glass, you will see that the pole of these little milkstreaked bubble-sized balloons is marked by a big brown dot surrounded by four lesser dots of the same hue, which together make a four-armed cross, such as one sees on mediæval jewellery, or a symbol of God's wounds. If the origin of the mistletoe cultus is historically pre-Christian, may not its easy adaptability to the religion of the Cross account in some measure for its preservation in Anglo-Saxon Catholicism? Can one find any mystic or religious allusion to this botanical fact in pre-Elizabethan Celtic or English literature? PALAMEDES.

Tolosa, Spain.

SIR WILLIAM MUSGRAVE.--Where is a memoir to be found of Sir William Musgrave, the celebrated antiquary and book-collector? His manuscripts have greatly aided students of biography in their investigations, and yet, strange to say, his name is not, so far as I can ascertain, included in any of our biographical dictionaries. Among his manuscripts now deposited in the British Museum, I may mention the following: Biographical Adversaria,' 8 vols. (Addit. MSS. 5718-5725); "Collection of Autograph Signatures, with Notices of the Writers' (Addit. MS. 5726, A.B.); 'General Obituary,' alphabetically arranged, with a supplement to the year 1788, in 23 vols. (Addit. MSS. 5727-5749); Catalogue of English Portraits from Egbert to George II." (Addit. MS. 6795); 'Lists of Portraits in various Private Collections in England, 1770-1775' (Addit. MS. 5726, E.F.); papers relating to the portraits of distinguished persons preserved in public buildings and family mansions (Addit. MSS. 6391-6393). Many printed volumes in the Library of the British Museum are marked with Sir William Musgrave's book-stamp.

THOMPSON COOPER, F.S.A.

SOWGELDER'S LANE.-Will any reader help me to explain the origin of a most curious name? The western portion of what is now the Fulham Road bore in ancient days the name of Sowgelders Lane. A sowgelder, I take it, was one whose business it was to castrate. The word gelder still survives. Gelding, really any castrated animal, is now usually applied to a horse. Butler writes in 'Hudibras ':

No sow-gelder did blow his horn,
To geld a cat, but cried reform.

In the Court Rolls of the Manor of Fulham the
first mention of Sowgelder's Lane is in 1578, and
the last in 1728. In the parish book, under the
year 1674, I find "Sow-gilders Lane." I shall be
glad of any suggestion which may be helpful as
showing how the road could ever have obtained such
an objectionable name. CHAS, JAS. FERET.
49, Edith Road, West Kensington.

Beylies.

ARMS OF THE SEE OF CANTERBURY,
(8th S. viii. 128, 169, 232, 293, 450, 490.)
HUNTER BLAIR that if the modern seal engravers
May I, with all courtesy, reply to DOM OSWALD
and peerage mongers have adorned the mitre of the
that would hardly be enough to give Cardinal
Vaughan the right to take the arms of Canterbury
Archbishops of Canterbury with a ducal coronet,
or York from their lawful owners. Further, Doм
OSWALD thinks that I am 66
hardly reasonable in
describing them [Cardinal Vaughan's new assumed
arms] as 'for all ordinary every-day purposes iden-
tical with those of Canterbury.'
""" As a matter of
fact, I was merely repeating the words of a dis-
tinguished herald, who had seen the Decretum,
and to whose authority I think Dom OSWALD
would be very willing to bow.

་

I cannot perceive in the Decretum which I sent to N. & Q.' (8th S. viii. 450) any words which confirm MR. HARTWELL D. GRISSELL'S belief that it is a pall proper which was granted to Cardinal Vaughan by the Pope. The pall is described merely as sacrum pallium ex superioribus scuti angulis dependens." But if this contention of MR. GRISSELL'S be admitted, so as to meet him on his own ground, the dif ferences between the arms of Canterbury and those assumed by Cardinal Vaughan described by MR. HARTWELL D. GRISSELL are really so slight that it is hardly worth while to speak of them. And will MR. GRISSELL allow me to point out that the pall in the arms of Canterbury is proper? The pall is of wool, white; and how can a white object be represented in heraldry better than by argent? By no means does it imply that the pall is so common in early and mediæval times the object is made of metal. And a fringing of that I feel a little surprised that MR. GRISSELL should make it an objection. If he will examine the numerous pictures of bishops in the mosaics at Ravenna he will find that most of them have the pall fringed. of the Lateran, has the pall fringed. Even if this St. Peter, in the famous Triclinium be not an exact copy of the old Vatican mosaic, it will show that in the sixteenth century, when the mosaic was copied, a fringed pall was not considered monstrous. Medieval palls with fringes are so common that I have ceased to take notice of them. The number and shape of the crosses on the pall were also a matter of the utmost indifference. In one case the pall may be found semée of crosses, in another with none at all; and when the crosses exist they may be pattée or fitchy, or plain Greek or Latin. MR. GRISSELL rather suggests by his criticism that the ancient and medi

[Henconner Lane, a name of a similar type, occurs at æval features preserved in the pall of the arms of Chapel Allerton, near Leeds.]

Canterbury have been forgotten in modern Rome.

that

One may agree with the REV. GEORGE ANGUS the Papal bishops in this country should confine themselves to the use of their family coatsarmorial," especially as the Papal bishops abroad do not impale the arms of their see with those of their family. This practice seems limited to the canonical bishops of England, and one is at a loss to imagine why Cardinal Vaughan should have wished to separate himself from his brethren on the Continent. It cannot possibly be that he desires to be mistaken for an English bishop, a minister of an autocephalous church. And even if the Archbishops of Canterbury from the time of Pole have not been recognized by the see of Rome, surely this does not destroy their right to a coat which they have borne from the fourteenth century at least, does not put them outside ordinary protection. The coat, 66 quo veteres Archiepiscopi Cantuarienses Catholici utebantur," has descended without break to their successors of to-day, and no one, not even Cardinal Vaughan, has the right to commit an heraldic larceny..

J. WICKHAM LEGG.

Ever since the middle of the fourteenth century the arms of the province and see of Canterbury have undoubtedly been the archiepiscopal pall and cross on a blue field. And the pall has sometimes been charged with three pins or crosses, sometimes with four, and sometimes with five, as an examination of the numerous archiepiscopal seals will show, though the more usual number is four. That no great importance was attached to the number of crosses is shown not only by the fact I have mentioned, but by the existence on Warham's seal of dignity of five crosses, whereas his seal ad causas has four. MR. GRISSELL is quite right in saying "there is no such vestment known in the Catholic world as a metal pall edged and fringed, as occurs in the modern arms of Canterbury.' But then no one with any knowledge of heraldry ever supposes that because the pall is blazoned argent it was therefore of silver. MR. GRISSELL is doubtless aware that ermine is a white fur with black spots, which white is blazoned heraldically as argent; but does any one imagine that the poor little beast had a metal fur? Yet in practice, and especially in enamel work, the ermine was often represented by silver, as may be seen on many of the stall plates of the Knights of the Garter at Windsor and on Edward III.'s tomb at Westminster. The representation of the pall with a golden edge, in accordance with modern blazon of the arms of the see of Canterbury, has (like the blazon itself) absolutely no authority whatever; and how it arose it is difficult to say; but I have good reason to believe that we owe it to the seal engravers. In the large illumination that precedes the official and contemporary record of Archbishop Parker's consecration, preserved at Lambeth, the pall is shown correctly, but on Parker's

smaller seals it is apparently edged. On Laud's
seals, however, it is shown correctly, with no
edging. The fringing of the pall has ample
mediaeval precedent, e. g., Stratford's seal and
effigy, Courtenay's Maidstone College seal, and
several of the seals of Archbishops of York (in-
cluding Giffard, Wickwain, John le Romayn, and
Neville, also Waldeby's Hexham seal); also
Grenefield's brass (1315) at York. The shape of
the crosses on the pall, like their number, has
always been a matter of indifference, some being
pattée and others pattée fitchy, but the latter was
the more usual, probably because it looked better.
It is unfortunate that MR. GRISSELL should appeal
to Warham's effigy. If he will examine it on his
next visit to Canterbury, he will find that it is
quite modern, for the surface of the stone was
entirely reworked when the tomb was last
"restored." Concerning the archiepiscopal cross-
staff, I should much like to know how and when
it came incorrectly to be headed argent. In the
illumination I have already quoted Parker's arms
are beautifully drawn, impaled with those of his
province and see, and, like his predecessors, he has
a cross gold throughout.
no break in the historical continuity of the Church
of England or of the succession of Archbishops of
Canterbury from the earliest times, so it can be
shown that there has been no break in the con-
tinuous use by the archbishops of the cross and
pall in their official arms.

Just as there has been

The mere fact that in late times artists and seal engravers have chosen to depict the arms somewhat differently from the way in which they were borne at first, and that various heraldic works, of absolutely no authority, have so blazoned them and continued the error, in no way militates from the truth of this assertion. If the alteration has been made officially, by all means let the evidence of the fact be forthcoming. Inasmuch as the present Archbishop is every whit as much "Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis Catholicus" as his predecessors from Augustine down. wards, clearly no one has any right to usurp the arms that lawfully pertain to his office, as Cardinal Vaughan has done. By such usurpation, with the field differenced gules, a like unwarrantable encroachment has been made on the privileges of the Archbishop of York, whose predecessors often bore, as the arms of the province, Gules, an archiepiscopal pall surmounting a cross-staff proper. Whether Archbishop Maclagan uses these arms as well as those of his see I do not know; but he has clearly every right to do so by ancient_precedent. The view taken by our brethren of the Roman obedience as to certain matters of historical fact has nothing to do with the point at issue.

W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE.

BOOKSELLER OR PUBLISHER (8th S. viii. 208). -The publisher has always been an impersonal

figure to the greater part of the public. The very fact that the purchaser of books rarely comes in contact with the superior being whose business, whether for gain or glory, is speculating in manuscripts, and the turning of the same into articles of merchandise, easily accounts for the preference of the word "bookseller" over "publisher." Strictly speaking, a (book) publisher is a bookseller, but a bookseller is not necessarily a publisher, though he generally combined both in the early days of printing. Properly to define in every-day conversation the different parts of any trade, especially if manufacturing enters into it, is something that takes a long time to bring about. And the defining process will ever continue so long as the book-making world, by the imperative necessity of profit, keeps splitting into branches like other trades. Our forefathers doubtless used "printer to cover all these branches. It would be hard to believe that "publisher," as a trade term, was not well established long before Lockhart's time, at least in the trade. In the extract put forth by MR. WALFORD " publisher" is implied, though in writing "bookseller" Lockhart voiced simply the common usage of the word in vogue with the wellbred, politely indifferent as to the technical shades of meaning to be found in the vocabulary of the tradesman. Swift, despite a popular dictionary of his time and day (1712), which defines publisher as One who publishes new books," uses "bookseller" precisely in the same sense as Lockhart. This we see in Stella's Journal' and in the letters to Benjamin Motte the younger, who issued the 'Tale of a Tub.' In 1732 the Dean writes to his publisher :

66

"Upon my word, I never intended that any one but yself she be concerned as printer or bookseller in any thing that shall be published with my consent...... For I ever intended the property as a bookseller sha be onely in you."

itself began the practice of displaying the sign of the superior being, i. e., the projector who backed the literary enterprise with his capital in place of the one who did the printing or mere selling. The legal importance of showing the publisher's name came about in the growth of the newspaper and in the increase of libel suits, causing the heavy hand of justice to demand something more squeezable than the typesetter or the bookseller, who in their turn, as God-fearing men and good citizens, highly resented, as we may well believe, in the course of time, acting as buffers for the individual publisher. I have not myself seen "published by......" printed on any title-page earlier than 1815, but the custom of delegating the printer's name to some part of the book other than the title was in use prior to the commencement of this century. I own, however, a 1729 duodecimo, which, though having the usual quaint imprint of" printed by and are to be sold," &c., contains a few forewords, beginning, "Reader. All you have by way of Preface in Commendation of this Tract is a letter, which is now in the Publisher's Hands," &c. The "are" in the above "are to be sold," though quaint, is awkward. Why was it used? MR. WALFORD'S query is an interesting one, and it covers a field into which many of the bright minds of the readers of N. & Q.' might stray, and cull therefrom a fine garland of buds worthy of being tied together as the basis for a full-grown monograph, valuable in the sight of the word or book delver.

C.

MOVABLE TYPES (8th S. viii. 226, 259, 395, 436).-Your correspondent ESTE says, at the last reference, that I do not name the inventor of printing with movable types. Is not all the world (except the Dutch) agreed that John Gutenberg is the inventor, notwithstanding the incredible story that he became domestic servant to Laurence Coster, of Haarlem, and stole his master's in

I entered into the question at some length while preparing a second edition of my Cyclopædia of Arts and Sciences,' 1864, to which my essay on 'The Art of Printing with Movable Types' formed an introduction. It is true that sixteen other cities have claimed the invention; but their claims will not bear examination.

As the great Dean was fond of words, this, therefore, may be accepted as showing the non-accept-vention? ance in his day of the word "publisher" as covering a certain kind of tradesman on the part of one born 1667, thoroughly familiar with all the walks of life. Did any dictionary define the word before 1712? If not, then it would settle two things-first, that the word was not recognized much before that date; second, that book publishing apart from book selling had not assumed In Gutenberg's time the city of Prague was a distinct or separate form. It would show, too, famous for its manufactures and mechanical inthe long period of time it took to evolve "pubventions. In the books of the university several lisher" from "publishing" or "published." Certainly more than a century, for "Pablished by Authority" appeared almost as big as the title on the first London newspaper in 1588. It probably was not dropped for a good many generations. To attempt to establish when the polite world used "publisher" in common parlance would be something of a task. A cursory glance through old title-p e-pages might help to show when the trade

Gutenbergs are entered, and among them is John, who may reasonably be supposed to be our inventor. After the failure of his first printingpress, he seems to have returned to Prague for the purpose of improving himself in mechanical invention. But the history of his first printing-press is interesting. He hired a room in Strasburg, and proceeded to carry out his idea of multiplying block-books by means of movable wooden type.

These books were very numerous and in great demand, and Gutenberg's intention was to manufacture them in considerable quantity for sale at the approaching septennial fair at Aix-la-Chapelle. In order to conceal his purpose, when his employ. ment was inquired into, he took advantage of a double meaning, and said he was manufacturing mirrors or looking-glasses for sale at the fair, some of the block-books being known as specula, such as the "Speculum Salvationis." Gutenberg borrowed money of a family named Dritzehn, and one of them entered into partnership with him.

At first Gutenberg taught the art of cutting and polishing gems, but Dritzehn and a friend of his, one Heilmann, noticed that he worked in secret at some other art; but before Gutenberg would reveal it he required fresh terms, which were granted. The affairs of the partnership did not proceed well. Dritzehn died, and his relations in 1439 brought an action against Gutenberg for the recovery of the money advanced by them.

Sir Richard St. George, Norroy. This is printed in the fourth and rare publication of the Harleian Society. The original is in the College of Arms (MS. C. 9). No mention of the family is made by Thoroton in his Antiquities of Nottinghamshire' (1677); by Throsby, who republished that work, with additions, nearly a century later (1797); by Bailey (Annals of Nottinghamshire,' 1853); or by Curtis in his Topographical History of Nottinghamshire' (circa 1835).

Public Library, Nottingham.

J. POTTER BRISCOE.

A full record of the writings of the author of 'Waverley' will be found in that interesting comGutenberg attempted to form his type by cast-pilation, the 'Catalogue of the Scott Exhibition of 1871,' edited by the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell and David Laing, LL.D., 1 vol., 4to., Edinburgh, 1872.

ing, but the casts were not sharp enough for printing. He consulted a worker in metals (Fust of Mayence), who at once saw the value of the invention, and advanced money to Gutenberg on the strength of it. Fust's apprentice, Peter Schöffer, overcame the difficulty, and his master made him his partner and son-in-law; and the two men, ignoring Gutenberg, appropriated his invention, and thus obtained fame and wealth.

After this, Gutenberg becomes more and more shadowy. Some say that he set up a printing office, and printed various works, either alone or in conjunction with other printers; but, according to a late authority, "there is no proof of Gutenberg's having printed any book at all, yet there is a strong weight of circumstantial evidence in his favour" (Early Printed Books,' by E. Gordon Duff, 1893).

The comparatively late date of the invention may be accounted for on the ground that very few laymen could read, and it was not till after the Renaissance that the necessity for the multiplication of books arose. Previous to this time, the lyrics of the best poets were sung by the common people in the street, as we learn from an anecdote of Dante expostulating with a blacksmith for not singing one of his canzoni correctly, and with a donkey boy for mixing up "Gee-wo" with his verses, while Petrarch lamented that he had written in the vulgar tongue, which also caused his sonnets to be sung in the streets.

Highgate, N.

C. TOMLINSON.

CLAXTON OF NOTTS (8th S. viii. 508).-The date of the fourth visitation of Notts is erroneously given in MR. BLABER'S query. It was in 1614, and not in 1634. The fourth visitation was by

A. W. B.

SUNDAY MARKETS (8th S. viii. 167, 249, 371). -Although on the 27th day of Henry VIII.'s second Parliament, holden in 1511, the House of Lords received the draft of a Bill to forbid the holding of fairs and markets on Sundays and other festival days ('Lords' Journals,' vol. i. p. 14), there would appear to have been legislation in Scotland for the prohibition of Sunday markets before any effective step was taken in England on the subject. In the Parliament at Westminster on 2 Dec., 1601, "the Bill for the more diligent resort to Church upon Sundays" was read a second time by the House of Commons; and, in the course of the discussion, Mr. Carey Raleigh observed :

James the Sixth in the Year 1579, or 1597, did enact and "King James the Fourth in the Year 1512, and King ratify a Law, that whosoever kept either Fair or Market upon the Sabbath, his moveables should presently be given to the Poor."-Sir Simonds D'Ewee, Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth,' p. 663.

Two days later a Bill prohibiting any Fair or Market to be kept on the Sunday" was accorded a second reading in the Commons; and it having been agreed to, with some amendments, was sent to the Lords, by whom it was read a second time and committed (ibid., pp. 614, 668, 669). This was on 14 December, and the committee to which the measure was referred (and which included the Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester) was "appointed to meet at the Little Chamber, near the Parliament Presence, To-morrow in the Morning, before the House sit," the Attorney-General being directed to attend ("Lords' Journals,' vol. ii. pp. 248, 251). But Parliament was dissolved on