Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 08, December 22, 1849», страница 2

Various

Шрифт:

This it will be seen that the title "Clericus" under some circumstances, affords no certain indication that a lawful marriage may not have been contracted by the person so described and consequently that he might not have prolem legitimam.

W.H.

It does not follow that William de Bolton was an ecclesiastic because he was called Clericus; that designation being, even in that early time, often used in a lay sense.

I have just come across an instance of a prior date. In the Liberate Roll of 26 Henry III. the king directs a payment to be made "to Isabella, the wife of our beloved clerk, Robert of Canterbury, to purchase a robe for our use." Even in the reign of Richard I. it may be doubtful whether the term was not used with both meanings; for in the charter of Walter Mapes, granting certain lands, among the witnesses are "Rogero, capellano, Willelmo, capellano, Thoma, clerico meo, Waltero, clerico, Jacobo, clerico, Bricio, fermario meo."

[Symbol: Phi]

[In addition to the information afforded by the preceding communications "A SUBSCRIBER" will find much curious illustration of this subject in Beveridge's Discourses on the Thirty-Nine Articles, where he treats of the Thirty-second article "On the Marriage of Priests."
He must however consult the edition printed at the Oxford University Press in 1840, which contains for the first time Beveridge's Discourses on the last Nine Articles.]

TOWER ROYAL

Sir,—In your second number I find a query by Mr. Cunningham, respecting the origin of the name of Tower Royal; although I cannot satisfactorily explain it, I enclose a few notes relative to the early history of that place, which may, perhaps, afford a clue to its derivation.

In early records it is invariably called "la Real," "la Reole," "la Riole," or "la Ryal or Ryole;" and it is described simply as a "tenement;" I have never found an instance of its being called a "tower". At the close of the reign of Henry III. it was held by one Thomas Bat, citizen of London, who demised it to Master Simon of Beauvais, surgeon to Edward I.; this grant was confirmed by that sovereign by charter in 1277. (Rot. Cart. 5 Edw. I. m. 17.—Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 461.) This Simon of Beauvais figures in Stow and Pennant as Simon de Beawmes. In 1331 Edward III. granted "la Real" to his consort Philippa, for the term of her life, that is might be used as a depository for her wardrobe. (Rot. Pat. 4 Edw. III. 2nd part, m. 15.) By Queen Philippa it was extensively repaired, if not rebuilt, and the particulars of the works executed there by her direction, may be seen in the Wardrobe Account of the sixth year of her reign, preserved in the Cottonian MS. Galba E iii. fo. 177, et seq.; this account is erroneously attributed in the catalogue to Eleanor, consort of Edward I. One Maria de Beauvais, probably a descendant of Master Simon, received compensation for quitting a tenement which she held at the time Philippa's operations commenced. In 1365 Edward III. granted to Robert de Corby, in fee, "one tenement in the street of la Ryole, London" to hold by the accustomed services. Finally, in 1370 Edward gave the "inn (hospitium) with its appurtenances called le Reole, in the city of London," to the canons of St. Stephen's, Westminster, as of the yearly value of 20l. (Rot. Pat. 43 Edw. III. m. 24.)

It is sufficiently clear that in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries this place was not called Tower Royal; nor does there appear to be any ground for supposing it was so named in earlier times, or, indeed, that it was ever occupied by royalty before it became Philippa's wardrobe. The question, therefore is narrowed to this point:—what is the significance of "la Real, Reole, or Riole?" I should be glad if any of your correspondents would give their opinions on the subject. I may add, that the building was in the parish of St. Thomas Apostle, not in that of St. Michael Pater Noster Church, as Stow wrote. (Rot. Pat. 4 Edw. III. 2nd part, m. 38.)

T.H.T

Let me refer Mr. P. Cunningham to "Stow's Survey, p. 27. 92. Thoms' Edition," for a full answer to his query. The passages are too long to cite, but Mr. C. will find sufficient proof of the part of a royal residence having once stood in this obscure lane, now almost demolished in the sweeping city improvements, which threaten in time to leave us hardly a fragment of the London of the old chronicler.

The Tower was also called the Queen's Wardrobe, and it was there, Froissart tells us, that Joan of Kent, the mother of Richard II., took refuge during Wat Tyler's rebellion, when forced to fly from the Tower of London. The old historian writes that after the defeat of the rebels "pour le premier chemin que le Roy fit, il vint deuers sa Dame de mère, la Princesse, qui estoit en un chastel de la Riolle (que l'on dit la Garderobbe la Reyne) et là s'estoit tenue deux jours et deux nuits, moult ébahie; et avoit bien raison. Quand elle vit le Roy son fils, elle fut toute rejouye, et luy dit, 'Ha ha beau fils, comment j'ay eu aujourd'huy grand peine et angoisse pour vous.' Dont respondit le Roy, et dit, 'Certes, Madame, je le say bien. Or vous rejouissez et louez Dieu, car il est heure de le louer. J'ay aujourd'huy recouvré mon heritage et le royaume d'Angleterre, que j'avoye perdu.' Ainsi se tint le Roy ce jour delez sa mère." (Froissart, ii 123. Par. 1573.)

In Stow's time this interesting locality had been degraded into stable for the king's horses, and let out in divers tenements.

E.V.

[We are indebted to J.E., R.T.S., and other correspondents for replies to Mr. Cunningham's Query; but as their answers contain only general references to works which it is reasonable to suppose that gentleman must have consulted during the preparation of his Handbook for London we have not thought it necessary to insert them.]

ANCIENT INSCRIBED DISH

Mr. Editor,—The subject of inscribed dishes of latten, of which so many varieties have recently been imported, appears to be regarded with interest by several of your readers. I am indebted to the Rev. William Drake, of Coventry, for a rubbing from one of these mysterious inscriptions, upon an "alms-plate" in his possession. In the centre is represented the Temptation. There are two inscribed circles; on the inner and broader one appear letters, which have been read,—RAHEWISHNBY. They are several times repeated. On the exterior circle is the legend On the exterior circle is the legend—ICH. SART. GELUK. ALZEIT. This likewise is repeated, so as to fill the entire circle. I have never before met with these inscriptions in the large number of dishes of this kind which I have examined. The have been termed alms-dishes, and are used still in parochial collections in France, as doubtless they have been in England. They were also used in ancient times in the ceremony of baptism, and they are called baptismal basins, by some foreign writers. This use is well illustrated by the very curious early Flemish painting in the Antwerp Gallery, representing the seven sacraments. The acolyte, standing near the font, bears such a dish, and a napkin. The proper use of these latten dishes was, as I believe, to serve as a laver, carried round at the close of the banquet in old times, as now at civic festivities. They often bear devices of a sacred character; but it is probable that they were only occasionally used for any scared purpose, and are more properly to be regarded as part of the domestic appliances of former times.

ALBERT WAY.

BARNACLES

In Brand's Popular Antiquities, vol. iii. pp. 361, 362., there is an account given of the barnacle, "a well-known kind of shell-fish, which is found sticking on the bottoms of ships," and with regard to which the author observes, that "it seems hardly credible in this enlightened age, that so gross an error in natural history should so long have prevailed," as that this shell-fish should become changed into "a species of goose." The author then quotes Holinshed, Hall, Virgidemiarum, Marston, and Gerard; but he does not make the slightest reference to Giraldus Cambrensis, who is his Topographia Hiberniae first gave the account of the barnacle, and of that account the writers referred to by Brand were manifestly but the copyists.

The passage referring to "the barnacle" will be found in the Topog. Hiber. lib. i. e. xi. I annex a translation of it, as it may be considered interesting, when compared with the passages quoted in Brand:—

"There are," says Giraldus, "in this country (Ireland) a great number of birds called barnacles (Bernacre), and which nature produces in a manner that is contrary to the laws of nature. The birds are not unlike to ducks, but they are somewhat smaller in size. They make their first appearance as drops of gum upon the branches of firs that are immersed in running waters; and then they are next seen hanging like sea-weed from the wood, becoming encased in shells, which at last assume in their growth the outward form of birds, and so hang on by their beaks until they are completely covered with feathers within their shells, and when they arrive at maturity, they either drop into the waters, or take their flight at once into the air. Thus from the juice of this tree, combined with the water, are they generated and receive their nutriment until they are formed and fledged. I have many times with my own eyes seen several thousand of minute little bodies of these birds attached to pieces of wood immersed in the sea, encased in their shells, and already formed. These then are birds that never lay eggs, and are never hatched from eggs; and the consequence is, that in some parts of Ireland, and at those seasons of fasting when meat is forbidden, bishops and other religious persons feed on these birds, because they are not fish, nor to be regarded as flesh meat. And who can marvel that this should be so? When our first parent was made of mud, can we be surprised that a bird should be born of a tree?"

The notion of the barnacle being considered a fish is, I am aware, one that still prevails on the western coast of Ireland; for I remember a friend of mine, who had spent a few weeks in Kerry, telling me of the astonishment he experienced upon seeing pious Roman Catholics eating barnacles on Fridays, and being assured that they were nothing else than fishes! My friend added that they had certainly a most "fish-like flavour," and were, therefore, very nasty birds.