The lateness of the hour warns me to stop. I daresay many of you think I have been but wasting the evening in gossip over trivial matters. “But,” as Mr. Thompson writes, in his “English Municipal History,”—

The Name and Office of Port-Reeve.

By James Hurly Pring, M.D.

PART II.

(Continued from Vol. IV. p. 266.)

THE transference of the significance of words beyond the scope to which it was originally applied, is so obvious and generally recognised a fact, that I did not consider it necessary to insist more particularly upon it in my former paper.

Many of your readers would doubtless be able to call to mind numerous examples of the kind, and, indeed, I did not credit any of them with being unacquainted with so common and notorious a fact, and one which suggests itself so readily in the instance of the word port which was the word here specially under discussion.

It may, however, under the circumstances, be well to call attention to that very remarkable instance of the kind which has been made familiar to us by Mr. Isaac Taylor, in his “Words and Places.” He states (p. 309) that “on the Mons Palatinus—a name the etymology of which carries us back to the time when the sheep were bleating on the slope—was the residence of the Roman emperors, which, from the site, was called Palati(n)um, or Palatium. Hence the word PALACE has come to be applied to all royal and imperial residences.” And he goes on to observe, that “it is one of the curiosities of language that a petty hill-slope in Italy should have thus transferred its name to a hero of romance, to a German State, to three English counties, to a glass-house at Sydenham, and to all the royal residences in Europe.” The example thus cited is doubtless very marked and extreme of its kind, very different in this respect to the easy and obvious transference of the word port to a city enclosed within gates, the contracted word port itself being derived from the Latin porta, a city-gate.

When indeed it is considered that, like other Roman towns, each of the numerous cities or towns of Roman Britain which subsequently became a Saxon burh or borough was empowered not only to collect tolls in respect of the objects actually sold at its gates, but also (as at present in Continental towns) to levy octroi (ansaria) on all provisions and wares brought within the gates for subsequent sale at the markets (the Fora venalia) inside, it is easy to understand not only how such towns speedily came to acquire a mercantile character, but also how the word port, originally restricted to the gates where such extensive transactions were carried on, would at no distant period become applied also to the town itself.

When, therefore, the learned Professor Stubbs, now Bishop of Chester, derives the word port from porta, as referring to “a mart or city of merchants,” it is only reasonable to suppose that the recognition of this change was present to his mind, and that he had in view that advanced period in Saxon times when the word port had already become transferred from the gates themselves to the town which was enclosed within them, and was apparently applied indifferently to either. But however this may be, we may at least be absolutely assured that he never intended to imply that porta, which carries us back to the original derivation, a portando aratrum, did not primarily and originally mean a city-gate.

It is not my intention to follow Mr. Round through all his erratic criticisms of my paper. The greater part of them may safely be left to the discretion of your readers; at the same time, the want of candour by which some of his remarks are characterised, will not fail to be noted. Thus, for example, when he dilates upon the occurrence of the word “underlying,” instead of “unlying,” in my reference to the Laws of Athelstan, everyone will at once perceive that this accidental error of transcription (for which I cannot account) is at least quite immaterial to the point at issue, which turns entirely upon and is wholly centred in the question of the signification of the word port. It is to an examination, therefore, of Mr. Round’s strictures on my use of this word port that I shall now advert.

Mr. Round objects to the use of the word port as synonymous with gate where it occurs in the words “out of port,” or as I have rendered it “outside the port,” in the Laws of Athelstan; he rejects the identification with or derivation from porta, of the word “port,” as insisted on by Professor Stubbs, and he limits the word port to mean only “a market or trading town,” totally discarding the notion of its having anything whatever to do with “a gate.”

And first, as Mr. Round asserts that my rendering “outside the port or gate” “is a mere gloss of my own on the word port,” perhaps he will be good enough to tell us in what light he regards the instance which he himself adduces of “Newport gate in Lincoln”? Would he in this case, according to his own rule, have the word port rendered New market-town gate? Again, in the case of the “Port of East-gate,” (portam de East Gatâ,) to which reference is made in the Charter of Henry I. to Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, it is quite manifest that here, as indeed in Newport gate, the Anglo-Saxon “geat,” on which Mr. Round dwells so fondly, is nothing more than the frequently observed reduplication of synonyms,[24] caused in this instance by the Saxons affixing this additional name of their own to the object, which under the Roman name of port or porta conveyed to them no intelligible signification. When, therefore, Mr. Round stigmatises my “rendering outside the port or gate” as “a mere ‘gloss’ of my own on the word port,” he must surely have overlooked these and similar instances in which the word port is used synonymously with gate, and more especially the fact that precisely the same rendering of the word port was given nearly three hundred years ago by no less an authority than Camden. Referring to the great Roman wall, Camden states that the “two forts called Castle steeds are to be seen in the wall, and then a place called Port-gate[25] where (as the word in both languages fairly evinces) there was formerly a Gate (or sally-port) through it.[26]”

And here if we take the word sally-port thus presented to us, and I may add to this also the word port-cullis, there are few, I apprehend, except Mr. Round, who would contend that in these instances the word port means a “market town,” and has no reference to “a gate.” Even in the case of the actual word port-reeve itself, Sharon Turner is found giving the word “port” its true meaning when he explicitly states that “the port-gerefa, or the gerefa of the gate, was witness to all purchases without the gate”[27] thus in fact showing how this eminent Saxon historian and scholar read and understood the passage in the Laws of Athelstan. Numerous examples of the same kind might easily be adduced, and I might refer to those given in my former paper, which, like the common occurrence of the term extra portam, and similar illustrations of the use of porta, Mr. Round seems to have found it convenient to ignore. It is needless, however, to multiply further instances to the same effect.

Mr. Round next proceeds to point out that “the markets were held in the forum,” “that we should consequently expect the name of a market town to be derived from forum rather than from porta,” and that the “forum so far from being at the gate (porta) was unquestionably in the very centre of the settlement,” and that “as the markets were in no sense held at the porta, we are precluded from deriving port from porta”! This unique and somewhat anomalous specimen of argument, together with the unnecessary piece of information as regards the relative situation of the forum and the porta, which Mr. Round feels “compelled” to point out in order to correct the error of Professor Stubbs “in identifying ‘port’ with the Latin porta,” may all be confidently remitted to the just discrimination of your readers. I would, however, observe with respect to Mr. Round’s remarks on the position of the forum, that it was scarcely necessary for him to go to Silchester and to Cilurnum in exemplification of the well-known fact that the forum was situated in the centre of a Roman town or city. This fact, indeed, is even now amply attested by the lines of conformation discoverable in many of our old borough towns, of which Taunton itself, the town from which I write, affords a very apt and striking illustration.

I think it well here to state that the foregoing observations were written in reply to Mr. Round’s first paper, but it was deemed advisable to defer their publication until after the appearance of a second promised paper, in which Mr. Round undertook to prove that port in Port-reeve was derived from portus, and not from porta, and stated that he would offer “a most satisfactory explanation,” which would “completely justify us in accepting the portus derivation.” Now, however, that the second paper has appeared, it would seem that he must have found the handling of this “portus derivation” a more awkward business than he had anticipated, for the result is that he abandons it altogether, and arrives at the conclusion that the Romans could never “have called an inland town a portus,” nor in his opinion “a porta” either!

Having thus made a summary despatch of this “most satisfactory derivation,” Mr. Round next shifts his ground in toto, and calls on us in his second paper to accept a new theory of his own, which he is about to propound, and by which he “claims port as an English word, in itself distinct from the Latin words Porta and Portus.” Whether he will be more successful with this new “theory” than he has been with his unfortunate “portus derivation” we are to be left in uncertainty until the appearance of his third paper. In the meantime, if in claiming port as an English word Mr. Round means an Anglo-Saxon word, I would observe I am aware of its occurrence in Lye’s “Anglo-Saxon Dictionary” (fol., vol. ii.), where we find “Port, a port. Portus. To tham porte, ad portum, Bed. 4. I. Civitas. Oppidum. Into tham porte. In civitatem; Ælfr. Gr. c. 5. Potius tamen, Porta civitatis vel oppidi.” Thus, then, we see port even here referred back to porta, a city-gate, as the source of its original and most accurate derivation or meaning.

It seems somewhat strange, amid the great uncertainty attending his own views, as shown by the variety of derivations which he has proposed, that Mr. Round should have failed to avail himself of the opportunity afforded him by the Celtic. In the excellent dictionary, the “Antiquæ Linguæ Britannicæ Thesaurus,” by the Rev. T. Richards, we find “Porth, a door, a porch, a haven,” and we learn that the same word exists in the Armoric. I am quite aware of the great similarity, or as it has been termed “the cognate character,” of many Celtic and Latin words, but notwithstanding this knowledge, and all that Mr. Round has also advanced on the subject, I would still maintain, in the instance of port-reeve, the usually adopted derivation of port from the Latin porta.

All notice has likewise been omitted by Mr. Round of the word port way, and the customarily accepted Roman significance attaching to it, and also of the common words porter (a door-keeper), and portal, the derivation of which is, I believe, universally referred to the Latin porta.

The July number of The Antiquarian Magazine has now brought us Mr. Round’s third paper. Instead, however, of its containing, as we had been led to expect, some more fully developed account of his “natural and intelligible process by which the English word port was formed,” and some evidence in proof of his strange and as yet unsupported assertion that the word port was originally “coined by the English,” we find that he merely reverts to a further consideration of the word port, touching on the question of Newport gate, and barely alluding to the Welsh porth, two points to which it will be observed that I have here just adverted somewhat more fully.

I now apprehend that I have been mistaken, but must confess that it never occurred to me that Mr. Round’s conjecture in his second paper as to the manner in which the minds of “the English pirates” would be likely to be affected by the word portus, was all he meant to tell us respecting “the natural and intelligible process by which the English word port was formed,” or that he could seriously propose to put forward this crude assumption of his own for general acceptance on a question of this kind.

Mr. Round’s observations in his third paper are not of a character to make it necessary for me in any way to alter or modify anything that I have already said. Indeed, so far as his introduction of the authority of Mr. Freeman is concerned, he has contributed only to strengthen my position, for the passage which he quotes from Mr. Freeman’s “English Towns and Districts,” (a work which I have not enjoyed the advantage of seeing,) may, mutatis mutandis, be equally well applied to the word port-reeve.

If we merely substitute the word port for “name of the gate,” and in Port-reeve for “Nova Porta,” the sentence will read thus: “The abiding Latin port, in port-reeve, of itself goes far to show that there could have been no long gap between Roman or British and English occupation.” With this slight and quite legitimate alteration, (for the whole force of Mr. Freeman’s statement hangs on the presence of the word porta,) it would be difficult to express the point for which I have been contending in more apposite terms, and the circumstance that Mr. Round sees fit to question Mr. Freeman’s statement because he can “find no evidence for it,” is a matter regarding which I do not feel myself called upon to enter.

As Mr. Round now informs us that his paper is “to be continued,” and it appears to be uncertain when it will be brought to a conclusion, I deem it best no longer to defer forwarding this reply, more especially as he proposes to make some other words, with which I do not find myself in any way concerned, the subject of his future criticisms.

In conclusion, I would observe that the result of my former paper was to bring me many interesting communications on the subject of which it treats.

From the general tenor of these communications, as well as from other sources, I gather that the ancient office of port-reeve is rapidly falling into desuetude, though in some comparatively rare instances the Port-reeve still remains the chief officer of the borough, and is invested with considerable power and privileges. Thus, in an obliging communication which I received from the Port-Reeve of Tavistock, that gentleman is good enough to inform me that he not only still remains the returning officer of the borough, but that he also enjoys a seat on the County Bench, as J.P. for Devon, solely by right and in virtue of his office as Port-reeve, a fact which I conceive is sufficiently rare and interesting to merit being placed on record.

The Salic Law.

By Charles Mackay, LL.D., Author of “The Gaelic Etymology of the Languages of Western Europe.”

THE Salic law, which still prevails in some parts of Europe, is supposed to have been instituted in the sixth century by Clovis, or Pharamond, King of the Franks. In Shakespeare’s play of “King Henry V.,” Act i. Scene 2, King Henry, addressing the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely, thus asks them to expound the Salic Law:—

The Archbishop of Canterbury in his reply mentions the ancient tradition that this law was instituted by Pharamond, and continues:—

The very prosy speech of the Archbishop, from which this is an extract, bears no trace of the fine hand of Shakespeare, and was copied almost verbatim from Holinshed.

President Henault, borrowing from previous writers—who wrote from tradition, without adequate proof or authority for the statements they made or adopted—says that it was Clovis who instituted and signed the Salic Law in A.D. 511, the year of his death. Voltaire says that Clovis could neither read nor write, and that it is uncertain whether his name was Clovis, Clodvic, or Hildovic. Voltaire states also that there are two versions of the text of this Salic Law, each of which differs from the other.

Though the word Salic is by no means uncertain in its meaning, its etymology is so very obscure and undecided as to have puzzled all the French, German, and English philologists who have flourished since the invention of printing. According to Worcester’s Dictionary the word was applied to a body of laws framed by the Salians or Salian Franks, about the beginning of the fifth century, but who the Salians were, no one has yet been able to explain. The derivation from the River Saal, which Holinshed calls Sala, is wholly untenable, as well as the imputation on the virtue of the German ladies of the district through which that river runs. The Salic law never prevailed in any part of Germany, but was peculiar to such Keltic nations as France and Spain. It continued to prevail in France until the abolition of the monarchy under Louis Philippe in 1848, and was never a question so much as debated in the Imperial monarchy under the first or the third Napoleons. In Spain it was abrogated only by Ferdinand VII., within living memory, in favour of his daughter, the infant Isabella, whose accession to the throne led to a civil war, which cannot yet be said to have ended, as long as Don Carlos or his family exist and keep their pretensions alive. On this subject Voltaire, in his “Philosophical Dictionary,” has some pithy remarks. According to Froissart he says, “The kingdom of France is of such great nobleness that it never can allow the succession to go to a female,” and adds, “but one must confess that this decision is very unpolite for England, for Naples, for Hungary, and for Russia, in which latter country four reigning Empresses have sat upon the throne.”

In the French “Etymological Dictionary” of Messrs. Noel and Carpentier, are cited various surmises as to the origin of the word, among others that salique is a corruption of gallique, that it comes from Salle—the great hall of a palace, from an imaginary tribe of Germans called in Latin salice, from si aliquis, the first words of the Latin document in which the Salic law was promulgated; from sal, salt, and from Salogart, the name of one of Pharamond’s jurisconsults, or counsellors. Who shall decide when so many doctors disagree? Yet as the law was a Keltic law, passed by a Gaelic speaking people some centuries before the formation of the actual French language, search ought to be made for the derivation of the word in Keltic sources. We there find So lagh, the “excellent or befitting law.” This was a name very likely to have been given to such an ordinance by barbarians, who thought that none but men and warriors were fit to govern them, or lead their armies to the conflicts in which they were perpetually engaged. The name of Pharamond himself was purely Keltic, and signified a Highlander or mountaineer, from fear, a man, and monadh a mountain. The four jurisconsults who are reported to have drawn up the ungallant law at the request of Pharamond are given by Voltaire as Visogast, Harogast, Salogast, and Vindogast. In these names the final syllable, gast, appears to have been a title given to learned men of the Keltic tribes of the period, from gasda, or gasta, expert, or skilful. Brachet’s “French Etymological Dictionary,” printed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1882, and advertised to have been revised by the French Academy, does not contain the word salique or salic, which looks as if M. Brachet was not satisfied that it is really of French origin.

Lord Brabourne, after many years’ collecting, has brought together a unique series of papers relating to the early history of Australia. These have just been purchased by the New South Wales Government. The batch consists mainly of letters formerly in the possession of Sir Joseph Banks, long president of the Royal Society, and deeply interested in New South Wales, since he accompanied Captain Cook in the discovery of that country. The letters cover a period between 1772-1815. Among them are letters of Captain Cook, his companion Captain Clark, and many from later discoverers and visitors to the new lands.

Lines on Opening an Ancient Barrow.[28]

By the Rev. W. Lisle Bowles.

DURING the examination of one of these ancient burial-places by Sir Richard C. Hoare, a storm of thunder and lightning surprised the antiquaries. “Our only place of refuge,” says Sir Richard, “was the barrow, which had been excavated to a considerable depth. The lightning flashed upon our spades and iron instruments, and the large flints poured down upon us from the summit of the barrow, so abundantly and so forcibly, that we were obliged to quit our hiding-place, and abide the pelting of the pitiless storm upon the bleak and unsheltered down.” Mr. Bowles, being of the party, sent the following beautiful poem the next morning to Sir R. C. Hoare:—

The Ancient Etruscan City of Luni.

By La Signora Campion.

JUST outside the walls of Sarzana, in Liguria, and scattered over about five or six acres of the partly cultivated plain, may be found portions of the remains of the once important and thriving Etruscan city of Luni. Though it is accessible from La Spezia within half an hour by railway, yet it lies sufficiently off the beaten track of travellers to this part of Italy to be scarcely mentioned in the guide-books, and therefore it has escaped the notice which it deserves. Some account of the spot and of its early history, so far as I have been able to trace it, may therefore be acceptable. The place was at one time a trading town upon the Gulf of Spezia, and is said to have been founded by the Etrurian Tarchon.[33] (See Strabo, lib. v.; Cato, Origines xxv.)

Luni—“La Superba,” as she was proudly called of old—was situated at the head of a bay, or rather arm, of the Mediterranean, forming a commodious and deep natural harbour, and backed by that spur of the Apennines which forms the Carrara Mountains, so famous for their exquisite marble. But for the numerous fragments of ancient anchors, chains, masts of vessels, and other objects which are now and again being brought to light, and for the vast blocks of stone forming the ancient quay of the town, some of which may still be seen in situ, it would be difficult to realise that here was the identical port so admiringly mentioned by Ennius and by Strabo, and so famous as having sent forth armed vessels three thousand years ago to assist the Greeks in the siege of Troy, and from which so many thousands of tons of the Carrara marbles were exported to Italy and other countries in more recent times.

It is on record that Titus Manlius here embarked the army with which in B.C. 537 he started to quell the rebellion of the Sardi. From this port, also, the Emperor Claudius sailed on his attempt to conquer Britain.

Luni continued to rank as one of the most prosperous cities of Etruria, till it was harassed and invaded by the indomitable Ligurians, who made themselves masters of it. Wrested from them by the Romans, and subjected to the Republic, the power of Luni rapidly declined; and, as though to hasten her ruin, successive inundations of the River Magra choked up her harbour with their deposits, while the sea, as if in concert with its tributary, receded from her shore. In 1015 A.D. Luni was taken and partially destroyed by the Saracens, and in 1185 Frederick Barbarossa handed her over to the authorities of the Christian Church, who made the town an Episcopal See.

In connection with the early history of the neighbouring city of La Spezia will be found the names of various bishops of Luni; but the latter see extended over a period of little more than a century, for we find that in consequence of the malarious and deadly exhalations arising from the stagnant pools left by the Magra’s floods and the retirement of the sea from the bay, Luni had to be completely abandoned about 1300 A.D.

The site has been hitherto but little explored, but considerable quantities of pottery, articles in bronze, coins, mosaics, &c., are from time to time turned up by the peasants when cultivating their little plots of land. These treasures have mostly found their way into the hands of private collectors, I believe, and until steps are taken to organise a thorough exploration of the spot, much that would be in the highest degree interesting to the antiquary and the public will remain buried in oblivion. At present all that can be seen of ancient Luni may be summed up briefly thus: (1) Portions of a temple dedicated to Plantilla, wife of the Emperor Caracalla. (2) The amphitheatre, much despoiled and overgrown. (3) A circular building, 9 metres in height, and containing rows of niches. (4) A large building supposed to have been used as a granary or depôt for military stores. (5) Portions of an aqueduct. (6) Some prostrate columns, friezes, and capitals. (7) The ancient well, still furnishing the clearest and coolest water in the neighbourhood.

For some of the information herein contained I am indebted to Signor S. Cerini, whose access to various archives and manuscripts has supplied me with data, and who is the author of a pamphlet on the subject published two years ago. For the rest I have had to glean the meagre information contained in this paper as best I could; but my visit to the spot has increased my desire to know more about it, and my hope is that a day may soon come when the hidden archæological treasures of the buried Luni will be unearthed for the instruction and admiration of the public. I may add that the spot is most picturesque, and well worthy the attention of artist and antiquary alike. For myself, so long as I live here, I will do my best not to let the subject drop.

From a paper contributed by the veteran scholar, Dr. Edkins, to a recent number of the Chinese Recorder, it appears that about B.C. 2200 the Chinese possessed a knowledge of the art of writing, a year of 366 days with an intercalary month, the astrolabe, the zodiac, the cycle of sixty, of twelve musical reeds forming a gamut, which also constituted the basis of a denary metrology for measures of length, weight, and capacity, divination, and a feudal system.

Reviews.

The founder of the Wray family, i.e., the first member of it who brought the name into honourable notice, and who received a “grant of arms”—that necessary appendage to gentility—was Sir Christopher Wray, who “raised himself from nothing” to become Lord Chief Justice of England. This was in the middle of the sixteenth century. Since that time some of his descendants have received the “honour” of knighthood, some have had the baronetcy conferred upon them, whilst others have distinguished themselves either in the senate or the field, or in some other public capacity. Although the work before us is of a genealogical character, Mr. Dalton has endeavoured to amalgamate in it “many different subjects, woven together into history.” Scattered through these pages are numberless anecdotes—more or less associated with the Wrays or with the families allied to them by marriage. The first of these volumes was published by Messrs. Chapman & Hall as far back as 1880; the second volume, issued in 1881, was “privately printed.” The author’s reason for not making his second volume public he explains as follows: “I find there are so few of the many descendants of the Wrays who take any interest in their progenitors, that it would be labour lost to cast my work into the great public trough, where it could have no chance of competing with any three-volume novel, even though that same three-volume novel had no better claims to the notice of the reader than the skilfulness with which the author had managed to clothe impurity with a seeming garb of innocence.” “The Wrays of Glentworth” is far removed from the ordinary run of dry-as-dust genealogies, and will be found to contain much interesting matter. It may be added that the surplus stock has been bought over by Mr. H. W. Ball, of Barton-on-Humber, by whom they are now announced for sale.

Under the above quaint but appropriate title, Serjeant Pulling has compiled a most interesting memoir of that grade in the legal profession of which he will probably prove to be one of the last survivors. The “coif” is, according to Bailey’s dictionary, “a sort of hood or cap for the head,” and serjeants-at-law (servientes ad legem) were called “Serjeants of the Coif, from the coif of Lawn which they formerly wore on their heads under their caps, but now (1763) upon the hinder part of their wigs.” The author remarks most justly, as an excuse for undertaking this work, that “in this country we have a history of neither the Bench or [nor] of the Bar,” and that “the order of the coif was the first phase of both.” And it is known to all that till quite a recent date it contained nearly every legal celebrity both of the Bench and the Bar. The work is largely based on Serjeant Wynne’s tract, published in 1765, entitled, “Observasions touching the Antiquity and Dignity of the Degree of Serjeant-at-Law;” and it is an expansion of an article in the Edinburgh Review for October, 1878, on the same subject, in which much of the matter of the book now before us is foreshadowed. The introductory chapter and that which follows it are together a study in English constitutional history. The following chapters treat of very many subjects, which will be interesting alike in Westminster Hall and in the new Law Courts; and the seventh chapter, devoted as it is to the ancient habits and observances of the Order, their robes, their rings, and “posies,” their solemn processions, their feasts, masques, revels, &c., is a storehouse of antiquarian learning, and as such most highly to be commended. The last chapter treats of the later history of the Order down to its recent abolition—one which is on many accounts deeply to be regretted. It is always bad to abolish old landmarks unless they have come to stand in the way of progress and improvement; and this charge we never heard brought against “The Order of the Coif.” The illustrations, eight in all, are admirable, and light up a book which is never dark or dull.

The County Palatine of Chester abounds in quaint and curious county towns, but few of them have a more interesting history than Nantwich. Some account of the town is to be found in Ormerod and in Lysons, and smaller notices of it have been published more recently in a local journal, in whose files these are now buried. Mr. J. Hall has therefore supplied a decided want, and by his researches in the Record Office and in the family papers of Messrs. Wilbraham and Tollemache, he has added largely to our knowledge of its earlier history. These results he has now placed before the world in a handsome quarto volume, the subscription list at the beginning of which is a proof that an author, unlike a prophet, may succeed in getting “honour even in his own country.” The work treats in successive chapters of the foundation of Nantwich, the history of the barony of which it formed a part, its church, hospital, grammar-school, and other ancient buildings, its early charters, and other privileges, its guilds, fairs, and bridges, its mention in the Subsidy Rolls, its visitations from battle, plague, and fire, and its share in the struggles of the Civil war. The latter part of the volume is devoted to an account of its commercial importance, its banks, its manufactories and industries, and especially that of salt, while full value is given to the contents of its parish registers, its charities, and the histories of the several families connected with the town, the Cholmondeleys, Wilbrahams, Tollemaches, Kingsleys, &c. The volume is illustrated by several views, well engraved on stone, and some woodcuts, showing the details of its street architecture. We would draw particular attention to the view of “Old Houses in High Street,” given on p. 415.

This little brochure, of some sixty octavo pages, formed the subject of a lecture delivered by Mr. Sweeting before the members of the Church Institute in March last, and has been published by request. Among the entries quoted are several of a quaint and curious character, and some which contain glimpses into the life and habits of our predecessors, thereby imparting to them an amount of interest which will probably be found wanting in the registers of the present day when they come to be examined some 300 years hence. The clergy are now supplied by authority with books, with spaces marked out and ruled for dates and names, and the insertion of anything beyond the mere fact registered seems to be in every way discouraged.

Old Aunt Elspa’s A B C, “imagined and adorned” by Joseph Crawhall (Field & Tuer), is a quaint book for children, printed on rough hand-made paper, and illustrated with curious woodcuts after the manner of the old chap-books. It is one of the “chepe and curious bookes” “imprynted atte ye signe of ye Leadenhalle Presse, in ye Old London Streete, in ye Health Exhibition, South Kensyngton, London towne, in ye yeare of Grace, 1884.”

Under the above title Mr. Hake has set forth in a neatly-printed brochure, embellished with eleven illustrations—or “gravinges” as they are here called—the principal features in the now well-known Old London Street in the International Health Exhibition at South Kensington. As he tells us in his introductory remarks, it would be difficult for a historian, a romance writer, or even a poet, to select a subject calculated to awaken more interest than Old London. “In secluded nooks and corners where an echo of the footstep can often be heard, may be found some monument or landmark—a temple, tombstone, or tavern—which speaks eloquently of the past. The ‘writing upon the wall’ may be worn out; the stone once smooth may be wrinkled like an old face; still such are the ‘things of fame,’ to inspire the minds of men, and to lead to reflection and research.” The illustrations embrace full-page etchings of the north and south sides of the “street,” and smaller engravings of Bishopsgate, the Rose Inn, the Three Squirrels, Isaac Walton’s house, the tower of All Hallows Steyning, &c.

English Etchings for July and August (D. Bogue, 3, St. Martin’s-place, W.C.) contain several admirable examples of this popular art, among them being “Westminster-bridge with the Houses of Parliament,” by Mr. Ned Swain; and “Middle row, Holborn,” by Mr. A. W. Bayes. The clearing away of the block of buildings represented in the latter plate, a few years ago, made it possible to see fairly and well the Holborn front of Staple Inn, one of the oldest existing specimens of our street architecture, dating from the time of James I. It is seen on the right-hand side of the plate. Dr. Johnson lived in Staple Inn in 1739, and there wrote his “Idler,” “seated on a three-legged chair, so scantily were his chambers furnished.” This publication, which has now reached its thirty-ninth monthly part, continues to maintain the high character which it has hitherto enjoyed.

The Journal of the British Archæological Association (Vol. xl., Pt. ii.), which is now before us, contains a large number of most interesting papers, as will be seen by the mere announcement of the following titles: “Dover Records in the British Museum,” “Historical Sketch of the Castle of Devizes,” “The Development of the Fortifications of Dover Castle,” “The Crosses at Ilkley,” “The Castles of Sandown and Sandgate,” “Samphire,” “Recently-discovered Fresco at Patcham Church, Sussex,” “Roman Embanking and Sanitary Precautions,” “Remarks on Recent Archæological Relics of London,” “Some Relics of the Past recovered from London Sites,” &c. Many of these papers were read by their authors at the Archæological Congress at Dover last year.

Obituary Memoirs.

Mr. Alfred Benjamin Wyon, F.R.G.S., died in June, aged 46. Mr. Wyon was admitted a student of the Royal Academy in 1855, and after studying in the School of Painting for some years, turned his attention to metallic work, and in 1865 he united with his brother, Mr. Joseph S. Wyon, in the appointment of chief engraver of Her Majesty’s seals, in the execution of medals, and the important seals of State. This appointment was held jointly by the two brothers until the death of Mr. Joseph S. Wyon in 1873, since which time it was held singly by the subject of this notice. Since 1873, Mr. Alfred Wyon was entrusted with the preparation of the Great Seal of England which is at present in use, the seal of the colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Fiji, and other Crown dependencies. During the last few years Mr. Wyon had collected a vast amount of information respecting the history of the Great Seals of England, and of seals attached to charters and other municipal documents. Papers upon questions arising in connection with these subjects Mr. Wyon from time to time read at the meetings of the Archæological Association.

The Rev. Mark Pattison, B.D., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford, died at Harrogate on July 30, at the age of 71. He was born at Hornby, Yorkshire, was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, and became a Fellow of Lincoln College. He was elected rector in 1861. He was the author, inter alia, of “Isaac Casaubon, 1559-1604: a Biography,” and a “Life of Milton.” He edited Pope’s “Essay on Man, with Notes,” Pope’s “Satires and Epistles, with Notes,” and Milton’s “Sonnets, with Notes.” Mr. Pattison, who was a trustee of the Crewe Charities, married, in 1862, Emilia Frances, youngest daughter of the late Colonel Strong, of the Madras Army, a lady who is well known as the author of the “French Renaissance,” and generally as an art-critic.

M. Albert Dumont, the distinguished author on Greek archæology, has died at Paris. He was 43 years of age, was a member of the Institute, and a high official at the Ministry of Education.

John Gustavus Droysen, Professor of History at the University of Berlin, died on July 19, in his 84th year. Among his best-known works are a “History of Alexander the Great,” which was published in 1837; a “History of Hellenism,” two volumes, 1836-43; “Lectures on the History of the War of Freedom,” two volumes, 1840; “History of Danish Politics from Acts and Documents,” conjointly with Samwer, 1850, and a “History of Prussian Politics,” vols. i.-x., 1855-70.

Sir Erasmus Wilson, LL.D., the somewhat distinguished Egyptologist, has died, at the age of 75. In 1831 he was elected a member of the College of Surgeons, and he became president of that body in 1881. He was a vice-president of the Society of Biblical Archæology and President of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the success of which has been largely due to his munificence. He gave £500 towards Mr. Naville’s excavations at Pithom, and £1,000 to Mr. Petrie’s work at Tanis, and the Society has in many besides financial ways been deeply indebted to his unflagging interest. Among his published works, his “Egypt of the Past,” and “Notes on Egypt and Egyptian Obelisks,” hold a foremost place. It was at his expense that the Egyptian obelisk, commonly known as “Cleopatra’s Needle,” now on the Victoria Embankment, was brought to this country. It is said to have cost him more than £10,000.

Herr Maurice Thausing, Professor of Art History at the Vienna University, and author of a work on Albert Durer, has been drowned in the Elbe, at Leitmeritz.

Mr. William Dobson, formerly of Preston, a well-known Lancashire archæologist and local littérateur, has died, at the age of 64. He was the author of “Rambles by the Ribble,” “A History of the Parliamentary Representation of Preston,” “Preston in the Olden Time,” and other works. He was for many years proprietor and editor of the Preston Chronicle. The third series of “Rambles by the Ribble” was published in 1883, and a continuation of the work was in hand at the time of Mr. Dobson’s decease.