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 medieval 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, In the Court Rolls of the Manor of Fulham the Beplies. 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 Archbishops of Canterbury with a ducal coronet, that would hardly be enough to give Cardinal Vaughan the right to take the arms of Canterbury or York from their lawful owners. Further, Doм OSWALD thinks that I am "hardly reasonable in describing them [Cardinal Vaughan's new assumed arms] as "for all ordinary every-day purposes identical with those of Canterbury."" As a matter of fact, I was merely repeating the words of a distinguished herald, who had seen the Decretum, and to whose authority I think Doм 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 object is made of metal. And a fringing of the pall is so common in early and medieval times 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. St. Peter, in the famous Triclinium of the Lateran, has the pall fringed. Even if this 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. One may agree with the REV. GEORGE ANGUS that "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, "" 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 Lam 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 medieval precedent, e. g., Stratford's seal and effigy, Courtenay's Maidstone College seal, and several of the seals of Archbishops of York (including 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 crossstaff, 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 bis province and see, and, like his predecessors, he has a cross gold throughout. Just as there has been 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 continuous use by the archbishops of the cross and The mere fact that in pall in their official arms. 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 downwards, 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). beth, the pall is shown correctly, but on Parker's-The publisher has always been an impersonal H figure to the greater part of the public. The very itself began the practice of displaying the sign of fact that the purchaser of books rarely comes in the superior being, i. e., the projector who backed contact with the superior being whose business, the literary enterprise with his capital in place of whether for gain or glory, is speculating in manu- the one who did the printing or mere selling. The scripts, and the turning of the same into articles of legal importance of showing the publisher's name merchandise, easily accounts for the preference of came about in the growth of the newspaper and in the word "bookseller" over "publisher." Strictly the increase of libel suits, causing the heavy hand speaking, a (book) publisher is a bookseller, but a of justice to demand something more squeezable bookseller is not necessarily a publisher, though than the typesetter or the bookseller, who in their he generally combined both in the early days of turn, as God-fearing men and good citizens, highly printing. Properly to define in every-day con- resented, as we may well believe, in the course of versation the different parts of any trade, especially time, acting as buffers for the individual publisher. if manufacturing enters into it, is something that I have not myself seen "published by......" printed takes a long time to bring about. And the on any title-page earlier than 1815, but the custom defining process will ever continue so long as the of delegating the printer's name to some part of book-making world, by the imperative necessity the book other than the title was in use prior to of profit, keeps splitting into branches like other the commencement of this century. I own, howtrades. Our forefathers doubtless used "printer ever, a 1729 duodecimo, which, though having the to cover all these branches. It would be hard to usual quaint imprint of" printed by and are to believe that "publisher," as a trade term, was not be sold," &c., contains a few forewords, beginning, well established long before Lockhart's time, at "Reader. All you have by way of Preface in least in the trade. In the extract put forth by Commendation of this Tract is a letter, which is MR. WALFORD"publisher" is implied, though in now in the Publisher's Hands," &c. The " writing "bookseller" Lockhart voiced simply the in the above "are to be sold," though quaint, is common usage of the word in vogue with the well-awkward. Why was it used? MR. WALFORD'S bred, 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 "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 : as "Upon my word, I never intended that any one but y' self shd 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 shd be onely in you." "are 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 as 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 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 "Published 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-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 viii. 467).-A bibliography of Scott's works, by Mr. John P. Anderson, of the British Museum, was appended to The Life of Sir Walter Scott, by Charles Duke Yonge, published in 1888 in the "Great Writers" series. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SIR WALTER SCOTT (8th S. A. C. W. A. W. B. 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 ing, but the casts were not sharp enough for print- 1871,' edited by the late Sir William Stirling ing. He consulted a worker in metals (Fust of Maxwell and David Laing, LL.D., 1 vol., 4to., Mayence), who at once saw the value of the in- Edinburgh, 1872. vention, and advanced money to Gutenberg on the strength of it. Fust's apprentice, Peter Schöffer, overcame the difficulty, and his master made him-Although on the 27th day of Henry VIII.'s 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 SUNDAY MARKETS (8th S. viii. 167, 249, 371). 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 : "King James the Fourth in the Year 1512, and King James the Sixth in the Year 1579, or 1597, did enact and 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'Ewes, 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 the 19th without anything further being done with History of Signboards' and Pennant's 'British Zoology' (1822). EVERARD HOME COLEMAN. 71, Brecknock Road. THE SOUND OF V, AND THE SYMBOL FOR IT (8th S. viii. 445, 510).-I am much obliged to CANON TAYLOR for his remarks, with which I agree, but I was only tracing the sound of v in English as represented by that symbol. The Latin u, when a consonant, was not pronounced as v till some-The Miller's Maid') who managed the Margate, thing like the sixth century, previously to which it was sounded like our w. I shall be glad if CANON TAYLOR will (quite at his leisure) kindly give me a fifteenth-century example of the symbol for the sound of j. I do not even know of an example in the sixteenth century. It does not occur in the First Folio of Shakespeare. WALTER W. SKEAT. Want of leisure must be my reason for delay in thanking PROF. SKEAT for his answer to my question; but still I have a difficulty, possibly owing not to the adequacy of the explanation, but to my density of comprehension. Briefly speaking, the rule given is that u between vowels makes the word a dissyllable, as euen-e-ven, ouero-ver. So far, so good; but when we come to proper names my original difficulty remains. Thus, Thomas Cavendish was sometimes written Candish; Caversham, in Bucks, is pronounced Carsham; Wavertree, in Lancashire, is pronounced Wartree; Candover is pronounced Candoor, &c. I am not aiming at representing the local sounds accurately, but to show that names which were sometimes written with a u and sometimes with a v do not follow this rule, at all events locally, and very often local pronunciation of place-names is more correct than "polite" usage; and the difficulty in my mind was whether-in place-namesmonosyllables had grown to dissyllables and dissyllables been shortened to monosyllables. If these are the exceptions of which PROF. SKEAT speake, it makes the science of local etymology still more difficult. AYEAHR. FAUCIT SAVILLE (8th S. viii. 488).-AYEAHR is confusing John Faucit Saville with his son Edmund Faucit Saville. There is a portrait of the latter in the Theatrical Times. It was the father (author of the once popular melodrama Ramsgate, and Gravesend Theatres-not the Kent circuit, which consisted of Canterbury, Maidstone, Rochester, and Tunbridge Wells. He married, in 1807, Harriet Elizabeth Diddear, who was afterwards the Mrs. Faucit of Covent Garden Theatre. They had five children who went on the stage, viz.: John Faucit Saville, sometime manager at Nottingham. Edmund Faucit Saville, a popular actor at the Alfred Saville, of the City of London Theatre. 1853, and Edmund Faucit Saville in November, 1857. 1, Brixton Road. WM. DOUGLAS. A NEW CRYPTOGRAM (8th S. ix. 6).-The line in Macbeth' is not far to seek, as it occurs in the short first scene of Act I.; and, when found, it makes the key to the cryptogram easy to discover. The first letter is the same as in the original, the second is the next in the alphabet to the corresponding letter in the original, the third the next but one, the fourth the next but two, the fifth the next but three; and the same process is repeated with each succeeding five letters, thus: Hover | through the | fog and filt | hy air Hpzhv titry gi vki | fpi dr|d gkox | hz clv. But it would have been far from easy, and perhaps impossible, to decipher this cryptogram without help from the clues supplied by PROF. SKEAT. H. WHITEHEAD. Lanercost Priory. P.S.-Since writing the above I have read CANON TAYLOR's note at the last reference, but it The solution of PROF. SKEAT's cryptogram is does not seem to help me. The question of j, i, and y is a similar question for future discussion. Hover through the fog and filthy very obvious: air" (Act I. scene i). The process by which it is ST. PETER'S FINGER (8th S. viii. 188).-There arrived at, however, is perhaps a little puzzling at are thirty-eight ancient dedications to St. Peter in first. It is simply an arithmetical series, a+(a+1) this diocese, four (including our cathedral) to the +(a+2)+(a+3)+(a+4). The first letter is reprejoint honour of SS. Peter and Paul, one to SS. sented by itself, the second by the one following Peter and Mary, and one to SS. Peter and James. it, the third by the next but one, and so on, a fresh There is no dedication to St. Peter's finger start being made after every five letters. I hope that I am aware of, but there are fully a dozen the Professor will ask another. It took me about old churches in the county whose dedication saint an hour to solve. HARRY HEMS. is not known. Fair Park, Exeter. J. FOSTER PALMER. [Many replies, all to the same effect, are acknowledged.] See 'N. & Q.,' 2nd S. xi. 128; 3rd S. x. 187, "THE BEAUTIFUL MRS. ROUSBY" (8th S. viii. which also furnishes long extracts from Hotten's 507; ix. 18).-Mrs. Rousby was the daughter of |