli scholares anno praecedente elecii 
f uissent debuerunt ad numerum complendum per statuta praescriptum ut 
memini circa 26,' ipse fere omnium iunior ea ratione inter scholares electus 
fui, et Noverabro sequente inter etiam nativos, quod tutori debebam, qui 
conscius se negligisse officium suum quoad instructionem eo modo com- 
pensavit negligentiam expertus me non otiosum fuisse sed eiusdem formae 
sodales sedulitate anteisse. 

Interim arctis rebus conflictatus sum et paene oppressus, parentibus 
et amicis me negligentibus, utpote paupertate etiam conflictantibus, ita ut 
vix viginti libras habui per totum sexennium quo in academia moratus 
sum aliunde quam ex ipsa academia, et tamen in eo providentiam Dei 
agnosco, quod satis decore et lioneste per totum fere id tempus vestitus et 
pastus incessi. 

Anno 1668 per aliquod tempus tanquam pupillus Henricum Dodwell 
A. M. audivit, qui rogatu praedicti Caroli Cormack nobis legebat logicam. 
Non possum affirmare me logicam eius ope didicisse, multi vero maioris 
momenti documenta ab eo recepi, et familiaris illi factus, me potius in 
amicorum numero quam pupillorum habuit. 

Anno 1669 tutore Collegium relinquente, Johannes Christian 
A. M. et socius me in pupillum adoptavit ; non possum quin memorem 
quae beneficia illi debeo, grati animi enim est agnoscere per quos 

Imprimis igitur et quod praecipuum vero religionis sensu me 

- • 35 scholars were elected in 1667 ; King's name is 25th in order of standing.— J. W. S. 


imbuebat. Natus temporibus turbatis, vix aliquid quod intellexi de 
religione audivi ante annum decimum, turn scholis constitutis aliquid in 
litteris incipiebam, sed parum de religione neque novi nee audivi aliquem 
Deum secreto orantem, nihil de publico nee private Dei cultu, nihil de 
catechismo, de sacramentis, de symbolo, decern preceptis nee orations 
Dominica. Dixi an tea me scholam adiisse anno 1669 cum multis condis- 
cipulis, at quantum memini ne unus fuit omnium qui vel semel orationem 
secreto Deo obtulisset, nee fieri bene potuit ut offerrent ; cum enim 
omnes formulae orandi exulabant, fieri vix potuit ut rudes et illiterati 
iuvenes ex se orationes conciperent. Cessavere itaque omnes orationes 
secretae, nee ut fieri solent pueri ab incunabulis orare edocti, mane et 
vespere preces secreto celebrare edocebantur. Sancte ita profiteer me 
neque audivisse nee novisse id mihi officii incumbere antequam academiam 
ingressus sum, nee id ab aliquo factum fuisse memini. Solebat pater 
noctu ante lectum adivit convocata familia orationem concipere, at eirni 
preces eius conceptae erant verbis et phrasibus temporibus istis et sectae 
quodammodo peculiaribus, eas minime intelligebam, nee multum curavi 
quae factae fuere, nee facile intelligi potuerant sine dictionario quod ipsas 
explicaret ; qui legerit scripta istius temporis et peculiarem phrasin et 
dialectum fere dixerim animadvertet, satis veritatem eorum quae scribo 

At iam pium et fidelem tutorem nactus, ille a religione incipiebat et 
mihi repraesentavit quam necesse foret, tam ad aeternam quam temporalem 
foelicitatem ut serio de religione cogitarem, ut continuis orationibus non 
solum publicis sed etiam secretis divinam opem implorarem ut fiduciam 
meam in Deo solo ponerem et firmo voto statuerem me gloriam eius et 
servitium in omnibus pro primo habiturum. Quasi a veterno expergefactus 
haec monita recolligebam et satis perspectum habui debere me aut omnino 
religion! renunciari aut alio modo eius praxi me addicere quam antea 
fecissem. Necesse enim fore ut aut Dei cultum prae omnibus mundi 
deliciis commoditatibus et beneficiis haberem, ita ut iis omnibus paratus 
essem renunciare, cum consistere cum mandatis Dei non poterant, aut ut 
religion! penitus valedicerem. Medium enim nullum esse inter haec satis 
perspectum habebam, tam ex verbis Christi quam ex ipsius rei natura ; 
eligendum esse an Christi servus esse velim an mundi. Electio haec 
multum ante oculis versabatur, et negotium satis ingratum iuveni meditatio 
eius fuit, turbasque animo perquam dolorosas concitabat et diu vacillantem 
mentem et incertam torquebat. At tutoris monitis et hortationibus in 
meliorem partem trahebar, et ut aeternae foelicitatis spem abjurerem 
horrebam, opem divinam et auxilium eius gratiae impetrabam, et in hoc 
conflictu experientia didici quam insufficientes vires meae essent sine 
gratiae divinae auxilio, cum non solum tentationes mundanas ut vincerem 
impotentem me comprendi sed etiam ut propositum cum iis confligendi 
susciperem. Imo in eo statu me vidi constitutum ut non solum implendo 
officio meo imparem me expertus sum, sed ne mihi persuadere valebam 
ut conarem ; miserum me sensi et servitutem malam quam servire coactus 
sum multum plorabam. 

Dum vero his cogitationibus defixus continuis tormentis animua 
cruciabatur, tandem subiit (volente ita Deo) ut rem altius recoUigerem et 
mecum statu! religionem a fuudamentis examiuare, cum enim deliciae et