{"collection":"folklore-oral-tradition","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_57846/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_57846","id":"gutenberg_57846","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57846","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - British","Category: History - Religious","Christian antiquities -- Great Britain","Folklore -- Great Britain","Great Britain -- Antiquities"],"text":"Produced by Chris Curnow, Chuck Greif and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                BYWAYS\n\n                                  IN\n\n                          BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY\n\n\n\n\n                      CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n                       London: FETTER\u00b7LANE, E.C.\n                          C. F. CLAY, MANAGER\n\n                            [Illustration]\n\n                    Edinburgh: 100, Princes Street\n                       Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.\n                       Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS\n                     New York: G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n             Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.\n\n                         _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n                                BYWAYS\n\n                                  IN\n\n                          BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY\n\n                                  BY\n\n                        WALTER JOHNSON, F.G.S.\n                     AUTHOR OF _FOLK-MEMORY_, ETC.\n\n                              Cambridge:\n                        at the University Press\n                                 1912\n\n                              Cambridge:\n                      PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.\n                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe following chapters, though superficially presenting the appearance\nof disconnected essays, really possess a strong bond of continuity.\nRunning through the whole, implied, where not actually expressed, will\nbe found an insistence on the principle which, in a former work, I\nventured to call folk-memory. This folk-memory--unconsciously, for the\nmost part, but sometimes with open ceremony--keeps alive those popular\nbeliefs and practices which are individually called survivals. With some\nof these legacies from the past the present volume deals.\n\nTo a large extent the studies are connected with the church and\nchurchyard. The sections which treat of pagan sites, orientation, and\nburial customs, embody the results of observations relating to some\nhundreds of buildings in all parts of England and Wales. The chapters on\n\u201cThe Folk-Lore of the Cardinal Points\u201d and \u201cThe Labour\u2019d Ox\u201d partially,\nat least, break virgin soil. In \u201cThe Churchyard Yew\u201d are set down\ninferences drawn from many years of investigation, the literary side of\nwhich has been rendered difficult by the existence, in various modern\nworks, of unfounded statements and hypothetical references. The\nremainder of the book treats of somewhat more familiar themes, though it\nis hoped that fresh outlooks are suggested.\n\nSince some of the matters here brought forward have been, and indeed\nstill are, provocative of keen, and even heated controversy, to\nanticipate agreement with all the conclusions would be sheer folly.\nNevertheless, it may be claimed that the facts collected have been\ncarefully sifted, the references conscientiously verified, and the\nopposing theories honestly presented.\n\nTo the multitude of friends who have rendered true service either by\nsupplying information or in preparing the illustrations, most grateful\nthanks are expressed. Acknowledgements of all such help are recorded in\ndue place, but special recognition must be made of the expert assistance\nof Mr Sydney Harrowing, who has borne the chief burden in illustrating\nthe volume. To Miss Nora Mansell thanks are tendered for the drawing of\nGumfreston church (Fig. 26). Fig. 93 is copied from a sketch prepared by\nMr C. G. Carter, of Louth. Messrs Frank Cowley and F. J. Bennett,\nF.G.S., have kindly permitted the reproduction of an original painting\n(Fig. 87). Mr Worthington G. Smith, F.L.S., has courteously allowed\nFigs. 59 and 60 to be taken from _Man, the Primeval Savage_; Fig. 80 is\ncopied by the consent of Professor R. S. Lull; and Figs. 4, 22 and 88\nappear by the kindness of Mr David Sydenham, the Rev. Percival Saben,\nM.A., and the British Archaeological Association respectively. Dr W.\nHeneage Legge and Messrs G. Allen and Sons have granted the use of the\nblock for Fig. 92, while Figs. 84 and 85 were photographed from a\nhorseshoe lent by the Rev. Hastings M. Neville, B.A., of Ford,\nNorthumberland.\n\nMany of the photographs were taken by Mr Edward Yates, who allowed free\nchoice to be made from his large collection, but the following ladies\nand gentlemen have also assisted: Mr O. F. Bailey, Mr Alexander Barbour,\nMr J. G. V. Dawson, Mr E. W. Filkins, Miss Truda Hutchinson, Mrs W.\nJohnson, Mr A. L. Leach, F.G.S., Mr Douglas Leighton, Mr P. McIntyre,\nF.G.S., Mr Llewellyn Treacher, F.G.S., Mr W. C. Walker, Mr E. C. Youens,\nMr G. W. Young, F.G.S., F.Z.S., and Mr W. Plomer Young. Permission to\nuse photographs has also been granted by Mr James Cheetham of Lewes,\nMessrs Thos. B. Latchmore and Son, Hitchin, Mr W. Wiseman, Corfe Castle,\nthe _Grimsby Telegraph_ Company, and the Watford Engraving Company.\n\n                                                                  W. J.\n\n_January, 1912_\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\nI. CHURCHES ON PAGAN SITES                                             1\n\nII. CHURCHES ON PAGAN SITES (_continued_)                             51\n\nIII. THE SECULAR USES OF THE CHURCH FABRIC                           101\n\nIV. THE SECULAR USES OF THE CHURCH FABRIC (_continued_)              145\n\nV. THE ORIENTATION OF CHURCHES                                       205\n\nVI. THE ORIENTATION OF GRAVES                                        243\n\nVII. SURVIVALS IN BURIAL CUSTOMS                                     268\n\nVIII. THE FOLK-LORE OF THE CARDINAL POINTS                           324\n\nIX. THE CHURCHYARD YEW                                               360\n\nX. THE CULT OF THE HORSE                                             408\n\nXI. \u201cTHE LABOUR\u2019D OX\u201d                                                452\n\nXII. RETROSPECT                                                      488\n\n     ADDENDA                                                         495\n\n     INDEX                                                           498\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\nFIG.                                                                PAGE\n\n1. Roman altar, St Swithin\u2019s, Lincoln. (_Phot._ Mr W. Plomer\nYoung)                                                                 6\n\n2. Roman tesserae, St Saviour\u2019s Cathedral, Southwark. (_Phot._ Mr W.\nPlomer Young)                                                          8\n\n3. Interior of Brixworth church, Northampton. (_Phot._ Mr O. F.\nBailey)                                                               10\n\n4. Ruins of Knowlton church, Dorset. (From Warne\u2019s _Ancient Dorset_, by\npermission)                                                           14\n\n5. Pharos, Dover Castle. (Bloxam\u2019s _Gothic Eccles. Architecture_)     19\n\n6. Ancient foundations at Lyminge church, Kent. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                                21\n\n7. Portion of wall, St Martin\u2019s church, Canterbury. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                                22\n\n8. The Agglestone, Studland, Dorset. (_Phot._ Mr W. C. Walker)        35\n\n9. Ruins of Maplescombe church, Kent. (_Phot._ Mr E. W. Filkins)      39\n\n10. Sketch plan of Maplescombe ruins. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)           39\n\n11. Rudstone church and monolith. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)               44\n\n12. The Cove, Stanton Drew, Somerset. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)           47\n\n13. Corfe Castle, as it appeared in 1643. (_Phot._ from an old print,\nMr W. Wiseman, Corfe Castle)                                          53\n\n14. Ruins of Corfe Castle. (_Phot._ Mr Edward Yates)                  53\n\n15. The Mount, Great Canfield, Essex. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)           54\n\n16. Chapel, Goodrich Castle, Herefordshire. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                                58\n\n17. Pirton church and Toot Hill, Hertfordshire, from the South-East.\n(_Phot._ Messrs Thomas B. Latchmore and Son, Hitchin)                 60\n\n18. Pirton church and Toot Hill, Hertfordshire, from the South-West.\n(_Phot._ Messrs Thomas B. Latchmore and Son, Hitchin)                 61\n\n19. Toot Hill, Little Coates, Lincolnshire. (_Phot._ the _Grimsby\nTelegraph_ Company)                                                   72\n\n20. Mound, Berwick churchyard, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mrs W. Johnson)       75\n\n21. Chislehurst church and mound, as it appeared c. A.D. 1800. (From D.\nLyson\u2019s _Environs of London_, 1795-1800)                              77\n\n22. Urns, found near Alphamstone church, Essex. (By the courtesy of the\nRev. Percival Saben, M.A.)                                            85\n\n23. Tower of Bishopstone church, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mrs W.\nJohnson)                                                             102\n\n24. Tower of Scartho church, Lincolnshire. (_Phot._ the _Grimsby\nTelegraph_ Company)                                                  109\n\n25. Oystermouth church, Glamorganshire. (From _Archaeologia\nCambrensis_, N.S. I. 1850)                                           112\n\n26. Gumfreston church, Pembrokeshire. (Miss Nora Mansell)            114\n\n27. Corner tower, Nunney Castle, Somerset. (_Phot._ Mr W. C.\nWalker)                                                              116\n\n28. Round tower, Devenish, Fermanagh. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)          119\n\n29. Rushmere church, Suffolk. (_Phot._ Mr Edward Yates)              124\n\n30. Tower of Piddinghoe church, Sussex. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)        125\n\n31. East Dean church, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mrs W. Johnson)               126\n\n32. St Aldhelm\u2019s chapel, St Alban\u2019s Head, Dorset. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               128\n\n33. Cheriton church, Kent. (_Phot._ Mr Edward Yates)                 129\n\n34. St Michael\u2019s Mount, Cornwall. (_Phot._ Mr Edward Yates)          130\n\n35. Distant view of St Martha\u2019s chapel, near Guildford. (_Phot._ Mr\nDouglas Leighton)                                                    132\n\n36. Squint, Leatherhead church, Surrey. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               152\n\n37. Porch of Wotton church, Surrey. (_Phot._ Mr G. W. Young,\nF.G.S.)                                                              153\n\n38. Dial stone, Bishopstone church, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               163\n\n39. Enlargement of Bishopstone dial. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)           164\n\n40. Parish stocks, Shalford, Surrey. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)           166\n\n41. Church chest and dog tongs, Llanelian, Denbigh. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               169\n\n42. Church chest, Rainham, Essex. (_Phot._ Mr Edward Yates)          169\n\n43. Fourteenth century barn, Bradford-on-Avon. (_Phot._ Mr W. C.\nWalker)                                                              171\n\n44. Interior of barn, Bradford-on-Avon. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)        172\n\n45. Mediaeval Clergy House, Alfriston, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               176\n\n46. Mediaeval Parsonage House, West Dean, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               177\n\n47. Church House, or Guild Hall, Lincoln. (_Phot._ Mr W. Plomer\nYoung)                                                               178\n\n48. Morris dancers (Strutt\u2019s _Book of Sports_). (Mr Sydney\nHarrowing)                                                           184\n\n49. Dovecot, Berwick Court, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mr Edward Yates)        189\n\n50. \u201cCanute\u2019s knee-bone,\u201d Canewdon church, Essex. (Watford Engraving\nCompany)                                                             200\n\n51. Tyndall\u2019s grave in Haslemere churchyard, Surrey. (_Phot._ Miss\nTruda Hutchinson)                                                    265\n\n52. Round barrow, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire. (_Phot._ Mr Llewellyn\nTreacher, F.G.S.)                                                    266\n\n53. Inscribed cross, Sancreed, Cornwall. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               269\n\n54. Mediaeval stone coffins. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)                   272\n\n55. Roman and Bronze Age coffins. (From T. Wright\u2019s _The Celt, the\nRoman and the Saxon_.) (Mr Sydney Harrowing)                         273\n\n56. Roman coffin of lead. (T. Wright)                                273\n\n57. Grave celt, Puy-de-D\u00f4me. (_Phot._ Mr J. G. V. Dawson)            298\n\n58. Necklaces found in British barrows. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)        300\n\n59. Skeletons of woman and child, Dunstable Downs. (By the kind\npermission of Mr Worthington G. Smith, F.L.S.)                       304\n\n60. Fossil sponges (_Porosphaera_) artificially modified for the\npurpose of suspension. (By the kind permission of Mr Worthington G.\nSmith, F.L.S.)                                                       306\n\n61. The contents of a Roman sepulchral chest. (From T. Wright\u2019s _The\nCelt, the Roman, and the Saxon_)                                     314\n\n62. Churchyard cross, Bakewell, Derbyshire. (_Phot._ Mr W. Plomer\nYoung)                                                               329\n\n63. Capitals, Seaford church, Sussex. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)          330\n\n64. Low side window, Tatsfield church, Surrey. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               331\n\n65. Devil\u2019s Door, Worth church, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mr Edward\nYates)                                                               332\n\n66. Gateway, St Stephen\u2019s, Coleman Street, London. (_Phot._ Mr W.\nPlomer Young)                                                        336\n\n67. Norham churchyard, Northumberland. (_Phot._ Mr Alexander\nBarbour)                                                             345\n\n68. Woldingham church, Surrey, as it appeared in A.D. 1809. (Manning\nand Bray, _Hist. and Antiq. of Surrey_)                              356\n\n69. Transverse section of yew. (_Phot._ Mr J. G. V. Dawson)          366\n\n70. Vertical tangential section of yew. (_Phot._ Mr J. G. V.\nDawson)                                                              367\n\n71. Yew, Tandridge churchyard, Surrey. (_Phot._ Mr W. Plomer\nYoung)                                                               370\n\n72. Yew, Crowhurst churchyard, Surrey. (_Phot._ Mr W. Plomer\nYoung)                                                               378\n\n73. Yew, Chipstead churchyard, Surrey. (_Phot._ Mr W. Plomer\nYoung)                                                               379\n\n74. Yew, Mells churchyard, Somerset. (_Phot._ Mr W. C. Walker)       380\n\n75. Yew, Hambledon churchyard, Surrey. (_Phot._ Mr W. Plomer\nYoung)                                                               381\n\n76. Shooting birds with the cross-bow. (Strutt\u2019s _Book of\nSports_)                                                             386\n\n77. Shooting at the butts with the cross-bow. (_Book of Sports_)     386\n\n78. Saxon bow and arrow. (_Book of Sports_)                          387\n\n79. Saxon archers with long-bows. (_Book of Sports_)                 388\n\n80. The ancestry of the horse. (By the courtesy of Professor R. S.\nLull)                                                                410\n\n81. Cave man\u2019s drawings of the horse. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)          412\n\n82. Prejevalski\u2019s horse, Zoological Gardens, London. (_Phot._ Mr J. G.\nV. Dawson)                                                           413\n\n83. Ancient horseshoes. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)                        425\n\n84. Round horseshoe, Ford, Northumberland. Lower surface. (_Phot._\nMrs W. Johnson, from a specimen kindly lent by the Rev. Hastings M.\nNeville, B.A.)                                                       427\n\n85. Round horseshoe. Upper surface. (_Phot._ Mrs W. Johnson)         427\n\n86. Hippo-sandal, Darenth, Kent. (_Phot._ Mr E. C. Youens,\nDartford)                                                            429\n\n87. Capturing the White Horse. (_Phot._ from painting by Mr Frank\nCowley)                                                              435\n\n88. Acoustic jars. (By the courtesy of the British Archaeological\nAssociation)                                                         450\n\n89. Ploughing in the eleventh century. (Anglo-Saxon Calendar, after\nStrutt)                                                              459\n\n90. Sussex oxen, turning the headland. (_Phot._ Mr James Cheetham,\nLewes)                                                               460\n\n91. Ploughing on the Sussex Downs: a team of four. (_Phot._ Mr James\nCheetham, Lewes)                                                     461\n\n92. Ox-yoke, Sussex. (By the kind permission of Dr W. Heneage Legge and\nMessrs George Allen and Sons)                                        462\n\n93. Ox-yoke, Gayton-le-Wold, Lincolnshire. (Mr Sydney Harrowing, from a\nsketch kindly prepared by Mr C. G. Carter, Louth)                    462\n\n94. Old plough and horse-rake, Sussex. (_Phot._ Mr James Cheetham,\nLewes)                                                               463\n\n95. Roman and Saxon ploughmen. After Wright and Strutt. (Mr Sydney\nHarrowing)                                                           464\n\n96. Ox-shoes and nail. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)                         469\n\n97. Skulls of British oxen. (Mr Sydney Harrowing)                    476\n\n98. Chartley bull, Zoological Gardens, London. (_Phot._ Mr J. G. V.\nDawson)                                                              478\n\n99. Highland cattle. (_Phot._ Mr P. McIntyre, F.G.S.)                480\n\n\n\n\n\nERRATUM\n\n\nPage 399, line 21. For _taxa_ read _taxo_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nCHURCHES ON PAGAN SITES\n\n\nMany years ago, the commanding position which the village church\nfrequently occupies forced itself upon the attention of the writer. As\nwill be shown hereafter, the builders, for some cogent reason, which may\nyet be determined, chose a spot having considerable natural advantages\nwith respect to strength and security, and there they erected their\ntemple. These geographical observations would not alone have been\nsufficient to evoke a general theory, had not other facts gradually come\ninto view. One of these facts was the frequent association of the church\nwith earthworks, tumuli, and similar relics of antiquity, and it was\nthis conjunction which raised the inquiry whether the relative positions\ncould, in all cases, be merely accidental. A closer and more prolonged\nstudy, involving much personal investigation, together with a review of\nmany isolated fragments of archaeological literature, led to the\nconclusion, almost irrefutable, as it now appears, that many of our\nchurches stand on pagan sites. A secondary deduction from the observed\nfacts was the probability that, in some cases, there has been almost\ncontinuous site-occupancy since the first Christian church was reared.\n\nDuring the inspection, numbers of records, based on imperfect knowledge\nor on speculations of the earlier antiquaries, have had to be discarded;\nin other instances the test has been successfully borne. The\npresentation of the evidence, with its length of detail, may be somewhat\nwearisome to the reader, who may, however, console himself with the\nthought that he has escaped at least a moiety of the mass which has been\nwinnowed. Furthermore, one may recall the truth set forth by Professor\nE. B. Tylor when apologizing for wealth of detail in stating a case:\n\u201cThe English mind, not readily swayed by rhetoric, moves freely under\nthe pressure of facts[1].\u201d One may, for a moment, arouse interest by a\nnew hypothesis, but it is only by the accumulation of facts that public\nopinion is perceptibly influenced in the end.\n\nViewed strictly, every Christian church was originally built on a pagan\nsite, but we will limit the meaning of the adjective so that it shall\napply to those churches which were erected, not on virgin soil, but on\nsome spot once devoted to heathen worship, whether beneath a roof or\nunder the open sky. This definition would narrow the scope of the\ninquiry; nevertheless, to arrive at a clear decision we shall have to\nsurvey the whole question from pre-Roman times onward.\n\nOur path will be greatly cleared if we recognize, and remember--what is\ntoo commonly forgotten--that there was a Christian church in Britain\nlong before the mission of Augustine in A.D. 597. Apart from legends,\nand documents of doubtful authenticity, some writers claim to have\nproved that British Christianity was well developed before the close of\nthe second century of our era[2]. Other authorities assert that the\nevidence for the second century is unhistorical, and that the first\ngenuine reference to Christians in Britain is made by Tertullian (c.\nA.D. 208)[3]. However this may be--and the question of the exact date of\nthe introduction is foreign to our present study--there is unanimity as\nto the existence of a strong British Church soon after the death of\nConstantine (A.D. 337). It is even stated that, at the date just\nmentioned, Britain was as fully Christian as any country in Europe[4].\nAt any rate, it is beyond dispute that, in A.D. 314, the British Church\nwas represented at the Council of Arles, in France, by three bishops,\ntogether with a priest and a deacon[5]. Certain writers go further, and\ncontend that, before Britain was cut off from the Empire, the Church had\na vigorous corporate life of its own[6]. How long this organization\nendured, and to what extent it was weakened or shattered by the shock of\nthe Teutonic invasion, are more debateable subjects. It is possible,\nhowever, that a remnant of churchmen survived to greet the advent of\nAugustine[7]. This only must be said, that the existence of any\ncontinuity of Christian tradition, however slight, might render the task\nof deciding what is a pagan site more difficult. Under the influence of\nan unbroken tradition, churches might be constantly rebuilt on the old\nfoundations; hence, if this assumption be made, additional testimony\nwould be necessary in order to establish the theory that any original\nstructure was set up by the heathen. If such evidence were lacking, the\nsuccessive buildings would simply strengthen the hypothesis of\ncontinuity of Christian worship, but would leave untouched the problem\nof heathen sites.\n\nThe first problem to be attacked, then, concerns the existence of\nChristian churches during the Roman period, and the after-history of\nsuch buildings. Do any of these churches remain to us? The available\nevidence seems to show that, in outlying districts, at least, churches\nwere constructed of wattle, and, of these structures, not a wrack could\npossibly have persisted until the present day. In the cities, more\ndurable materials, limestone, flint, chalk, and baked tiles, would be\nemployed, and there is some likelihood that portions of buildings so\nconstructed would successfully resist the ravages of vandals and the\nfury of storms. Now, it is singular that the churches which will least\nstand the critical test of the architect and the antiquary with respect\nto a Roman origin, are precisely those which the popular vote declares\nto belong to that period. The churches thus misunderstood are those\nwhich have large quantities of undoubted Roman materials built into\ntheir walls. The catalogue is of formidable length, but may be soon\ndismissed after a few typical examples have been noticed. The walls of\nthe cathedral church of St Albans contain abundance of Roman material,\nand a continuity of buildings, dating from the Roman occupation, has\ntherefore been hastily assumed. Bede, it is true, relates that a church\nwas built over the grave of St Alban at Verulam[8], and it is possible\nthat the spot is now covered by the cathedral, but we cannot wisely go\nbeyond this, especially when we remember how plentiful were the Roman\nmaterials close at hand. The fact remains: from the time of the erection\nof the memorial church to the founding of the monastery in A.D. 793, we\nhave an interval which is unbridged by trustworthy testimony. A\ngeneration ago, Mr Roach Smith, a most sagacious observer, compiled a\nlist of Kentish churches which he thought might be probable restorations\nof pre-Saxon structures[9]. In all of these Roman materials were found.\nSome of the churches, however, like those of Reculver and Lyminge, had\npeculiarities of site, and these examples will be noted later. Among the\nKentish churches whose \u201cRomanity,\u201d as the early antiquaries would phrase\nit, must be discredited, are those of Burham, Leeds, Southfleet, and\nLower Halstow. Yet the last-named church is chiefly built of Roman\nspoil. The \u201cGarden County\u201d also yields Cuxton[10] and St Paul\u2019s Cray,\nwith many another church inwrought with Roman tiles. Crossing the Thames\nestuary, we find, according to Mr Guy Maynard\u2019s computation, thirty-five\nEssex churches which have Roman tiles in their walls[11]. A writer in\nthe _Athenaeum_, commenting on this list, gives a higher figure, and\nasserts that Essex contains at least sixty such churches[12]. We may\nsafely infer from these facts that Roman ruins existed in the\nneighbourhood of each of the sites at the time when the walls were\nbuilt. Any further conclusion must be viewed with suspicion, unless\nRoman remains are discovered beneath the buildings. The \u201cargument from\nsilence\u201d is beset with peril in any department of archaeology. Moreover,\nsome of the churches in the list--which might be greatly\nextended--belong, as Professor Baldwin Brown has observed, to purely\nMediaeval settlements, and consequently have little evidential\nvalue[13].\n\nWe turn to a different class of churches--those which occupy the sites\nof Roman villas. The importance of these examples rests on the\nprobability that some of the wealthier Roman converts would allow their\ndwelling-houses to be consecrated for Christian worship. From a small\nreception-room, arranged like an ordinary church, there might be\ndeveloped a Christian building, with chancel, nave, and aisles complete.\nA scrap of testimony, slight though it be, favours this hypothesis. It\nis the discovery, on a mosaic, among the ruins of a Roman villa at\nFrampton, Dorsetshire, and again on a tile from the villa at Chedworth,\nGloucestershire, of examples of the Chi-Rho monogram[14]. This sacred\nmonogram has also been met with on such objects as bowls, seals, and\nrings. Seeing that the symbol was not used in Rome before A.D. 312, its\npresence in Britain cannot date earlier. On the other hand, remembering\nthat the Roman departure took place in A.D. 410, we can scarcely assign\nthe Chi-Rho to a later date. Mr J. Romilly Allen is therefore plainly\nnear the truth when he attributes the British examples to the late\nfourth century[15].\n\nThe validity of the evidence afforded by the Chi-Rho, while\nunquestionable so far as the existence of British Christianity is\nconcerned, is not decisive with respect to site-continuity. At the\noutset, one demands that the monogram should be found in juxtaposition\nwith the later Christian churches built on older sites--not isolated\nfrom such buildings. On the other hand, it would be passing strange if\na large number of churches came to be built by chance on, or adjacent\nto, the areas once occupied by Roman villas, whether the confirmatory\nChi-Rho were discovered or not. If we consider the case of direct\ncontinuity non-proven, and yet rule out the possibility of accident, a\nchoice of two theories seems to be presented. We might either suppose\nthat the church builders were keenly anxious to utilize ruined villas,\nor that, believing those villas to have been centres of pagan\nfamily-worship, deliberately chose to set foundation over foundation.\nThat this second alternative is not altogether fanciful will be seen\nhereafter. A few examples of villa sites will now be given.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 1. Roman altar (2nd century A.D.), discovered on the site of\n     St Swithin\u2019s church, Lincoln. Height, 3\u00b4; base, 1\u00b4 9\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 1\u00b4\u00b4 3\u00b4\u00b4.\n     The altar is hewn from a single block of oolite. The inscription\n     states that the altar was erected by Gaius Antistius Frontinus,\n     \u201cthrice curator.\u201d\n]\n\nThe churches of West Mersea, in Essex, and Wroxeter, in Salop, are\nbelieved to stand on sites of Roman villas; a little contributory\ntestimony is afforded by the fact that the shaft of the font, in each\ncase, is fashioned from the drum of a Roman column[16]. In the case of\nWroxeter, however, the only tessellated pavement recorded by Professor\nHaverfield was found a little to the north of the church. The conditions\nare supposed to have been similar at Haydon and Chollerton, in\nNorthumberland, and at Great Salkeld, in Cumberland; in all of these\ninstances the fonts are said to be hollowed out of Roman altars[17].\nDuring the rebuilding of St Swithin\u2019s Church, Lincoln (A.D. 1880-88), a\nRoman altar (Fig. 1) was discovered beneath the tower. The old fabric\nbelonged to the Decorated period, while the altar dates from the second\ncentury of the Roman occupation. There is thus an intervening space of\nmore than a thousand years, and this gap cannot yet be actually bridged\nover. At the deserted church of Widford, in Oxfordshire, portions of a\nRoman tessellated pavement were found in the chancel[18].\n\nProfessor Seebohm, who closely studied the district around Hitchin, and\ndiscovered strong proofs of unbroken occupation of village sites, gives\nsome interesting examples which bear on our subject. He thinks that the\nchurch of Much Wymondley, near that town, stands within a Roman holding,\nprobably that of a retired veteran[19]. A Roman cemetery was discovered\nhard by, and to the east of the church is a double \u201ctumulus,\u201d which\nProfessor Seebohm conjectured to be a \u201ctoot-hill,\u201d or a terminal\nmound[20]. These toot-hills will be again mentioned; meanwhile, we are\nbound to notice that more recent investigators claim this particular\nhillock as an early castle-mound. Nevertheless, it is stated that the\nmound and its associated bailey-court have been\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 2. Pavement of red and white tesserae, in the south aisle of\n     the choir, St Saviour\u2019s Cathedral, Southwark. Found in the adjacent\n     graveyard. (For a catalogue of the relics discovered under and near\n     the building, see _Victoria Hist. of London_, 1909, I. p. 140.)\n]\n\ninserted into the corner of a larger (and presumably earlier)\nrectangular work[21]. A Roman villa is recorded from a field near\nLitlington churchyard, Cambridgeshire, and a Roman cemetery from a spot\na short distance away[22]. Other examples have been noted at, or near,\nthe churches of Woodchester and Tidenham, in Gloucestershire, and\nWingham, in Kent[23]. The first-named instance is the most instructive.\nIn the churchyard an inscribed pavement, 25 feet in diameter, was\nuncovered, and near at hand, the ground plot of an extensive building\nwas traced. The neighbourhood of St Saviour\u2019s Cathedral, Southwark, has\nyielded quantities of Roman remains. A portion of a pavement is shown in\nFig. 2. Within the last two or three years, Roman pottery, and the upper\nportion of an amphora, have been discovered while alterations were\nbeing made. These relics may be seen in the south transept. Whether the\nlong list of \u201cfinds,\u201d given in the _Victoria History of London_, justify\nthe old tradition of a pagan temple may be doubted, but, at least, the\nformer existence of a villa is indicated. A tessellated pavement was\ndiscovered in the south transept of Southwell Cathedral, and Mr Francis\nBond conjectures that this relic may have belonged to a Romano-British\nbasilica which existed there in the third century. Did such a building\nexist, the church which St Paulinus is believed to have founded on this\nspot in the seventh century had a prototype, which dated four hundred\nyears earlier[24]. In his recent standard work on Westminster Abbey, Mr\nBond has also recorded the finding of a portion of a Roman wall, in\nposition, under the nave of the Abbey, and a Roman sarcophagus in the\nnorthern part of the nave. Roach Smith alludes to foundations, probably\nRoman, which were unbared at Chalk Church in Kent[25]. The Saxon church\nof Bosham, Sussex, is another claimant for superposition on a Roman\nvilla[26], and the fine old Saxon building at Brixworth, Northants (Fig.\n3), is a further example, although no part of the present structure is\nolder than the eighth century[27]. Our list is by no means exhausted. A\nvery fine mosaic floor, worked in seven colours, together with a bath\nand other remains, were laid bare many years ago at Whatley House,\nSomerset, just behind the ancient church of Whatley. When the church of\nSt Mary Major, Exeter, was being rebuilt in 1866, the Norman foundation\nwas seen to cover a Roman tessellated pavement[28]. Still more recently,\nin 1906-11, during the process of underpinning Winchester Cathedral, the\nworkmen discovered Roman coins and tiles[29]. These remains may have had\nno causal\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 3. Interior of Brixworth Church, Northampton. Chancel and\n     eastern portion of nave. The Saxon arches are constructed of hard\n     red Roman bricks or tiles, set edgewise. The arches spring from\n     square, massive piers which have simple abaci. The materials were\n     evidently obtained from some edifice previously in existence near\n     the site of the church.\n]\n\nconnection with the present building, or with any hypothetical\npredecessor, yet the discovery was curious. We need have no desire to\nstrain the evidence. In such instances as Winchester and Wroxeter, Roman\nruins and Roman sites would be so plentiful, that no enterprising Saxon\nbuilder would overlook the economical value of the spoils. Again, he\nmight unwittingly select an old site concealed by long-continued labours\nof earthworms, and by natural agencies of weathering. Yet even this\nadmission will, in its turn, react if accepted too eagerly or too fully.\nWe are dealing, so far, primarily with the existence of early British\nchurches, and if we urge that old sites were re-occupied\nunintentionally, because they lay hidden from view, we imply that, in\nother cases, foundations hitherto undiscovered may rest beneath later\narchitectural monuments. In other words, the foundations of a pagan\ntemple may lie beneath a Mediaeval church. There may have been\ncontinuity up to a certain date, and then a break; after which a new\nbuilder started work over the forgotten floor. Seeing that most of the\nRomano-British towns, at least, were continuously occupied since their\nfirst establishment[30], and that, as already shown, old material was\nintercalated between the courses of masonry in newer buildings, these\nfacts alone would be sufficient to account for the obliteration of the\nearlier work[31].\n\nHaving now referred to the very doubtful instances of continuity\nrepresented by fabrics in which there has been an adaptation of Roman\nmaterials, and having glanced at those churches which stand on the sites\nof earlier buildings, we turn to Christian edifices which have been\nbuilt adjacent to Roman camps. At present, we will consider those cases\nin which there is actual contiguity, but only a suggestion of\npurposiveness. The ivy-clad church of Ashtead, in Surrey, stands within\na rectangular earthwork, partially defaced, and the visitor will readily\ndetect Roman tiles in the walls of the chancel. At Rivenhall, in Essex,\ntesserae and Roman pottery were dug up in the churchyard, and a villa\nwas unearthed in the neighbouring field. From the data available, one\ncannot decide whether or not a camp is indicated[32]. In the same\ncounty, we notice Stoke-by-Nayland, while Suffolk supplies us with the\ncamp Burghcastle--a most interesting example. St Furseus, or Fursey,\nbuilt a monastery at this spot, but there remains only the church, which\nlies a little to the north of the Roman fortifications. Its walls\ncontain triple bands of flints, faced by Roman workmen, while vases and\npotsherds have been discovered in the vicinity[33]. Squared flints of\nRoman workmanship were also found at Caister by Norwich[34]. The church\nof St Edmund, at the last-named village, was built by Mediaeval\narchitects at one corner of a Roman earthwork, which encloses an area of\n34 acres. The present church, as Professor Haverfield points out, is\ncertainly not a Romano-British \u201csacellum\u201d or temple[35], but, in the\nabsence of excavations, one cannot assert that no earlier ruins lie\nburied underneath the edifice. The oft-quoted instance of Castle Acre,\nalso in Norfolk, must be dismissed as spurious. Professor Haverfield,\nwho has carefully examined the evidence, could find no proofs in support\nof the tradition of a camp, though there was evidence of Roman\noccupation in the neighbourhood[36]. Under the present section, however,\nwe must include Market Overton and Great Casterton in Rutland. The\nchurch of the latter village is situated at the south-west angle of an\nearthwork, presumably Roman, though of earlier construction than the\nRoman road hard by[37]. At Market Overton, the church stands entirely\nwithin a square Roman camp[38]. In the adjoining county of Lincolnshire,\nwe get examples at Caistor and Ancaster[39], places bearing tell-tale\nnames. The church of Horncastle is within a few yards of a Roman wall, a\nportion of which remains visible above the land-surface[40]. Lincoln\nCathedral is built partly within and partly without a Roman camp[41].\n\nIn Durham, the church of Chester-le-Street, which contains some traces\nof pre-Conquest work, was originally inside a Roman camp, now\nunfortunately destroyed[42]. Ebchester Church, also in Durham, stands at\nthe south-western corner of the ancient Vindomora, and has a foundation\nof large squared stones, but little can now be seen of the surrounding\nfortifications[43]. While surveying the North of England, we notice\nMoresby, near Whitehaven[44]. In Scotland, to mention but one case, we\nhave the Cistercian Abbey of Cupar-Angus, which was built, in A.D.\n1164, within the boundaries of a Roman camp[45]. Returning to the south,\nwe discover, in the churchyard of St John\u2019s-sub-Castro, at Lewes, a\nsmall Roman camp, of which the vallum is still traceable[46].\nPorchester, in Hampshire, is a square-walled fort which occupies an area\nof 9 acres, and which encloses a Mediaeval keep and bailey-court at the\nnorth-west corner, and a Mediaeval church and graveyard at the\nsouth-west corner[47]. In like manner, the Norman church at Silchester\nnestles within the celebrated Roman settlement. Here our list of\nChristian churches placed within Roman camps must be curtailed, for we\nhave still to consider earthworks belonging to an earlier period. The\nreason for separating the two classes of earthworks is, that those\nchurches which were reared within Roman camps may, probably, in some\ncases, have replaced more primitive buildings, while those built inside\nprehistoric forts most likely had no predecessors. In other words, we\nshall have to search for different motives inducing the choice of the\ntwo respective series of sites.\n\nAt the very threshold of the inquiry a marked difference is noticed: the\npre-Roman earthworks contained no building material to entice the\nchurchmen within their boundaries. Turning to individual examples, we\nfind a most instructive case at Knowlton or Knollton, Dorsetshire, four\nmiles south-west of Cranborne. Here, a ruined church built by Norman\nlabour, though not necessarily representing the first church reared on\nthe spot, stands within a round British earthwork (Fig. 4). The ditch,\nor fosse, of the enclosure is situated on the inner side, as in the\nrenowned earthwork at Avebury, Wiltshire. The Saxon church at Avebury\ndates in the main, perhaps, from the early tenth century, and stands\njust outside the vallum. Some writers have inferred, from the presence\nof the inner fosse, that these enclosures had religious, or, at least,\nsepulchral associations. The Knowlton earthwork is one of a group, and\nclose by is a cluster of ancient, storm-beaten yews[48]. Such a\ncollocation, as will be seen in Chapter IX., is not without\nsignificance.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4. Ruins of Knowlton Church, Dorset, standing within\nan ancient earthwork.]\n\nAnother dilapidated chapel, now used as a barn, is situated within the\noval camp of Chisbury, near Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire. This earthwork,\nwhich has double, and in some parts treble, lines of trenches, is\ndescribed by Sir R. Colt Hoare as one of the finest specimens of\ncastrametation in England. One rampart is 45 feet in height. The\nexisting ruins represent a Decorated fabric which was dedicated to St\nMartin, but Mr A. H. Allcroft, in his _Earthwork of England_, suggests\nthat a church was erected here after the drawn battle between Wessex and\nMercia in A.D. 675. On the hill above Standish Church, Gloucestershire,\nis a somewhat notable camp. Although it is said that the ditches were\ndeepened during the Civil War, and although Roman coins have been dug up\nin large numbers[49], it is conceived that the camp was originally\nBritish. On the height just above Gunwalloe Church, Cornwall, is a\n\u201ccliff castle\u201d--one belonging to the Group A, as defined by the Congress\nof Archaeological Societies in 1903[50]. Such earthworks are\ninaccessible along a portion of their boundaries, on account of the\npresence of cliffs or water. The site of the church of St Dennis, also\nin Cornwall, is associated with a \u201chill castle[51],\u201d which is assigned\nto the Group B. In this class, the earthwork follows the contour of the\nhill. Another contoured camp, much disturbed and defaced, is situated on\nSt Anne\u2019s Hill, near Midhurst Church, Sussex[52], while a small circular\nfortification may be seen to the west of the churchyard of South\nMoreton, Berkshire[53]. Coldred Church, Kent, was built actually within\na fortress, conjecturally of Romano-British date[54], though the\nelevation of the earthwork is rather exceptional for that period, being\nabout 370 feet above the sea-level, and 50 feet above the valley towards\nthe west. Again, at Kenardington, also in Kent, an earthwork of unknown\nage, now much mutilated[55], surrounded the graveyard and part of the\nneighbouring fields.\n\nThe so-called Dane\u2019s Camp (Group B) at Cholesbury, Bucks., 600 feet\nabove the sea-level, encircles the church of St Lawrence with its\nembankment[56]. Another St Lawrence, at West Wycombe, in the same\ncounty, is built inside a ring earthwork (Group B), which crowns the\nhill. This fort, probably of British construction, is remarkable for its\ndouble-terraced defences, and for the manner in which it commands three\nconverging valleys[57]. A somewhat similar example was once visible at\nBrownsover, near Rugby, where, a century ago, the church and village\nwere enclosed within elaborate entrenchments. These represented a\nfortress, constructed on a ridge which overlooked the valleys of the\nAvon and the Swift. The fort was probably prehistoric, although a\ncinerary urn, found in the churchyard, was identified as Roman.\n\nThe hill-village of Burpham, in Sussex, is clustered near an oblong\npromontory fort (Class A) constructed on a tongue of land, around which\na loop is formed by the river Arun. A gigantic vallum and exterior\nfosse cross the neck of the peninsula. The early Norman church of the\nvillage stands but a few yards beyond an entrance breach in the northern\nrampart. Mr A. H. Allcroft, pursuing the \u201cmethod of exhaustions,\u201d\ndeclares the earthwork to be Danish, and Mr P. M. Johnston suggests that\nthe church occupies a pagan site. At all events the juxtaposition can\nhardly be considered casual.\n\nImmediately to the east of Hathersage churchyard, Derbyshire, may be\nseen a simple circular earthwork, consisting of a high rampart with a\nmoat outside. It is classed by Dr J. C. Cox in the division C of the\nscheme above-mentioned[58], namely, the division which embraces round\nenclosures of a defensive character. An analogous earthwork adjoins the\nchurchyard of Tissington, also in Derbyshire[59].\n\nWithout pursuing this quest further, one or two pitfalls must be pointed\nout. Entrenchments found near a parish church may sometimes represent\nportions of the \u201cring fence\u201d of a Mediaeval settlement; and the banks,\nwhich once bore a hedge or palisade, might be hastily ascribed to an\nearlier period. Mr Allcroft, in the work just mentioned, cites numerous\nwarning examples. Again, banks of boulder clay or glacial drift may\nassume a false appearance of ridging, as if due to the work of man. To\nglacial action I venture to assign the surface irregularities near\nLudborough Church, Lincolnshire, though they may represent the partially\nerased banks of the Mediaeval village. Close by the neighbouring\nchurchyard of St Lawrence at Fulstow, one sees similar unevenness of the\nground, the most important hillock being perhaps a grave wherein were\nburied some sixscore parishioners who died of the sweating sickness in\nthe early seventeenth century. Once more, the traces of earthwork,\nmilitary or agricultural, below the church of St Michael, on Glastonbury\nTor, Somerset, may not be very ancient, and I should not connect them in\nany manner with any ideas which were held by the Gothic architects.\n\nWe next inquire why churches should have been built in situations such\nas those which we have been considering. Mr Allcroft, arguing\napparently from the assumption that the church was a defensive\nbuilding--in fact, almost the only one in the parish--considers that it\nwas sometimes built near earthworks for additional security[60]. That Mr\nAllcroft\u2019s premises are sound, I shall attempt to show in the next\nchapter. That, in exceptional cases, his conclusion is correct, one\nwould not care to deny. But can the theory be of general application?\nScattered throughout the land are churches built in exposed and lofty\nsituations, so that traditions, varying in detail, but related in their\nmain principle, have sprung up to account for the choice of these\nisolated and inconvenient positions. Most of the stories put fairies,\nor, more commonly, the Spirit of Evil, in opposition to the efforts of\nthe builders. Churches were moved in a night, or the day\u2019s work was\nundone by the malignant foes. In cases of this kind, as in those\ninstances where churches stand in some secluded meadow, the reason may\noccasionally be found in the churlishness of the manorial lord, or in\nthe fact that the village settlement has shifted since the church was\nbuilt. Houses are demolished and rebuilt, but the church remains. The\ndesire to place the church in an impregnable spot may more frequently\naccount for the hill-structures, which will be considered in Chapter\nIII., though not for the churches near earthworks, nor for the\nsequestered churches in the fields. Some other explanation must be\nsought, and, curiously enough, Mr Allcroft has incidentally suggested\ntwo other theories. The early missionaries to the pagan Saxons, he\nsupposes, made their headquarters on deserted Roman sites, first, to\ndemonstrate their own power in successfully defying the evil spirits\nwhich haunted those spots, and secondly, through the bad reputation of\nthese earthworks, to obtain \u201csomething of a guarantee against\nmolestation by human beings quite as formidable[61].\u201d While not agreeing\nthat the second motive would be very influential, with the first\nsuggestion I find myself more in harmony. The miraculous power of\nwithstanding devils and demons would not be without its effect on the\nignorant. Moreover, the claim would be as effective during the Mediaeval\nas it was during the Saxon period. For we are not to suppose that\nsuperstition fled the land on the advent of the Normans. Who were these\nnew folk, and what were their antecedents, that they should be free from\nslavish fears of the unknown? Legends were without doubt attached to\nprehistoric remains down to a late date; how intense and how gross are\nthe superstitions of country folk even in our own day, only the close\nstudent of men and books can be aware. Thus, for some reason,\ninexplicable, except on anthropological grounds, there exists among the\nLincolnshire woldsmen a prejudice in favour of burial on the heights,\nand many similar facts could be given.\n\nAbove all these causes of selection of prehistoric sites, however, one\nmay place the spirit of compromise which actuated the missionaries.\nEverywhere, the preachers found that the Saxons, who were unaware of the\nreal origin of the old defences, attributed them to diabolism. Devil\u2019s\nDykes, Devil\u2019s Highways, Devil\u2019s Doors, as has been shown in another\nvolume, meet us in every part of the country[62]. Believing firmly in\nthe diabolic origin of the earthworks and megaliths, the Saxon was moved\nto fear, and to that slavish respect which is the child of fear. Yet it\nwas pre-eminently in the open country, where such objects abounded, that\nthe Saxon loved to dwell. It has been shown that, however much he may\nhave avoided the walled towns--and these he did not shun altogether--the\nSaxon settler had no antipathy to occupation of the deserted villas and\nrural settlements[63]. Here, then, the potential convert, with his\nsuperstitions and aversions, lived and toiled. The monuments of earlier\nraces he regarded with sacred awe. It would be well-nigh impossible to\nwean him from his creed by direct denunciation; it would be easy to win\nhim over by toleration and compromise, and this possibility seems to\nsupply the real explanation why earthworks and other spots with weird\nassociations were chosen for many of the early churches. If it be asked\nwhy still more instances are not forthcoming, it may be answered that\nthe earthworks were frequently too remote from settlements on the\nplains, and were too elevated in position, to tempt the builders, even\nwhen the desire for protection reinforced the primary purpose.\nMoreover, though the earliest open-air preachers in Saxon times may have\nselected the earthwork as a pulpit, the permanent church would not\nnecessarily be built within that area. (It will save misapprehension, if\nan explanation of the use of the word \u201cSaxon\u201d be interpolated here. In\nstrictness, there is a clear distinction between Angle and Saxon,\ndialectically and archaeologically. But it is impossible always to\nobserve the differences, especially when the data are scanty. The term\nwill be employed, then, in its old loose signification, to denote, as Mr\nReginald A. Smith says, \u201cthe roving Teutonic bands that for centuries\ninfested the Northern seas.\u201d)\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 5. The \u201cpharos\u201d or lighthouse, near the church within Dover\n     Castle (Bloxam\u2019s _Gothic Eccles. Architect._). The building is\n     hexagonal externally, and square within. The lower part is composed\n     of flints and rubble, with bonding courses of Roman tiles. The\n     upper part of the tower belongs to the Tudor period. The doorway\n     shown in the drawing has now been blocked up.\n]\n\nWe have now glanced at those churches which contain remnants of Roman\nruins, and others which are built over Roman villas, or within Roman\ncamps, and we have been led insensibly to examine buildings which are\nconnected with earthworks of other ages. The problem of site-continuity\nhas constantly impinged upon the question of continuity of fabrics. A\nfew paragraphs may now be devoted to a consideration of those churches\nwhich lay claim to a possession of one or both of these features. The\nsmall ruined church of St Mary, within the confines of Dover Castle, is\na well-known example. It stands in juxtaposition with an octagonal\nstructure, usually described as a pharos, or lighthouse (Fig. 5), and\nbelieved by some to be a fort belonging to the Romano-British period.\nThis polygonal tower has an exterior casing of flint, dating from the\nfifteenth century, but the original uneven masonry of rubble and flint,\nbonded with bricks at intervals, is still visible at the base. The\nsupposition is that the church, with the lighthouse, was utilized for\nChristian worship during Roman times. By most modern authorities, the\nchurch itself is attributed, and perhaps more correctly, to the late\nSaxon period[64]. Lyminge, in Kent (p. 4 _supra_), is another claimant.\nThe foundations of a seventh-century chapel, probably of apsidal\nbasilican plan (Fig. 6), have been traced here (A.D. 1899), but it is\nsupposed that the present church, though rich in Roman materials,\nbelongs entirely to a later epoch[65]. At Reculver (Regulbium), near\nHerne Bay, there is an example of a church which Professor Baldwin Brown\nplaces with that of Dover in a distinct category as representing\npossible authentic relics, since the buildings stand alone within\ndeserted Roman stations. The church at Reculver stands over the\nfoundations of a basilica, but the present building is probably\naltogether post-Roman, the earliest known date for the existence of a\nchurch on this spot being A.D. 670[66].\n\nDean Stanley held the belief, once shared by many antiquaries, that in\nSt Martin\u2019s at Canterbury we have a veritable monument of early British\nChristianity--a monument, moreover, erected over a pagan temple[67].\nBede asserts that there\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 6. Chancel of Lyminge Church, Kent. In the churchyard, to the\n     right hand, is a portion of the foundations of a seventh-century\n     chapel, composed of re-arranged Roman materials. The church seems\n     to occupy the site of a villa.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 7. Portion of chancel wall, south side, St Martin\u2019s Church,\n     Canterbury. Roman tiles are seen abundantly in the wall on the\n     right, and in the round arch; they are also bonded into the wall on\n     the left. The wall is mainly seventh-century work, but the\n     round-headed doorway is later, and the buttress has been\n     modernized. The flat-headed doorway is probably original.\n]\n\nwas a church on this spot in Roman times, and that the building which\nexisted in his day retained relics of the older structure[68]. In spite\nof this tradition, the popular belief is only doubtfully tenable. The\nsite is old, and there may have been unbroken continuity, but the\npresent building, though doubtless largely composed of the original\nmaterials, has been altogether re-arranged[69] (Fig. 7). An exception\nmay perhaps be made for portions of the western nave, which Professor\nBaldwin Brown considers may represent early work. St Pancras, at\nCanterbury, by some writers judged to be older than St Martin\u2019s, must,\nunder reserve, be given up, for similar reasons. Foundations, nearly\ncomplete, of a single-celled apsidal church have been revealed to the\nexcavator, but the actual persistence of work above the surface is not\ndemonstrated[70]. Other churches put forward are Ribchester, in\nLancashire[71], and the chapel of St Peter\u2019s-on-the-Wall, at Bradwell\n(_Othona_), in Essex. St Peter\u2019s Chapel represents a barnlike building,\nof which the materials were evidently quarried from the adjacent\nfortress, but, once again, proof of continuity is lacking.\n\nSt Joseph\u2019s Chapel, at Glastonbury Abbey, presents us with an\ninteresting case of probable retention of site, though not necessarily\nof continuous buildings. The earlier history of Glastonbury is,\nunfortunately, mainly a history of legends and traditions. We may well\ndiscredit the tale, told by the imaginative William of Malmesbury, a\nmillennium after the alleged event, that, so early as the first century\nof the Christian era, a chapel constructed of osiers existed at this\nspot. That some kind of primitive church or oratory, with walls of\nwattle, and a roof of reeds, was set up during the Roman occupation is,\nhowever, very probable, and it may fairly be supposed, though it cannot\nbe proved, that no break had occurred when the Saxon abbey was\nfounded[72].\n\nAmong other churches for which a reasonable claim has been advanced is\nthat of Jarrow, which Professor Brown places in his period \u201cA,\u201d that is,\nthe period anterior to the year A.D. 800[73]. Again, the oldest part of\nthe cathedral church of Canterbury, as attested by experts, slightly\nsupported by Bede\u2019s description, may be a relic of Roman\nChristianity[74]. We pass from these examples in order to glance at a\nchurch whose age may now be deemed undisputed, namely, the small apsidal\nchurch or basilica which was uncovered in 1892 at Silchester (_Calleva\nAtrebatum_). The nature of the building was at first much canvassed, and\nsome authorities, relying chiefly upon the absence of Christian symbols\nin the mosaics, and upon other details, denied that the foundations were\nthose of a church[75]. Curious to relate, the Chi-Rho, along with the\nOmega, was found impressed on the side of a small leaden seal which was\ndug up in the Silchester Forum[76], hence, if the basilica has yielded\nno evidence of Christian symbolism, such testimony lay hidden at no\ngreat distance. To be brief, not only is the basilica now accepted as\ngenuine by the best authorities, but Messrs G. E. Fox and W. St John\nHope declare that it is the only example of a Christian church of Roman\ndate yet found[77].\n\nOn the ruins of the Silchester basilica no Gothic church sprang up, so\nthat there was not site-continuity. Yet the parish church, which was\nafterwards built during the twelfth century, within the enceinte of the\ndestroyed Roman town, has a direct bearing on the subject of this\nchapter. It is one of the two instances of churches which Professor\nBrown admits as having possibly superseded pagan Roman buildings. He\ndoes not, however, concede that we have any examples of Saxon churches\nwhich once actually formed parts of such temples. In all cases, the form\nand orientation of the churches, he asserts, betray an ecclesiastical\norigin. The churches may point to a survival of Romano-British\nChristianity, but that is another question[78]. Nevertheless, as\nProfessor Brown himself notes, Silchester parish church was built close\nto the remains of two small Roman shrines of Gaulish type. The\norientation of the church exactly agrees with that of one of the\nshrines, and this may indicate some relationship[79]. Messrs Fox and St\nJohn Hope have stated that the list of edifices dedicated to pagan\ndeities in this country is very scanty, yet it is noteworthy that, of\nthis list, three were recorded at Silchester. Moreover, one of these\ntemples was found lying partly under the graveyard of the parish church,\nand partly under the buildings of an adjacent farm[80]. \u201cPerhaps,\u201d say\nthese writers, \u201cthe rising power of Christianity, as seen in the little\nchurch [the basilica] within the south-eastern corner of the Forum, may\nhave made for their destruction[81]\u201d [i.e. the destruction of the\nshrines]. May we not add that, should someone excavate a second\nSilchester, further evidence of this kind might be obtained? Dr Thomas\nAshby\u2019s explorations at Caerwent (_Venta Silurum_) have, so far (1910),\nyielded no certain traces of a Christian church. The basilica discovered\non the north side of the Forum is of a civil, not religious, character.\nWe might frankly discard all the examples previously given, save perhaps\nthose in which churches stand over Roman villas, and yet come to a wrong\nconclusion by arguing from the absence of particular witnesses. Other\ndeponents may press forward. Before, however, we can examine these, we\nmust make a rather lengthy digression to inquire if there exist _a\npriori_ reasons for the annexation of pagan sites by Christian teachers.\n\nWe have, in proceeding to this examination, principally to consider the\npolicy which was pursued by the early missionaries. Writing about\nChristianity in general, Harnack has shown that, during the third\ncentury, it united enthusiasm with the spirit of tolerance. \u201cStooping to\nmeet the needs of the masses,\u201d the leaders studied polytheistic customs,\ninstituted festivals and saints, and utilized sites already deemed\nsacred. To express the fact otherwise: the religion became syncretistic\nin the proper meaning of that term[82]. Christian and pagan ideas were\nblended. Following the wise, and, indeed, the only practicable\nmethod--that of peaceful permeation--the Church often retained the forms\nof heathen ceremonies, while actually investing these with new meanings.\nThe process has been pithily expressed by Sir G. L. Gomme: \u201cChristianity\nwas both antagonistic to, and tolerant of, pagan custom and belief. In\nprinciple and purpose it was antagonistic. In practice, it was tolerant\nwhere it could tolerate freely[83].\u201d\n\nAs a matter of history, however, we learn that the policy did not remain\nstrictly consistent, and a struggle for survival ensued. Under the rule\nof Constantine, the tendency was to destroy heathen temples and their\nidols, but by the Edict of Theodosius (A.D. 392), pagan shrines were to\nbe dedicated as Christian churches. Later, the Edict of Honorius (A.D.\n408) definitely forbade the demolition of heathen temples, at least in\nthe cities[84]. These enactments seem to have a direct bearing on cases\nlike that of Silchester and upon other examples, to be described\nhereafter. Leaping over a gulf of nearly two centuries, we discover Pope\nGregory the Great (A.D. 601) sending a letter to the Abbot Mellitus, who\nwas then about to visit Britain, commanding that, while idols were to be\ndestroyed, the temples themselves were to be preserved. Holy water was\nto be sprinkled in the buildings, altars were to be erected, and sacred\nrelics were to be placed therein. Anniversary festivals were to be\nappointed, and the new worship inaugurated[85]. Keeping this in mind, we\nare not surprised to find that, on the conversion of Ethelbert, two or\nthree years previous to the Gregorian edict, Augustine received a\nlicence to restore, as well as to build churches[86]. Whether these\nchurches were pagan temples which had been partially despoiled, or\nRomano-British basilicas which had fallen into decay, we are left to\nconjecture.\n\nOn the continent, the breach of continuity of policy was still less\nperceptible. Grimm distinctly states that churches were erected on the\nsites of heathen trees or temples. He warns us against false conceptions\nof history. We are not to picture the poor peasants as being ruthlessly\nexpelled from their accustomed places of worship. The heathen, he\ndeclares, were not so tame and simple, nor were the Christians so\nreckless, as to lay the axe to sacred trees, or to fire the pagan\ntemples. The rude forefathers of the hamlet trod the old paths to the\nold site. Sometimes the very walls were retained, nay, the local idol or\nimage was retained outside the door or within the porch. Thus, at\nBamberg Cathedral, in Bavaria, zoomorphic stones, inscribed with runes,\npassed the examination of lenient judges[87]. Again, pagan festivals\nwere converted into Christian holy-days. The Yule-tide merry-makings in\nhonour of Thor--revels which have also been connected by some writers\nequally with the gods Adonis, Dionysos, and Mithra--became the festival\ncelebration of the birth of Christ. Canon E. L. Hicks (now Bishop of\nLincoln) contends that the observance of the exact date, December 25th,\nas Christmas Day, is directly borrowed from Mithraism[88]. The old\nGerman feast in memory of departed warriors was metamorphosed into All\nSouls\u2019 Day, when the spirits of resting believers were kept in mind[89].\nAs with holy-days, so with symbols. Thor\u2019s hammer was replaced by the\nChristian Cross, and the heathen sprinkling of newly-born babes became\nChristian baptism[90]. Thus, by the retention of holy oaks, of\nidolatrous feasts, of pagan symbols and ceremonies, of the heathen names\nfor the days of the week, the new religion gained entrance. In Ireland,\nwhere the problem to be faced was remarkably complex, the\nChristianization of pagan myths was very noticeable[91]. Here, the very\nnames of the feasts long continued as in pagan times. Only when the\nconciliatory policy had \u201ceased the yoke of the new ordinances,\u201d was it\npossible to take drastic measures, and to extrude heathenism from the\nplaces of worship[92].\n\nBut this time was slow in coming. In the heart of the Empire, as\nFriedlander has shown us, the triumphant Christians did, indeed,\nassimilate many heathen practices, yet they strove hard to stifle\npaganism altogether. On the other hand, all over Northern Europe, the\nspirit of compromise was at work. In Sweden, during this transition\nperiod, old associations were so strong that prayers to Thor and Freya\nwere often mingled with Christian orisons[93]. Professor F. Kauffmann\nspeaks of the great temple of Upsala, with its evergreen tree, and its\nmysterious sacrificial well, which received the bodies of the slain. So\nlate as the eleventh century, this temple still stood in all its\nsplendour[94]. Professor O. Montelius, while noting the frequency with\nwhich sacred stone-circles are associated with the church, considers\nthat the cromlechs were not places of sacrifice, but of judgement. This\nidea is gaining ground in England, where also there is a tendency to\nchange the nomenclature of megaliths. (To avoid confusion, it must be\nnoted that \u201cdolmen,\u201d in these chapters, refers to a \u201ctable-stone,\u201d that\nis, several upright stones capped by a flat one. \u201cCromlech\u201d is used in\nits Breton sense of stone-circle, not in Welsh and Cornish\nsignifications of table-stone, nor in Sir Norman Lockyer\u2019s restricted\nconnotation--a kind of \u201cirregular vault generally open at one end.\u201d) At\nGamla Upsala, near Upsala, a church was built on the site of a temple,\nwhich was the traditional burial place of Odin, and the centre of his\nworship. Modern excavations at this spot have yielded bones of horses,\npigs, and hawks, together with relics of gold and silver[95]. This\nexample is instructive, alike for its testimony to the value of\nfolk-memory, and for its illustration of the employment of a pagan site.\nBut, indeed, example can be piled upon example. At the Danish coast-town\nof Veile (or Vejle), two barrows, locally known as the graves of King\nGorm and his queen, stand by the churchyard. Hard by are ancient stone\nmonuments, bearing runic inscriptions[96].\n\nNor do these Northern cases lack counterparts elsewhere. The church at\nArrichinaga, in the province of Biscay, in Spain, was so built as to\nenclose the huge stones of a great dolmen; between the stones is placed\nthe shrine of the patron saint[97]. The rugged land of Brittany is\nwell-known to all travellers for its illustrations of lingering\npaganism; to some of these we shall again refer. But if we desire to\nlearn how imperative, how inescapable, was the spirit of compromise, we\nshould turn to the works of old writers, such as that curious old volume\nwhich relates Jean Scheffer\u2019s travels in Lapland in the latter part of\nthe seventeenth century[98]. There, we shall discover a strange alloy of\nheathenism and Christianity, visible to all, seemingly condemned by\nnone. Even in our own day, so recently as the year 1895, we hear of\ncurious practices among the Samoyads. These folk, though nominally\nChristians, within modern times still sacrificed human beings\nclandestinely, and conducted heathen services within the ancient\nstone-circles, carefully screening the images of their gods from the\npublic gaze.\n\nReturning to the high road of our inquiry, we ask whether these examples\ncan be paralleled in Britain. Consider for a moment the great wealth of\nour folk-lore, our superstitions, our almost incredible heathen\npractices. Grease from the church-bell to cure rheumatism; pellitory\nfrom the church-wall for whooping-cough; teeth from the graveyard to\nserve as charms; the midnight watchings on St Mark\u2019s Eve; the folk-tales\nabout evergreens; the superstitions connected with baptisms, marriages,\nand deaths; the hundred and one little beliefs which run in an\nundercurrent beneath the apparently smooth surface of religious\nthought--do not these suggest that we may expect to find parallels to\nthe continental examples of church-building on heathen soil? How strange\nif our islands had escaped the influences which are seen in almost every\nother European country! Yet, to speak plainly, our direct testimony is\nvery scanty.\n\nWe know that, at Rome, the Pantheon became a Christian church, and we\nhave previously mooted the possibility of pagan idol-temples having been\nsimilarly treated in Britain. Conclusive proof cannot be given, since\nsubsequent restorations would erase, or at least obscure, the vestiges\nwhich we seek. Professor Baldwin Brown admits two possible examples,\nwithout committing himself to a decided opinion. One is the church of\nSilchester previously noted (p. 23 _supra_), and the other that of St\nMartin\u2019s, Leicester. The latter church rests on the site of a Roman\ncolumnar structure, which would have been suitable for a temple[99].\nThere are also certain clues afforded by tradition and philology. At\nWoodcuts Common, in Cranborne Chase, there is an imperfect amphitheatre\nknown as Church Barrow, which was excavated by General Pitt-Rivers. This\nhigh authority suggested that the depression which forms the arena was\nused for games, and, not improbably, in early Saxon times, before any\nchurch was built in the neighbourhood, for divine worship[100]. Mr\nAllcroft gives reasons for supposing that the present earthwork is on\nthe site once occupied by a tumulus[101]. Whichever hypothesis be\naccepted, the name of Church Barrow will not be lightly set aside by the\nfolk-lorist, for it does not stand alone. At a spot called Church\nBottom, or Sunken Kirk, near Ickleton, in Cambridgeshire, Roman relics,\nsuggestive of a columnar building, were discovered. Pitt-Rivers supposed\nthat a Roman basilica, for Christian worship, existed on the site, and\nthat it was re-adapted when the East Anglians became converted to\nChristianity[102]. The data, in this instance, are not plentiful, and\none might perhaps conjecture, with equal reason, that the original\nbuilding was pagan. An earthwork on Temple Downs, a few miles north of\nAvebury, Wiltshire, was traditionally called \u201cOld Chapel.\u201d By the way,\nwe notice that the names of Kirk, Old Kirk, Sunken Kirk, and Chapel\nField, as applied to earthworks and sites containing ancient\nfoundations, are not uncommon[103], and one is naturally led to connect\nthis fact with the known association of churches and earthworks. Again,\nat Llangenydd, Glamorganshire, there may be seen, in a field, the\nremains of a stone-circle which is still called Yr Hen Eglwys, \u201cthe old\nchurch,\u201d the meadow being known as Cae\u2019r Hen Eglwys, \u201cOld Church Field.\u201d\nTradition says that here the inhabitants worshipped before the present\nchurch at Lalestone was erected. A remarkable parallel is exhibited in\nthe Shetlands, where churches were often built, we are assured, amid the\nruins of heathen \u201ctemples.\u201d The analogy consists in this: that the word\n\u201ckirk\u201d is now applied to holy spots, whether a chapel exists there or\nnot. Again, Sandwich Kirk, in the island of Unst, represents the ruins\nof a reputed chapel which stood beside an ancient kitchen-midden. At\nKirkamool, bones and pottery were dug up under the foundations of the\nsacred building[104]. Germane to this subject, one may mention the old\nruins of Constantine Church, in Cornwall, which lie near an old\nkitchen-midden, and which have yielded to the spade of the explorer\nbones of men and domestic animals, besides pottery of the Mediaeval,\nRoman, and Neolithic periods[105].\n\nPursuing the trail provided by philology, one must glance cursorily at\nthe theory propounded by Isaac Taylor that place-names like Godshill,\nGodstone, Godley, Godney, Godstow, and Godmanchester, are mute witnesses\nof the substitution of the new faith for the old[106]. The theory is\ncertainly plausible, but, as Professor W. W. Skeat pointed out in a\nletter to the present writer, the question can only be settled by an\nappeal to carefully compiled name-lists, especially those which give the\nspellings that were current during the Middle English period. Now it\nchances that my friend Mr A. Bonner has, for many years past, been\nmaking researches on these, and similar place-names, and he has kindly\nallowed me the use of his unpublished work. Thus, by the aid of\nProfessor Skeat and Mr Bonner, one is able to test the theory that these\nparticular names commemorate the establishment of Christian worship. To\nbegin with, it must be observed that, owing to the modern defective and\nmisleading system of orthography, not only may origins be disguised, but\none mode of spelling may hide several possible etymologies. Thus, the\nA.S. _g\u014dd_ (=good) is frequently confused with _god_ (=God); moreover,\nsince _G\u014dd_ (=Good) was also a personal name in Anglo-Saxon, we may get\nfurther complexity; e.g. Goodrich (A.S. _G\u014dd-ric_), in Herefordshire.\nDealing with a few of the names mentioned above, we have Godstone,\nSurrey, appearing in the thirteenth century as Codeston and Coddestone,\nthe spelling _God_ being of much later date. Though the question cannot\nbe settled in the absence of an Anglo-Saxon form, it is probable that\nthe word denotes a personal name. Godney, Somerset, apparently\nrepresents \u201cG\u014dda\u2019s island,\u201d and Godley, the name of a hundred in Surrey,\n\u201cG\u014dda\u2019s meadow.\u201d Godshill (G\u014dds, i.e. Good\u2019s hill), Godstow, and\nGodstoke, again, all give indications of personal names.\n\nGoodmanham, or Godmundingham, near Market Weighton, in Yorkshire, is\nbelieved to be the spot mentioned by Bede as having a celebrated pagan\ntemple, and as being the scene of missionary work by Paulinus. Isaac\nTaylor was at first content to follow Grimm in deriving the word from\nthe Norse (_godi_ =priest, and _mund_, protection of the gods).\nAfterwards he discovered his error, for, in a later edition of _Names\nand their Histories_, he explains the name as the \u201chome of the\nGodmundings or descendants of Godmund.\u201d Alas, in a posthumous edition,\nvery recent, of _Words and Places_, the old blunder creeps in again. Mr\nBonner states that the earliest form (c. A.D. 737), is Godmunddingham;\nthe tenth century spelling was practically the same; hence the meaning\nis, \u201cham of the Godmund or Goodman family.\u201d\n\nAgain, the village-name of Malden, in Surrey, has been claimed as\nmeaning \u201cHill of the Cross,\u201d and as indicating the turn-over to\nChristianity. It is true that the Anglo-Saxon _m[=\u00e6]l_ means a mark, and\nthat the Domesday form, Meldone, points to a down on which stood some\nmark, probably a beacon or boundary post. Yet, although the village\nchurch is situated on the highest spot in the neighbourhood, whence the\nground slopes away on two sides, the building does not stand on the\nChalk downland, but on the London Clay. Moreover, although we have many\npost-Conquest orthographies, such as Maudon, Meaudon, and Maldene, to\nguide us, we lack evidence concerning the true A. S. form. Had the name\nbeen Christ\u2019s Maldon (_Cristes m[=\u00e6]l d\u016bn_), it would certainly have\nimplied a \u201chill with a cross or crucifix,\u201d just as, according to\nProfessor Skeat, we have \u201cChrist\u2019s _m[=\u00e6]l_ ford,\u201d now oddly turned into\nChristian Malford (Wiltshire). The evidence for Maldon, in Essex, is\nmore satisfactory than that for the Surrey village. Here we get the\ntenth century spelling M[=\u00e6]ldune, and, although the modern town is\nbuilt on low ground by the river Blackwater, a hill, surmounted by a\ntumulus, rises behind to a height of 109 feet. Hence this name may\nperhaps be the equivalent of \u201cHill of the Cross.\u201d\n\nThe prefix _Llan_, which occurs so frequently in Wales and the Marches,\naffords a surer indication of a period when the possession of a church\nby the village community was the exception, and not the rule. Not only\nthis; but expert opinion shows that _llan_ signifies an enclosed or\nfenced-in space. The reference is therefore rather to the churchyard\nthan to the sacred fabric, and it is believed by some that the word\nretains memories of the worship held within stone-circles. When we come\nto consider the relation of Bardic assemblies with parish churches, it\nwill appear that this supposition is reasonable. Even in Wales, the\nprefix _Llan_-is sometimes replaced by _Kil_-, as in Kilfowyr and\nKilsant, in Caermathenshire; but it is chiefly in Scotland that we look\nfor such place-names. The word _kil_ originally meant a hermit\u2019s cell,\nand afterwards came to be applied to a church. Finally, as an aid in\ndetecting places which possessed churches at an early date, and which\nwere thus pre-eminently worthy of special designations, we have the\nNorse, and Danish, prefix, _Kirk_-, as in Kirby, Kirk Ella, Kirkcolm.\nPremising that a little additional testimony under the head of philology\nwill be given later, we must now follow another clue.\n\nOn the whole, it must be conceded that the support derived from\ngeographical names is somewhat feeble, yet it may prove capable of being\nextended as knowledge increases. Our next line of research gives fairer\npromise; it brings us to examine the ancient rude monuments which are\nfrequently found in the vicinity of village churches.\n\nThe megalithic monuments recognized by the archaeologist are of several\nkinds, but we shall be here concerned with three of these groups--the\nmenhir, or single upright stone; the cromlech, or stone-circle; and the\ndolmen, or \u201cstone-table.\u201d These prehistoric remains seem to have\nseriously attracted the notice of the Teutonic invaders, who were prone\nto follow idolatrous practices based upon lingering traditions about the\nstorm-fretted stones. To this superstitious respect attention has been\ndrawn in a previous work[107]. Some indications of the honour imputed to\nthese megaliths is gleaned from a study of parish boundaries, though it\nis almost certain that many of the stones erected in such positions\nbelong to the historic period. The old open-air tribunals, too, were\nwont to meet at barrows, cairns, cromlechs, and menhirs, and at the foot\nof the crosses by which the menhirs were largely supplanted. This\nstatement holds true for other places besides England. In the churchyard\nof Ste Marie du Castel, Guernsey, there existed three large stones,\nwhich marked the spot where open-air courts were held until recent\nyears[108]. Evidence is also obtainable from several countries, showing\nthat the election and coronation of kings and princes were associated\nwith stone-circles. Nor, indeed, were our ancestors very exigent in this\nmatter; a rude natural boulder or monolith was considered a good\nsubstitute for the artificial pillar which had been erected by forgotten\nfolk. Over and over again we meet with \u201cblue-stones\u201d--chiefly glacial\nboulders--which were set up to mark the limits of a parish, or to form\nthe trysting-place of a manorial court[109]. Lastly, it is on record\nthat Patrick, Bishop of the Hebrides, desired Orlyg\u00fcs to build a church\nwherever he found the upright stones or menhirs.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 8. The Agglestone, Studland Heath, Dorsetshire. A natural mass\n     of concretionary sandstone belonging to the Bagshot sands of the\n     district. Much pagan tradition is associated with this block, which\n     has been curiously eroded by rain, frost, and wind. The so-called\n     \u201cDruid\u2019s basins\u201d are altogether natural cavities.\n]\n\nOne of the best known of the natural megaliths to which traditions cling\nis the Agglestone, or Hagglestone, situated on the moors near Studland,\nin Dorsetshire (Fig. 8). This Agglestone is a huge inverted cone of\nindurated rock in direct connection with the Lower Bagshot Sands on\nwhich it rests; in other words, its shape and position cannot be\nartificial. It is a mass of sandy material, so thoroughly cemented by\noxide of iron that it has resisted denudation with some degree of\nsuccess. Yet the so-called sub-a\u00ebrial agencies, principally wind and\nrain, have undercut its base, rounded its outlines, and scooped out the\n\u201crock-basins,\u201d which the eighteenth century antiquaries ascribed to the\nlabours of Druids[110]. It is noteworthy that the Agglestone belongs to\na part of the country the inhabitants of which were pictured by Bede as\nconfirmed pagans (_paganissimi_)[111]. From a review of the legends, as\nwell as from a consideration of the name, Agglestone (most probably from\nA. S. _halig_ = holy), and its alternative designation, Devil\u2019s\nNightcap, there is fair reason to believe that the stone had some\nsignificance to the heathen folk of Wessex, and that it was very\nprobably a Christian preaching station.\n\nThe Agglestone doubtless proved too unwieldy and obdurate for the tools\nof those who set up the first Christian crosses, but this has not been\nthe case with many other pillars, whether hewn or unhewn. Some of the\nupright \u201ccrosses\u201d of Devon and Cornwall, for instance, are of extremely\ncoarse workmanship, as the student may see for himself by inspecting the\nillustrations given in the works of Messrs A. G. Langdon and W.\nCrossing[112]. Nor need the simplicity of the early workmanship cause\nsurprise, for the oldest Cornish crosses date from the seventh century.\nA like plainness is met in many other parts of England. At Fulstow,\nLincolnshire, I noticed a crude churchyard pillar of hard, grey chalk,\nroughly squared, now mounted on a much more recent plinth. The stone is\nmuch pitted by weathering, and is clad with lichens of varying hues. If\nthe monolith be not a pre-Christian relic, trimmed into a rectangular\nform, it is most probably a very early pillar, co-eval with the first\nEarly English church. It may have been dug out of the boulder clay, like\nmany of the stones with which the churchyard paths are paved; or, if we\naccept modern theories respecting the glacial drift on the East of the\nWolds[113], it is not an ice-borne relic, but must have been brought to\nthe alluvial plain by man. The original home of the pillar was in the\nhill-slope, several miles to the West. This Fulstow \u201ccross\u201d is typical\nof others scattered throughout the East of England. Reverting to\nCornwall, it must be observed that the numerous inscribed monoliths of\nthat county are believed, on a balance of probabilities, to be of a\nChristian character[114]. Specimens are frequently found in remote\nspots, or they may occur in proximity to the church itself. At Camborne,\nan example is seen under the communion-table; at East Cardinham, in the\ngraveyard; at St Cubert, in the wall of the church[115].\n\nThe early pillar \u201ccrosses,\u201d though accounted Christian when tested by\ninscription and decoration, may yet have an earlier origin. It is now a\ncommonplace that many of the crosses and calvaries of Brittany, \u201cwith\nshapeless sculpture decked,\u201d are merely primitive menhirs adapted by the\nChristian artificer[116], and anyone who, like the writer, has had the\nopportunity of comparing the Breton series with the kindred group of our\nEnglish Brittany, will readily agree that a similar story may be told of\nCornwall. Something has been written on this topic elsewhere[117], and\none need now only call attention to a curious instance of reversion in\nconnection with the allied subject of tombstones, to show how\ndeep-seated and perennial is the habit of imitation. In the \u201cQuaker\u2019s\nCemetery,\u201d two miles from Penzance, the only tomb remaining within the\nenclosure is formed of a massive slab of granite (5\u00b4.7\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 2\u00b4.1\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7\n1\u00b4.1\u00b4\u00b4), resting on large pieces of the same kind of rock. The tomb is\nevidently a copy of the dolmens of the moorland, yet its date is so\nrecent as A.D. 1677[118]. This illustration of the \u201cpast in the present\u201d\nsupplies a warning note, and is not so irrelevant as it may appear for\nthe moment.\n\nWe may follow our work by inspecting some interesting cases of the\noccurrence of unshaped masses of stone in, or near, the fabric of the\nchurch. We must start, however, with the clear axiom that natural blocks\nof stone, where readily procurable, must, like the spoil heaps of Roman\nbuildings, at all times have invited the attention of masons. Not more\nthan fifty or sixty years ago, Sir A. C. Ramsay noted that the\n\u201cgreywethers,\u201d or sarsens, of the Marlborough Downs, were so thickly\nstrewn over the surface, that across miles and miles of country a person\nmight almost leap from stone to stone, without touching the ground. Yet,\nin our own day, the preservation of the greywethers has become a serious\ntask, because they have been found so useful for paving-stones during\nthe interval that has elapsed since Ramsay wrote, and it has been\ndifficult to stop depredations on those that remain. Not forgetting our\nwarning, there is still a possibility that, should the examples of\nchurchyard sarsens prove numerous, and should there be a co-operation of\nother factors which indicate early sites of pagan worship, these two\nseries of circumstances may be in relationship. A solitary example might\nbe declared accidental; two or three citations only might raise an\nincredulous smile; hence, it is the cumulative force of recurring\ndetails which can alone afford pretence for a theory.\n\nSituated in a long, dry Kentish valley which runs upwards in a Southerly\ndirection towards the escarpment of the Chalk, and at a distance of\nabout 1\u00bd miles from the railway station at Eynesford, one may see the\nforlorn wreckage of Maplescombe church (Figs. 9, 10). This church, which\nhad a semicircular apse, still partially remaining, has been in ruins\nfor three centuries. My attention was first called to the spot by Mr\nBenjamin Harrison, of Ightham, an archaeologist whose knowledge of his\nnative district is unsurpassed. On visiting the ruins in 1904, I found a\nlarge, partially-sunken sarsen stone (3\u00b4.0\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 2\u00b4.0\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 1\u00b4.6\u00b4\u00b4)\noccupying what appeared to be the site of the ancient altar. A few\nsmaller sarsens were also discernible, and other specimens, Mr Harrison\nstates, have been carried off, at various times, by hop-pickers, to\nbuild hearths in the fields. In the field adjoining the church, the\nploughshare has turned up\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 9. Ruins of Maplescombe church, Kent. View from the\n     North-West. The ruins are unenclosed, amid a field of cabbages. The\n     interior space is overgrown with brambles and elder bushes, but the\n     semicircular apse can be detected on the left.\n]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 10. Sketch plan of the ruins of Maplescombe church,\nKent, showing the positions of the sarsen stones.]\n\nhuman bones and other relics[119]. This area was presumably the\ngraveyard, and may have been originally unenclosed, but with this\nhypothesis we shall deal in a later chapter. Parenthetically, it may be\nexplained to the non-geological reader that a sarsen is a hard mass of\nrock, which was once part of the Bagshot Sands or the Woolwich and\nReading Beds, and which, having resisted denudation, remains on, or\nnear, the present surface of the soil. The earliest record of a church\nat Maplescombe is A.D. 1291, but the building may, perhaps, be of Norman\nfoundation, and the largest stone may possibly be a sacred relic which\nexisted previously on the present site. The worship of \u201cstocks and\nstones\u201d died hard, and it is at least conceivable that the church\nbuilders adapted one or more megaliths to form an altar. Further than\nthat we cannot go, seeing that sarsens are fairly common in the\nlocality. Examples of churchyard sarsens are abundant in Kent. Mr\nHarrison informs me that there are specimens at Kemsing Halling and\nTrottescliffe; in the last-named village, the stone is built into the\nchurch wall. At Meopham, there are several blocks just outside the\nchurchyard, but, as the ground is merely fenced in, we have again,\ndoubtless, an instance where the demarcation between consecrated and\nunconsecrated soil is of modern date. Still further records from Kent\nhave been supplied by Mr F. J. Bennett. The ruins of the churches at\nPunish and Paddlesworth (near Snodland) enclosed in each case a large\nsarsen; the nave of the dismantled church at Dode contains a good-sized\nspecimen; several other blocks stand just outside the graveyard wall at\nBirling[120]. In passing, it may be observed that the other Kentish\nvillage named Paddlesworth, near Lyminge, contains a font, of which the\nbase is a massive round stone, evidently of great antiquity.\n\nWe now examine other counties where the Tertiary beds are represented.\nCrossing the Thames, we find in the churchyard of Ingatestone, Essex, a\nlarge sarsen, which was formerly a part of the foundation of the\nchurch[121]. At Pirton, in Hertfordshire, a huge mass of conglomerate,\nor \u201cpuddingstone,\u201d consisting of rounded flint pebbles cemented by a\nsiliceous matrix, supports the North-Western buttress of the church. The\nblock, as determined by my friend, Mr James Francis, F.G.S., measures\n5\u00b4.6\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 2\u00b4.7\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 1\u00b4.4\u00b4\u00b4 above the ground. At the base of two other\nbuttresses on the North side are further lumps of conglomerate, each\nabout 3 feet in length. These \u201cpuddingstones\u201d are vulgarly believed both\nto breed and to increase in size, and the superstition is put forward to\naccount for a block of this material which projects from the foundation\nof Caddington church, Bedfordshire[122]. It is worthy of notice, in\npassing, that a pre-conquest church existed at Caddington.\n\nOur observations would be incomplete were they limited to the Tertiary\narea of South-Eastern England. In Devonshire, built into the chancel\nwall of North Molton church, we have a large, heavy stone, which is said\nto be composed of material foreign to the district[123]. At Branscombe,\nin the same county, where the church bears marks of considerable\nantiquity, a rough pillar, about seven feet long, doubtfully described\nas a coffin lid, lies in the churchyard. Just outside the churchyard\nwall of Whatley, Somerset, is a huge rounded sarsen, and another is to\nbe seen near the cross-roads 50 yards distant. When the London\nGeologists\u2019 Association visited Whatley in 1909, a doubt was raised\nwhether the stones were true sarsens. Some authorities pronounced the\nmaterial to be millstone grit, which could be obtained a few miles away;\nwhile, on the contrary, no Tertiary rocks occur in the immediate\ndistrict. In Cornwall, there was discovered, under the collapsed Western\ntower of Constantine church, a large, rounded boulder of Cataclew stone,\nweighing a quarter of a ton. The nearest locality from which this stone\ncan be obtained, says the Rev. R. Ashington Bullen, is a quarry which is\n1\u00bc miles distant in a straight line. Mr Bullen believes that the boulder\nmarked a meeting-place for ceremonial observances in pagan times, and\nthat consequently it was assigned a place of honour in the Christian\nbuilding[124]. It will be recalled that the ruins are adjacent to a\nkitchen-midden (p. 31 _supra_). At Bolsterstone, near Deepcar, in\nYorkshire, two large stones lie in the village churchyard. One of them\nhas been adapted for receiving another stone by mortising. On the high\nground above the church is a cairn known as Walderslow, and it is\nbelieved that the churchyard stones may have had connection with this\nmonument. The diligent searcher will not fail to discover many other\nexamples of these natural megaliths, but he will doubtless preserve\nconsiderable detachment of mind, and be wary in the acceptance of\ntheories. The scarcity of suitable rocks in many localities, the\ndifficulties of transport,--whether accomplished by ox-drawn sledges or\nby canal barges,--the saving of time, and, far more important, the\nlessening of expenditure, are factors which must receive full weight.\nNevertheless, while maintaining due reticence, we shall find ourselves\ncontinually wondering whether the probabilities do not point to\nsite-continuity. The pronounced liking for megalithic monuments\nexhibited by the primitive Britons must have strongly influenced all\nfuture comers for many a century. All analogy suggests that Mediaeval\nfolk were still sufficiently pagan to treat such relics with a kind of\n\u201chyperdulia.\u201d A sacred stone, or group of stones, may well have been\nembedded in the walls of the church, or set up as an altar, in order to\npropitiate those who gave up the old faith with reluctance.\n\nWhen we examine megaliths which were indubitably placed in position by\nthe labours of men, we find ourselves on surer ground. The building of\nchurches near such memorials as these cannot always have been at\nhaphazard. Moreover, we should bear in mind that all the evidence is not\nnow producible. The hand of the spoiler has been busy, and the results\nhave been lamentable. Utility has been the common plea for the removal\nof many ancient monuments, but other motives have also been at work. The\nfamous \u201cLongstone\u201d which formerly stood a little to the East of St Mabyn\nchurch, in Cornwall, was broken up and carried away in order \u201cto brave\nridiculous legends and superstitions[125].\u201d Happily, the well-known\nmenhir in Rudstone churchyard, near Bridlington (Fig. 11), remains with\nus. This pillar, which is composed of fine-grained grit, stands about 4\nyards from the North-East angle of the building. Its height is 25 feet,\nand it is believed by some authorities that an equal length is concealed\nunderground. The monolith was first fully described by the Rev. Peter\nRoyston, in 1873. The present Vicar of Rudstone, the Rev. C. S. Booty,\ninforms me that Mr Royston\u2019s measurements are accurate. The conjecture\nhas been made that the village took its name from the menhir. This may\nwell have been the case, but what the first syllable of the name means\nis another matter. The word is commonly said to signify Rood-stone. The\nDomesday form Rodestan (cf. 13th cent. Rudestone; 14th cent. Ruddestan,\nRudston, etc.), leads Mr Bonner to suppose that a personal name, Rod,\nRodd, or Roda, is indicated. If the monolith bore an incised or carved\ncross, Mr Bonner would admit the rendering \u201cRood-stone.\u201d But it should\nbe remembered that a simple pillar might have been called a cross, and\nthat it may have been accepted as a preaching cross. To consecrate an\nexisting stone would save much labour. On this view, \u201cRood-stone\u201d may\nactually be correct. Countryfolk do not care for etymology or\narchaeology, but they have not been remiss in attributing the presence\nof the stone to diabolic agency. What concerns us at the present is,\nthat the site of the church was probably selected because the spot had\nalready some significance to the older inhabitants of the neighbourhood.\nThe whole district of Rudstone is rich in prehistoric remains[126].\n\nThe \u201csacred chair\u201d of Bede, at Jarrow, is considered by Professor Rupert\nJones to be an ancient sacred stone, which has been chiselled into shape\nby modern masons[127]. The Coronation Stone, in Westminster Abbey, has\nalso perhaps a notable genealogy, but its deposition in its present\nquarters took place long after the foundation of the Abbey, and hence\nthe relic is not illustrative of our theory.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 11. Rudstone church, and monolith, near Bridlington.\nView of the North side.]\n\nOn the Greensand hill a little above Mottestone church, in the Isle of\nWight, there is a huge, untooled monolith, known as the \u201cLongstone,\u201d but\nit is not certain that it was originally solitary. A smaller pillar lies\nat its base, and Mr W. Dale, the Hampshire archaeologist, supposes that\nthe two stones represent a fallen dolmen, or the remnants of a\ncromlech[128]. Other writers have considered the relics to be ancient\nboundary stones[129], but I think this explanation not very\nsatisfactory. The Rev. G. E. Jeans, who advocates the boundary-theory,\ndeclares against the view that Mottestone signifies \u201cmote-stone,\u201d and\npoints out that the Domesday spelling, Modrestone, indicates a personal\nname, Modr[130]. Even allowing for possible approximations made by the\nDomesday scribe, the etymology given by Mr Jeans seems more reasonable\nthan the older one. Another Hampshire village, Twyford, on the Itchen,\nis worthy of a visit in connection with megaliths. The church in this\nold-world nook was believed by Dean Kitchin to be built on ground once\noccupied by a stone-circle or a dolmen, and Mr Dale considers that the\ntwo large sarsens which lie by the side of the building represent the\nwreckage of this ancient monument[131]. A particularly fine yew in the\ngraveyard will be noticed in a subsequent chapter. On the neighbouring\nhillside of Shawford Downs, there are also some linchets, or ancient\ncultivation terraces. These associations imply that Twyford was not only\nan inhabited site, but presumably a sacred site, at a very early period.\nStill another Hampshire example is furnished by Bishopstoke, the church\nwhich Mr Hilaire Belloc asserts was erected on the site of an old\nstone-circle[132]. Cobham church, in Kent, stands a little to the North\nof the remains of a stone-ring. Outside the North porch there is a large\nsarsen, another lies against the wall at the West end, while a third is\nbuilt into the South wall[133]. Thomas Wright long ago pointed out that\nthe church of Addington, in Kent, was in the immediate neighbourhood of\nnumerous megalithic remains, though all of these were in a ruinous and\ndisordered condition. In fact the area seemed to be a vast tribal\ncemetery. Professor W. M. Flinders Petrie, in 1878, was able, from a\nstudy of the monumental relics, to make an imaginary restoration of\nparallel avenues of stones as they once existed. At the North-Eastern\nextremity, there was a stone chamber which has unfortunately since been\ndisturbed[134]. Some writers have believed that the hillock on which\nAddington church is built was artificial, but it is practically certain\nthat it is purely natural; its existence being perhaps due to a\nprotective capping of ironstone which has been proof against denudation.\n\nThe church of Stanton Drew, near Bristol, is placed within the precincts\nof a veritable Valhalla of monumental relics. Three stone circles are\nsituated, as it were, within a stone\u2019s throw of the building, the most\ndistant being about one-third of a mile away, and the nearest only 150\nyards. But besides these more perfect remains, there is a group close to\nthe churchyard, towards the South-West. This group, called the Cove,\nconsists of two upright blocks, 10\u00bc feet and 4\u00bd feet respectively in\nheight, and one prostrate stone, 14\u00bd feet in length (Fig. 12). The\noriginal character of the monument cannot be decisively known. Mr C. W.\nDymond contends that the stones hardly represent a ruined dolmen,\nbecause of the unusual height of two of the remaining pillars. Other\nspeculations, hazarded, as it seems to the writer, without a vestige of\nproof, regard the Cove as a \u201cdruidical chair of state,\u201d and, again, as a\nshelter for sacrificial fire. On the whole, it is safer to consider\nthese monoliths as survivors of a cromlech or stone-ring. The material,\nwhich is unhewn, is a siliceous breccia of Triassic age, and was\nprobably brought from Harptree-under-Mendip, about seven miles from the\npresent position. The church, it should be added, retains portions of\nNorman work[135].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 12. The Cove, Stanton Drew, Somerset; a group of\nmegaliths situated near the village church.]\n\nThe vanished menhir of St Mabyn has been noticed (p. 42 _supra_), but,\nbefore leaving the English megaliths, we ought to glance at the smallest\ncromlech in Cornwall, that of Duloe, which is situated near Duloe\nchurch. Its longer diameter is 39 feet, and its shorter, 37 feet, so\nthat the cromlech is slightly elliptical. The \u201ccircle\u201d contains seven\nstanding stones, and one fallen or broken stone. One of the pillars,\nwhich are very unshapely, is 9 feet in height. The finding of charcoal,\ntogether with a cinerary urn enclosing bones, near one of the pillars,\nis sufficient to show the sepulchral character of the circle[136].\nCornwall should indeed prove the touchstone of our theory, and I believe\nthat both Cornwall and Devon would stand the test well, could we recall\nthe witnesses. But these, sad to relate, are for the most part gone.\nHere a gatepost, there a tombstone, and yonder the hearth of a cottage,\nwarn us not to expect the impossible. Sir Norman Lockyer, in his work on\nStonehenge, asserts that many churches have been built on the sites of\ncircles and menhirs, but he proffers no actual examples[137]. He gives,\nhowever, numerous instances from Cornwall, Ireland, and Scotland, of the\njuxtaposition of megaliths and sacred wells. Now, it will be shown in\nthe next chapter, that churches were frequently built in proximity to\nholy wells, so that we have a triple relationship. Sir Norman Lockyer\u2019s\ninformant doubtless knew of other examples of church-megalith sites than\nthose which have been adduced[138]. Such sites are said to be not\nuncommon in Wales. The church at Yspytty Kenwyn (or Cynfyn), near the\nDevil\u2019s Bridge, in Cardiganshire, had the circle of stones built, at\nintervals, into the churchyard wall. There were also stone pillars at\nthe Eastern entrance to the church, just as they are sometimes found\nnear stone-circles. Large megaliths are also recorded from the churches\nof Tregaron, in Cardiganshire, and Llanwrthwl, in Brecon[139]. Cordiner,\nan eighteenth century writer, asserts that Benachie church,\nAberdeenshire, is built within a stone-circle, and that the practice of\nthus building was not infrequent in that country. And Mr W. G.\nWood-Martin has recorded at least two cromlechs in Irish\nchurchyards[140].\n\nThere is also a scrap of linguistic testimony which is pregnant of\nancient tradition, and which has been noted by several writers. Sir\nDaniel Wilson seems to have been the first to make the fact publicly\nknown. The common Gaelic sentence, _Am bheil thu dol d\u2019on chlachan?_\n(Are you going to the stones?) may be rendered alternatively, \u201cAre you\ngoing to the church?\u201d and is used in this second sense by the Scottish\nHighlander when addressing his neighbour. Primarily, _chlachan_\n(_clachan_) means a circle of stones, hence, a battle, or the scene of\nsingle combats. The interpretation \u201cplace of worship,\u201d is, as might be\nanticipated, derivative, though not recent. So far back as 1774, Shaw,\nin the chapter which he contributed to the third edition of Pennant\u2019s\n_Tour in Scotland_, observed, \u201cFrom these circles and cairns many\nchurches to this day are called _clachan_, i.e. a collection of\nstones[141].\u201d\n\nA word of caution is necessary to those who may be inclined to accept\ntoo hastily, and without examination, the claims of this or that\nmegalith to a great antiquity. For instance, there stands at the\nSouth-Eastern gate of Binstead church, in the Isle of Wight, a grotesque\nfigure, called by the villagers \u201cThe Idol.\u201d This uncouth image has been\nthought by some to be a pagan object of worship. Little, indeed, is\ndefinitely known about the object, but it is asserted, with much\ncredibility, that the gate once formed the door of the church, and that\nthe image is merely a Norman keystone, or perhaps a corbel[142]. We\nnote, however, that if it were a corbel, it could scarcely have been a\nportion of a doorway, though this matter is inessential. Our second\nillustration shall be given in order to show the danger of dating\nobjects as pre-Christian, when they bear clear signs of Christian\ninfluence. In the churchyard at Penrith there is a large tomb which\nbears the nickname of \u201cGiant\u2019s Grave.\u201d It happens that this name is\noften applied to prehistoric barrows and megaliths, and in this\nparticular instance it has been proclaimed that the tomb is a\ncromlech--a \u201cdolmen\u201d being perhaps intended. Hutchinson, Pennant, and\nother writers, were greatly exercised concerning this ancient relic. But\nif the reader will turn to the beautiful engraving of the monument in\nthe _Victoria History of Cumberland_, he will understand, even without\nthe aid of the letterpress, that the tomb has features decidedly\nChristian. The monument really consists of the shafts of two\npre-Conquest crosses, one being placed at the head and the other at the\nfoot, while the space between is enclosed by three \u201chog-backs,\u201d one of\nwhich has been split longitudinally[143]. Once again, in the churchyard\nof Chadwell St Mary, Essex, a large sarsen, concerning which fantastic\ntheories were current, was observed by the Rev. J. W. Hayes to have a\nweathered concavity, or \u201cpebble-hole,\u201d within which were carved the\nletters \u201cN. G.,\u201d followed by the date 1691. Referring to the parish\nregister, Mr Hayes found an entry, made during that year, recording the\ndeath of a churchwarden, Nathaniel Glascock. The inference was clear,\nand the lesson of caution was delivered with some force. These\nreservations about the nature of burial monuments lead us easily to the\nsubject of grave-mounds, to which we must allot a special chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nCHURCHES ON PAGAN SITES (_continued_)\n\n\nOur next task is to review the evidence, collected during many years of\ninquiry, respecting the mounds which are frequently seen in the\nneighbourhood of churchyards. Formerly, those archaeologists who gave\nany attention to this subject,--they were a very small band of\nobservers,--contented themselves with grouping all the mounds as\n\u201cbarrows\u201d or \u201ctumuli.\u201d With fuller information, we are now able to\nclassify the hillocks as (1) defensive mounds, (2) \u201cmoot-hills,\u201d (3)\n\u201ctoot-hills,\u201d and (4) true barrows, or grave-mounds. Etymologically,\nthere is nothing which warrants the limitation of the word \u201ctumulus\u201d to\na burial-mound, and, in actual practice, it is often loosely applied to\nany kind of mound whatever. To avoid confusion, however, it will be\nwell, in this chapter at least, to refrain from using \u201ctumulus\u201d to\ndescribe those knolls, comprised under the second and third headings,\nwhich have not yet been proved to be of a sepulchral character.\n\nTaking the groups in order, we deal first with the defensive mounds,\nknown to archaeologists under a variety of alternative names:\ncastle-mounds, moated mounds or mounts, mound-castles, and _mottes_. And\nit should at once be said that this group includes the majority of the\nexamples which will be adduced. This result might have been anticipated,\nfor these moated mounds are large and durable, and hence have escaped\nlevelling by spade and ploughshare.\n\nA few words must be devoted to an explanation of mottes or\nmound-castles. These hillocks were essentially low, flat-topped,\ntruncated cones of earthwork, usually surrounded by a ditch, and placed\nin direct connection with a larger defensive enclosure. The mound was\ngenerally artificial, either wholly or in part: the entirely natural\nmound is the rarest kind[144]. Of these natural hillocks, an\nillustration is found in the chalk \u201cmonticle\u201d on which Corfe Castle is\nbuilt (Figs. 13, 14). This mound need not detain us, because it is still\ncrowned by the ruins of what was once a solid structure of masonry,\nbuilt during the reign of Henry I. Of its true character there can,\ntherefore, be no doubt. The castle-mounds which we are particularly\nconsidering, in their earlier forms at least, are believed to have\nsupported a kind of wooden guard-house (_turris_, _bretasche_, or keep),\nwhich was surrounded by a stockade. Not until a later period of\nfortification, when the material of the mound had subsided and become\nfirm and solid, did a structure of stone appear on the summit, if\nindeed, the wooden structure were ever replaced by a more permanent keep\nor fortress. Stone keeps were built on mottes at Kilpeck in\nHerefordshire, Fewston in Yorkshire, and other places, but this does not\nappear to have been the more general custom. Many mounds, at any rate,\nwere never capped by a superstructure of masonry.\n\nThe castle-mound, as already stated, was encompassed by a moat, which\nprobably, however, was not intended to contain water, except in special\ncases (Fig. 15). Yet it is very possible that \u201cpuddling\u201d was often an\nundesigned result of the constant trampling to which the ditch was\nsubjected. It should here be explained that the Norman-French term,\n_motte_, which is constantly applied to the moated mound, is not related\nto the word \u201cmoat,\u201d though, owing to a misunderstanding of the Latinized\nform, _mota_, it has often been so translated. Beyond the real moat, or\nditch, was the larger enclosure to which reference has been made. This\nwas the outer ward, the bailey or base court; it was of horseshoe or\ncrescentic form, and was reached by crossing a wooden bridge. The bailey\nhad its own moat, which, in its turn, was engirdled on the outside by a\nbank passing along the counterscarp[145].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 13. Corfe Castle, as it appeared in A.D. 1643. This is a good\n     example of a castle built on a natural eminence. The hill is almost\n     encircled by two streams, which have cut deep valleys, and have\n     nearly severed the mass from the main ridge. A deep, artificial\n     trench on the townward side completes the isolation.\n]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 14. Ruins of Corfe Castle, 1910.]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 15. The Mount, Great Canfield, Essex, a typical\n     motte-and-bailey earthwork. _M_, motte, or castle-mound: the top of\n     which is about 40 feet from the bottom of the moat. _B_, the\n     bailey-court with its own moat. _D_, a dam, by means of which the\n     water of the river Roding was probably utilized to increase the\n     supply for the moat. The direction of the stream is shown by\n     arrows. The parish church is seen near the North-West boundary of\n     the motte.\n]\n\nThis short description must suffice. The question which first arises is\nconcerned with the age of the moated mounds. The older opinion, as\nexpressed by Mr G. T. Clark, and to some extent accepted by later\nauthorities, such as Mr I. Chalkley Gould, was, that some of the\nhillocks, at least, were of Saxon date[146]. Mr Clark was largely\ninfluenced by the belief, which most modern writers consider erroneous,\nthat the word _burh_ of old documents referred to these castle-mounds.\nThis word _burh_, however, is said to stand always for a fortified town\nand to have never been applied to a motte-and-bailey castle[147]. Among\nquite recent writers who assign some of the mounds to an early date, may\nbe mentioned Mr Willoughby Gardner, who considers that, on a balance of\nevidence, the simple form of moated mound may be said to have originated\nin Saxon times. This view is also shared by Mr Reginald A. Smith. Again,\nMr T. Davies Pryce has brought forward evidence to show that the moated\nmound belongs to diverse races and periods, and he contends that some\nmottes are of much earlier date than the Norman Conquest[148]. The trend\nof modern opinion, as enunciated by Dr J. H. Round, Mr W. St John Hope,\nMrs E. S. Armitage, Mr G. Neilson, Mr A. H. Allcroft, and others, places\nthe castle-mounds within the Norman period[149].\n\nSo far as the moated mounds are artificial and of Norman construction,\nthey are extraneous to our inquiry about pagan sites; they are the\nfeudal strongholds of which the village church was often the religious\nappendage. This relationship of fortress and temple will be forced upon\nus in the next chapter, and will continue to suggest itself when we\ndiscuss other matters. But if we suppose that the Norman mottes had\ntheir Saxon forerunners, or even that the Norman mound-builders took\nadvantage of pre-existing knolls of an artificial character, we are led\nto search for vestiges of an accompanying Saxon church. For, under\nthese conditions, it is conceivable that we might have a Christian\nchurch built near a pagan mound. From the nature of the problem,\nsatisfactory proof is difficult to procure. Certain moated mounds have\nyielded more than a hint of the adaptation by the Normans of earlier\nworks. The flat-topped castle-mound near the churchyard of St Weonards,\nHerefordshire[150], has been claimed, on \u201cthe testimony of the spade,\u201d\nas having been a prehistoric grave-hill. This was the view held by Mr I.\nC. Gould. Thomas Wright, who opened this mound in A.D. 1855, declared\nthat, \u201cbeyond a doubt,\u201d it had been used for sepulchral purposes, though\nthe discoveries did not warrant his assigning its specific period. It\nmay be mentioned that a decayed yew, of considerable age, together with\nother trees, adorned the hillock[151]. A similar defensive hillock, 50\nfeet in diameter, near the churchyard of Thruxton, Herefordshire, and\nknown to the peasantry as Thruxton Tump[152], was also found to contain\nanimal bones and pieces of crockery[153]. I can gather no details\nconcerning the excavations of this last-named mound, and am inclined to\naccept the claims with great reserve, principally because other mottes\nhave furnished similar relics, which have been proved capable of a more\nobvious interpretation. The first example of these supposed barrows is\nthe castle-mound which is included within the present extended graveyard\nat Penwortham, in Lancashire. Careful sections cut in this remarkable\nhillock exhibited a profusion of remains, such as animal bones,\nmussel-shells, decayed timber, and objects of iron and bronze. These\nrelics were disposed in layers, in such a manner as to show that the\nmound had been raised in height at two different periods[154].\nSuccessive elevations of surface were also discovered in the moated\nmound adjacent to Arkholme church, Lancashire[155]. The castle-mound,\nagain, at Warrington, situated about 100 yards from a church which\nstands almost within the fosse of the outer ward, has been raised more\nthan once. The last occasion when the height was increased was during\nits occupation by the Parliamentary forces in A.D. 1643[156]. In all\nthese cases the relics seem to indicate alterations which took place\nafter the Norman period of mound-construction had set in. The bronze\narticles found at Penwortham, and the broken amphora which is recorded\nfrom Warrington, superficially suggest an earlier origin. But these\nrelics were most probably scraped up with the soil when the motte was\nenlarged, or were picked up by the inhabitants somewhere in the\nneighbourhood, and were afterwards blended with the refuse-stratum of\nthat particular period. These explorations, then, tend to discredit, in\nsome degree, the statements made with respect to the Herefordshire\nmounds. At the same time, we must not rashly conclude that, in every\ninstance, the workmen commenced their work on a perfectly level surface.\nThe story of St Weonards teaches us caution. There were hundreds of\nearly burial-mounds, as well as hillocks of other kinds, which may well\nhave served as bases for mottes. An incidental fact, noted by Dr Round,\nis worth recalling. Moated mounds are to be seen in places where, so far\nas we know, the Normans never had a castle. It is clear that\ncastle-mounds, with their appendant bailey-courts, were sometimes thrown\nup, and afterwards abandoned for other sites. Such a mound was raised by\nWilliam at Hastings[157]. This opinion is quite accordant with what has\nbeen previously said about the absence of stone keeps on earlier mottes.\n\nSeeing that the feudal baron dominated the village community, and that\ncompliance with the claims of religion was deemed secondary only to the\narrangements for personal security[158], one would naturally expect to\nfind the Norman church not far distant from the castle-mound. And this\nis actually what one often sees: the church is either just outside the\nmoated mound, or within the crescentic bailey-court. It would, I think,\nbe an over-statement to assert, as do some writers, that the inclusion\nof the church within the entrenchments is typical of the arrangement of\na Norman earthwork\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 16. Chapel, Goodrich Castle, Herefordshire (c. A.D.\n     1330-1450). The beautiful window tracery has been demolished, but\n     below the opening on the right are a small piscina, and a\n     trefoil-headed credence-table.\n]\n\ncastle[159]. True, the association is not infrequent, but it is\ndoubtfully the rule. While the feudal lord would be able, by this plan,\nto concentrate the ecclesiastical and the civil administration of his\nestates, and to exercise keen supervision over his clerks and other\ndependants, he commonly had his own chapel (Fig. 16) and domestic\nchaplain within the castle itself. The disposition of the parish church\nwould not, therefore, solely depend on the lord\u2019s convenience, but\nwould be affected by many other circumstances.\n\nWe shall now be equipped for steady work in eliminating all those\nexamples of miscalled barrows, which are, in truth, castle-mounds. The\npath will then be cleared for an advance. Without pretending to give a\ncomplete catalogue, we must notice some of the better-known mottes. The\nhillocks at Barwick-in-Elmet, Yorkshire, Great Canfield, in Essex, and,\npossibly, Towcester, in Northampton, belong to Dr J. H. Round\u2019s group of\nmounds without castles[160]. The Great Canfield motte-and-bailey (Fig.\n15, p. 54 _supra_) is a fine specimen. It is remarkable from the fact\nthat a stream was diverted to provide the moat with water. Moreover, it\nseems likely that there was a dam on the North-East, by which the supply\ncould be augmented from the river Roding. The interesting Norman church\nof the village lies at the North-West angle of the earthwork.\nLaughton-en-le-Morthen, near Rotherham, contains another noteworthy\nmotte. We know that the church of the village contains some masonry\nbelonging to the latter part of the tenth century[161]. Hence we are\nmoved to ask, Was the mound also of pre-Norman date, or did the Norman\nsettlers elect to rear their fortress near a spot already famous? In our\nnext chapter, we shall touch on a matter which is of interest in this\nconnection.\n\nTo continue the survey: we find that most counties afford examples of\nmottes raised near churches. Lancashire, in addition to the cases\nmentioned, contributes the Melling fortress to our list[162]; Yorkshire\ngives us another mound, that of Bardsey, from the district once covered\nwith the Forest of Elmet. In Lincolnshire, we find Owston, where a\nportion of the ditch is still visible[163], and Redbourn, which has its\nCastle Hill, and traces of a moated area, often described by the older\ntopographers. Buckinghamshire yields, at the village of Cublington, a\nsomewhat unusual hillock, which is probably a moated mound,\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 17. Pirton church and Toot Hill, Hertfordshire, from the\n     South-East. The portion of the ditch in which the children are\n     standing frequently holds water. Further to the left, but out of\n     the picture, a stretch of the moat is permanently filled with\n     water.\n]\n\nconstructed during the reign of Henry III. In immediate association with\nthis mound, Mr Allcroft has found traces of the old village \u201cring-fence\u201d\n(p. 16 _supra_), that is, an enclosure consisting of vallum and fosse,\nthe former of which is supposed to have carried a stockade[164].\nProfessor Seebohm has recorded a mound near the church of Meppershall,\nin Bedfordshire[165], and another, known as the Toot Hill, at Pirton, in\nHertfordshire[166] (cf. p. 7 _supra_). He was of opinion that the Pirton\nknoll was a place of observation, or watching-mound, but more recent\ninspection has led to its being classed as a Norman motte. This oval\nhillock covers more than an acre of ground. Its height is 25 feet, but\nthere is a depression in the crown, caused by the removal of earth to\nfill in the inner part of the moat.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 18. Toot Hill, Pirton, Hertfordshire; a \u201cmoated mound.\u201d View\n     from a point South-West of the church. The moat is seen at the foot\n     of the hill, and it passes away to the right, behind the mound.\n]\n\nMr D. H. Montgomerie states that the bank and ditch of the bailey-court\nmay be distinctly traced in the churchyard[167] (Figs. 17, 18). Yet\nthere must always remain the doubt whether an earlier mound was not\nenlarged and entrenched by the builders of the castle-hill. The\nnickname, Toot Hill, to be noticed shortly, gives a half-hint of such a\nreconstruction. The Penwortham and Arkholme mottes have taught us to\nscrutinize each example closely, and on its own merits. Anywhere we\nmight expect to find the spade telling us of a castle-hill which\nconceals, within its substance, a British barrow, or a Roman botontine\nor _specula_. A botontine, it may be explained, was a small mound which\nwas heaped up by Roman land-surveyors, and in which were usually\ndeposited a few scraps of pottery and a handful of ashes, or fragments\nof the bones of animals. A specula was an earthwork \u201cwatch-tower,\u201d if\nthe expression be permissible. A slightly puzzling mound, situated a\nshort distance from Towcester church, Northampton, revealed coins and\npottery which betrayed Roman occupation, yet these alone did not tell\nwhen the mound itself was raised[168] (cf. p. 59 _supra_). Again, the\nCastle Hill, at Hallaton, in Leicestershire, an earthwork of the\nmound-and-court type, yielded traces of British, Roman and Saxon\nsettlements[169]. The Hallaton mound, however, is about a mile distant\nfrom the church.\n\nA most interesting castle-mound, though of small size, is that of Earl\u2019s\nBarton, Northampton. The famous Saxon church of this village abuts on\nthe South side of the motte, which has been peeled away, either to\naccommodate the tower, or for some other reason[170]. Mr Reginald A.\nSmith, who quotes an article written by Professor Baldwin Brown, in\nwhich a pre-Norman origin of the motte is called in question, points to\nthe undoubted Saxon age of the church tower, and thinks, with Mr G. T.\nClark, that the earthen stronghold belongs also to the Saxon\nperiod[171]. Swerford, Oxfordshire, again, presents a deviation from the\nnormal churchyard castle-mound. Besides the motte and bailey-court,\nthere is a subsidiary mound, guarding the entrance, together with two\ndetached platforms towards the East. These may indicate different\nperiods of construction.\n\nComing South of the Thames, we notice the castle-mound on the slope of\nthe hill above Brenchley church, in Kent[172]. The Saxon church of\nSwanscombe, near Northfleet, which suffered severely from fire a few\nyears ago, has an attendant mound on the hill by which it is overlooked.\nThis earthwork, known as Sweyn\u2019s Camp, has a diameter of 100 feet, and\nits ground-plan, as shown in the _Victoria History of Kent_, suggests a\nsomewhat earlier date than that of the ordinary motte-and-bailey\ngroup[173]. In the sister county of Surrey, a defensive mound is known\nto have existed near Ockham church, and some of the outlying banks have\nescaped entire obliteration[174]. Behind Abinger church, again, there is\na hillock, which may be a motte, or perhaps a true barrow of the Bronze\nAge[175]. Dr J. C. Cox says that it is \u201cobviously an ancient barrow,\u201d\nbut it appears never to have been opened. We might proceed, county by\ncounty, and catalogue many further examples, but it would result in\nwearying the reader. One further instance only shall be given, and it\nchances to be that of a motte which diverges from the type. The Norman\nchurch of Kilpeck, Herefordshire, is built on the bank and ditch of a\nrectangular enclosure, which lies outside the curvilinear courts of a\ncastle-mound. Possibly we have here a Norman fortification encroaching\nupon an earlier earthwork, and it should be observed that the church\noccupies vantage-ground strong by nature[176] (p. 52 _supra_). We must\nnow dismiss the castle-mounds, though we shall be unconsciously\ncompelled to revert to them hereafter.\n\nOur second group of church-mounds comprises the \u201cMoot-Hills.\u201d These\nobjects, usually artificial, vary much in size, and are not confined to\nthe neighbourhood of churches. The etymology of the word \u201cmoot\u201d (O.E.\n_m\u014dt_, M.E. m\u014dt, im\u014dt = meeting, public assembly) at once gives a clue\nto the uses of these mounds[177]. It was at spots of this kind, as well\nas at other places having characteristic landmarks, that the early\nopen-air assemblies were wont to meet. Now, in the first place, we\nnotice, as Sir G. L. Gomme has ably shown, that open-air courts have not\nbeen confined to one race or to one period[178]. Doubtless they are\npractically coeval with the formation of the primitive village\ncommunity. To attempt to fix the precise date is foreign to our purpose,\nit is enough to know that open-air courts preceded the first preaching\nof Christianity in Britain. Near some well-known object, then, the men\nof the hamlet, the inhabitants of the forest, the warriors of the\nhundred, or the tenants of the manor, met to transact their\nbusiness[179]. Sir G. L. Gomme has collected a mass of information\nconcerning these meeting-places. We have seen (p. 34 _supra_) that\nmonoliths, stone-circles, and ancient burial-places were much favoured\nas meeting-places. To this list must be added barrows, tumuli, and\nmounds[180]. There is no reason to impede our quest by stopping to\nenumerate examples, because the fact is now a commonplace. Besides\nancient burial-mounds, \u201ccamps\u201d also served for open-air courts. At\nDownton, in Wiltshire, there is a moot-hill about 70 feet high, rising\nin six terraces from the river Avon below. Despite any later\nalterations, it seems probable that the hillock was constructed within\nan earthwork of earlier date. In a small volume entitled _\u2018The Moot\u2019 and\nits Traditions_ (1906), Mr Elias P. Squarey, the proprietor of the Moot\nHouse, Downton, has collected all the available records about this\ninteresting relic.\n\nThe old Welsh laws help us to form a picture of a gathering at a\nmoot-hill. During a law suit, the judge sat on the circular mound.\nBelow, on the left hand, sat the plaintiff, the defendant being placed\non the right. The lord must sit behind the judge, and have his back to\nthe wind or sun, lest he be incommoded. Mr S. O. Addy notes that, as the\ncourt was held in the morning, the lord must have sat towards the East\nand faced the West, and that, in this respect, the later indoor court\nwas a copy of the outdoor court[181]. A word of reminder may be said\nconcerning the annual ceremonies connected with the Tynwald Hill in the\nIsle of Man. Here we have an instance of a national assembly meeting on\na hill to elect officers and promulgate new laws. No law was fully\nrecognized until it had been proclaimed from this mound. The custom is\nstill (1910) formally observed. Hard by is a small chapel, built on the\nsite of an ancient church, and the present day gathering is heralded by\na religious service, the procession to the hill being formed afterwards.\n\nSome of the moot-hills, like that of Pirton (p. 60 _supra_), were Norman\nmottes, though possibly not belonging wholly to the Norman period. It is\nextremely probable, moreover, that some of the earlier mounds were\neither actual British barrows, or were tumps raised for the specific use\nof folk-moots. In other words, the first moot-hills would belong to\npagan times, and were therefore used long before the organization of\nthe Norman form of the manorial system, or the establishment of Norman\nmottes. There is hence a likelihood that, where churches stand near\nmoot-hills, those mounds may, in some cases, be assigned to the\npre-Christian period. Nor would it greatly diminish this probability if\nit were proved that some of these hillocks were entirely natural in\ntheir formation. The force of the argument is derived from the fact that\nsecular affairs and heathen ceremonies were connected with the mounds,\nand that it was thought wise to retain the bond by preaching the new\nfaith from a building erected in the vicinity.\n\nA pertinent fact was observed by Mr James Logan, a generation ago. He\nnoticed that moot-hills were the seats of assemblies which afterwards\ncame to be held in churches[182]. Further, he discovered that\nstone-circles were also formerly used for meetings: he thus anticipated\nthe conclusions of later writers. One remarkable instance is given. So\nlate as A.D. 1380, a Court of Regality was held \u201c_apud le stand and\nStanes de la Rath de Kingusie_[183].\u201d Of the moot-hills proper, Logan\nfound that these were often actually dedicated to saints. The Hill of\nScone was known as the _Collis Credulitatis_. Here we have obviously a\nconsecration due to the influence of Christianity. When, at a somewhat\nlater period, the custom was introduced of holding the courts in\nchurches, the clergy objected on the ground that the sacred building was\nnot suited to such a purpose. A canon was issued forbidding the laity to\nhold such meetings within the church. These injunctions were frequently\ndisobeyed[184]. Up to this point, Logan is a safe guide, and his\ntheories can be justified by documentary evidence. He is supported, too,\nby comparative customs. Professor F. Kauffmann, for instance, states\nthat the pagan temples of the West Teutons were situated near the places\nof judgement, where the Things, or popular assemblies, were held[185].\nThe \u201cdoom-rings,\u201d or stone-circles, of Iceland were used as judgement\nseats down to a late period. Thus far, Logan\u2019s view is corroborated.\nBut when, misled apparently by the Christian dedications just referred\nto, he proceeds to argue that moot-hills were raised after the use of\nchurches was disallowed, he exactly reverses the order of events. The\nstone-circles, according to his own presentment of facts, must have been\nreared for the same cause, and, similarly, at a late period. One\nsuspects that vague ideas respecting the age of the megaliths led to a\nhasty conclusion as to the age of the moot-hills. The real history would\nbe that the spots most convenient for folk-moots were most suitable for\nworship, and that consequently it was politic to build churches there.\nTo what extent the moot-hills were originally sepulchral is, for the\nmoment, inessential. That verdict lies with the labourer\u2019s mattock and\nspade, not with the theories of the student, who can only collate the\nrecords. To resume: little by little, as we shall find, secular business\nbegan to be transacted in the churches, and the primary purpose of\nmoot-hills slowly vanished. One result, perhaps, was that the name\n\u201cmoot-hill,\u201d in some cases, got wrongly applied to mounds that had not\nbeen used for assemblies. This error probably sprang from the confusion\nof the moat (_mota_), belonging to the castle-mound, with the better\nknown and already accredited \u201cmoot[186].\u201d\n\nThat some of the moot-hills are actually barrows has been proved by\nexcavation. Duggleby Howe, a moot-hill, or \u201crath,\u201d in the East Riding,\nwas opened by Mr J. R. Mortimer for Sir Tatton Sykes in 1880, and was\nfound to be a prehistoric grave-mound. The relics happened to be very\nabundant[187]. To show the fallibility even of conclusions based on the\nresults of experimental diggings, another case, reported by Mr Mortimer,\nmay be cited. Eleven miles from the Duggleby moot-hill is another\nhillock known as Willy Howe. The two mounds are exactly alike in size,\nshape, and other respects, yet, although Willy Howe has been twice\nopened, no skeleton has been encountered. Mr Mortimer, evidently anxious\nto point a much-needed moral, remarks, \u201cHad the excavation at Duggleby\nbeen no wider than that of Willy Howe, the two graves containing the\nprimary interments would not have been found[188].\u201d To compare small\nthings with great, one may recall the boring and the tunnelling of the\nfamous Silbury Hill. The toil was barren of results, and one feels that\nno really safe deduction can be drawn from this negative testimony.\n\nHaving admitted that some moot-hills are really mottes, it will be well\nto lay stress on the present contention that other moot-hills are of a\ndate anterior to that of castle-mounds. If _mota_ has been corrupted\ninto \u201cmoot,\u201d the word \u201cmoot\u201d itself has also suffered rough treatment.\nMr Mortimer speaks of a knoll which perplexed the antiquaries, because\nit was variously known as Mud, Mude, and Mundal Hill. The real name\nproved to be Moot Hill, and, although no proper excavations have been\nmade, a bronze celt has been dug up, along with Mediaeval relics, and Mr\nMortimer believes that the mound is a British grave[189].\n\nAgain, though the castle-mound, especially when standing near the parish\nchurch, was convenient as a place of assembly, yet there is a danger in\nresting satisfied with this truth, and refusing to probe matters\nfurther. Mr Allcroft notices several examples of so-called moot-hills\nwhich are really castle-mounds, and notices one in particular at\nWalton-on-the-Hill, Surrey, which is believed to be of this nature. He\nobserves that this mound is surrounded by a ditch, which would be\nuseless for a moot-hill, but would be fitting for a motte on which the\nlord\u2019s dwelling was built. He therefore concludes that in such cases the\nmotte was degraded to a moot-hill[190]. This criticism is both acute and\njust, but does it cover the whole field? Moots are very ancient\ninstitutions. Is it not quite as likely that, in many instances, the\ncastle-mound was an earlier moot-hill, and that the fosse was\nconstructed when the turris was about to be built? And how are we to\nknow, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the fosse is not, in\nsome cases, the encircling trench of a large round barrow, deepened for\npurposes of defence? Moreover can the plea of uselessness be valid\nagainst moot-hills, when we remember the frequent occurrence of circular\ntrenches around these barrows and also around some megaliths? The\ntrenches may, in some instances, have been incidental to the mode of\nconstruction. These are not idle questions. Some of the moot-hills of\nthe East Riding seem to be grave-hills which were consecrated by making\nincised crosses on the chalky mound to a depth of several feet. The arms\nof the cross, in each case, are directed towards the cardinal points. Mr\nMortimer believes that the carving of the symbol on the mound gave\nsanctity to the spot[191]. Frankness compels one to note that the local\nname for these sunken crosses is _bields_ (= shelters), the underlying\nnotion being that the trenches were originally dug as cattle shelters,\nand that they were made crosswise to afford protection from all quarters\nof the heavens. But this explanation could not possibly apply to other\ncrosses, in low relief, formed of ridges of earth and stones, occurring\non other ancient sites[192]. Nor is it valid for the intaglio crosses,\nsince these were usually found to have been filled with broken bones and\nSaxon shards[193]. As shedding light on these strange discoveries, it\nmay be noticed that, in old Saxony, an open-air tribunal was consecrated\nby digging a grave, into which were thrown ashes, a coal, and a\ntile[194]. In passing, we note that these moot-hills are often known\nalternatively as Gallows or Galley Hills, names which evidently denote\nplaces set apart for judicial executions[195]. The antiquity of such\nnames may not be very great, and there is a possibility that the word\n\u201cGalley\u201d in some cases simply means poor and unfertile. Yet there are\ntraditions that gallows stood on these spots, and both the word\n\u201cgallows\u201d and the thing denoted are ancient. The word is as old as\nBeowulf, and although hanging does not appear to have been a mode of\npunishment greatly favoured by the Saxons, it was not altogether\nunknown. William the Conqueror made provisions to restrict the practice\nof hanging, a penalty which, curious to relate, was in his day thought\nmore cruel than mutilation[196].\n\nWe have now reached this point: a moot-hill may be natural or\nartificial, and, if artificial, it may, or may not, be a burial mound.\nThat the pagan Saxons respected mounds which they believed to be barrows\nis fairly evident. Thomas Wright has clearly shown that Roman monumental\ninscriptions not infrequently contain warnings against neglect of, or\ndisrespect to, the tombs of the departed. Besides, therefore, the leaven\nof superstition, I consider that we must reckon with the probability of\nliving knowledge, the result of direct transmission, possessed by those\nmembers of the population who understood debased Latin at the time of\nthe Teutonic invasion. Some of the venerated mounds were employed as\nboundaries[197]. We shall find, at a later stage of our studies, that\nthe half-Christianized folk were apt to resort to the barrows for the\nburial of their dead. Roads are even reported to swerve a little from\ntheir course to avoid a grave-mound. These clues are \u201clight as air, but\nstrong as links of iron.\u201d The pivotal fact to be remembered is that,\nwherever the church-builders found a reputed barrow at a spot not\naltogether unsuitable in other respects, they would recognize the\nsanctity of the mound, and would be enticed to accept it as a fit\nneighbour for the new structure.\n\nA possible illustration seems to be afforded by a hummock which is in\ncontiguity with the churchyard at Old Hunstanton, Norfolk. Canon A.\nJessopp surmised that this mound was a moot-hill[198], but excavations,\nwe are now informed, have proved that the knoll is purely natural[199].\nAccepting the correctness of this conclusion, one may yet reasonably\nretain the hypothesis that the mound was used as an open-air court. Both\nthe early settlers and the later architects may conceivably have\nmistaken the hillock for a sepulchre. Our problem does not concern alone\nthe character of the knoll, but the purpose to which it was applied. We\nhave not simply to ask, Is the mound an artifact? but, How came the\nchurch to be associated with the mound? Were such an instance solitary,\nit would not be worth a moment\u2019s thought. Contrariwise, if the examples\nare numerous, as they undoubtedly are, we are not justified in\ndismissing them summarily and without reserve.\n\nThe third group of mounds placed in the vicinity of churches will detain\nus a still shorter time than did the second. The \u201cToot Hills\u201d are\nfrequently confounded with the \u201cMoot Hills,\u201d both in name and nature.\nOften, indeed, a particular eminence would serve both purposes, and it\nwould be difficult to define each class with distinctness. The Toot Hill\nat Pirton (p. 60 _supra_) is accepted as a castle motte, though it must\nhave also been an earthwork watch-tower. Such outposts, or places of\nobservation, have been employed by many peoples. Xenophon and Herodotus\nspeak of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u1f01, or watch-tower, while Cicero and Livy use _specula_\nin practically the same sense (view-point or beacon). In Britain the\ntoot-hills appear to have been utilized throughout the Middle Ages;\nperhaps, too, they did not fall into entire disuse until after the\nPeninsular War, but were employed, at intervals, in times of stress and\ndanger. When they did not serve as rallying points, they were still\nvaluable for beacon-fires.\n\nThe word \u201ctoot\u201d is almost certainly derived from A. S. _t\u014dtian_, to\nproject, to peep, the allusion being primarily to the swelling or\nprotuberance of the ground (cf. _tumulus_) and afterwards to the watch\nwhich was kept from its summit. Professor J. Tait has collected much\ninteresting lore concerning the word. Thus, the word which in the\nAuthorized Version of the Bible (Isa. xxi. 8) is rendered \u201cwatch-tower\u201d\nwas translated \u201ctoothyl\u201d by Wyclif[200]. The Vulgate renders the term by\n_specula_. Mr Allcroft further connects the word \u201ctoot\u201d with A.S.\n_tutta_, a spy[201]. The absurd etymologies once in vogue, such as that\nwhich associated \u201ctoot\u201d with Taith, a pagan deity, are now relinquished.\nAmong the variations and compounds of \u201ctoot\u201d are Tout Hill, Tothill,\nTutt Hill (near Thetford), Tutbury, Tothill Fields, Touting Hill,\nBeltout (Sussex), and others. Some of these are familiar to us as names\nof villages and districts. Sir John Rh\u0177s describes vantage-points in the\nIsle of Man, which are evidently the equivalents of our toot-hills.\nThese knolls are called _cronks_, and they are found near churches.\nThus, we have \u201cCronk yn Iree Laa,\u201d near Jurby, a name which signifies\n\u201cHill of the Rise of Day,\u201d or possibly, \u201cHill of Watch and Ward[202].\u201d\nIn Ireland an artificial hillock of this kind is called Moate-o\u2019-Ward,\nor alternatively, a rath or Danes\u2019 Grave. In the popular mind, again,\nour English word has been associated with burial mounds and banked\nenclosures. For instance, a long barrow in Staffordshire is known as the\nFairy\u2019s Toot. The Toot Hill at Uttoxeter was found to contain both\nNeolithic and Roman remains. Again, the quadrilateral earthwork at\nToothill, near Macclesfield, is provisionally believed, as the result of\nspade-work, to be an early fortification.\n\nMr S. O. Addy, in his valuable work _The Evolution of the English\nHouse_, speaks of the presence of \u201cTout\u201d or \u201cTouting Hills\u201d near parish\nchurches, but, from his descriptions, it would seem that most of his\nexamples are genuine castle-mounds[203]. In two features, however, the\nmound which is a toot-hill, and nothing more, occasionally differs from\nthe other hillocks which we are\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 19. The Toot Hill, Little Coates, Lincolnshire. View from the\n     North-Eastern boundary. The basal portion of the hill is entirely\n     natural, and is now being excavated for sand. The upper portion,\n     surmounted by the tree, has been modified artificially.\n]\n\ndescribing. One characteristic is the great size, as compared with\nbarrows and mottes, and the other is the irregularity of shape, where\nthe mound has been untouched by man. The writer\u2019s notebook contains an\naccount of a visit to the Toot Hill at Little Coates, near Grimsby, in\nDecember, 1903. The church of Little Coates, which is probably of early\nfoundation, though only the featureless chancel arch of the present\nbuilding dates before the Perpendicular Period, is about one-third of a\nmile distant. This Toot Hill (Fig. 19) is a huge mound with an irregular\nground plan, but the upper portion has an elliptical contour. It is\ncomposed chiefly of sand and sandy clays, which seem to belong to the\nlate Glacial Period. A sand pit which was being worked at the base of\none side of the hill, yielded broken and comminuted specimens of\n_Ostrea_, _Tellina_, and other marine shells. Towards the summit,\nhowever, there were undoubted signs of man\u2019s work. A slight fall of snow\nhad rendered discernible a shallow trench which encompassed the hill\nslope. One could also pick out, near the base, the radial ridges and\nfurrows of some old-time plough, but even these had not quite\nobliterated the trench. A few small flint flakes were detected on a\npatch bare of turf. One suspects that this hill served both as a beacon\nand a watch-tower when the Humber and the North Sea were nearer the\nspot, and when Grimsby was represented by a string of islets lying amid\nthe waters of a lagoon. This condition of the landscape is known to have\nprevailed during the early historic period. The capping of the mound\ncovers, mayhap, the dust of more than one celebrity. Bones and\nearthenware were found at, or near, this spot a century ago, and soon\nafter the visit just described skeletons were dug up in the sand pit.\nThe ultimate fate of these skeletons, and their determinations, could\nnot be ascertained. Perchance this toot-hill will remind the visitor of\nthe cremation of Beowulf, and the mound which \u201cthe Weders people wrought\non the hill,\u201d after the funeral-pyre which they had kindled had ceased\nto glow. We learn that the lamenting warriors raised\n\n    \u201cA howe on the lithe (=body), that was high and broad,\n     Unto the wave-farers wide to be seen,\n     Then it they betimbered in time of ten days,\n     The battle-strong\u2019s beacon.\u201d\n\nWe pause for a moment to recapitulate briefly our records and results.\nWherever a mound which is intimately associated with a church is of\nNorman or post-Norman construction, it tells of feudal convenience and\nthe centralization of business; perhaps, too, of religious expediency,\nwith more than a hint of the secular use of the church. In a lesser\ndegree, this argument of convenience applies also to the Saxon nobles.\nOne of the means by which a ceorl could secure thegn-right, was by\nbuilding a church, and if he followed this method, it is probable he\nwould prefer to erect the church near his dwelling. Again, the\nconnection of churches with pre-Norman moot-hills or toot-hills, whether\nthese were \u201cblind\u201d mounds or grave-knolls, suggests the deliberate\nchoice of sites already famous. And if it be granted that the Norman\nmotte had, even by exception, a rudimentary origin in the Saxon period,\nreasoned selection is again indicated. A mound which was the seat of\njudicial and legislative assemblies would be so indissolubly linked with\nthe religious ceremonies of the community or tribe, that the site of the\nfuture church may be said to have been almost predetermined.\n\nThe mounds which form our last series are the grave-hills or barrows.\nThese features, when found near Christian places of worship, form such a\ncritical test of intentional selection, that each record should be\nclosely scanned. British examples of the barrow and the church as\nneighbours are not very abundant. In parts of the Continent, however,\nthe records are so numerous and so obvious that they crave a more\nlenient inspection. Few European countries have been overrun by the\ninvader during the last fifteen hundred years to the same degree as\nBritain. Churches have been pulled down and rebuilt, or they have been\nfired and deserted, and, long afterwards, restored. The surrounding\nchurchyards have been trenched and dug far more intensively than the\ntreasure-field of Aesop\u2019s fable. The spade has disturbed and distributed\nflints and shards, and any other primitive relics have been broken and\nscattered so many times that their original positions are unknown.\nLevelling has followed inequality, and, in some cases, the graveyard has\nbeen enlarged and a secondary dispersal of soil has been made. (The\nobservations on burial shards in Chapter VII. should be read in this\nconnection.)\n\nWe will start with some of the less-authenticated examples first. A\nmound, long thought to be a barrow, but now considered to be quite\nnatural, stands near Woodnesborough church, Sandwich, Kent. No trenching\nof the mound, however, has been recorded. The late Mr T. W. Shore\nrecorded several instances of churchyard barrows from Hampshire, but I\nam not aware that the true character of these particular mounds has ever\nbeen investigated. Thus, at Corhampton, a church of Saxon foundation is\nactually built on a mound, while at Cheriton, the church is not only\nplaced on a hillock, but it is also adjacent to a permanent spring[204].\nThis collocation of church and spring, it may be remarked, will greet\nus continually. In the churchyard of Ogbourne Maisey, Wiltshire, a fine\n\u201ctumulus\u201d stands close to the river[205], and Mr F. J. Bennett, who\nrecords this example, informs me that there was formerly another mound\nin Allington churchyard, Kent. This last example, one is disposed to\nthink, may have been an outpost of Allington Castle.\n\nThe next mound which deserves attention is situated just outside the\nNorth wall of the churchyard of Over Worton, Oxfordshire. It is a round\nhillock, and has a circumference of 198 feet. Except that it is\ntree-clad, it has the characteristics of the other round barrows of the\ndistrict. The assertion has been made that the mound merely represents a\nheap of rubbish removed from the churchyard, but a living witness, whose\nmemory covers the date assigned to its construction, denies this story,\nand states that the hillock was there previously[206].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 20. Supposed barrow in Berwick churchyard, Sussex. The base of\n     the mound is marked by the white crosses, and by the horizontal\n     tombstone in the foreground.\n]\n\nWith respect to a mound which I recently discovered in Berwick\nchurchyard near Lewes, in Sussex, nothing is definitely known. This\nmound, which occupies the South-Western corner of the graveyard, and\nwhich stands but a few yards from the church, appears to be mainly, if\nnot altogether, artificial, and is most probably a barrow. It is\nslightly elliptical in shape, the diameters being approximately 48 and\n42 feet respectively, while its height is about seven feet. A large\nsycamore and a horse chestnut overshadow the hillock; the former tree is\nshown to the spectator\u2019s right in Fig. 20. On this side also, towards\nthe base of the mound, a monumental cross is seen. In digging the grave\nbeneath, it is said that hard chalk was soon reached, but this proves\nlittle, since the excavation was made near the foot of the hillock. No\nother graves have been dug in the mound. On the whole, and in default of\nactual trenching, I am disposed to consider this mound a true burial\nplace. Its small size and the absence of an outer court seem to preclude\nthe idea of its having been a defensive mound of the moated type.\n\nA large barrow, hitherto unexplored, lies concealed in a wood near Ryton\nchurch, in county Durham[207]. Another knoll, bearing the name of\nBrinklow Mount, stands to the East of Brinklow churchyard, Warwickshire,\nand is believed to have been originally a grave-hill, though afterwards\nmade to serve as a motte[208]. A low mound near Great Wigborough church,\nEssex, is reputed to be the burial place of soldiers killed in battle,\nbut it is probably a true barrow.\n\nOne of the most interesting of these mounds, speculatively barrows, to\nbe seen near London, is situated on the Northern side of Chislehurst\nchurchyard, Kent. This hillock is surmounted by an altar tomb, the\nhorizontal slab of which now rests on the plinth. No tidings can be\ngleaned respecting the origin of the mound. For reasons which appear to\nbe satisfactory to the writer, and which will be considered at a later\nstage (Chapter VIII.), a knoll of this kind would scarcely be expressly\nraised over an ordinary grave or vault on the North side of the\ngraveyard so early as the year 1712, the date when Caleb Trenchfield was\ninterred in the mound. The fact that this gentleman did not\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 21. View of Chislehurst churchyard from the North side,\n     showing tumulus. (From a print in D. Lyson\u2019s _Environs of London_,\n     1795-1800.) Incidentally, the illustration shows the fewness of the\n     tombstones on the North side of the churchyard, a century ago.\n]\n\nbelong to the ordinary rank of village folk would render burial in that\nquarter the more noticeable, since the practice of burial on the North\nside was then unusual. But a mound of this size would not be heaped up\nto cover a single vault. One would infer that, unless Mr Trenchfield\nleft instructions for an extraordinary kind of burial, the mound existed\nlong before, and had no connection with Christian interments. Mr E. A.\nWebb, the able historian of Chislehurst, has kindly supplied all the\navailable facts about the tomb. Two trees were planted on the mound, as\nthe evidence shows, only a few years after the burial, in 1712. The\ngrowth of the trees first damaged and then broke the monument, and they\nwere therefore cut down. Mr Webb states that there is no record that\nthe mound has ever been opened, save at the funeral of Mr\nTrenchfield[209]. An illustration of the mound and tomb as given by\nDaniel Lysons about the year 1800, is shown in Fig. 21. Pending further\nexcavations, which are, however, not likely to be made, I should place\nthe mound, with reserve, under the present section of our subject.\n\nNear Bramber church, in Sussex, there is a group of \u201cvalley mounds,\u201d 27\nin number. They are circular, and have a diameter of from 15 to 20\nyards. Around each of these low eminences, which are flat-topped, runs a\nditch. A group of 38 similar mounds is situated between Applesham Creek\nand Coombe church. Trial holes, which were sunk in 1908-9, under the\ndirection of the Brighton and Hove Archaeological Club, brought to light\nbones, a Mediaeval knife, and pottery which was assigned by Mr F. W.\nReader to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The real nature of the\nmounds is still, however, undetermined.\n\nWe may amplify our references after glancing at the map of Yorkshire.\nSpeeton church, near Bridlington, is said to be built on a tumulus[210].\nAgain, Mr Mortimer discovered that a burial-ground, or, at least, a\nbarrow, lay beneath Fimber church, in the East Riding. His excavations,\nmade in 1869, brought to light flint implements, pottery, shells, and\nhuman bones[211]. The vanished building at Chapel Carn Brea, in\nCornwall, which stood on the crest of a conspicuous hill, is another\ninstance of a church built on, or near, a sepulchral mound[212]. The\nneighbourhood of this last church abounds with antiquities, and traces\nof about 100 hut circles have been recorded[213].\n\nOftentimes, in places where no mound is visible in the church garth, the\nsoil still holds relics which denote archaic interments. During the\nrepairs which were made some five-and-twenty years ago, at the East end\nof Wyre Piddle church in Worcestershire, two skeletons were discovered\nin a sitting posture. The faces were disposed towards the North-East.\nWith the bones were found the remains of iron shield-bosses. A kind of\nrough pavement was also reached under the soil of the churchyard. The\ninterments had been made prior to the introduction of Christianity[214],\nand a mound may once have marked the spot. From the churchyard of\nLlanbedr, in the Vale of Conway, a somewhat analogous find is recorded.\nSix feet below the surface, the sexton\u2019s spade struck a flat slab of\nstone, and underneath this was found a crouching, or kneeling, skeleton,\nsurrounded by boars\u2019 tusks[215]. The district around is rich in British\nremains[216].\n\nSome forty years ago, when the church tower of East Blatchington,\nSussex, was being restored, an urn containing burnt bones and charcoal\nwas discovered. The precise nature of the urn, and its after-history, do\nnot seem to be known. Urns were also discovered during the restoration\nof Arlington church, in the same county, in the year 1892. Among the\nSaxon graves which have been disturbed by the modern sexton, two Kentish\nexamples should be noted. In a churchyard at Faversham, the frontal bone\nof a human cranium and a Saxon tumbler of transparent green glass were\ndug up in the year 1853[217]. A bell-shaped cup of glass, ornamented\nwith vertical ribs, was found associated with a skull and other human\nbones in the churchyard at Minster. The bones represented a skeleton\nwhich was computed to be eight feet in length[218]. Whether or not the\nburial-places at Faversham and Minster were ever capped with mounds must\nremain undecided. It is quite probable that a small \u201chowe\u201d of some kind\nmarked the spot in each case. These Kentish discoveries add\nenlightenment in another direction. At a meeting of the Prehistoric\nSociety of East Anglia, held at Norwich, in February, 1910, there was\nexhibited a polished axe which came from the churchyard of Gresham, in\nNorfolk. At the same meeting, Mr J. Cox showed a chipped celt which had\nbeen built into Gresham church tower. Its presence there was most\nprobably accidental, though it is well to recall the Breton practice of\nbuilding stone axes into chimneys to ward off lightning. Mr Stephen\nBlackmore, the aged \u201cShepherd of the Downs,\u201d who has long been known as\na collector of Neolithic implements, informs me that he secured an\nexcellent polished flint hatchet from a depth of four or five feet in\nEast Dean churchyard, Sussex. Again, in the Brighton Museum, there are\ndisplayed two fine flint celts, the one polished, the other neatly\nchipped. They were obtained from South Harting churchyard, Sussex. The\nchipped specimen came from a depth of three feet below the surface[219].\nNo further details can be gleaned, but, as the celts are of the types\noccurring in barrows of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods, one may\nsuppose that the church is adjacent to the resting-place of some\nprehistoric chieftain. This is only a reasonable hypothesis, but the\ndiscoveries at Pytchley, Northamptonshire, in 1845, lie outside the\ndomain of guesswork. The church was built in the early Norman period.\nSituated partly under the fabric itself, and partly under the present\ngraveyard, a British cemetery was found. Although only a small area was\nexcavated, twenty kist-vaens were uncovered. The Rev. W. Abner Brown,\nwho described the graves, believed that the Norman builders were\nignorant of the kists over which they placed their foundations, and that\nthe stone graves belonged to Romanized Christians. It does indeed seem\nstrange that pillars should be built over small hollow chambers; yet,\ninterpolated between these chambers and the Norman graveyard, was still\nanother burial ground, which had been used by the villagers long before\nthe Norman Conquest. Again, while it is stated that the bodies lay East\nand West, \u201cor nearly so,\u201d this alone does not prove Christian influence.\nA pre-christian date might be inferred from the relics, though these\nwere few. Besides Roman coins and scraps of pottery, the scanty list of\ngrave-gifts included a perforated tusk of the wild boar, and a rude\namethystine crystal \u201ceardrop.\u201d British earthenware was also found, and\nthe whole of the data seem rather to point to continuity. We must\nremember that the surface of the churchyard once stood at a lower\nlevel, and a narrow pathway of pebbles was actually found at a depth of\nsix feet. The Norman architects, then, most likely knew that they were\nbuilding over a graveyard of some kind, even as the Saxons may have been\naware that their own cemetery was superimposed upon a still older\none[220].\n\nBy far the best-known churchyard tumulus, and the one which has most\nsuccessfully stood the test of exploration, is that of Taplow, in\nBuckinghamshire. A study of this barrow, which remains in the old\nchurchyard of the village, near Taplow Court, will help to elucidate\nsome of the other difficulties. The church itself is no longer visible,\nthough its ruins remained on the spot until 1853. On clearing away the\nmasonry, it was seen that the foundations of the building passed through\nan ancient ditch. The church had been erected at the Eastern end of an\nenclosure, the centre of which was dominated by the barrow. The whole\noccupied high ground, known locally as Bury Fields[221]. The folk-lorist\nwill note, in passing, how valuable these philological details are,\nsince names of this kind are not uncommon, and they generally seem to\npreserve the tradition of some actual event. To proceed with the\ndescription: from time to time fragments of pottery--British, Roman, and\nSaxon--together with well-worked flint flakes, had been collected on, or\nnear, the surface of the village graveyard[222]. The evidence showed\nthat the tumulus had been intentionally shut in when the boundaries of\nthe churchyard were first fixed. At a later date, a yew tree had been\nplanted on the grave-hill, and the trunk of this ancient tree was still\nin existence when digging was started in the year 1883.\n\nBriefly, the following observations were recorded. Scattered throughout\nthe uppermost layer of the soil, to a depth of two or three feet, the\nexplorers found pieces of dressed chalk. These are supposed to have\nformed part of a Norman doorway, and were doubtless buried when the\nchurch was restored, or rebuilt, in the fourteenth century[223]. A\nconfusing feature was the discovery, at various levels, of coarse\npottery, bones, bone tools, hammer stones, flint flakes, and flint\ncores[224]. These objects were found \u201cin larger measure at the top of\nthe mound, but were at no time absent[225].\u201d Yet, at the very bottom of\nthe barrow, scraps of Samian ware and a portion of a Roman \u201cbrick\u201d were\nexposed[226]. These Roman vestiges, lying at the lowest horizon, showed\nthat the mound could not be Celtic. All the objects hitherto described\nmight have been collected, along with the soil, from lower levels when\nthe pile was raised. Are we driven to marvel at the surprising wealth of\nrelics? If so, we must remember that the spot had some strategical\nimportance, and had doubtless been occupied by Britons and Romans long\nbefore the occasion of the construction of the barrow. There is no\nnecessity here to relate the engrossing story in greater detail, since\nthis has been fully done by Dr J. Stevens and Mr Reginald A. Smith. It\nis enough to state that the barrow was heaped up to cover the remains of\na Saxon chieftain. This was distinctly shown by the character of the\ngrave-furniture--drinking horns, military trappings, utensils, and\nornaments of Saxon date. The circumstances connected with this primary\nburial, as well as the relics, showed that the interment was of the\nnon-Christian type[227].\n\nFor our next example we turn to the history of Ludlow. Down to the close\nof the twelfth century, the parish churchyard of that town occupied the\nsite of a tumulus. In A.D. 1199, the barrow was cleared away, and there\nwere disclosed sepulchral relics which pointed to a Roman origin. The\nclergy, however, declared that the remains were those of Irish saints,\nand thus turned the discovery to good account[228]. This ludicrous\necclesiastical fiction serves one purpose, and by good chance it speeds\nus in our present business. Through this tale we get a hint that the\npriests of the Middle Ages were inquisitive about the contents of\nbarrows. Hallowed bones and mythical treasure formed the lure. Canon\nJessopp has related numerous instances of this Mediaeval \u201chill-digging\u201d\nfor treasure in the county of Norfolk[229]. Thomas Wright put the other\nside of the matter in a way which arrests the eye and ear of every\nmodern antiquary, for he thought that he could adduce, from monastic\nlegends, a hundred distinct examples of the opening of barrows to search\nfor the bones of saints[230]. From this keen dissection of ancient\nburial mounds, we may infer that even the Mediaeval churchmen imputed\nsanctity to barrows, although the belief found expression in paradoxical\nacts of desecration.\n\nIn alluding to discoveries like that of Pytchley, we approached the\nsubject of cemeteries, rather than that of barrows. A few instances of\npagan burial-grounds lying beneath Christian churches may be cited. The\noft-quoted case of St Paul\u2019s Cathedral does not properly fall under this\nhead. It is true that, at various times, a number of ox-skulls and\nboars\u2019-tusks have been discovered beneath the foundations. Tradition\nsays that the cathedral stands on the site of a temple dedicated to\nDiana[231]. The legend may be fallacious, for the finding of a heap of\nanimal bones scarcely warrants the assumption of a pagan temple, much\nless of a pagan burial-place. Rather is the indication towards one of\nthose foundation sacrifices, which might profitably engage attention in\nanother volume. Moreover, the site of St Paul\u2019s has always been a\nprolific field for Roman relics, hence it is within possibility that the\nbones are accidental items of a greater depository of rejected remains.\n\nOther records, however, may pass unquestioned. At Lewes, in Sussex[232],\nand at Mentmore[233], in Buckinghamshire, churches have been built, if\nnot on the actual sites of Saxon cemeteries, at least, very near them.\nWith respect to the Mentmore interments, it is to be noted that those\nbodies of which the positions were recorded lay East and West[234].\nAccording to the view, now widely held, such a position indicates\nChristian burial, but, as will later be shown (p. 248 _infra_), the rule\nis by no means absolute. Unfortunately, the concomitant relics were so\nfew as to yield little support to either theory. This difficulty is\npeculiarly noticeable in churchyard discoveries. Either the records date\nfrom the pre-scientific period of excavation, or, from the nature of the\ncase, little modern exploration can be attempted. Thus, numerous relics\nhave been dug up at various times near the West side of another\nNorthamptonshire church,--that of Whittlebury. These relics comprise a\nbronze celt, Roman coins, an inscribed legionary tile, and several\nuninscribed tiles[235]. Such articles may suggest a burial-ground, or,\nat least, an inhabited site, but obviously no systematic excavations can\nbe made.\n\nDiscoveries made at Alphamstone, in Essex, near the boundary of that\ncounty and Suffolk, and not far from the little town of Bures, deserve\nsome attention. It has been a somewhat lengthy task to obtain the\nprecise particulars relating to the discoveries, which date from the\nyear 1905 onwards, but through the courtesy of Miss A. Stebbing, the\nRev. P. Saben, and Mr Arthur G. Wright, the Curator of the Corporation\nMuseum at Colchester, I am able to present an epitome of the finds. On a\nspur of the hill projecting into the valley, through which flows a small\ntributary of the Stour, there must have been a kind of cemetery\nbelonging to the Bronze Age. The surface soil is underlain by sand, and\nthis, again, by fine gravel. Workmen, digging for gravel, have, at\nvarious times, lighted upon urns, the bodies of which rested in the\nsandy layer. The specimens have now been secured, by gift or purchase,\nfor the Colchester Museum. Through the kindness of the present rector,\nthe Rev. P. Saben, a group of these urns is shown in Fig. 22, though it\nis doubtful whether these were all taken from one grave. With the\nvessels were associated numbers of white quartz pebbles, which occur\nnaturally in the sand and gravel, but which may have been collected by\nthe mourners who deposited the ashes in the urns (cf. p. 299 _infra_).\nThe interest of these Alphamstone discoveries lies in the fact that,\nsome 200 yards distant, on the same projection of the hill, the village\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 22. Group of urns (Bronze Age) found near Alphamstone church,\n     Essex. The large \u201ccinerary urn,\u201d in the middle of the group, is\n     ornamented with bands of cord-markings, which form a chevron-like\n     pattern. On the left is a \u201cfood-vessel,\u201d of coarse buff-coloured\n     ware, with overhanging rim. Of the smaller vessels on the right,\n     one bears an incised trellis pattern on the rim, the other has\n     vertical cord lines.\n]\n\nchurch was built. It has, indeed, been asserted that an urn was dug up\nin the churchyard itself, but of this I can obtain no confirmation. The\nlate incumbent, the Rev. R. H. Anketell, for the loan of whose\nmanuscript I am indebted to Miss Stebbing, strongly argued that the\nchurch was erected on a barrow, but Mr Wright\u2019s observations do not\nverify this hypothesis. A second discovery, however, was made under the\nchurch and in the churchyard during the recent restoration of the\nbuilding. This consisted of a number of boulders, some vertical, others\nrecumbent, pitted with what are popularly known as \u201cpebble-holes.\u201d The\nstones were all devoid of tooling. The proximate origin of the stones\nwas the Boulder Clay of the district. Two of the blocks were found\nunder the angles of the tower, two others came from beneath the chancel,\nwhile three were situated in, or near, the churchyard. It is also known\nthat other specimens had been carried away in past times, for the\npurpose of repairing walls and farm buildings. Mr Anketell considered\nthat the church had been built over a stone-circle, but one must\nhesitate a little before yielding assent. The group of stones may\nrepresent a portion of the builder\u2019s stock, yet we must interpret the\ndiscovery by the light of similar occurrences. It should be added, as\nestablishing another bond of continuity, that Roman pottery is turned up\nfrom time to time in the neighbourhood.\n\nIn pondering the foregoing examples, we ought frequently to call to our\naid comparative customs in more remote parts of the British Isles.\nTaking Ireland, for instance, it will be seen that that country is\nfertile in the kind of evidence so deplorably scanty in those portions\nof Britain which have been most disturbed and overrun by the spoiler.\nOne instance alone, as related by Mr W. G. Wood-Martin, will exemplify\nthe difference in the quality of the evidence. In the graveyard of the\nvery early church at St John\u2019s Point, co. Down, there were discovered\nnumerous pagan graves arranged in a circle. Within this series, and\narranged concentrically, was another ring of smaller graves, while the\ncommon centre was marked by a stone pillar[236]. After this concluding\nexample, we may sum up this side of the evidence. Occasionally, it must\nbe admitted, the juxtaposition of pagan and Christian burials may be the\nresult of coincidence. Pre-Christian burials are so abundant and so\nwidely scattered that, by chance, the church builders may have stumbled\non a forgotten cemetery. But this explanation will not cover the whole\nof the cases. While it may be urged, with respect to the Alphamstone\ncemetery, that there was probably a break in continuity, due to the\nslackening of folk-memory, the objection is manifestly irrelevant to the\nTaplow barrow, which must have been a conspicuous object when the\nfoundations of the church were being laid. Even with examples of the\nAlphamstone type, there is the witness of tradition and superstition to\nbe heard. The salutary respect which was paid to the dead by primitive\nfolk, and the superstitious beliefs, cherished, half in fear, half in\nhope, were centred around burial-places. These are facts to be graven on\nthe tablets of the memory of every archaeologist. Realizing how potent,\neven to-day, are the traditions of ghosts, and fairies, and hidden\ntreasure, wherever the dead are known to lie, and remembering that\nfolk-memory has frequently proved to be sound in the identification of\ngraves previously overlooked by the antiquary, we are bound to conclude\nthat nothing short of the extermination of the whole of the inhabitants\nof a country-side could completely wipe away such recollections. Even\nto-day, after several centuries of the printed book, and several decades\nof the day school, the most definite legends, and those with the\ngreatest living force, are those which the peasant connects with graves\nand ghosts. How much stronger was this kind of tradition when delivered\norally from father to son, and when all folk alike were under the spell\nof superstition!\n\nIf it be objected that the majority of Gothic churches, perhaps even the\nmajority of existing Saxon churches, do not stand near pagan\nburial-grounds, that the general rule was to establish new cemeteries at\na distance from the old, one would naturally answer that it is just\nthese exceptions which prove that the chain of continuity was never\nabsolutely broken. The examples where old sites were seized upon might,\nat first, be relatively numerous, but they would tend to become fewer\nand fewer, as adherence to ancient heathen custom weakened. A time would\narrive when, save to combat a prejudice, the pagan spots would be\ncompletely shunned, and all churches would be built on soil newly\nhallowed. The evidence must be judged as a whole, and especial weight\nwill have to be allowed for the records of holy wells, which we must\nreview before closing the chapter. A combination of features will often\nimpress the most sceptical. When we find, hidden away in a wilderness of\nmoors and hills at Bewcastle, in the Northern corner of Cumberland, the\nremains of a Mediaeval castle close to a restored twelfth century\nchurch, while the shaft of a seventh century cross stands hard by, and\nwhen we notice that a Roman camp of hexagonal outline--a rare\nfeature--encloses all these objects[237], we are justified in tracing a\ncausal connection. What, but deliberate purpose, conspired to make\nwarrior, churchman, and feudal lord, one after the other, settle in this\nremote fastness? Confronted with testimony of this kind, the burden of\nproof must rest upon those who would see, here and there, a distinct\nhiatus in the history of social development. A parallel may be drawn\nfrom the science of organic evolution. Recent researches have taught us\nthat we must be prepared to encounter \u201cmutations\u201d in the lines of\ndescent. It is also undeniable that ethnology may present us with\nsimilar mutations, caused, for instance, by the advent of a conquering\nrace or a new religion. The fresh factor may produce either an\nexaltation or a retrogression, nevertheless, the general external and\ninternal aspects of folk-custom will, for a long time afterwards, suffer\nlittle alteration, and the movement which is visible at the surface will\nnot influence the undercurrents of belief to a corresponding extent. If\nthe modification of the outward signs may be incautiously exaggerated,\nthe strength of the unseen movements of belief may be carelessly deemed\nexhausted, when, in truth, it has scarcely waned at all. The hidden\npagan forces which exist in England to-day, though they are normally\nkept in check by conventional habits and national religion, are well\nknown to the professed student of survivals, while they are largely\nignored by the orthodox historian. On the whole, then, experience\nteaches that the introduction of an alien religion does not interpose an\nimpassable gulf between the old and the new, but that there will follow\ngentle transitions in custom, probably masked, for the time, by local\noutbursts of fanaticism or by the apparent sudden conversion, in certain\ndistricts, of large masses of the people. Beneath these disquieting\nsuperficial symptoms, there runs, in the main, an unbroken sequence of\nlife and custom.\n\nThe present place seems convenient for expressing a warning against\ncertain false appearances which an old graveyard may present. Often the\narea has been girdled with a trench, several feet in depth, in order to\nafford greater protection against the intrusion of cattle than could be\nprovided by a railing or a stone wall alone. By this means, too, the\nanimals are prevented from browsing upon evergreen hedges where these\nare planted. This double barrier is especially necessary when the church\nis in the neighbourhood of a park, in which deer are kept. The\nwall-and-ditch arrangement, or even the ditch only, is common in the\nWest country, though it is not infrequent in other districts. To allow\nthe entrance of worshippers to the churchyard, and at the same time to\nbaulk the efforts of cattle, a single block of stone, or a \u201cgrid\u201d\ncomposed of two or three narrow slabs, set edgeways, is placed across\nthe trench to form a bridge. A subsidiary purpose of the ditch is that\nof drainage. Or again, where the ditch is absent, rude stone pillars,\nsloping outwards from the base, serve as a strait gateway. All these\nfeatures may suggest to the unwary a simple system of fortification.\nMoreover, one may often trace, in the vicinity of the church, vestiges\nof earthen banks, the remains of the boundaries of a Mediaeval village\n(cf. p. 16 _supra_). Thus there is a double possibility of deception. A\ndry ditch does not necessarily denote antiquity. A favourite method of\nsetting about the enclosure of an estate or the establishment of a\ncoppice was to construct a trench along the proposed limits, and this\nmode of delimitation seems also to have commended itself occasionally to\nthe churchmen of old. This practice, I am inclined to think, accounts\nfor the \u201cmoat,\u201d now filled up, which formerly encircled the churchyard\nat Tooting, in the South-West of London, about two miles distant from\nthe place where these lines are being written. Yet the late Mr T. W.\nShore, the well-known archaeologist, suggested that the church had been\nbuilt within a small British earthwork[238]. The position of the church,\nat the foot of a steep hill, seems to negative this theory, and to point\nto a later period, when the Church had quite triumphed over paganism.\n\nThere is a still more seductive danger to entice the credulous\ninvestigator who, having heard of churchyard tumuli, would fain see\nbarrows everywhere. Many churches have the appearance of standing on\nartificial hillocks simply because, for a score of generations, the\nsurface of the ground has been continually raised by a succession of\ninterments. The effect is most marked where the graveyard is of limited\narea, and is held up by strong containing masonry. The soil has long\nbeen confined within a definite space, and the turf is now almost on a\nlevel with the coping of the walls. The curvature of the surface and the\nbulging walls tell the rest of the story. Near the fabric, the feet of\nthe visitor are almost in a horizontal plane with the sill of the Early\nEnglish or Decorated window, so that a trench, lined with concrete, has\nbeen cut to preserve the walls from damp. The interpretation is obvious.\nThe building, instead of being perched on a knoll, is actually in\nprocess of being sunk within a hillock which has grown up around it. Let\nus revert for an instant to the concealed pathway which was found six\nfeet below the present surface at Pytchley churchyard. One imagines that\nthis difference of level may sometimes be considerably exceeded. Huxley\ntells us that the skeleton of a full-grown man weighs, on the average,\n24 lbs.[239] According to the analyses of bone made by Berzelius, 67 per\ncent. of this weight--roughly, 16 lbs.--consists of mineral salts which\nare practically indestructible[240]. Though the actual bulk of this\nresidue is small, we must add to it the miscellaneous materials of the\nmore permanent parts of the funeral furniture. This latter factor would\nbecome important after the use of coffins had spread to all classes of\nvillage folk.\n\nAmong the most striking examples of elevated graveyards which have come\nunder my notice are those at Telscombe and Rottingdean in Sussex;\nBrighstone or Brixton, in the Isle of Wight; and Milton Lilbourne, in\nWiltshire. Various writers have noticed a like feature in Breton and\nBasque churchyards. After perusing these records afresh, two passages\nfrom the writings of observant travellers come to mind. The first is\nfrom Peter Kalm, the Swede, who visited England in 1748. He noticed\nthat the floor of the English church often goes deeper down than the\nsurface of the churchyard soil. From this, he inferred either that the\nchurch had sunk, or that the earth of the churchyard had been raised,\nowing to burials; unless, indeed, soil had been brought to the spot.\nWilliam Cobbett\u2019s _Rural Rides_ affords a strong corroboration of the\nfacts. Cobbett\u2019s keen eye missed little, and his quick intuition\nsometimes--by no means always--suggested the correct explanation of\nfeatures which more careless tourists would have overlooked altogether.\nThe passage refers to the village of Rogate, near Petersfield in\nHampshire, and his remarks are so apt that a full quotation may be\npardoned. The letter is dated 12 November, 1825. \u201cWhen we came to the\nvillage of Rogate, I saw a little group of persons standing before a\nblacksmith\u2019s shop. The churchyard was on the other side of the road,\nsurrounded by a low wall. The earth of the churchyard was about four\nfeet and a half higher than the common level of the ground round about\nit; and you may see, by the nearness of the church windows to the\nground, that this bed of earth has been made by the innumerable burials\nthat have taken place in it. The group, consisting of the blacksmith,\nthe wheelwright, perhaps, and three or four others, appeared to me to be\nin a deliberative mood. So I said, looking significantly at the\nchurchyard, \u2018It has taken a pretty many thousands of your forefathers to\nraise that ground up so high.\u2019 \u2018Yes, sir,\u2019 said one of them[241].\u201d\nCobbett then proceeds with a little socratic questioning of the\nvillagers, in order to point a political moral, but with this we are not\nconcerned. As he trots off on his nag, however, he begins to estimate\nhow many hundreds of years a church has stood on the spot, and here our\nmusings may be in accord with his once more.\n\nHaving passed in review those churches built on Roman sites, and those\nwhich are associated with earthworks, megaliths, and burial places, we\ndeal next with churches which stand near sacred wells. The testimony\nwhich falls into this class yields the most satisfactory, as well as\nthe most ample, proof of the bequest of pagan sites to the Christian\ncommunity. At the outset, it must be admitted that the juxtaposition of\na sacred spring and a church does not, in every case, prove the adoption\nof a purely pagan site of primitive repute. Throughout the Middle Ages\npilgrimages to hallowed wells were approved by the Church. Nevertheless,\nthe custom had a pagan origin, and undoubtedly, the sacred spring was\nvisited long before it was appropriated, and perhaps enclosed, by church\nfolk.\n\nThe literature of holy wells is, if scattered, rather extensive, and the\nvarious customs connected with well-dressing, with the offering of gifts\nto the divinity of the waters, and with the belief in sympathetic magic,\nare familiar to most folk. Here, an enraged peasant thrusts a number of\npins into a wax doll, and throws the object into the spring, fully\nbelieving that his enemy will be injured in that part of the body which\ncorresponds to the pierced portion of the image. There, a well is\noverhung by an immemorial thorn, which is decorated with parti-coloured\nrags,--offerings which are reputed to relieve the devotee of his\nsickness. Yonder, the muddy bottom of the spring hides a number of pins\nand copper coins, the humble oblations of the ignorant.\n\nThe superstitions referred to are most rampant in Ireland, Wales, and\nCornwall, but they still survive also in remote parts of East Anglia,\nYorkshire, Northumberland, and other districts. Perhaps the best known\nEnglish examples of holy wells are at Tissington, Derbyshire (cf. p. 16\n_supra_). At this village there are several wells, or rather fountains,\nbut the most celebrated gushes out of the hill below the parish church.\nOn Ascension Day, a kind of floral mosaic, designed on a framework, is\nplaced over this fountain. After this has been done, a religious service\nis held. From statements made by various writers, it would appear that,\nof old, the ceremony took place on May Day, and that flowers and fruits\nwere preserved long beforehand for this festival, which at its inception\nwas essentially pagan[242]. One need scarcely insist on the other\nevidence which marks May Day as a heathen feast, but it would be\nadvantageous to recall the fact that well-worship was practised by the\nancients. Classical writings contain many allusions to the decoration of\nwells with garlands, to the flinging of nosegays into fountains, to the\nveneration paid to the nymphs of springs and streams. Now, as in the\ncase of megaliths and tumuli, springs which already had a great\nreputation would appeal strongly to the Christian missionaries. By\nannexing a site which was accounted holy, the apostles would secure that\ngentle transition of ideas which the times demanded. The spring would,\nof course, be re-dedicated. There would also be the subsidiary motive of\nadvantage. A church built near a perennial spring would always have a\nsupply of water for baptismal purposes, or for the washing of vessels.\nIndeed, after the lapse of centuries, this secondary reason would\ndoubtless be advanced as having alone determined the choice of site.\n\nSt Patrick and his followers, who, we are told, almost invariably chose\nheathen sites for their churches, did not neglect the sacred wells.\nOnce, at least, St Patrick preached at a fountain \u201cwhich the Druids\nworshipped as a god[243].\u201d One illuminating custom must be noted. At the\nwell of Tubberpatrick, in the parish of Dungiven, co. Derry, the\ndevotees of the well, after having uttered their prayers and washed\nthemselves in the waters, hang up their rags on a neighbouring bush.\nThen they proceed to a standing stone below the church, repeat their\nprayers, walk round the stone, and bow themselves. Next, they enter the\nchurch, where a similar ceremony takes place. Finally, they return in\nprocession to the upright stone. This account is given on the authority\nof Mr W. G. Wood-Martin, to whose valuable works on Ireland the reader\nis referred. We pass on to notice that Sweden is similarly rich in\ntradition. Professor O. Montelius asserts that offering wells are\nfrequently found near stone-circles, just as these are often met with in\nthe neighbourhood of churches (cf. p. 28 _supra_). Some of these wells\nhave received tributes in recent times[244].\n\nScotland does not appear to have been pre-eminently noted for\nwell-worship. Sacred wells have, however, been recorded as existing near\nthe churches of Little Dunkeld, in Perthshire, Musselburgh,\nStrathfillan, and many other places[245]. Perhaps some of our best\nillustrations of the well-cult are derived from Wales. We will note, in\npassing, Sir G. L. Gomme\u2019s conclusions, which he based on a large number\nof observations, respecting the wells of Ireland and Wales. In Ireland,\nthe highest point reached by the primitive cult of well-worshippers was\nto identify the deity as a rain-god, while in Wales the tradition\ncentred around a guardian spirit. A few Welsh examples may now be\nbriefly noted. A famous spring is that of St Tecla, Virgin and Martyr,\nsituated about 200 yards from Llandegla church[246]. Sir John Rh\u0177s\nrecords the well known as Ffynnon Beris (_Ffynon_ = well), near the\nparish church of Llanberis, and the healing waters of Ffynnon Faglan (=\nBaglan\u2019s Well), close to the church at Llanfaglan, in\nCarnarvonshire[247]. This authority has also shown that, in some\ninstances, there existed, until late times, a guardian of the well,\nthough whether the \u201cpriesthood\u201d was acquired by inheritance or otherwise\ncould not be ascertained. Thus, at St Elian\u2019s Well, near Llanelian\nchurch, in Denbighshire, a \u201cpriestess\u201d had charge of the well so late as\nthe close of the eighteenth century. At the healing well of St Teilo,\nhard by the ruined church of Llandeilo Llwydarth, in North\nPembrokeshire, the calvaria of a skull, reputed to be that of St Teilo,\nwas, even within our generation, handed to the patient. With this\nstrange cup he secured a draught which was warranted to cure\nwhooping-cough. The adjacent churchyard, it may be observed, contains\ntwo of the oldest post-Roman inscriptions in the Principality. Sir John\nRh\u0177s thinks that the well was probably sacred before the days of St\nTeilo, and that its ancient sanctity was one of the causes which decided\nthe choice of the ground for the erection of the church. The faith in\nthe well remains intact while the church walls are in utter decay.\nWell-paganism has annexed the saint, and has established a belief in the\nefficacy of the skull in well-ritual[248]. From North Pembrokeshire we\nturn to South Pembrokeshire, to that district known as \u201cLittle England\nbeyond Wales,\u201d which presents so many interesting problems to the\nethnologist and the archaeologist. It was in the year 1898 that Mr A. L.\nLeach, whose careful researches in this district are now familiar to\nmany, first pointed out to me the interesting chalybeate springs in the\nchurchyard of Gumfreston, near Tenby. The waters were reputed to have\ngreat medicinal virtue[249], and there can be little doubt that the\nexistence of the springs proved an inducement to the church builders.\nThe church itself, and the entire surroundings, will be found worthy of\nretrospect later.\n\nWe pass across to the Marches and find the holy church wells almost as\nnumerous in Western England as in the Principality. In the county of\nSalop alone we have examples at Donington, Stoke St Milborough, Ludlow\nFriary, and Wenlock Priory[250]. In the Midlands, we notice St Chad\u2019s\nWell at Lichfield[251]. Journeying Southwards through Gloucestershire,\nwe observe that the ruined churchyard cross at Bisley covers an old\nwell, which is now, however, reported to be dry[252]. As we traverse\nSomerset, we have our attention called to the holy well near which\nstands the church of St Decumen, at Watchet. Some remote prototype of\nthis church is reported to have existed here so early as the year A.D.\n400[253]. Another Somerset example is that of St Agnes\u2019 Well, near\nWhitestaunton church. The well is said to be tepid and to possess\nhealing properties. Professor Haverfield states that, close at hand, a\nRoman villa was uncovered in the year 1845, when abundant relics were\nfound[254]. Instances such as this speak eloquently in favour of\ncontinuous site-occupation. Still keeping to Somerset, we have the well\nof St Aldhelm below the churchyard of Doulting. The church is dedicated\nto the same saint. So recently as 1910, I found that the spring, which\nis the source of a small stream, still retained a hold in local story,\nthe waters being declared good for rheumatism.\n\nThe numerous holy wells of Cornwall have been sufficiently described by\nMr R. C. Hope and the Rev. S. Baring-Gould[255], so we retrace our\nsteps, and, travelling Eastward, observe the spring which, traditionally\nconnected with St Augustine, flows from the North-East corner of Cerne\nAbbas churchyard, in Dorsetshire[256]. Hampshire, as the late Mr T. W.\nShore discovered, has its Itchenswell, Maplederwell, and Holybourne. The\nlast name is very significant, the more so as the spring issues from\nbelow the village churchyard. The permanent spring near the churchyard\nat Cheriton has been noticed (p. 74 _supra_), while, at another\nHampshire church, that of Hambledon, a \u201cbourne\u201d or \u201clavant,\u201d that is, an\nintermittent spring, gushes forth at intervals[257]. In Surrey one of\nthese bournes is thrown out by the side of Merstham churchyard. The\noverflow of the bourne waters is traditionally believed to be a portent\nof evil. Near the church of Carshalton, also in Surrey, there is a well,\nnow covered in, known locally as Anne Boleyn\u2019s Well. The legend runs\nthat the horse which carried that lady struck the ground with its hoof,\nthus turning \u201cthe flint stone into a springing well.\u201d The story is\nevidently an afterthought, a late attempt to explain the association of\nthe church and the spring.\n\nLondon itself might not be expected to yield much testimony to this\nromantic portion of our study. Yet several London churches had their\nwells. Hard by St Giles\u2019s churchyard there was formerly a pool, and near\nClerkenwell church was the celebrated \u201cClerkes\u2019 Well\u201d which is believed\nto have given the parish its name. At the Skinners\u2019 Well \u201cthe skinners\nof London held there certain plays yearly, played of Holy Scripture.\u201d St\nClement\u2019s Well, Holywell Street, Strand, near the parish church of the\nsame name, was \u201cfair curbed with hard stone, kept clean for common use,\nand [was] always full[258].\u201d Rapidly skimming over the Eastern counties,\nwe find that the Rev. G. S. Tyack, who has assiduously collected\nexamples of holy wells, records an example from the West end of East\nDereham graveyard, in Norfolk. In Yorkshire alone, Mr Tyack claims\nseventeen wells, though whether all of these are in the neighbourhood of\nchurches, he does not say[259]. Lincolnshire contributes several\ninstances; one only need be noted. Caistor church, in that county,\npreviously mentioned (p. 12 _supra_) as standing within the confines of\na Roman camp, was built near three or four springs. One of these, a\n\u201chealing\u201d spring, issued from the side of the churchyard. This example\nmay be compared with that of Whitestaunton; in each case, there seems to\nhave been a desire on the part of both Roman general and Christian\narchitect to exploit the reputation previously gained by the waters.\nHere our enumeration must come to an end; for fuller details the reader\nmay be referred to well-known works[260]. But if we forget that worship\nmay be conducted under the open sky as well as under a roof of wood or\nstone, and if we overlook the fact that natural features, not less than\nstately fanes, were dedicated to patron saints, we shall miss much of\nthe evidence which has fortunately been bequeathed to us.\n\nNot connected with the subject of holy wells, but apparently forming\nisolated and local features peculiar to Wales, are the well-known oval\nor circular churchyards, enclosing churches which date from the Norman\nperiod. The churchyards are usually encompassed by a road, for which\nthere is no obvious public requirement[261]. It has been conjectured\nthat these roads represent ancient ramparts, which separate the\nchurchyard from common ground, and this prosaic explanation may be the\ncorrect one. But one is obliged to notice another ray of light which\ncomes from ancient custom. The Rev. E. Owen, who has described these\nchurchyards, sees an analogy to the circle of stones in which religious\nceremonies were performed by the Druids[262]--evidently he is referring\nto historic times. These circles, when prehistoric, are known to the\narchaeologist as \u201ccromlechs\u201d; the latter erections, from the fifth\ncentury onwards, were technically called \u201cgorseddau\u201d (_sing._ gorsedd).\nThe Gorsedd consisted normally of a mound of earth and a circle of\nstanding stones[263]. From denoting the place of assembly, and\nafterwards, \u201cthe Great Seat,\u201d the word came to mean the \u201cAssembly of\nBards,\u201d the chief member of which was throned on a \u201cChair,\u201d or stone,\nwhich occupied the centre of the circle. So early as the ninth century,\nthere was a separation of functions; hence we read of the gorsedd of the\nbards and the legislative gorsedd[264]. My friend, the Rev. J. W. Hayes,\nwho has collected much curious lore respecting the gorseddau of later\ncenturies, notices that, though the legislative gorsedd has now no\npolitical or judicial powers, but merely controls the bardic order, it\nhas a successor, for all worthy aims, in the national Eisteddfod. The\nEisteddfod has social and educational functions only, the Gorsedd, on\nthe contrary, was an institution for the framing of laws. Even in the\nyear 1910, however, the Eisteddfod was preceded each day by the Gorsedd\nproper. This slight description will enable us, in the next chapter, to\napproach closely to another side of our problem, but, for the present,\nit must be taken as illustrative of the supposition made by Mr Owen.\nFrom the fact that, at one village, Efenechtyd, Denbighshire, a part of\nthe encircling road really occupies the ancient bed of a stream, Mr Owen\nhas further considered that the \u201croads\u201d were originally intended to be\nmoats, and that they contained water. This seems to be mere\nspeculation; a more plausible explanation--though, again, perhaps not\nthe real one--is that the hollows formed portions of an old stockaded\nvillage. Or again, we may have here small ring earthworks belonging to\nthe pre-Christian period, though not necessarily of a defensive\ncharacter. One cannot avoid recalling Stonehenge and Stennis; the round\nchurches of Northampton, Essex, Cambridge, and London; the round towers\nof many other churches; the favourite \u201cbroken ring\u201d of Bronze Age\nbarrows and Bronze Age ornaments; and the earthwork rings and circular\nmazes of various periods. How much is ceremonial, and how much\nconstructional, in matters primitive, is a nice question. It is worthy\nof notice that, in at least two instances, the churches under\nconsideration have had double dedications. It has been mentioned that\nthe circular churchyard seems to be essentially a Welsh feature. Two\nexamples, those of Kerry and Llanfechain, are recorded from\nMontgomeryshire, and two from Carnarvon. Flint furnishes one instance,\nand Denbigh half a dozen[265]. England has hitherto supplied no records,\nbut the feature may have been overlooked, and further observations would\nbe valuable.\n\nWe have now completed what may have appeared, to the reader, a prolix\nand tedious inquiry. Impatiently, it may be, the query is uttered, What,\nin brief, is the conclusion of the whole matter? The reply may be framed\nby first presenting the opinion of a high authority, Professor Baldwin\nBrown, who asserts that there is no known instance where a Christian\nchurch has, in Britain, replaced a heathen fane[266]. We have seen that\nthere are possible loopholes in such a general statement, and if we\nnarrow its scope by using the word \u201csite,\u201d instead of \u201cchurch\u201d or\n\u201cfane,\u201d in each member of the sentence, the decision, with which\nProfessor Brown would doubtless agree, is surely in the affirmative. To\ndeny that many Christian churches stand on pagan sites is to blind\noneself to facts. There is a folly of scepticism which is as blameworthy\nas that of credulity. With respect to the buildings themselves Professor\nBrown admits that such a substitution is \u201coften signalized on the\nContinent[267].\u201d Waiving the _a priori_ argument that like conditions\ntend to beget like results, and that a series of events, in the main\nhomotaxial, might be predicted for North Germany and England, for Sweden\nand Scotland, for Brittany and Wales, we may still choose to express the\nplea otherwise. For, as has been insisted, the conditions have not been\nexactly similar: Britain has suffered social disturbances to a greater\ndegree than any of the countries named. It is therefore safer to say\nthat, though there was, in Britain, as in other countries, no severe\nopposition between the old and the new faiths, there is difficulty in\nproving the case with respect to buildings, because of the loss of\nevidence.\n\nAs matters stand, the archaeologist is in the position of a diver,\ngroping amid the timbers of a sunken ship for lost treasure, of whose\npresence he is certain, be his toll never so scanty. Or again, the\narchaeologist is like a scholar, closely poring over some blurred and\ndefaced palimpsest, if haply he may decipher even a few of the original\ncharacters. \u201cThe drums and tramplings of three conquests,\u201d the fires of\nmarauders, the mistaken zeal of church restorers, the husbandman\u2019s\nplough, the mason\u2019s hammer, and the sexton\u2019s spade, to say nothing of\nthe gnawing tooth of Time, have so altered, if not obliterated, the\nrecords, that he must be content to read but a little, here and there,\nof the full story.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE SECULAR USES OF THE CHURCH FABRIC\n\n\nHaving established the proposition that ancient churches were oftentimes\nerected near older pagan memorials, we are prepared to search for\nsupplementary motives for the determination of sites. A very superficial\nsurvey makes it clear that no single explanation will apply to all\ncases. A few of the churches built within old entrenchments may,\nperhaps, as before noted (p. 17 _supra_), have been so placed in order\nto obtain additional protection. Respect for tradition, or defiance of\nsuperstition, was, however, in the majority of such cases, the uppermost\nconsideration: the ground was not primarily chosen because of its secure\nposition.\n\nBut besides the churches which accompany earthworks and megaliths, we\npossess a large number of churches which stand like sentinels on\nisolated hills, and these require separate study. Here again, no single\ntheory will serve to account for the choice of site. The facts are\nfamiliar to those who have travelled through the more elevated parts of\nthe country. But it is not alone on rugged hills that we find the\nChristian outposts; even on the gentle downlands the lonely church may\nbe seen dominating the landscape. In the South-East of England, the hill\nparishes often have their churches mounted on the highest ground. Among\nthe Surrey churches, that of Caterham stands 600 feet above sea-level;\nChaldon and Coulsdon, 500 feet; Merstham, 400 feet[268]. Taking Sussex,\nwe find Pyecombe church at an elevation of 400 feet; Falmer and\nPlumpton, 250 feet; and Street (Streat), 200 feet. Brook church, in the\nIsle of Wight, is built on a conspicuous natural hillock. Kent supplies\nus with excellent examples at Down, Cudham, and several other villages.\nThese instances are sufficient--the list could be extensively enlarged,\nif necessary.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 23. Tower of Bishopstone church (Early Norman), near Seaford,\n     Sussex. A typical semi-defensive tower of South-Eastern England.\n]\n\nThe first comment on such a catalogue concerns the interpretation of the\nfigures. Obviously, it is the height of the church relatively to the\nvillage or valley which is of importance, not the actual elevation above\nthe sea. For example, although the Sussex village of Bishopstone lies in\na chalk coombe, the church (Fig. 23) is built on a hillock which\noverlooks the dwellings of the inhabitants. Again, with respect to\nvillages situated on the plain, the church frequently occupies the\nhighest ground. Various causes may have been at work to influence the\nselection of such spots. Here, there were difficulties with the feudal\nlord (p. 17 _supra_); there, the building was placed centrally so as to\nserve numerous outlying townships; yonder, the church stands prominently\non the hill-top because a hamlet had arisen there before the church was\nthought of.\n\nWhen all these deductions have been made, there remain very many\nchurches unaccounted for. These have been raised, after prolonged labour\nand at great expense, on some inconvenient hill, up which the\nworshippers must struggle breathlessly Sunday by Sunday. Standing by one\nof these churches, the observer is mastered by the conviction that he is\nplaced on an ancient vantage ground. Range of outlook, and effective\nstrength of position, must have been the fundamental ideas in the minds\nof those who chose the site. Throw aside this conception, and all is\ncontrariety. The modern architect, unaided by the student of folk-lore\nand folk-custom, is entirely at a loss when asked to explain such\napparent folly on the part of the designers.\n\nWe have before noticed (p. 17 _supra_) how the annals of folk-lore are\ncrowded with stories respecting these hill-top churches. The tales vary\na little in detail, but the main theme is the same. Devils, or witches,\nor fairies, were in league against men, and so soon as the builders\nbegan their work, unseen hands removed the stones by night and laid them\nelsewhere, the church being finally set up only after a severe and\nlengthened contest. A variant of the superstition is met with in\nScotland and Brittany, where churches are reported to have been reared\nin a single night by the fairies[269]. Just noting, as we pass, that the\nlegends do not attempt to tell why men were so anxious to have their\nchurches in lofty positions, let us glance at some of these bewitched\nbuildings.\n\nOne of the examples best known to the writer is that of Churchdown, in\nGloucestershire. The church stands on a Liassic hill of pyramidal\noutline, 500 feet above the sea-level. To climb the steep slope from the\nvillage below is an arduous task. The devil-theory still thrives\nvigorously in the neighbourhood, and the visitor will soon hear the\naccount of the nightly removal of the stones by the spirit of evil. It\nchances that the local pronunciation of Churchdown is \u201cCh\u014dsen,\u201d and this\nhas suggested to the otherwise serious countryfolk a weak pun. Not only,\nthey say, was the spot deliberately \u201cchosen,\u201d but the \u201cchosen people\u201d of\nthe Prayer-Book response refers specifically to the favoured inhabitants\nof the village. The traveller cannot escape--\n\n    \u201cFull of their theme, they spurned all idle art,\n     And the plain tale was trusted to the heart.\u201d\n\nBreedon church, in Leicestershire, is on a hill which similarly\noverlooks the village clustered at the foot. For pedestrians, the ascent\nhas been made easier by cutting steps in the pathway, but carriages have\nto take a circuitous route to reach the church[270]. Other churches\nconcerning which a contest was waged between Christian masons and the\npowers of darkness are St Chad\u2019s, Rochdale, and Capel Garmon, in\nDenbighshire. In the second of these cases, the church was to have been\nerected on a hill, contiguous to an ancient spring, but the stones were\nrepeatedly carried to a lower position[271]. This detail respecting the\nspring is not without significance, as was shown in the last chapter.\nAnother illuminative Welsh example comes from Llanllechid, near Bangor.\nHere the fairies, or spirits, bore away the stones from a field called\nCaer Capel, and actually selected a situation--so the legend runs--more\nconvenient than the first[272]. Both Caer Capel and Llanllechid are\nsuggestive names, the latter gives a hint of a church built on the site\nof megaliths. At Wendover, in Buckinghamshire, the builders were\nthwarted by malevolent witches: at Hanchurch and Walsall, in\nStaffordshire, the trouble was caused by mischievous fairies. Each\nlocality has its own bit of colour tinging the testimony, but to\nrehearse all the variations would be tedious. The number of these\nsolitary hill-top churches was once probably much greater than at\npresent. In some instances the buildings have been demolished; in\nothers, modern dwellings have sprung up around the church and have\nmasked its isolated position. Indeed, this shifting of the population is\na factor which must never be left out of sight.\n\nHow shall we explain the superstitions attached to these churches? One\nfact is manifest--the selection of site was, in the majority of cases,\nfreely made, in the sense that other spots were available. On a broader\ninterpretation, based on retrospect, we perceive that there was little\nchoice, since there existed an ever-present necessity for an asylum in\ntimes of stress and danger, not to mention minor reasons. We have seen\nthat the traditions do not assign a cause for the persistence,--nay,\nobstinacy, of the church-builders. Perhaps we should except those\nchurches which were erected in particular spots as the result of the\nvision of some saint, or of warning cries and mysterious voices heard by\nthe masons. On the whole, however, we can interpret the stories only by\nthe aid of folklore and anthropology. Modern research has shown that, in\nthe earlier stages of human life in Britain, the communities dwelt\nmainly on the downlands and elevated moorlands[273]. Only when the\nhistorical period was well advanced, namely, during the late Roman and\nSaxon occupations, were the thickly wooded valleys and marshy plains\nsettled and cultivated. The evidence, though largely inferential, is\nboth good and abundant, and need not be recapitulated here. All that is\nessential, for the moment, is to remember that descendants of the\nearlier races probably lived on, isolated in sparse communities,\nwherever the conditions were favourable. This is the legitimate\nconclusion to be drawn, for example, from the classical excavations made\nby Pitt-Rivers in the chalk downlands of Cranborne Chase.\nAnthropological tests afford similar support in other regions, such as\nthe Yorkshire Wolds and the Derbyshire Moors. The remnants of the older\nBritish races, modified somewhat by intermarriage, doubtless held aloof\non their bleak hills and tablelands with considerable stubbornness. The\nTeutonic farmers of the vales would not at first greatly interfere with\nthe hill-top folk. A time came, however, when fresh-comers began\nseriously to re-invade the more elevated spots, and to form\nsettlements. This does not seem to have been done systematically until\nafter the Norman period. But it is clear that any impinging of new races\nupon the older hill-top communities, however partial in its character,\nwould give birth to exaggeration and myth. A fair corollary may be\nstated: the traditions which tell of the efforts of builders having been\nbaulked or defeated by demons, witches, or evil spirits, are echoes of\nthe time when older races still lingered sparingly on the hill-top\nsettlements. On the other hand, the legends which speak of dreams and\nvisions seem to represent a purely religious development belonging to\nthe Christian period.\n\nThe erection of a church on soil hitherto relegated, by silent consent,\nto primitive tribal folk, or, failing these, to the wild beasts, was a\nnovel and startling event. We need not assume that the primary purpose\nof the builders was to Christianize those remote peoples, though that\nmay have been a subsidiary motive. It is more likely that the church was\nintended for the churchmen who built it. But to enter an area previously\nleft intact would provoke keen opposition. Further, it is now a\ncommonplace that our stories of witches and wizards, fairies and demons,\nare in part, at least, derived from folk of the Neolithic and Bronze\nperiods, or from their near descendants. To the conquered people was\nimputed magical power, while to the victors, their weapons, and their\nappliances, the beaten folk paid the respect due to fear. Briefly, then,\nthe superstitions which we are considering seem to speak of the\nprojection of one race over territory long occupied by the survivors of\nmuch earlier races, and again, of the intrusion of social habits and\nreligious customs among folk whose beliefs and modes of life were widely\ndifferent from those of the invaders.\n\nStill the question is unanswered, Why were hill-tops chosen as sites of\nchurches? Primarily, of course, the churches were built for worship, but\nthe answer to the question seems to be, that, in very many cases, the\nbuilding was intended for temporary refuge and defence in those\nunsettled centuries which lasted down to the Wars of the Roses (cf. p.\n57 _supra_, concerning earthworks). To establish this theory, we must\nconsider a moderate number of instances extracted from a lengthy list.\nAnd a clearer understanding will be promoted if our minds are chiefly\nfixed, for the present, upon church towers alone, because these are the\nportions of the buildings which best illustrate the theory.\n\nAs might be anticipated, the specimens of towers which furnish the most\napposite illustrations are found in the Border Counties, and in the\nWelsh Marches, or, on the other hand, in those districts which have few\nnatural defences. Beginning with Cumberland, we have the embattled tower\nof Great Salkeld church, guarded by a massive door, plated with iron,\nand fitted on the inside with stout iron bars. Under the aisle of the\nchurch are chambers, which are believed to have been used as\ndungeons[274]. The tower at Burgh-on-the-Sands, near Carlisle, seems to\nhave served as a fortress or pele-tower[275]. (Etymologically _pele_ or\n_peel_ = the _stockaded_ enclosure or fort.) Normally, the pele or\n\u201cpeel\u201d towers were special structures, and were erected along the border\nirrespective of the position of churches, as at Corbridge, in\nNorthumberland[276]. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that strong\nchurch towers were used as substitutes for peles in times of necessity.\nThus, the twelfth century tower of Edlingham church, in Northumberland,\nis one of several that served this purpose; while Merrington church,\nwith its tall steeple, crowning an eminence, actually stood a siege. The\ntower of Bedale church, near Richmond in Yorkshire, seems to have been\nconstructed purposely for defence. The narrow staircase has, in fact, a\nportcullis groove, which was accidentally revealed after the steeple had\nbeen struck by lightning. The portcullis screened the tower from the\nbody of the church[277]. Melsonby tower, also in Yorkshire, has been\ndescribed as \u201ca Norman keep in miniature[278].\u201d The round steeple of the\nEarly Decorated church of Roos, in Holderness, is supposed to have been\na post for watch-and-ward. It stands on high ground, and contains, near\nthe top, a chamber which is reached by a spiral staircase of stone[279].\nWe know that the surrounding district was terribly ravaged by the Danes,\nand it is interesting to note that, in 1836, there was discovered, in a\nditch at Roos, a rude model of a boat with a warrior crew. This curious\nobject is considered to be of Scandinavian origin, and to date back to\nthe invasion of the Danes and vikings[280]. If it be urged that the\nchurch fabric belongs to a period long subsequent to the raids of the\nNorthmen, the comment is both fair and relevant. Two replies might be\nmade: first, analogy indicates that churches of this kind most likely\nhad predecessors on the same site, and secondly, defensive structures\ncontinued to be built long after the events which called them into\nexistence passed away.\n\nFrom Yorkshire we pass into North-East Lincolnshire. Here we meet with a\nremarkable series of Saxon towers, and here the Danish question recurs.\nPopular tradition, vigorous even \u201cyn tyme of mynde,\u201d as Leland quaintly\nexpresses it, declared that the present towers were built as refuges\nfrom the Danes. The idea was unhesitatingly accepted by the earlier\nschool of antiquaries, and was supported by the older architects. We now\nknow, as the result of comparative study of architectural styles, that\nthe theory is barely tenable. The three best-known towers of the group\nunder consideration are those of Waith, Scartho, and Holton-le-Clay, and\nthey are all placed by Professor Baldwin Brown in his Saxon period C[3].\nIn other words they are believed to belong to the time of Edward the\nConfessor, when there was a revival of church-building[281]. As a\nfurther safeguard against ante-dating these churches, we may notice Mr\nFrancis Bond\u2019s dictum that we have no Anglo-Saxon tower which is earlier\nthan the end of the ninth century[282]. Of course, neither of these\nverdicts affects the question of the existence of previous towers on the\npresent foundations. For instance,\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 24. Scartho church, Lincolnshire, from the South. The Saxon\n     tower differs from the ordinary defensive type in having an\n     original doorway at the base, seen at the West end. The doorway\n     facing the spectator is a later insertion (Early English) and the\n     parapet belongs to the Perpendicular period. There is a Saxon\n     belfry window, divided by a mid-wall shaft. The walls separating\n     the tower from the nave are three feet in thickness.\n]\n\naccording to writers of the middle of the last century, and indeed, much\nlater, the tower of Scartho church (Fig. 24) was said to rest on large\nblocks of stone which showed traces of fire, and these blocks were\nthought to be relics of an older fabric which was burnt by the Danes. I\nhave visited this church several times, and, while believing that the\npresent tower may not be the original, I am not convinced that there are\nany fire-marked boulders to be seen. True, the masses of stone referred\nto by the topographers may now be quite concealed under the raised turf,\nbut it is more likely that red lumps of ferruginous grit, which are\nplainly visible, have misled the antiquaries. The tower walls certainly\ncontain a miscellany of geological specimens,--limestones, flints,\nsandstones, and rusty-coloured grits--and superficially the stains\nsuggest scars caused by fire. One must, however, take account of all the\ncircumstances that influenced church-building in a locality which, like\nthat under consideration, is destitute of building stone. Some two or\nthree miles distant is the church of Clee, the tower of which, except in\nthe uppermost stage, bears a close likeness to that of Scartho. (The\nparapet, in each church, is a later addition.) The materials employed in\nClee tower are mainly large beach pebbles, and ice-worn \u201ccobbles,\u201d which\nhad been washed out of the now-vanished cliff of Boulder Clay at\nCleethorpes, and which must have been assiduously collected by the\nperplexed and needy masons.\n\nProfessor Brown declares that there is nothing about the Lincolnshire\ntowers themselves to indicate a defensive character, though they are\nsituated in a region which was exposed to Danish visitations. These\neleventh century towers, however, he says, represent a style which was\nevolved at a somewhat earlier time, when the Danes were actually\nhostile. At most, he will admit only \u201ca certain general likelihood\u201d that\nthese particular towers were used for defence[283], but he notes the\ngeneral opinion that the occurrence of such towers in districts like\nLincolnshire is \u201chardly fortuitous[284].\u201d The palmary fact remains, that\nthe Lincolnshire towers were, relatively to the exposed and unprotected\ntract of marshland on which they were built, real fortresses. There are\nno natural defences in the vicinity of the churches, and ordinary\ndwellings must have been of an insubstantial kind. Moreover, unless the\nidea of earlier buildings on the present sites be unreservedly\nabandoned, there still remains the great probability of continuity of\ngeneral pattern. Long after the land ceased to be harried by pirates,\nthe countryfolk would anticipate, and provide against, future\nonslaughts. It is no bar to this argument to oppose the fact that, as we\nlater folk now know, those attacks were not made. We shall, indeed, find\nthat defensive towers continued to be popular for several centuries\nafter the Norman Conquest. We may say then, that the Lincolnshire type\nof Saxon tower was semi-defensive, though the existing specimens are of\npost-Danish age. Further than that we are not warranted in forming\ntheories.\n\nLeaving Lincolnshire, we notice a Bedfordshire example, that of Clapham.\nHere the church has a massive Saxon tower, which possesses an exterior\ndoor at a height of twenty feet from the ground. There is no window\nopening in the lower portion. It is not an insignificant fact that this\ntower overlooked a ford across the Ouse, which was approached by an\nancient road[285]. The striking position of the door at Clapham has many\nparallels. The old tower of Swanage parish church, Dorset, had no door\nlower than the second story, and access was probably gained by ladders,\nwhich could be afterwards drawn up if required. At Norton, Derbyshire,\nthe doorway of the tower, which is supposed to have been erected about\nA.D. 1300, is six feet from the ground, and was formerly reached by an\nexternal staircase of stone[286]. Occasionally, the external door was\nabsent altogether. This was originally the case at Rugby church, the\ntower of which could be entered only through the nave[287]. This tower,\nwhich dates from the fourteenth century, is of square outline, and is\ndevoid of buttresses. Its loftiness is conspicuous, for it reaches a\nheight of 63 feet. The windows are narrow, and the lowest is twelve feet\nfrom the ground. Consider, again, the little church of Swindon, near\nCheltenham, with which the writer was once very familiar. The tower is\nof hexagonal shape, and the walls are thick and substantial. The only\nwindows, a quarter of a century ago, were mere loopholes, splayed\nwithout and within, and placed near the top of the structure. A doorway\non the North-East gave access to the tower; were this entrance blocked,\none could only gain admittance by an exterior staircase on the West\nside.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 25. Oystermouth church, Glamorganshire, from the South-West.\n     The tower is less lofty than is usual with the churches of Gower,\n     but it has several \u201cdefensive\u201d features. It batters from the base,\n     and has the characteristic battlement. There are no buttresses, but\n     a flat staircase-turret will be noticed. Except the debased West\n     window, the openings are all of very insignificant size.\n]\n\nThe defensive tower, however, is perhaps seen at its best in South\nWales. In the district of Gower, in Glamorganshire, twelve out of\nsixteen towers are believed to have been erected as much for defence as\nfor beauty; each is a stronghold as well as a campanile[288]. Generally\nthese towers have no buttresses, and frequently, as at Oystermouth (Fig.\n25), they \u201cbatter,\u201d or slope a little from the base upwards. This\nbattering is also met with in the castles of South Wales. Again, the\ntowers have an overhanging embattled parapet, supported on corbels.\nWhere exterior doors are now found, they are usually later insertions.\nThe original doors, where they exist, resemble those of keeps in being\nsituated some height from the ground. The tower, too, opens into the\nnave as often by a mere doorway as by a belfry arch. Instead of belfry\nwindows, there are insignificant slits, and the rest of the wall is\nquite blank, and destitute of architectural or decorative features. In\nshort, as Freeman expressed it, the essential military character of the\ntowers is stamped on every stone[289].\n\nThe churches of South Pembrokeshire are not less remarkable. The study\nof these buildings is rendered more attractive because the area in which\nthey are found corresponds roughly with the territory occupied by the\nnon-Welsh folk of \u201cLittle England beyond Wales.\u201d This fact may indicate\na period of severe struggles between the English and Norman intruders\nand the earlier settlers, but not necessarily; since the Gower churches,\nat least, would have to be explained somewhat differently. The raids of\nthe Norsemen upon the Pembrokeshire coast seem to have come to an end\nwith the eleventh century; hence dread of inland foes seems to have\ncaused the erection of these strong towers. Professor Freeman, who\ncarefully investigated the Pembrokeshire towers, and who wrote a\npainstaking account of their architectural details, observed, \u201cEvery\ntower is a fortress, designed to hold out as long as Zaragoza or\nSebastopol[290].\u201d Anyone who has examined these churches, will, after\nmaking some deduction for the literary form of expression, be prepared\nto endorse this opinion. Take, for instance, the church of Gumfreston,\nnear Tenby (Fig. 26), already known to the reader through its medicinal\nspring (p. 95 _supra_). This sequestered church is built on the inner\nslopes of that high ridge which, on the North, overhangs the lovely vale\nof St Florence. Almost enclosed by trees, with whose foliage the\nivy-wreathed tower quietly harmonizes, the tall fabric is approached\nunwittingly, so that, when the visitor reaches the gate of the\nchurchyard, the\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 26. Gumfreston church, near Tenby, Pembrokeshire, a\nbuilding with a defensive tower.]\n\npicture calls forth a sudden exclamation of pleasure. A second and more\ncritical glance reveals the chief features of the tower. Its height, 65\nfeet, is especially noticeable. Like other towers which we have met, it\ntapers a little, and it is crowned with a battlement. Each of its five\nstories was evidently devoted to a particular use. Freeman has noted\nthem: a ringers\u2019 chamber below, followed by stories which had windows\nlooking towards the North and East, then a room fitted up as a dovecot,\nand lastly the belfry itself[291]. The date of the Gumfreston tower is\nfixed approximately at A.D. 1300. Of the Pembrokeshire series as a\nwhole, Freeman says that they were all built within \u201ccastle times,\u201d and\nthat they belong to \u201call manner of centuries from the first to the last\nHarry[292].\u201d He further considers that he could discern preparations for\nhabitation in \u201csome of the vaulted apartments.\u201d The simple character of\nthe Pembroke towers formerly led many writers to assign them to a\npre-Norman period, but this opinion is now discredited. On the other\nhand, the evidence shows that they are not, as a class, late Tudor\nbuildings, as extremists in the contrary direction have suggested.\n\nA subtle objection is made that the towers may be simply imitations of\ncastellated architecture, and that the resemblance, being incidental and\nunintentional, has no recondite significance. There is some degree of\nforce in the contention, because there must have been interaction of\ninfluence. Thus, not only in semi-secular buildings, like the abbot\u2019s\nbarn of Bradford-on-Avon (Figs. 43, 44, pp. 171, 173 _infra_), but also\nin castles and fortified mansions, like that of Nunney (Fig. 27), do we\nmeet with architectural features which are usually associated with\nreligious structures. Such details, as a rule, are best seen in doors\nand windows, and they are in harmony with the Gothic styles of their\nrespective periods. Side by side with these ornamental features,\nprimitive arrangements for defence are retained, even in the Tudor\ncountry mansions. In spite of this cross-influence it may be observed\nthat the defensive steeples occur just in those places where defence\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 27. Portion of Nunney Castle, Somerset, a fortified\n     manor-house, built A.D. 1373-1400. The corner towers probably\n     served as peles. In the windows (Decorated style) and in other\n     details, there is evidence of the relationship between religious\n     and secular architecture.\n]\n\nwould be required. Often, as at Gumfreston, the church was the only\nbuilding strong enough to give adequate security to human beings and to\nportable property. Castles do not exist everywhere, neither, indeed, do\nthese sturdy towers; but the one group seems to be largely complementary\nto the other. Exception has also been taken to the evidential value of\nthe narrow window openings. Mr Allcroft, while expressing agreement with\nthe theory that ecclesiastical towers were frequently employed for\nprotection, deprecates an appeal to these narrow slits as affording\nsatisfactory testimony[293]. He contends that the openings were made\nstrait and were provided with an inner splay to minimize draughts. That\nthey would be moderately efficient for this purpose may be conceded. Not\nonly the ordinary current of air, but the high gale, had to be foreseen\nand provided against. Glazing the apertures was out of the question, in\nthe early times when glass was a costly article, especially in remote\ncounties. But there is another mode of approaching the question. What\nwas the purpose of the well-known \u201coillets\u201d in buildings purely\ndefensive? Even in primitive warfare no tower was impregnable if it\npresented wide openings to the foe. Arrows and slingstones would, under\ncertain conditions, prove more swift and deadly agents than fire itself.\nWe may grant that the round-headed twin aperture, with its single plain\nbaluster-shaft in the middle, so familiar in the late Saxon towers of\nEngland, was not avowedly of a defensive character. That admission does\nnot exclude a belief in the defensive value of the narrow window. During\nthe Perpendicular period a tiny battlemented parapet was frequently used\nfor the ornamentation of a capital or transom, but such a practice does\nnot negative the original use of the battlement in fortification.\nFurther it might be reasonably argued that the strait window-opening was\ncopied from secular strongholds because it originally served one purpose\nin all cases. The point is not of prime importance, but it is worthy of\nnote that the narrow loophole continued to prevail after glass had come\ninto general use for church windows, and after bells had become common.\nThe price of glass was, therefore, not the deterrent. Again, the\nbell-ringer would perhaps have actually welcomed a wider opening.\nWhatever may have been the motive, we find that, from the Early English\nperiod onward, the tiers of spire lights known as dormer window\u2019s or\nlucarnes, though mainly decorative in character, continued to be made\nvery narrow. On the other hand, these dormers were so arranged that one\nseries was placed, with respect to the group above or below, on\nalternate sides of the spire. One fact remains; in towers which were\ndesigned to withstand attack, the retention, if not the initiation, of\nthe narrow type of opening, suggests motives of strategy.\n\nBefore quitting the English towers it is well to note that the strength\nof many of them was tested during the Civil War. In Devonshire alone, a\nnumber of instances can be brought forward. The Parliamentary troopers\nturned the towers of Powderham and Ottery St Mary into temporary\nfortresses, while the Royalists annexed those of Tiverton, St Budeaux,\nand Townstall[294]. In Wiltshire and Yorkshire, again, several churches\nwere used as shelter for men and horses. Thorold Rogers asserts that the\nRoyalists garrisoned the parish church of a Hampshire town, the name of\nwhich, however, he does not give, and, thus protected, withstood a siege\nand cannonade[295]. The reader will doubtless recall many instances in\nwhich tradition tells of church walls battered by shot and shell. Making\ndue allowance for exaggeration, it must be admitted that folk-memory has\na sound basis in fact, and some, at least, of the damaged buildings may\nbe genuine illustrations of the effects of assault by artillery.\n\nIt is all but impossible to bid farewell to defensive steeples without\nsome reference to the famous round towers of Ireland. The disinclination\nto ignore the subject is increased by the knowledge that these\nstructures afford collateral proof of the defence theory. For the best\ninstructed modern opinion pronounces them to be fortresses as well as\nbelfries. These towers, which have been the cause of an abiding\ncontroversy, are typically tall and slender, and are surmounted by\nconical caps. Their height ranges roughly from about 60 to 125 feet. The\nnumber of examples still remaining is given as 76, and they are found\nexclusively in association with some early church, or with some\necclesiastical settlement. The usual position is near the North-West\ndoor of the church[296]. This fact alone indicates their connection with\nearly Christianity. A typical round tower, somewhat restored, is that of\nDevenish, situated on an islet of the same name in Lower Lough Erne,\ncounty Fermanagh (Fig. 28). In the vicinity is the ruined priory of St\nMolaise, as well as several other ecclesiastical remains.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 28. Round tower of Devenish, on Devenish Isle, Lower Lough\n     Erne, near Enniskillen. Height, 84 feet; doorway, 9 feet from the\n     ground; walls, 4 feet thick. The windows approximately face the\n     Cardinal Points. A string course will be seen around the base of\n     the conical cap.\n]\n\nA gradual advance can be traced in the architectural style of the round\ntowers. The stages of their development were parallel to, and probably\ncontemporaneous with, those of the churches and oratories[297]. Three\nperiods of building have been distinguished. It is not until the\nbeginning of the tenth century, says Miss Eleanor Hull, that we find the\ntowers mentioned, and none can be dated earlier with certainty. They are\nlater in date than the churches built by St Columba at Raphoe, Kells,\nand elsewhere, and they belong essentially to the period when the\nNorthmen made their attacks on Ireland. Nevertheless, they continued to\nbe built until the middle of the thirteenth century[298]. All these\nfacts are of vast interest when we recollect those Lincolnshire churches\nwhich, folk-memory tells us, once served as refuges from the Danes.\n\nNormally, the round tower contained three stories, and, like many of the\nEnglish towers before described, had the outside door placed high up in\nthe wall, so that it was accessible only by means of a ladder.\nSimilarly, the oratory of Kells has three small chambers, or attics,\nbetween its round barrel vault and the outer pointed roof of stone;\nthese chambers could be reached only by the aid of a long ladder, and\nentered through a hole in the inside roof. Viewed in comparison with the\nother buildings of the period, the oratory represents a lofty structure.\nIt has a highly pitched roof, and receives no light save what is\nafforded by two small windows. This building is assigned by Miss M.\nStokes to the year A.D. 807[299].\n\nIn passing, we note that the round tower was probably developed from the\nbeehive hut, and became specialized for a definite purpose, which we\nshall discuss in a moment or two. The beehive house, in its turn, was\nmost likely evolved from the wattled dwellings of the ruder aborigines\nof Ireland. Professor A. C. Haddon cited authorities to show that the\nround towers structurally betray their pagan design, by their retention\nof string-courses which serve no useful object. The towers, he\nconsiders, are, in reality, derived from primitive wicker huts, circular\nin plan, and of a somewhat tall type[300].\n\nWe now inquire what purpose the towers were intended to serve. The\nanswer, though given with a fair degree of decisiveness to-day, has been\nlong in coming, and there still exists a minority of writers who dissent\nfrom the orthodox view, and who favour other theories, some of which are\nof the fantastic kind.\n\nThe earliest name given to the round tower, so far as is yet recorded,\nis _cloictech_, or belfry (A.D. 948). Naturally, therefore, one is led\nto associate the towers with bells; yet, seeing that only small\nhand-bells are believed to have been in existence at that date, a large\ntower of masonry would not be needed for their reception. Nor, again,\nwould these small bells have been well heard, when rung from the top of\nthe tower, even by folk standing at the base[301]. The insignificant\nwindows of the earlier towers are, for some unknown reason, usually near\nthe floor. The later structures, it is true, have windows near the top,\nfacing different points of the compass. These examples may have been\nused as belfries proper. Speaking generally, the towers were,\nnevertheless, not belfries. Even could it be proved that, co-eval with\nthe towers, there existed a knowledge of bell-casting, that would not\nsettle the question, because there are no structural signs that bells\nwere ever hung, or rung, within the buildings. We may conclude, then,\nthat the towers were, in part, depositories for bells, though not\nthemselves actually bell-towers.\n\nDismissing a number of unsupported speculations, one by one, we are\nfinally shut in to the conclusion that the towers were originally\ndefensive. They were refuges for men, and storehouses for valuable\nproperty. This is the verdict delivered by those who, like Miss M.\nStokes and Miss E. Hull, know the round towers best[302]. Mr G. T.\nClark, in his early study of the subject, thought that the towers were\nprincipally intended to receive bells, and that their uses for refuge\nand storage were later adaptations. In after years, he changed his\nopinion, and declared that what he had formerly deemed the secondary\npurpose, was in reality the sole one[303]. A more recent authority, Mr\nFrancis Bond, has compared the round tower with the Italian campanile,\nof which he considered it to be a local variety. But he draws this great\ndistinction: the Italian structure was built to receive bells, and may\nafterwards have served for defence; with the builders of the Irish\ntowers, refuge was the primary idea, though, at a subsequent period,\nbells were hung in the fortress. There remains an authority whose voice\nmust be heard with great respect. Mr J. Romilly Allen, while agreeing\nthat the bells of the early Celtic church were portable, and that they\nwere rung by hand, contends that the towers were erected to accommodate\nbells of a heavier kind. Nevertheless, he admits that the Viking\ninvasion gave an impetus to the building of the towers[304]. This\ndivergence from the modern view is noteworthy, though if Mr Allen\u2019s\nstatement were restricted to the later buildings, the theories would\nharmonize fairly well.\n\nWhen the Northmen swooped down upon a district, priests and people would\nhasten to the nearest tower. Thither the fugitives carried their most\nprecious possessions: manuscripts, relics, sacred vessels, and\nvestments. Some objects of this kind may have been housed in the tower\npermanently. Once gathered within their asylum, the inhabitants were\ncomparatively secure. They could hurl stones and other projectiles from\nthe narrow loopholes, while they themselves were safe from danger, at\nleast, until relief arrived. On the other hand, missiles thrown by the\nbesiegers, either from the hand or a catapult, would rarely hit the\ndefenders inside. A successful battery could not be made in a few\nminutes, and even firing the stone tower was not a speedy mode of\noverpowering the refugees.\n\nAfter the Danish incursions came to an end, the towers would still serve\nas spy-places against native enemies, as \u201cstrongrooms\u201d for protection\nagainst thieves, and, probably, as we have seen, as bell-towers for\nraising alarms. The pattern of the tower, moreover, would long survive\nits original necessity. Summing up, we may say that the round towers\nwere defensive buildings, the use of which was mainly secular, but to\nsome extent ecclesiastical also. Perhaps we ought rather to say that the\nreligious and the secular uses were so blended that no demarcation could\nbe made.\n\nThe round towers suggest to us parallel usages in England. The first\nsimilarity is that of the detached church tower, which is not a rare\nfeature in our Gothic architecture. Selecting a few examples from a\nnumerous list, we notice the isolated tower of Walton, Norfolk;\nBerkeley, Gloucestershire; Evesham, Worcestershire; and Ledbury,\nHerefordshire. The last-named county supplies several instances, a fact\nnot without interest, in view of the geographical position. Bosbury\ntower, Hereford, is situated 60 yards from the South side of the church;\nwhile that of Pembridge, which stands on an eminence, is 25 yards\ndistant from the main body of the building. As with the hill-top\nchurches, the peasantry generally have a tradition to explain the\nanomaly. Thus, at Warmsworth, Yorkshire, two sisters, charitable, but\nobstinate, are said to have made a bequest for the building of a church.\nEach lady had chosen a site for the church; neither would give way. The\nfabric was in consequence built in detached portions. The bells call the\nfolk to church in one direction, the congregation walks away to service\nin another. Obviously, the ordinary folk-tales, as told nowadays, do not\nfully explain the facts. In several cases, as at Wickes and Wrabness, in\nEssex, and at Brookland in Romney Marsh, it is evident, from the size\nand construction of the tower, that it was built, not for hanging bells,\nbut for defence and refuge. The English detached towers, it will be\nremarked, are usually square, not circular. The round detached tower of\nBramfield, in Suffolk, is an exception, and there may be others.\n\nThe circular towers of East Anglia (Fig. 29) are only partially\nanalogous to those of Ireland. They belong to various styles from the\nNorman period onwards, but they are, as just mentioned, attached, not\nfree. Again, while the Irish towers are round because of their\ndevelopment from primitive structures of that shape, the English towers\nhad their form determined by the nature of the building materials\navailable, flint and coarse rubble. Yet there are points of resemblance\nalso. The towers of Norfolk and Suffolk are usually devoid of ornament\nor individuality. The windows, too, are commonly found in the upper\nstories, and they face the Cardinal Points[305]. Many of the towers\noverlook the North Sea, and they were doubtless used for posts of\nobservation, if not as receptacles for treasure. The custom of building\ndefensive towers, whether square or round, in connection with the\nchurch, was, as before indicated, probably a legacy from Danish times.\nBut danger did not cease with the piratical raids of the sea-kings. No\none who has not lived on the sea-coast, especially on the East or South\ncoast of England, can rightly appreciate the fears which beset maritime\nfolk with respect to invasion. We see the alarm translated into action\nat the time of the Armada, during the Dutch Wars, and at the period of\nthe Napoleonic struggle, when the martello towers were built, nay, we\nwitness its influence in our own day.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 29. Rushmere church, Suffolk, with Early English\nround tower. The upper portion has been rebuilt.]\n\nOf the three attached round towers still existing in the county of\nSussex, that of Piddinghoe (Fig. 30) deserves notice. The immediate\nexplanation of the form adopted by the builders is that the necessity of\nhaving stone quoins was thus obviated. But if this be the sole reason,\nwhy are not such towers more common in Sussex? Consider the facts. The\nchurch at Piddinghoe stands on a natural platform, at a slight, but\neffective, elevation above the adjacent river Ouse. The tower, built c.\nA.D. 1120, has the narrow, round-headed windows of the period. One of\nthese, facing West, is six feet from the ground. There is no external\ndoorway. At the time the church was erected there seems to have been no\nother defensive building. One may fairly suppose that the tower was\nused as a refuge against pirates and invaders, who would have only a few\nmiles to sail from the mouth of the Ouse in order to reach the village.\nAnother Sussex tower, a square structure in this instance, that of East\nDean (Fig. 31), probably served as a partial defence of the rising\nground above Birling Gap.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 30. Norman tower (c. 1120) of Piddinghoe church, Sussex, seen\n     from the North-West corner of the churchyard. The tower is built of\n     squared flint, and the short spire is timbered.\n]\n\nIn tracing the parallel which has been proposed, let us not lose sight\nof the fact that the church of Mediaeval England was, as such writers as\nCanon Jessopp have fully demonstrated, almost incredibly rich in\npriceless relics and portable treasure. Chalices and basins and\nthuribles; jewelled crosses, and candlesticks wrought out of precious\nmetals; lanterns and bells; vestments and girdles, brooches and buckles,\nthese and many other valuables, needed to be protected from theft.\nLarge and important churches, which possessed hoards of treasure, not\nuncommonly had a watchman who spent the night in the sacred building.\nSometimes he was provided with a special chamber which was situated over\nthe porch, sacristy or vestry[306]. The Cathedral church of St Albans,\nfor instance, had a celebrated watching-loft which was erected about the\nyear A.D. 1400[307]. At Lincoln it was considered sufficient for\nwatchmen to patrol the Minster after nightfall. It may be added that\ndown to the sixteenth century, in such German cities as Ulm and\nFrankfort-on-the-Main, watchmen lived in rooms constructed in the church\nsteeples. On the approach of strangers, or in times of alarm, the\nwatchman rang a bell, blew a horn, or fired a musket.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 31. East Dean church, Sussex, from the North-West. The walls\n     of the tower, possibly pre-Norman, are very massive, about three\n     feet in thickness. An apsidal structure, the foundations of which\n     are still traceable, was attached to the Eastern face of the tower.\n]\n\nAnother detail which is germane to the question of resemblances and\ncontrasts, is concerned with the word \u201cbelfry.\u201d We have seen that, from\nthe earliest time of which we have documentary evidence, the Irish\ntowers were called by a name which is equivalent to \u201cbelfry,\u201d but that,\nnotwithstanding, the structures were not originally bell-towers. The\nEnglish term \u201cbelfry,\u201d now, indeed, denotes a building for hanging\nbells, yet, contrary to popular belief, the word has no etymological\nconnection with the word \u201cbell.\u201d Sir James Murray and Professor Skeat\nhave collected irrefragable testimony proving that the Middle English\n_berfrey_, and the Old French _berfrei_, in all their various spellings,\ndenoted a wooden tower, or pent-house, generally movable, employed in\nbesieging and defending fortresses. In due time the word came to signify\na watch-or beacon-tower, then an alarm tower, and, finally, a\nbell-tower. The English form _belfray_, which seems to have misled the\nearlier philologists, did not appear before the fifteenth century[308].\nHence we have this curious case of opposites: the Irish towers, at an\nearly date, possess a name which erroneously implies that they were\nmerely bell-houses, while the English steeples contained bells long\nbefore the bell-chamber got the designation \u201cbelfry,\u201d a word which\nbecame spuriously connected with \u201cbell.\u201d\n\nThis review of the Irish towers and their possible analogues in England\nmust not further detain us, for we must hasten to consider another\nsecular use of the tower. Many English steeples were set up largely to\nserve as beacons and landmarks, and, in fact, this purpose was doubtless\nkept in mind even when the primary intention was defensive. Sometimes,\nthe entire building, rather than the steeple alone, was a landmark.\nWhitby Abbey church, as is well known, is reached by ascending 199 steps\nfrom the old town lying below in the valley of the Esk. The church is\nbelieved, with good reason, to owe its prominent position to a desire,\non the part of its founders, to provide a lighthouse for storm-tossed\nmariners. Much the same may be said of the parish church (St Mary\u2019s)\nwhich stands on the cliffs hard by. Again, comparing the small with the\ngreat, and choosing, for the sake of emphasis, a towerless structure,\nlet us take the tiny square chapel of St Aldhelm (Fig. 32), which is\nperched on the summit of St Alban\u2019s Head, in Dorsetshire. This quaint\nchapel, with its vaulted roof, and its interesting Norman doorway, has\nunfortunately been greatly restored. The buttresses shown in the\nillustration are modern additions; they are not seen in old engravings\nof the chapel. The building looks down on the waves, 440 feet below,\nbut, so fierce are the storms now and then, that the chapel is drenched\nwith spray and bombarded with small pebbles. Within, says tradition,\nchantry priests were wont to offer prayers for the sailors in the\nChannel, while a beacon light was burnt on the roof. And, truly, no\nother explanation sufficiently accounts for the presence of the chapel\nin such a remote position[309]. Perhaps a similar reason will apply to\nthe conspicuously placed church of Cheriton, near Folkestone (Fig. 33).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 32. St Aldhelm\u2019s chapel, St Alban\u2019s Head, Dorset; a\nbeacon for sailors.]\n\nA curious legend is told of St Botolph\u2019s church, at Northfleet, in Kent.\nThe tower, originally set up, it seems, to guide ships coming up the\nThames estuary, proved too serviceable, for pirates found it an\nexcellent beacon. It was therefore thought fit, so the story runs, to\nmake the tower look like a fortress, and it was accordingly rebuilt by\nthe villagers[310]. We notice that there are steps leading from the\nchurchyard to the first floor, so that one is inclined to believe a\nportion of the story, at least. Whether, however, this was a feature of\nthe original design is uncertain.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 33. Cheriton church, Kent; an isolated hill-top church, of\n     Norman or pre-Norman foundation, built on the edge of a steep hill\n     overlooking the English Channel. The site was probably chosen so\n     that the church would serve as a landmark for mariners and\n     wayfarers.\n]\n\nOn Brent Tor, Devon, at a height of 1130 feet, there stands a little\nchurch which overlooks the very edge of a precipice. The diminutive\ngraveyard contains a few mouldering tombstones. The building, which was\nprobably first set up during the Early English period, is, like so many\nothers found on eminences, dedicated to St Michael, the tutelary saint\nof churches so placed. (Cf. St Michael\u2019s Mount, Cornwall, with its\nformer chapel and shrine (Fig. 34); Mont St Michel in Normandy, with its\nBenedictine Abbey; Mont St Michel at Carnac, with its chapel, calvary,\nprehistoric tumulus, and pagan legends.) The church was evidently\nintended as much for a landmark as for a house of prayer. To explain its\nexalted position, local tradition relates that a grateful merchant had\na struggle with the Evil One concerning the site, and that mastery\nremained with the trader. To ask why the merchant desired to build in\nsuch an unfavourable situation is to supply at once the missing link of\nthe chain.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 34. St Michael\u2019s Mount, Cornwall. The present building on the\n     top of the mount is almost entirely modern, little of the original\n     Priory church of St Michael being traceable. In this church was the\n     shrine of the saint.\n\n    \u201cWhere the great vision of the guarded mount\n    Looks towards Namancos and Bayona\u2019s hold.\u201d\n              _Lycidas._\n]\n\nOne may recall how, in the days when roads were execrably muddy, and\npathways across the boggy moorlands were intricate and difficult to\nfollow, it was customary to erect pillars, towers, and other guide-marks\nat suitable spots. For instance, Dunston pillar, in Lincolnshire, was\nreared (A.D. 1751) as a lighthouse to assist travellers in crossing the\ndesolate, thief-ridden expanse of Lincoln Heath. The practice of\nbuilding such towers continued until the nineteenth century, as is amply\nproved by the famous monuments and towers of the Isle of Wight and\nSomersetshire. Often the first intention has been lost, and the\nbuildings are considered as mere prospect towers. It must not, however,\nbe inferred that the beacon towers were never used for this last\npurpose, though the need of protection, and not pleasure, gave the\nimpulse. A conspicuous church tower would serve the same object as a\ntoot-hill. At Royston, near Barnsley, may be seen, below the belfry, on\nthe West side of the tower, an oriel window, supported by a long corbel.\nThe recess thus formed was locally called the \u201clantern\u201d or \u201clook-out,\u201d\nand tradition says that a light was formerly burnt within it[311]. The\ncase of the tower of St Nicholas, Newcastle, is especially instructive.\nIt was furnished with a \u201clantern,\u201d and was valued as an inland\nlighthouse by wayfarers over the moors. But the remarkable fact about\nthe tower is that, from time immemorial, it has been repaired by the\nCorporation of the city. Legal opinion, to this very day, upholds the\nview of the liability of the Corporation[312].\n\nSt Michael\u2019s church, poised on the summit of an outlier of Inferior\nOolite at Glastonbury Tor (cf. p. 16 _supra_), in Somersetshire, was\ndoubtless, like so many other churches of that county, a day-mark for\ntravellers. This section may conclude with a notice of a building which\nis usually considered solely as a \u201cpilgrims\u2019 church,\u201d but which, I feel\nconvinced, at one time served also as an important beacon. The church\nreferred to is that of St Martha, Chilworth, near Guildford (Fig. 35).\nIt stands on the top of a Greensand hill (720 feet), and is, for many\nmiles around, an outstanding object, whether viewed from the distant\nheights or from the pleasant valleys below. Common belief ascribes the\nfoundation to the Mediaeval folk who traversed the Pilgrims\u2019 Way to\nBecket\u2019s shrine at Canterbury. There can be no question that pilgrims of\nthose days would welcome such a church, both as a landmark and\nas a temporary resting-place. The name of the church, St\nMartha\u2019s-on-the-Hill, is believed to be a perversion of \u201cMartyr\u2019s\nChurch,\u201d the martyr being St Thomas of Canterbury. But the structure,\nthough rebuilt and modernized, has a foundation which dates somewhat\nearlier than the year of Becket\u2019s death. For this reason, and because of\ncontributory local tradition of a massacre of Christians, a high\nauthority on church dedications urges that the name should be \u201cMartyrs\u2019\nChurch,\u201d and that the spot is consecrated, not to one person, but to\nearly Christians who suffered there[313]. It should be noted, in\npassing, that St Martha\u2019s is technically called a chapel, but that it is\nreally a church, as described above. It possesses all the customary\nparochial rights, and is used for the usual functions. Legally, the\nbuilding is what is termed a \u201cdonative,\u201d and is independent of episcopal\njurisdiction[314].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 35. St Martha\u2019s chapel, near Guildford, Surrey. The\npresent cruciform building is a restoration (1848) of the supposed\n\u201cPilgrims\u2019 Church,\u201d which had fallen into a ruinous condition. The view\nis taken from the South, a little to the East of Chilworth station. The\nTillingbourne stream is seen in the foreground.]\n\nLeaving the tower, we come next to the nave of the church, and approach\nan attractive study--one that has exercised the minds of many observers.\nWhy should the size of the nave be often so utterly disproportionate to\nthe congregation which it has to accommodate? Has the population changed\ninversely to such an extent since the church was built? One might\nrashly deem the riddle solved by a reference to acts enforcing\nconformity in religion, or to the half-truth that \u201call persons went to\nchurch in those days.\u201d On rare occasions, perchance, the inhabitants did\nall go to church, at least those who were neither infantile nor\nbed-ridden. But these explanations are idle. Churches may be found,\nwhich, even if we allow that every adult in the village was a regular\nchurchgoer, could never at any time have been quite filled at a purely\nreligious service.\n\nVarious answers have been given to the troublesome query. At Thaxted, in\nEssex, in whose church, as the natives say, all the parishioners might\ncomfortably be put to bed, the excess of accommodation is thought to be\nexplainable on the assumption that the builders provided for a growing\npopulation. The general facts, however, are strongly against this\nnotion. William Cobbett, who will be admitted as a careful observer,\nthough his conclusions were frequently hasty, exemplified both his\nstrength and his weakness in discussing this subject. Over and over\nagain, in his _Rural Rides_, and his _History of the Protestant\nReformation_, he calls attention to churches, which, in his day, would\nhold three or four times the total number of the inhabitants in the\nrespective parishes. From these facts, he deduces that the land in\nMediaeval times supported a greater number of folk, and that the\nvillages were larger and much more densely populated. Other writers,\nfavoured with greater opportunities than were available to Cobbett,\nhave, nevertheless, been betrayed into the same error. But the\npopulation theory is now so generally discredited, that it is\nunnecessary to rebut it directly by an appeal to the estimated\npopulations of the country during each successive century. Besides, an\nestimated census of the population during the Edwardian period, for\ninstance, can never be more than approximate, and may itself cause more\ncontroversy than the theory which it is warranted to disprove.\n\nThe seemingly obvious answer to the puzzle of spacious churches is, as\nso often happens, incorrect. The best refutation, perhaps, is afforded\nby general principles, and by certain ascertained facts. These\nprinciples and facts are bound up with what has been briefly called \u201cthe\nsocial theory of Mediaeval Christianity.\u201d What this theory implies will\nshortly appear. From a slightly different point of view, the inordinate\nsize of the nave directs us to a period when secular and sacred\ndepartments of parish life were more closely blended than they are\nto-day. Before developing this idea, however, we must pause, else we\nshall find another hypothesis barring our way.\n\nThis latest hypothesis, and one which will command greatest attention\nbecause of the high reputation of its advocates, might best be termed\n\u201cthe devotional theory.\u201d It may thus be stated: a large Mediaeval church\nwas not necessarily built for a large congregation, but it was, first of\nall, a monument, freely raised, as a permanent expression of duty and\ndevotion to the Divine Father. Mr Francis Bond, who propounds this\ntheory, is dealing primarily with Westminster Abbey, but, from the\ncontext, it seems clear that he supports a wider application. Here is an\nAbbey church, a huge building, over 500 feet in length, and 100 feet in\nheight; yet it was erected, as documentary evidence proves, for a\ncongregation which was normally under sixty[315]. \u201cIt seems hardly\nconceivable,\u201d remarks Mr Bond, \u201cthat it could have been planned and\nbuilt for pigmy man who walks beneath; it seems not built for mortal man\nby mortal men; man is overpowered by his own work[316].\u201d No, this\nvastness had another purpose besides that of the accommodation of\nworshippers--it was man\u2019s tribute to the Unseen, his attempt to\nsymbolize the Eternal and the Infinite. For, indeed, at the Great\nSacrament, \u201cthe priest of the church officiated, congregation or no\ncongregation,\u201d and in the village church all the choir that could be got\ntogether, as a rule, consisted of the parish priest and the parish\nclerk[317]. A congregation of two: yet, as Thorold Rogers observes, \u201cit\nis certain that villages with fewer than fifty or a hundred inhabitants\npossessed edifices which would hold a congregation of five, or even ten\ntimes that number[318].\u201d\n\nDoes the \u201cdevotional theory\u201d furnish a full explanation of the\ndifficulty? As befits one who has learned many valuable lessons when a\nstudent under Mr Bond, and who has almost unqualified admiration for his\nteaching, I criticize the theory with some misgiving. Yet, though Mr\nBond\u2019s solution is probably correct, in the main, with respect to our\ncathedrals, minsters, and abbey churches, it seems quite unsatisfactory\nfor hundreds of parish churches. All thoughtful students must, indeed,\nadmit that the aesthetic and devotional aspect of church\narchitecture--its grandeur, its freedom, its wealth of what was choicest\nin design and ornament, its sculpture, painting, stained glass, and\nmosaic work--cannot be eliminated when considering the question of size.\nThese details are parts of a whole. Again, the daily service, constantly\nobserved until the Reformation, and, as recent investigation has shown,\nprobably never wholly discarded since that event[319], was a duty\nundertaken, we may readily admit, irrespective of the number of\nworshippers. The building was as magnificent and costly as wealth or\nself-denial could make it. The resplendent vestments, the solemn\nliturgy, and the beautiful music were the best that the age could\nproduce. So, too, the very vastness of the structure was a token that\nthe founders performed their work in no niggardly spirit of economy or\ntime-saving:\n\n    \u201cThey dreamed not of a perishable home,\n     Who thus could build.\u201d\n\nIt must be understood that, with respect to the populace, this\ndescription is largely theoretical. In practice, such lofty sentiments\nwould be confined to picked leaders and their devoted adherents. Even\nwith these churchmen, ideals were often degraded, and always\nunattainable. Of the people in general, it may be said that beneath a\nveneer of religion there existed an amorphous mass of heathenism. The\nmonks and parish clergy of remote districts were not merely the pioneers\nof religion, but they represented the outposts of civilization amid a\npopulation of semi-barbarians. But, in architecture, it was the leaders\nwho counted.\n\nIn spite of all these considerations, the argument from devotion appears\nto be insufficient to meet the case, unless--an improbable event--the\nsecular uses of the nave, which are about to be described, were the\nresults of afterthought. Rightly to understand the problem, we must\nconstantly recollect two staple facts: first, that the early churchmen\nwere ever ready to adopt a compromise, and, secondly, that, especially\nduring the Mediaeval period, there existed a close relationship between\nthe secular and the religious aspects of social life. So many pieces of\nevidence have to be colligated to explain the working of these two\nprinciples, that it is difficult to make a beginning. But, since the\nquestion of compromise has already been dealt with in Chapter I., we may\nchiefly confine ourselves to the second point. On the whole, a start may\nbest be made by reviewing the meetings, other than those strictly\nconcerned with worship, which were held of old time in churches. Some of\nthese meetings must have comprised far more able-bodied men than were\never collected together for a strictly religious celebration. In fact, a\nparticular church may have had to shelter not only the inhabitants of\nthe parish, but also the dwellers in several outlying parishes and\nhamlets. What business was it that gathered these folk together?\n\nWhen discussing pagan sites, we found that open-air courts, whether\nterritorial, or composed of members of a free community, commonly met\nnear some prominent landmark, natural or artificial (p. 34 _supra_). Of\nthese objects, megalithic monuments--particularly menhirs and\nstone-circles--were much favoured. The stone-circles, as we saw, were in\nlater days gradually abandoned, and the members of the community\nassembled in the churches. We should reasonably expect to discover\nevidence of overlapping of custom, and this is what we actually find.\nFor, at a date when gatherings on mounds and within cromlechs are still\nsporadically recorded, we find frequent references to courts held in\nchurches. Thus, during the Saxon period, trial by ordeal, which was\ndeemed a religious transaction, was conducted by the priests in the\nparish church[320]. So early as A.D. 973, says Sir G. L. Gomme, a\n_gem\u014dt_ was held in St Paul\u2019s, London, while in A.D. 1293 a court met in\nNorham church, Northumberland[321]. The County Court, a very ancient\nbody, presided over by the sheriff, was held in the Sheriff\u2019s Court, or\nthe Manor Court, but, if these were not convenient, the members\nassembled in the open air, or in the church[322]. The Welsh laws of the\nninth and tenth centuries frequently refer to churches as courts of\njustice[323]. Relics, it was declared, were unnecessary at trials held\nin churches, for the church was the place of relics.\n\nWhat is true of the Saxon and Norman times holds good for a somewhat\nlater period. At Ashburton, Devonshire, the annual courts of the\nmanorial lord met in the chapel of St Laurence, when such officials as\nthe bailiff and the port-reeve were elected[324]. The court leet, which,\nunder the feudal system, was charged with maintenance of the peace, and\nwhich had jurisdiction over petty offences, frequently, as at Bolton,\nassembled in church[325]. The Courts of the Lord Warden of the Cinque\nPorts also met in a consecrated building[326]. Sometimes the business to\nbe transacted was of a trivial kind. At Alvingham, Lincolnshire, \u201cthe\nCommune of the servants of the Ladye Nicholas,\u201d or their \u201cbaylifes,\u201d are\nbidden to meet in the adjacent church of St Leonard, Cockerington, to\nappoint a day for mowing grass in their common pasture[327]. But whether\nthe matters to be considered were light or weighty, the church seemed to\nbe the natural building for such gatherings. Hence, when Mr A. C.\nBenson, in one of his delightful essays, speaks of the \u201cgreat cruciform\nstructures\u201d of the Fens, \u201cbuilt with no idea of prudent proportion to\nthe needs of the places they serve,\u201d he does not take a comprehensive\nview of local requirements.\n\nThe course of events just sketched might have been anticipated. Meetings\nin the open-air having been discontinued, where were the folk to meet in\ncouncil? There was a poverty of suitable buildings. Long ago Fergusson\nremarked on \u201cthe almost entire absence of municipal buildings during the\nwhole of the Middle Ages[328].\u201d The short list of notable examples\nwhich he was able to bring forward served to make the general absence\nmore striking. A few guild halls and town halls make up the catalogue\nfor the cities; the smaller towns have little to show of this kind.\nThere is consequently a basis for the belief, expressed by some\nwriters[329], that the use of churches as courts of justice was\n\u201cuniversal in feudal England.\u201d The assertion is doubtless too general,\nbut, if for the word \u201cuniversal,\u201d we read \u201cwidespread,\u201d it would be\nquite correct. The case of St Nicholas, Newcastle--a church to which\nallusion has already been made (p. 131 _supra_)--supplies a noteworthy\nexample of this usage. For centuries the burgesses met in that church\nfor public business. In the tower hung a bell, known as the \u201ccommon\nbell,\u201d which was tolled on these occasions. Three times a year it also\nsummoned the freemen to their guild meetings, when a sermon was preached\nby the Lord Mayor. This bell had another name, \u201cthe thief and reever\nbell\u201d (_reever_ = freebooter, cattle-robber); tradition says that it\nannounced the holding of fairs, and gave warning to drovers and dealers\nthat no inconvenient questions would be asked concerning the beasts\nwhich they had for sale[330].\n\nIn view of the foregoing facts, surprise need not be provoked by the\nstatement that consistorial courts were commonly held in places of\nworship. If it be urged that much of the business of these courts\npertained strictly to religion, it may be answered that a still greater\nproportion was distinctly secular[331]. At Ripon, for example, where the\ncollegiate church was the place of assembly, the ecclesiastical courts\ntook cognizance of cases of perjury, theft, defamation of character,\ndebt, affiliation, and so forth. A similar court sat in the \u201cgalilee\u201d\n(porch, vestibule, or ante-chapel) of Durham cathedral[332]. The most\nfamous of our consistories, the Court of Arches, derived its name from\nthe characteristic architecture of the church of St Mary-le-Bow,\nLondon, where it was originally held[333]. The trials of Lollards and\nother heretics were usually held in cathedrals or important\nchurches[334], but these instances must not detain us, since they belong\nchiefly to the religious field of action. Yet it is really a hard task\nto decide where the line of cleavage runs. The bishop in his cathedral,\nand the abbot in his abbey-town, were, as Mr J. C. Jeaffreson has\nobserved, in many respects comparable to the lay baron or the wealthy\nmanorial lord. Administering large estates, these dignitaries often had\nan army of tenants, from whom fealty was exacted. The business\ntransactions connected with the property must have been somewhat\nnumerous, and, from their very nature, they were constantly recurring.\nIt may call forth wonder nowadays to specify some of the curious\npossessions once held by the Church. The Gate House, the chief prison in\nWestminster, belonged to the Dean and Chapter, and the town gaol of\nSalisbury to the bishop of that city[335]. Of the stocks and whipping\npost we shall have to speak later. Enough has been said to prove that\nsecular courts, as well as justices\u2019 sessions, formerly met in churches.\nThe practice, it may be added, continued, to some extent, long after the\nReformation. The persistence of some of the legal vestiges is indeed\nreally amazing. Not only, as Mr Addy informs us, was the ancient order\nof serjeants-at-law wont to meet in the nave of old St Paul\u2019s, to meet\nclients in consultation, but each serjeant actually had a pillar\nallotted to him. This rendezvous was known as Paul\u2019s Walk. Down to a\nlate period, certain executors met annually in St Mary\u2019s church at Bury\nSt Edmunds, for the auditing of their accounts.\n\nBut custom was never uniform with respect to these assemblies within\nsacred buildings. Contemporaneously with the use, in some parishes, of\nthe church fabric for meetings, we find other villages where the\nchurchyard was the rallying-place. Several causes may have conduced to\nthese results. The church may have been too small; there may have been a\nquarrel with some strict incumbent; more frequently, there was a dispute\nabout the interpretation of a prohibitory canon. Indeed, records show\nthat the practice was always being condemned, and always being\ncontinued. Thus, during the reign of Henry II., the old port-moot of the\nburgesses of Oxford met in St Martin\u2019s churchyard[336]. Meetings in\nchurch were forbidden at the Synods of Exeter and Winchester (A.D.\n1287)[337]. Yet, in A.D. 1472, the inhabitants of two Yorkshire parishes\nwere reported to the Archbishop of York for holding councils in the\nchurchyard. (\u201c_Dicunt quod omnes parochiani tenent plebisitum, et alias\nordinaciones temporales, in ecclesia et cimiterio_[338].\u201d) Nevertheless,\nin the sixteenth century, we find that one of Laud\u2019s unpopular acts was\nhis attempt to stop the practice of holding lay tribunals in consecrated\nplaces. At Tewkesbury, in particular, the townsfolk deemed this a\ngrievance. Armed with a licence from the bishop, and shielded by ancient\ncustom, the justices of the peace had long held their sessions in the\nchurchyard. For these acts, the primate called some of the justices into\nthe High Commission Court. When challenged, Laud was obliged to confess\nthat temporal courts might be held on consecrated ground or within the\nchurch upon urgent occasion, yet there was no warrant for sessions which\nmight involve a \u201ctrial for blood[339].\u201d Sir G. L. Gomme, who has\ncollected many instances of the custom which we are discussing, cites\nauthority to show that, in recent times, the stewards and bailiffs of a\nleet would occasionally, in bad weather, disregard the canon and hold\ntheir courts in churches[340].\n\nAs the practice of holding manorial courts in the church fell into\nabeyance, or died out altogether, certain vestiges were left behind as\ntell-tales of the past. The principal survival of this kind was the\nannouncement from the pulpit of forthcoming meetings of secular courts.\nIn A.D. 1656, the notice convening the Court Baron of Hathersage,\nDerbyshire, was published in the village church[341]. But there are\nlater instances of the transaction of business within the sacred walls.\nSeveral cases are given by Mr and Mrs Sidney Webb, whose untiring\nresearches deal with the period which has elapsed since the Revolution\n(1689-1835)[342]. Thus, the villagers of Puxton, Somerset, down to the\nyear 1816, were summoned to church by \u201csound of bell,\u201d in the early\nmorning, to perform business connected with Dolmoors Common. Of this\nland, we are told, 23 parts were assigned by drawing lots, the\nremaining, or twenty-fourth part, known as the \u201cOutdrift\u201d or \u201cOutlet,\u201d\nbeing let by auction, by \u201cinch of candle.\u201d The rent of this plot was\nemployed to defray the incidental expenses of the twelvemonth. This\nancient custom was terminated, in the year mentioned, by an award under\nthe Enclosure Act which was passed in 1811[343]. Records of this\ncharacter could doubtless be easily paralleled by those students who\nhave access to parish documents. For, speaking generally, at the close\nof the seventeenth century, the inhabitants at large had, both by common\nlaw and immemorial local custom, the right to be summoned, by tolling of\nthe bell, to transact specific business in the vestry of the church.\nThis claim held good not only for the Easter \u201cvestry,\u201d but for such\nother \u201ctown meetings\u201d as might be judged necessary. Manifestly, these\n\u201copen\u201d vestries could not always be accommodated in the small side-rooms\nwith which we are familiar--the nave must have been utilized. Within the\nsacred building, officers were elected, church rates made, and\nmiscellaneous matters, such as those connected with commons, pasturage,\nand the parish pound, were settled[344]. The old name of these\nassemblies, by the way, seems to have been \u201ctown meeting,\u201d yet the name\n\u201cvestry\u201d goes back to A.D. 1564, at least. The summoning bell bore the\nsignificant name of mote-bell, and it was rung for half an hour[345].\n\nIt has been affirmed, by H. R. von Gneist, that the open parish vestry\nwas almost unique in England, since, besides the House of Commons, it\nwas the only popular assembly which had the right to impose compulsory\ntaxation. Yet, according to Mr and Mrs Webb, the legal framework was\nslight, and the proceedings were \u201csupported with some dubiety[346].\u201d\nAgain, it was argued by Professor Maitland and Bishop Hobhouse that the\nvestry is not traceable before the fourteenth century--the name itself,\nas we have seen, is apparently later--that it belonged to the parish,\nnot the township, that it was \u201ca purely ecclesiastical entity,\u201d and that\nchurchwardens are officials of comparatively modern institution. In\nshort, the authorities mentioned considered that the germ of the vestry\nwas ecclesiastical, though its civil power may have sprung from the\ndecay of the manorial courts[347]. It is further considered that it was\nonly during the reign of Henry VIII. that churchwardens were entrusted\nwith civil functions, such as providing arms or harness for\nsoldiers[348] (cf. p. 157 _infra_). In later times, even within living\nmemory, we have had the so-called \u201cclose\u201d vestries. Usually, a close\nvestry consisted of the clergyman, the squire, three or four farmers,\nthe miller, the innkeeper, and a freeholder or two. Mr and Mrs Webb\npertinently remark that, if one\u2019s imagination is greatly swayed by the\nidea of the close vestry, it will be difficult to picture the assemblies\nwhich met in past ages. We must conceive an assembly composed of\nnumerous and diverse constituents, and endowed with various powers.\nHere, then, we get a ray of light on the theory of social convenience as\naffecting the church fabric.\n\nWe may remind ourselves, as we go along, that vestries are still held in\nour English parishes, and that they meet in the room attached to the\nchurch fabric. But their powers are now confined to ecclesiastical\nmatters. Other business, such as the control of parish property, and the\nmanagement of civil charities, was, by the Local Government Act of 1894,\ntransferred to the Parish Councils. And this mention of the stripping\naway of secular powers leads us to ask, Were the original vestries,\nwhich Professor Maitland deemed purely ecclesiastical, so entirely\nrestricted to church matters as at the present day? Probably not,\nbecause, as we have seen, the secular and the ecclesiastical were, in\nsome measure, inextricably united. Even supposing, then, that the open\nvestry did not rise from the ruins of the old village-moot, it must have\npartially dealt with secular affairs. The simple fact, however, which\naffects the present discussion is that the old parish meetings were,\nlike the modern vestry, held within the walls of the church.\n\nAnother derivative from the era of church assemblies is the custom of\nelecting mayors within the sacred building. Formerly, the mayors of\nSandwich, Boston, Northampton, Grantham, and other towns were chosen in\nthe parish church[349]. Sometimes, not only was the election conducted\nin church, but the function was performed around a particular tomb. This\nwas the case with the mayor of New Romney and the bailiff of Lydd, in\nKent[350]. At Brightlingsea, Essex, the place of election was the\nbelfry.\n\nStill another survival, eloquent even in its insignificance, is the\npractice of posting secular notices on church doors. When one sees,\naffixed to the door, bills referring to such subjects as regimental\norders or government commissions, and when one watches the villager\nscanning the list of parliamentary voters, it is easy to dismiss the\nmatter by saying, \u201cOh! the notices are posted there because the place is\npublic and known to all; besides, the Church is established by law.\u201d\nDoubtless, such ideas are often present in the mind of the overseer or\nparish clerk when he pins the bill on the door, but inquiring folk want\nto know more. If the query be closely pressed, the response may be that\nthe door of the porch is not considered a part of the fabric. For this\nexplanation there is an appearance of reason, but, after all, the reply\nis inadequate. The fact that the baptismal service, and a portion of the\nmarriage service, were often performed in the church porch, shows that\nthe structure was recognized as a part of the hallowed building. It is\ntrue that, in France, one may observe \u201caffiches\u201d posted inside the\ncathedral, because the porch is deemed a part of the exterior, and\nnotices which are placed in the latter position must be stamped, and the\nduty paid. How the idea has arisen it would be difficult to say with\ncertainty. But there is one feature which the French and English\nbuildings have in common. The porch was pre-eminently the spot for\ndiscussing parish business, because it formed a convenient shelter and\nhalting place for the worshippers. It was a focus of attraction to\ngossips and traders alike. The real reason, then, behind the tradition,\nis, not so much that the porch was a kind of no-man\u2019s land--a neutral\nterritory--but that it was a most appropriate rallying point for the\ntransaction of business. To this subject we shall return in the next\nchapter.\n\nThe retention of the Royal Arms in churches has been supposed by Mr Addy\nand other writers to be a secular survival. Mr Addy suggests,\ninferentially, that the practice is a relic of the \u201cbasilica-temple\u201d\nperiod[351]. But, in the first place, the symbol does not seem traceable\nto the old civil or ecclesiastical courts. It is true that the Royal\nArms may be seen on stained glass, and, occasionally, on priestly\nvestments of the pre-Reformation period. Again, in Spanish churches, the\nArms are displayed at the present time, sometimes even over the altars.\nFurther, although the symbol began to be exhibited in special tablets or\nframes almost immediately after the death of Henry VIII., it was not\nuntil the Restoration that the suspension of the Royal Arms was made\ncompulsory[352]. While it is clear, therefore, that the symbol has no\nnecessary connection with Protestant reformations, it seems to be\nstraining the facts too far when one tries to carry the practice back to\nthe early centuries of the English Church. It is essential, too, to\nremember that Royal Arms, as we understand them, did not exist in the\npre-Conquest period. There remain, however, more authentic relics of the\nunion of secular and ecclesiastical affairs which must be reserved for\nthe present, since it is high time to consider another aspect of the\nquestion. To do this properly, we shall require a separate chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE SECULAR USES OF THE CHURCH FABRIC (_continued_)\n\n\nFor the practice of holding judicial and civil courts in churches there\nis, as we have seen, a sufficient explanation in the necessities of the\ntime, and in the simple outlook which our forefathers took concerning\nhuman affairs. But the further problem arises: at what stage in the\nearly history of the Church must we look for the germ of this custom? It\nhas been shown that the open-air court lingered on after secular\nassemblies had begun to flock into the church. Yet, in the broader\nsense, it seems clear that civil business, to a greater or lesser\nextent, had been transacted in the church ever since churches were\nfounded. All analogy points in this direction, but where is the actual\nevidence to be found? Some have sought it in the word \u201cchurch\u201d itself.\nWe must therefore turn our thoughts to philology for a few moments. We\nshall find ourselves engrossed in an alluring, but, at the same time, a\ntantalizing study. Unfortunately, we cannot yet reach a final decision,\nand we shall have to be careful to set aside such conjectures as betray\nperverse ingenuity. Philological testimony is very helpful where its\nvoice is certain; where indistinct, it may lead us far astray.\n\nThe word \u201cchurch,\u201d and its variant \u201ckirk,\u201d present us, in fact, with an\nunsolved problem. Let us attempt to summarize what is known on the\nsubject, and so prepare the way for a startling hypothesis. First, then,\nboth _church_ and _kirk_ were once believed by lexicographers to be\npurely Saxon words, but recent research has disproved this theory. After\nthe scholarly labours of Professor Skeat, and the exhaustive analysis\nprepared by Sir James Murray, we are able to assert that the word\n_church_, though appearing in a somewhat different form, was known in\nWest Germanic speech so early as the fourth or fifth century of our\nera. Moreover, there is now general agreement among scholars in\nreferring _church_ to the Greek \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd. This word is strictly\nadjectival (neuter of \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2) and means \u201cof the lord,\u201d i.e. dominical\n(from \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 = lord). The term, however, is found to occur\nsubstantively, from the third or fourth century at least, in the sense\nof \u201chouse of the Lord,\u201d meaning a Christian place of worship. Writing on\nthis phase of the subject, Sir James Murray declares that there is no\nother derivation, except that from \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, which will bear scientific\nstatement, much less examination.\n\nThe Greek origin of _church_ has, nevertheless, been assailed, but\nwithout success. The counter-argument runs thus: the ordinary Greek name\nfor _church_ was \u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, and this word, or \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae (_basilica_), was\nthe name which passed into Latin and all the Romanic, as well as all the\nCeltic languages. In the last-named group we find, for example, the\nIrish and Gaelic _eglais_, and the Welsh _eglwys_. Hence there is \u201can _a\npriori_ unlikelihood\u201d that any other Greek equivalent (e.g. \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd)\nshould have passed into the Teutonic languages. And, as a matter of\nhistory, we know that \u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 was actually adopted in Gothic, though\nonly to represent a society or an assembly, not a place or building. So\nfar, then, there is no convincing proof against the co-existence of a\nGothic representative of \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd. Moreover, it seems clear that the\nother Teutonic tribes did not accept _ecclesia_ on their conversion; yet\none would suppose that this word, or its counterpart _basilica_, would\nhave been adopted naturally. What was the reason for this\nnon-acceptance? The answer is, that a Teutonic form of \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, namely\n_kirika_, had already obtained a firm hold, and could not be dislodged.\nA minor argument against the proposed derivation is the rareness of the\nGreek word, but this objection has not much weight.\n\nThe objections against the early introduction of _kirika_ are mainly\nhistorical. We do not know the actual circumstances in which _kirika_,\nas the representative of the Greek \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, became so powerfully\nentrenched as to resist all the influence of Latin Christianity to\nsupplant it. The word may have been picked up by Teutonic invaders of\nthe Roman Empire before those invaders had become Christianized.\nCuriously enough, this very question is discussed by a writer of the\nninth century. But whatever may have been the cause of the transfer, the\nword _kirika_ (church) was brought to England by the Angles and\nSaxons[353].\n\nIt is of some interest to find that the Latin equivalent, _dominicum_,\nof the two Greek words, was employed in the sense of \u201chouse of God,\u201d by\nthe middle of the third century. To a certain extent this word was\nadopted in Old Irish, since _domnach_ (mod. Irish, _domhnach_) is\nfrequently used to denote a church[354].\n\nAnother detail, worth noting as we pass along, is the existence of a\ngroup of place-names which appear to contain _ecclesia_ as a prefix. Out\nof a goodly list, we may mention Ecclesfield, Eccleshall, and Eccleston.\nIt has been plausibly argued that these names could not have been given\nby the Saxons, who would have handed down words compounded with\n_church_, instead of _ecclesia_; that in fact, the group has an earlier\nhistory, dating from the days of Roman or Celtic Christianity. Only in\nthis way, it is thought, could the Graeco-Latin term have formed part of\na place-name. The objection to this theory--and it is a grave one--lies\nin the inability of its defenders to prove that the place-names possess\nthe element _ecclesia_ at all. Most, if not all, of the names, break\ndown under examination. In brief, Professor Baldwin Brown, who has\ninvestigated the subject, declares against the pre-Saxon origin[355].\n\nThe remarkable theory to which allusion has been made, and towards which\nthe reader has been gradually led, was propounded by Mr Sidney O. Addy,\nupon whose pages toll has already been freely levied. Starting from the\naccepted etymological data, which have just been outlined, Mr Addy\nproduces a striking chain of testimony. He notices that, since \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae,\nlike \u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, means a king\u2019s or lord\u2019s house, the words _church_ and\n_basilica_ are virtually identical terms. Searching for evidence from\nNorth-West Spain, he found that the local council was summoned by the\nchurch bell, on Sundays, that is the _dies dominica_, or lord\u2019s day. The\nSpanish custom, moreover, \u201cis only an accidental survival of what was\nonce the universal practice in Western Europe[356].\u201d In addition, the\nfacts show that the Spanish court, which is now convened by the sound of\nthe church bell, was formerly held in the church, and was originally\nanalogous to the old Greek \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u1fd6\u03b1,--the meeting of citizens assembled\nby the crier (\u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd = to call out)[357]. In Western Europe such a\ncourt was summoned by the bell or moot-horn. Thus, the bell in the\ncampanile of old St Paul\u2019s Cathedral--an independent structure--summoned\nthe citizens of London to the folk-moot[358]. The next link in the chain\nis supposed to be furnished by certain ancient English churches, which\nhave apsidal terminations, and which possess, or formerly possessed,\ncrypts. Of these churches, Brixworth, in Northamptonshire (cf. p. 9\n_supra_), and Repton, in Derbyshire, are taken as types[359]. Mr Addy\ninstitutes comparisons between these old churches and the Roman\nbasilicas, and again, between the crypts and the subterranean chambers\nof those basilicas. And undoubtedly the analogy is a very close one.\nFrom the harmony of design which the examination reveals, he infers that\nRoman and British structures alike were reared for the administration of\npublic business and the dispensation of justice. His main conclusion is,\nthat a new church \u201cwas the nucleus of a new liberty or free community.\u201d\nIt was the \u201chouse\u201d or public hall of a new lord, or chief (the lord of\nthe manor), who presided over that community[360]. Another valuable line\nof evidence may be noted. Professor Baldwin Brown has called attention\nto the \u201ccoenacula,\u201d or upper chambers, which are found over the Western\nchoir in some continental churches. These council chambers of the\nterritorial chiefs prove, at least, the strong hold which the lord\npossessed over church affairs.\n\nSeveral minor features are held to support the theory. A fresh\ninterpretation is tendered of the much-discussed \u201csquints\u201d or\nhagioscopes in churches. Respecting these curious apertures, folk-memory\ntells us nothing. Antiquaries have never secured complete unanimity on\nthe subject, though it is usual to say that the openings were made to\nallow persons standing near the door or in the transept to see the\nelevation of the Host at the high altar. The \u201csquints\u201d sometimes pass\nthrough two or three walls in succession, and they very commonly point\ndirectly to the South, or main door of the building[361]. Mr Addy,\nhowever, conceives that the openings were so arranged in order to allow\nthe doorkeeper (_ostiarius_)--the door-ward of Middle English times--to\nsee the president of the assembly sitting in the chancel, and thus,\ndirectly or indirectly, to take orders from him. The chancel was the\ntribunal (\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1), where, behind a screen of lattice-work, sat the lord\nand his assessors. Since the altar, in the oldest English churches, such\nas those mentioned, was situated on \u201cthe chord of the apse,\u201d that is,\njust under the chancel arch, it is argued that the squints could not\nhave been intended to enable persons to see the elevation of the\nHost[362]. It is also noted that the old name for the choir was the\npresbytery, or seat of the elders. The very word \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 was often\napplied to the \u201cheadman\u201d of a village.\n\nFurthermore, so early as A.D. 685, as shown by an inscription of\nundoubted authenticity, referring to the Saxon church at Jarrow, the\nEnglish parish church was, in one instance, termed a basilica[363]\n(_Dedicatio basilicae_). The earliest reference in English literature,\nhowever, as given in the _New Oxford Dictionary_, is A.D. 1563[364].\n\nNow Mr Addy\u2019s theory, which he supports with abundant details and\nillustrative comparisons, is surpassingly attractive to the\narchaeologist, especially to one who has grasped the fact of the former\nunity of secular and religious movements in the village commonwealth.\nThe conclusions are, nevertheless, open to some criticism. At the\noutset, the theory seems to assume that the Roman secular basilica was\nthe immediate prototype of the Christian church, and this assumption, as\nwill be shown in a later chapter, runs contrary to the teaching of very\ngood authorities. Again, though Mr Addy has adduced several examples of\ncrypts connected with buildings in the basilican style of architecture,\nwe have just seen that the word \u201cbasilica\u201d itself, as applied to\nChristian churches, cannot be traced earlier than the seventh century.\nOne would have rather expected to find the name given to the first\nRomano-British churches of the country. This absence of the term, it is\ntrue, is not a fatal objection. Nor does it lie in the mouth of those\nwho believe, that, as in the case of fortress-towers, defensive designs\noutlasted their real use, to deny that the provision of crypts continued\nafter their first purpose was forgotten. Hence, one is not disposed to\ncavil at the example adduced from Hornsea in the East Riding, where the\npresent building dates no earlier than the fourteenth century. There was\na church in Hornsea at the time of the Domesday survey, and there may\nhave existed a crypt before the Norman Conquest.\n\nA more serious objection is the anachronism, for so it seems, which\nmakes English assemblies meet indoors at the early period when open-air\ncourts were the rule. For we are not dealing with the Norman or the\nPlantagenet periods. That the old Greek assemblies were held in the\nbasilicas may be true, but the earliest moots of which we have records\nin Britain were held out of doors. Little can be inferred from comparing\nthe customs of peoples who occupied different social and political\nlevels. The British open-air gatherings were doubtless in vogue before\nthe days of the feudal lord, or even his pre-manorial prototype. From\nwhat has gone before, it will be readily supposed that the church built\nnear the stronghold of the feudal chief was dominated by the lord or his\nrepresentative. In this special sense, the church was, indeed, the\n\u201clord\u2019s house,\u201d because, if necessary, it was utilized as a\ncourt-room[365]. But that the \u201cLord\u2019s house\u201d in England was ever\nprimarily and essentially the \u201clord\u2019s house\u201d (\u03ba\u1fe1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd), may be doubted.\nLeaving aside the question of origins, we require to know by what\nprocess that particular transition from the political to the religious\nuse was made; if it were ever effected in this country at all. The\nEnglish evidence rather shows that a reverse development took place: the\n\u201cLord\u2019s house\u201d gradually became the \u201clord\u2019s house\u201d in the limited sense\njust indicated. At any rate, before the time when churches began to be\ncommonly used as secular trysting places, that is, in the late Saxon and\nthe Norman periods, the word \u201cchurch\u201d itself was established in popular\nspeech. And it remains to be proved that \u201cbasilica\u201d ever was, to any\nappreciable extent, an alternative term. Expressed otherwise, we may say\nthat the word \u201cchurch\u201d would, by the time of the introduction of\nChristianity to Britain, have lost its primary Greek connotation, and\nthis would scarcely be revived and transferred to Christian churches\nreared under a new set of conditions.\n\nWith respect to the squints, is it claimed that the early basilicas\npossessed similar apertures, or that these familiar skew openings were\nthe rule, even in those churches which are most closely connected with\nthe moated fortress? One does not overlook the abundance of squints in\nthe churches of such a district as that around Tenby, nor forget that\nthese buildings exhibit defensive features (p. 113 _supra_). Were the\nproblem concerned with South Pembrokeshire as a self-contained country,\nthe theory of the lord and his door-keeper would seem more plausible. As\nthe facts stand, however, it is more reasonable to rely on the old, if\nincomplete, explanation that a line of squints permitted the door-keeper\nto see the altar and to ring the Sanctus bell at a given moment.\nNumerous minor difficulties are involved in Mr Addy\u2019s theory. The\nsquints are often on the North side of the building, and are not in the\nline of communication with the Southern door. Again, they are frequently\nseen in chantries and transepts, where they point to the interior of the\nsanctuary, if not to the altar itself, as at Whatley, in Somerset, or\nLeatherhead, Surrey (Fig. 36). Still further, the squints, on the whole,\nbelong to the post-Norman period of architecture, when constructional\ndecoration, as well as utility, was kept in view by the builders.\n\nIn the light of comparative custom, the theory of the \u201clord\u2019s house\u201d\nmay, at first sight, appear tenable. Indeed, there may have been a time\nin the history of Greece when this hypothesis corresponded to the facts.\nApplied to this country, however, and tested in details, the theory\nseems to fail, and can only be countenanced with great qualifications.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 36. Squint in East wall of North transept, Leatherhead church,\n     Surrey. Persons sitting in the portion of the transept shown in the\n     illustration can see the altar through the squint.\n]\n\nIn the last chapter, allusion was made to the church porch as a centre\nof public life, and this part of the building has just come under notice\nagain in connection with the door-ward. A few further remarks may now be\nadded. The church porch was often of great size (Fig. 37). The practice\nof holding schools in the porch is well attested. In Derbyshire\nvillages, such as\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 37. Stone porch, Wotton church, Surrey. The inner doorway\n     dates from c. A.D. 1200, but the porch itself belongs to the 13th\n     or 14th century. Internal measurements, 14 ft \u00d7 11 ft approx. The\n     outer doorway and the inside arcade are modern restorations. The\n     barge board is of the Decorated period.\n]\n\nHope and Tideswell, the former existence of the porch-school rests on\ntradition alone. But John Evelyn, referring to the year 1624, says\ndefinitely that \u201cone Frier taught us at the church porch at Wotton,\u201d in\nSurrey[366]. The Surrey historian, William Bray, writing in A.D. 1818,\nasserts that the village schoolmaster of Wotton taught over the porch,\nand considers it \u201cnot altogether incurious to observe\u201d that the son of a\nman of very considerable fortune should receive his first rudiments of\nlearning in such a school. There was another school during the sixteenth\ncentury over the porch of St Sepulchre\u2019s, London. A few more instances\nmay be given where porch-schools existed. St Michael\u2019s Loft, in the\nPriory Church, Christchurch, Hants; the parish church, Cheltenham; Selby\nAbbey (in a room over a chapel); Berkeley, Gloucestershire (until 1870);\nand Malmesbury (until 1879, or later). An interesting expression, of\nwhich little note has been made, occurs in _Twelfth Night_, Act III. Sc.\n2. Maria, referring to Malvolio, says, \u201cHe\u2019s in yellow stockings.\u201d \u201cAnd\ncross-gartered?\u201d queries Sir Toby Belch. \u201cMost villainously; like a\npedant that keeps a school in the church,\u201d runs the disdainful reply.\nSchools held in the body of the church have also been known in our own\ntime, for they usually survived the porch-schools proper.\n\nIt is suggested that the stone seats often found in the porch were used\nas benches for the children who came to be taught or catechized. Setting\naside the fact that wooden seats are also met with, it is not inherently\nimprobable that stone ledges should have been used, particularly when we\nremember the chilly, comfortless fittings so familiar in monastic\ncloisters and chapter houses. These benches, too, may have been covered\nwith straw or rushes. But it is more likely that the schools were held\nin those rooms which are constantly seen built over the porch. Here, in\nsome parishes, the ostiarius (from _ostium_=door), who was to develop\ninto the \u201cusher\u201d of the public school, probably taught his little flock\nof pupils[367]. The ostiarius, it may be recollected, belonged at first\nto one of the minor orders of the church. Occasionally a chantry priest\nhad this duty of teaching allotted to him. It will be remembered that\nRoman schools were held in a verandah partly open to the street. Some of\nthe upper chambers of porches are fitted with fireplaces. When provided\nwith a squint, the room may have been intended to lodge a priest, whose\nduty it was to keep alight the sacred fire on the altar, or to house a\nwatchman who had to guard the treasure. Often the porch-chambers have\ndegenerated into lumber rooms. At times, as we shall see later, armour\nwas stored in them. In many porch-chambers libraries existed[368], and,\nin others, documents were preserved. When employed for teaching\npurposes, the chamber was proportionately large[369]. In place of the\noverhead chamber, a gallery of oak or stone is sometimes found around\nthe inside of the porch. Galleries of this kind, to which access is\nobtained by staircases, either in, or passing up the wall, are to be\nseen at Bildeston, Suffolk, Weston-in-Gordano, Somerset, and several\nother places. These \u201ceminences\u201d are usually believed to have\naccommodated the singers at weddings and festivals, and, more\nespecially, on Palm Sunday[370]. In passing, we are obliged to notice\nthe term \u201cparvis\u201d or \u201cparvise\u201d which is commonly used to describe the\nroom above the porch. The usage, though fixed, is erroneous, for a\nparvise is strictly the enclosed space before the door of a church or\ncathedral. The application of the word to a porch-chamber has no\nprecedent earlier than the nineteenth century[371].\n\nThat much informal business was carried on in the porch has been\npreviously noted (p. 143 _supra_). Under this sheltering pent-house the\nlayman met his fellows to arrange slight matters of public interest. In\nSaxon days, the finder of a stray beast would bring it to the porch, and\nthere, in the presence of the priest and the reeve of the tun, would\nexhibit the animal to all possible claimants[372]. The church porch has,\nin fact, always been a favourite resort for the performance of certain\nbusiness. In 1610, we hear of mortgages being paid off in the South\nporch of Ecclesfield church, near Sheffield. Welsh instances prove that\nrent for lands was sometimes brought to the church porch. Mrs C. King\nWarry, who has made a careful study of the folk-customs of the Isle of\nPortland, describes a practice which helps us to realize the business\nmethods of our ancestors. The practice, which exists to-day, is a\nsurvival of the old pre-feudal mode of conveyance by \u201cchurch-gift.\u201d A\nfather, wishing to bequeath his paddock (i.e. a small enclosure of land,\nwith the freedom of quarrying stone therein) to his four daughters, let\nus suppose, proceeds in the following manner. He divides the property by\nmeans of partition walls into the requisite number of shares. Then,\nafter the church service on Sunday evening, he conveys the property by\nword of mouth in the church porch. An old manuscript describes the\nceremony: \u201cThe churchwardens, and some of the best inhabitants\u201d assemble\nin the porch, when the testator thus expresses himself: \u201cI, A----,\ndesire you, my neighbours, to take notice that I give to each of my\ndaughters an equal share of my Paddock, called----, and bounded----, as\nit now lys divided into four parts.\u201d \u201cWherefore,\u201d continues the\nmanuscript, \u201cthe assembly rises and blesses (by name) the\ndaughters[373].\u201d It is necessary only to add that the Portland custom\ncan be paralleled from other parts of the country.\n\nStudents of English literature will have noticed that marriages in the\nchurch porch were once common. Chaucer makes the \u201cWife of Bath\u201d speak\nthus: \u201cHousbondes at chirche-dore I have had fyve[374].\u201d The allusion to\nthe church-door is not mere rhetorical licence. According to the Sarum\nservice, the marriage ceremony was performed in the porch (_ante ostium\necclesiae_), the nuptial benediction being pronounced at the altar\nafterwards. It was only when the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. was\nissued that the rubric was thus settled: \u201cThe persons to be married\nshall come into the body of the Church,\u201d and this version has been\nretained to the present time[375].\n\nSeveral minor details might be noted to illustrate the secular uses of\nthe porch. Frequently the parson used the porch as a temporary stable\nfor his horse, and, although such action is now held to call for\ninterference on the part of the churchwardens[376], we may confidently\nsay that public opinion has not always discountenanced the practice.\nOccasionally, one meets with old \u201cstirrup stones\u201d or \u201cjossing blocks,\u201d\nplaced in such positions as to show that no prohibition could have been\neffectively in force against the horseman who brought his steed to\nchurch. One of these stoops still remains at the gate of Duddington\nchurchyard, near Edinburgh, while at Edlington, Lincolnshire, the\nmounting block is actually fixed on the North side of the porch[377].\nDoubtless, a careful search would show that many more examples remain.\n\nOnly when we have fully recognized the vitality of ancient superstitions\nand customs, shall we appreciate certain lingering practices connected\nwith the porch. John Aubrey saw, in the porch of a Suffolk church, a\nhorseshoe fixed on the wall to keep away the witches. The numerous\nauthenticated cases of portions of human skin having been found nailed\nto church doors also bear on the point. Such instances carry us back,\nnot simply to the period when the secular and the religious were\ncombined in one mode of thought and action, but to a still earlier time\nwhen the Christian teachers could not, or would not, repress the\nsavagery of paganism. The fragments of skin served to warn sacrilegious\nrobbers that they, too, ran the risk of being flayed alive.\n\nIt was casually mentioned, in a preceding paragraph, that armour was\nsometimes stored in the porch-chamber. The subject will repay a little\nfurther examination, because it has not yet received the attention which\nit merits. Nor, even now, have we sufficient material available to give\nvery positive decisions. From the time of Edward I. onwards, every\nparish was bound to keep in readiness an amount of armour in proportion\nto its population. By the time of Henry VIII., as already stated (p. 142\n_supra_), this obligation was vested primarily in the churchwardens. The\nchurchwardens were evidently the deputies of the constables, and these,\nin turn, were the representatives of the sheriff, who was ultimately\nresponsible, both for the parish arms and for the training of the\nsoldiers. Yet, before this period, the clergy, as well as the laity,\nwere assessed for arms. Whoever was answerable for the observance of the\nlaw is a question which does not greatly concern us for the present. The\nmost interesting part of the problem touches the storage of the armour.\nThe subject was discussed in a valuable article by Miss Ethel\nLega-Weekes in _Notes and Queries_ for 1909[378]. Was either the nave or\nthe porch used as an armoury? or were the weapons housed elsewhere?\nThese are questions to which one would fain get an answer.\n\nThe writer of the article which has just been cited considers it an open\nquestion whether the expression \u201cchurch armour,\u201d occurring in old\ndocuments, means the same as \u201ctown armour,\u201d or \u201cparish armour.\u201d With\nrespect to storage, it is admitted that arms may have been deposited in\nthe church, though there has not been discovered any law or regulation\nenforcing this practice. It is argued that the church would be damp and\nunsuited for the keeping of armour: arms may have been deposited in\nchurches, but it was such as had fallen into disuse or become obsolete.\nAt once we may grant that iron weapons and body-coverings needed to be\ncarefully treasured. Professor Vinogradoff pertinently observes that, in\nthe eleventh century, well-forged helmets and swords were scarce and\nexpensive[379]. Yet one imagines that, down to the end of the Wars of\nthe Roses, at any rate, there was little chance for either arms or\narmour to rust away. The monumental armour which is found in churches is\nrusty and half-perished, but how many times has it been taken down since\nit was first suspended over the tomb? It is said that the churches of\nthe fighting period possessed no snug, weather-proof vestries, where\narms could be safely protected. But there existed chantry chapels, as\nwell as porch-chambers, both of which might have served. Again, is it so\ncertain that the church was markedly damp--less dry, shall we say, than\nthe outbuildings of a feudal castle, where doubtless considerable\nquantities of armour were once preserved? We shall shortly see that the\nchurch was not deemed unfit for the storage of goods. If any building\nwere kept in a weather-tight condition, surely the church was that\nbuilding. In villages where no \u201cchurch house\u201d or tithe barn existed, one\nis inclined to think, for several reasons, that some of the armour, when\nnot in use, was placed in the church. The clues which lead to this\nopinion will be gathered together in the next few lines.\n\nWe may leave out of the discussion the mouldering helmets and crumbling\nswords which hang derelict over many an altar tomb, and which were\noftentimes specially made for purposes of commemoration. These arms,\n\u201cundertakers\u2019 properties,\u201d as someone has well called them, are\nirrelevant to the general question, and are apt to prejudice an\nexamination. Fortunately, we possess a little definite evidence as to\nthe housing of the \u201ctown\u2019s armour\u201d in churches. A large equipment of\nsuch armour, of which Dr J. C. Cox gives a detailed inventory, was kept\nin a room over the South porch of Repton church, Derbyshire, down to the\nyear 1840[380]. This collection comprised \u201ccorsletts,\u201d \u201cpickes,\u201d\n\u201ccalevers,\u201d halberds, swords, a flask and touch-box, with many other\nrequisites. The parish books distinctly speak of the store as the\n\u201cTownes Armore.\u201d In the steeple of the parish church of Darley, also in\nDerbyshire, \u201charness and weapons\u201d were, during the first year of\nElizabeth, kept in readiness for one bill-man and one archer[381]. The\npoverty of this store excites a little surprise, and the explanation is\nnot immediately forthcoming. But doubtless the population of Darley was\nthen small, and the assessment would be proportionately low. A hoard of\nold armour was lighted upon accidently at Baldock, Hertfordshire--again\nin a chamber above the porch, which had been closed for many years. The\navailable space was nearly choked up with armour and helmets, as well as\nwith pikes and other weapons. Although the local historian considers\nthat the chamber was merely the lumber room for arms removed from tombs,\nDr Cox, with more reason, perhaps, considers that the relics were\nrepresentative of the old store of the town\u2019s armour.\n\nQuite recently, in the early part of the year 1910, a discovery of\ngreat corroborative value was made at Mendlesham church, in Suffolk.\nOver the South porch of the church is a remarkable room, locally known\nas the \u201cPriest\u2019s Chamber.\u201d The ceiling and walls are lined with oak\nplanks, the windows are strongly barred, and the iron-plated doors are\nfitted with \u201clog locks.\u201d Hidden within this chamber was found a fine\ncollection of parish armour, consisting, in all, of twenty-three \u201clots.\u201d\nThe hoard contained several rare specimens, such as the \u201cgusset\u201d of a\nbreast-plate, two pairs of arm defences, and an early pauldron, or\nshoulder-guard. Mr Seymour Lucas, who inspected the armour, stated that\nthe earliest portions belonged to the closing years of the fifteenth\ncentury. There can be little doubt that here, at any rate, we have a\ngenuine instance of the storage of armour in churches, and that these\ndecaying relics belonged to the fighting men of Mendlesham[382].\n\nThere are numerous scraps of evidence which tend incidentally to support\nthe theory. We may look for some of these when we come to discuss the\nchurchyard yew (Chap. IX.). More directly bearing on the point, however,\nis the former existence of societies, in close connection with the\nchurch, known by such names as \u201cRobin Hood guilds[383].\u201d These clubs\nappear to have been occasionally formed to promote skill in archery,\nthough, in some instances, they may have consisted of mummers and morris\ndancers (cf. p. 184 _infra_). Nevertheless, in the case of the Abbots\nBromley horn dancers, shortly to be noticed, it is the cross-bow man,\nnot the \u201chobby horse,\u201d who is called Robin Hood.\n\nIt would be a great exaggeration to say that the church was the only\nplace which was likely to be used as an armoury. Here and there, tithe\nbarns and \u201cchurch houses\u201d would be available as storehouses. The\nsquire\u2019s mansion or the constable\u2019s farmhouse--for that official would\nusually be a yeoman--were possible repositories. But the church was,\nafter all, the centre of parish life, so that any reasons against the\nstorage of weapons in the sacred building would be of a practical, not a\nreligious kind.\n\nThere is a curious passage in a treatise written by the old Swedish\nhistorian, Olaus Magnus, titular Archbishop of Upsala, which deals with\na side-question relating to our subject. Writing in A.D. 1555, under the\nsection entitled \u201c_De secura positione armorum in atrio Ecclesiae_,\u201d and\nalluding to Northern nations generally, he says, \u201c_Templa, seu Ecclesias\nparochiales ingressuri ruricolae Septentrionis, ante valvas, sive in\natrio absque ulla furti suspicione praedicta arma donec divina\nabsolvuntur, praecipue tempore pacis deponunt, rursusque ad propria\nreversuri resumunt_[384].\u201d We may translate this as follows: Before the\ncountryfolk of the North enter the temples or parish churches, they\nplace the aforesaid arms in front of the door or in the porch, with no\nsuspicion of theft, until the service is finished, especially during\ntimes of peace, and take them up again when about to return to their own\naffairs. Of what did the \u201caforesaid\u201d arms consist, and what was the\nmotive of bringing them to church at all? These questions are explicitly\nanswered by the writer. When these Northern folk came from remote\nvillages to be present at baptisms, they were allowed to bring three\nkinds of weapons, the bow, the sword, and the axe, and nothing besides\n(_praeter ballistam, gladium, et securim_). It was foreseen, and\nadmitted, that the wayfarers would need a sword and a bow to keep wolves\nat bay and to defend themselves against robbers, while an axe would be\nnecessary to lop off branches of trees which were obstacles in the way,\nor to repair bridges which had broken down[385]. Clearly, then, we have\nhere a limitation of privileges. The old volume has a quaint\nillustration of arms piled up under an arch or in a vault. Why were the\narms restricted in kind and number? Without doubt, to prevent brawling\nand quarrelling within the precincts of the church. However, storage in\nthe church was allowed, and to this extent we have a profitable analogy.\nThe only difference was that, according to English usage, the weapons\nwere stowed away for a time more or less indefinite. In the Northern\nsolitudes permanent storage in the church may have been both\ninconvenient and dangerous. The inhabitants were probably unruly and\nundisciplined. The great point of likeness between the British and\nScandinavian cases lies in the tacit acknowledgement that arms did not\ndefile a church.\n\nIt is not easy, indeed, to imagine why the history of customs should be\ndifferent from that just presented. If we look at the factors aright, we\nfind ourselves witnesses of the supremacy of the doctrine of social\nconvenience. The priesthood, at times, no doubt, rebelled against the\ngrosser intrusions of the laity, but for the most part there was\nacquiescence, if not partnership, in what would now be called sacrilege,\nor at least improper use of the church. The needs of the community\nover-rode all theoretical scruples. Did the villager wish to tell the\nhour of the day? Then the church-dial met his needs. From the earliest\ntimes, sundials were probably attached to churches. A portion of such a\ndial, bearing a Runic inscription, and belonging to a date somewhere\nbetween A.D. 1063 and 1065, was unearthed at Skelton churchyard, in\nCleveland[386]. The well-known dial at Kirkdale church, Yorkshire,\nbelongs to a slightly earlier period. Pre-Conquest mural dials, or at\nleast, dial-stones, exist at Warnford, and Corhampton, in Hampshire,\nStoke D\u2019Abernon, in Surrey, Bishopstone, in Sussex (Figs. 38, 39), and\nother places. When the dial was gradually being superseded by clocks,\nthese were set up in the church tower. The new timekeepers long remained\nscarce, but even when they had come to be generally used by private\npersons, the public clock held its own. The weathercock, too, was found\nto be of great utility, and was rarely lacking on tower or spire. As\nwith the vane, so with the cresset, or fire-pan, in which tar or tow was\nburnt to guide the traveller, or to arouse the countryside. The old iron\ncresset on Monken Hadley tower, in Middlesex, which directed the lonely\nwayfarer across Enfield Chase, may still be seen. Another cresset,\nplaced\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 38. Pre-conquest dial-stone, Bishopstone church, Sussex. The\n     porch, as a whole, is believed to be of Saxon date; it contains a\n     little long-and-short work. The chevron ornament, under the\n     pediment, is evidently the later work of Norman artificers (c. A.D.\n     1120). An enlargement of the dial is given in Fig. 39.\n]\n\nabove an angle of the chancel at Alnwick, in Northumberland, was\nemployed to signal an alarm[387]. The branks, or scold\u2019s bridles,\nbarbarous relics of an earlier time, of which some thirteen are still\nbelieved to exist in Cheshire alone, seem to have been\noccasionally stored in churches. At least, the famous specimen at\nWalton-on-the-Thames, Surrey, is to be found in the vestry of the\nchurch. In several churches one may notice the old manual fire-engine\nplaced under the church tower, and we may feel sure that its valuable\naid was not confined to fires which broke out in the church. In short,\nwe can scarcely limit the possible conveniences which were centred\naround the church fabric. Chained books and libraries, which were\nparticularly numerous; records of charitable bequests; the registers\nwith their details of the lives of individual villagers; the churchyard\nmonumental records; nay, the reputation of the curative simples of the\nvery walls--pellitory, whitlow grass, and spleenwort; who shall tell of\nall these? There is no doubt that decorative or symbolical\nconsiderations were often uppermost in the minds of later designers. The\ngilded weathercock was given a religious significance, though its origin\nmay have been pagan; the dial bore an appropriate motto. But no ulterior\npurpose, either artistic or symbolical, is connected with the village\nstocks or the pillory. These instruments were severely practical.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 39. Bishopstone dial, enlarged. The five principal Day Hours,\n     6, 9, 12, 3, 6 o\u2019clock, are shown by slightly prolonged lines with\n     cruciform terminations. The first and last radii are drawn at a\n     slight angle with the diameter. The upper semicircle contains a\n     cross, and is surrounded with an ornamental border, usually\n     described, and figured, as a fret; close examination seems to show\n     that it is billet work in low relief. It is not known to whom the\n     name Eadric refers: he was probably an ecclesiastic.\n]\n\nSeeing that courts were formerly held in the church, it must have been\nexpedient to have the stocks fixed near the place of trial, so that\nprisoners might quickly be placed where village life was busiest. One\ncannot go so far as to assert, with some writers, that the churchyard\nwas the usual situation for these instruments. If the statement were\namended so as to read, \u201cin or near the churchyard,\u201d it would command\nassent. In the majority of instances, the stocks which remain seem to be\nin the village street, or on the village green, though generally not a\nstone\u2019s throw from the church. At Brading, Isle of Wight, they are\nhoused in a building near the entrance to the churchyard. At Hessle and\nKirk Ella, in Yorkshire, and at South Harting, in Sussex, they are\nplaced by the church gate; in the Surrey villages of Alfold and\nShalford, as well as at Brent Pelham, in Hertford[388], they occupy a\nlike position. The weather-worn stocks of Shalford are shown in Fig. 40.\nThe specimen at Kilham, Yorkshire, stands against the churchyard wall;\nwhile about 100 yards away, the old bull-ring may be seen[389].\nHaveringatte-Bower, in Essex, has its stocks set up by the side of the\ngreen under an immense hollow elm, opposite to a whipping-post. In the\nfollowing places the stocks are also adjacent to the churchyard:\nAbinger, Surrey (on the green); Walton-on-the-Hill, near Liverpool[390];\nWaltham Abbey, Essex[391]; Weston-under-Redcastle, Salop[392]; and,\nformerly, Prestbury, Gloucestershire[393]. Within the churchyard itself\nwe have examples at Burnsall, Yorkshire; Mottistone, Isle of Wight; and\nCrowle, in Lincolnshire. The stocks at Mottistone are very dilapidated;\nthose at Crowle have been used within living memory[394]. Formerly\nstocks were kept in the Minster Yard at York, and there was a movable\npair in the yard at Beverley Minster[395]. Lastly, to conclude this\nfragmentary list, we notice the stocks of Northorpe, Lincolnshire, which\nwere kept in the church tower[396].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 40. Remains of stocks, outside Shalford churchyard,\nSurrey.]\n\nMost of the stocks which remain are perhaps not remarkably ancient. The\ninstitution, however, has a long history. Stocks are referred to in a\npriory charter, dated A.D. 1324, under the name of _cippi_. In the\nstatute 25 Edward III. 1350, they appear as _coppes_; while by 7 Henry\nVI., c. 17, every village or town is to provide itself with a pair of\nstocks[397]. We can easily picture for ourselves the Mediaeval village\nwith its institutions massed together as closely as possible around a\ncentral spot. Castle, church, court-house, tithe-barn, playing green and\narchery ground; the cross and the yew; the stocks and pillory; the pound\nand the maypole, were complementary to the usual group of farmsteads and\ncottages, and helped to relieve a landscape which in the pre-enclosure\nperiod was often quiet and bare. We may see baron and priest,\nrepresenting the civil and the ecclesiastical powers, sitting side by\nside, to arrange feudal services, tolls, and holidays, to allocate\ntithes and settle disputes, to assess fines and declare sentences; while\never at hand waited the instruments of punishment.\n\nHere we may make reference to a very curious relic of the old courts.\nChained to the wall of the vestry in Wateringbury church, in Kent, is an\nofficial mace known locally as the \u201cDumb borsholder\u201d (_pr._ buzzelder)\nof Chart. This wooden staff, which is a little over three feet in\nlength, is surmounted by an iron ring, while the lower end is tipped\nwith a square iron spike. At the annual court leet, the head man of the\ntithing of Pizein Well, in the manor of Chart, appeared before the\nmeeting bearing this staff. Thus armed, and provided with the necessary\nwarrant, he might search for goods unlawfully concealed. The tradition\nruns that he was empowered to break in, by means of the iron spike, the\ndoors of those who resisted his authority. The Wateringbury mace, which\nis probably the symbolical successor of the more warlike clubs employed\nin the old Saxon moots, was in use down to A.D. 1748[398].\n\nIn speaking of the so-called parvise, it was incidentally stated that\ndocuments were sometimes preserved in that chamber. The storage of deeds\nand documents in churches has a history both ancient and continuous.\nThe scope of the underlying principle is much wider than the needs of\nany particular social or political system, whether the framework of that\nsystem be manorial or extra-manorial. From the foundation of the\nChristian church in Britain the priest seems to have been a kind of\nbanker, just as, in an informal manner, he was the village notary. An\nattenuated survival of the old order of things is seen in the rubric\nappended to \u201cThe Order for the Visitation of the Sick,\u201d in our modern\nPrayer Book. The minister is told to admonish the sick man to make his\nwill. More than this: men are often to be \u201cput in remembrance\u201d to settle\nall such business \u201cwhilst they are in health.\u201d On the fly-leaves of the\nancient altar-books were written various kinds of memoranda referring to\nsales and other transactions. An appeal to an entry in a \u201cChrist\u2019s\nBook,\u201d or a \u201cGospel Book,\u201d as representing a genuine legal record, was\nconsidered decisive[399]. Again, the manumission of slaves, an act of a\nsemi-legal character, was probably performed at the altar, and an entry\nof the proceedings was made in the \u201cchurch-book[400].\u201d Of the\npreservation of Court Rolls in churches, we have numerous instances,\nranging from the time of Canute onwards. The latest record at hand is\nthat of the Manor of Howden, Yorkshire, the rolls of which were retained\nin the parish church so recently as A.D. 1809[401].\n\nThere can be little doubt that some of the old oaken church chests\n(Figs. 41, 42, 50) strongly clamped with iron, each furnished with an\nexceedingly elaborate, though clumsy, arrangement of locks, were\nutilized for keeping, not only the church books, registers, and\nvestments, but many of the parchments and manuscripts of which we are\nspeaking. It is asserted that the ordinary parish church possessed two\nor three chests; where one alone has been preserved to hold the\nregisters and other documents, it is usually the least attractive and\nvaluable. The specimen from Llanelian in Denbigh (Fig. 41) is hewn from\na single block of wood. The chest from Rainham in Essex (Fig. 42) is\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 41. Church chest, Llanelian, Denbigh. Hewn from a single block\n     of timber. The dog-tongs, seen on the left, are made on the\n     principle of the compound lever. Initials, and the date, 1748, are\n     cut in the bars of the tongs.\n]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 42. Church chest, Rainham, Essex. Date: second half\nof the fourteenth century. The carving belongs to the early\nPerpendicular period.]\n\nhandsomely carved with ornament of the Perpendicular period. It was not\nthe provision of locks and bolts alone which gave security: stronger far\nwas the acknowledged repute of the building itself, and the dread of the\nconsequences of sacrilege. Behind the high altar of St Paul\u2019s Cathedral\nthere was formerly such a chest, in which deeds were protected[402].\nSome of the remaining church coffers are skilfully carved and afford\ngood examples of the decorative art of the architectural period to which\nthey belong[403]. The subject merits separate examination, but the most\nthat can be done here is to remind the reader of the broad outlines. The\nfact that wills were commonly deposited for safety in ecclesiastical\nbuildings, is too well known to require emphasis. The huge collections\nof wills in the cathedrals of Gloucester and York, for example, at once\nspring to memory. We may also recall the right of sanctuary, which was\nvested in the church and the churchyard. Again, the Synod of\nWestminster, A.D. 1142, granted certain immunities, probably freedom\nfrom seizure for debt, to ploughs and other agricultural implements\nplaced in the churchyard. All these details agree well with the theories\nof social convenience and unwritten religious compact.\n\nWe commenced our survey by inspecting the towers of certain churches,\nand afterwards, it will be remembered, we began to discuss the secular\nuses of the nave. This has led us to examine some historical facts\nconnected with the church porch, which, ecclesiastically, as well as\narchitecturally, is an integral part of the building. Indeed, it was\nthis very inability to separate the porch from the fabric as a whole\nwhich compelled us to linger by the way. We must now retrace our steps\nin order to garner some further details respecting the nave, and to\nsubstantiate the assertion that the body of the church was not devoted\nto worship alone. One cardinal fact to be borne in mind is, that the\nnave was essentially the property of the parishioners, who were liable\nfor its repair, in the same way that the rector was responsible for the\nupkeep of the chancel. This proposition is well attested by the canons\nof the church, and by all ecclesiastical writers of repute. Partly as a\nconsequence of this separation of interests, and partly in deference to\nthe accepted ethics of both the pre-Norman and post-Norman periods, the\nnave was allowed to be put to a variety of uses. In the words of\nJeaffreson, \u201cThe Mediaeval nave, by turns, or simultaneously,\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 43. Fourteenth century barn, Barton Farm, Bradford-on-Avon,\n     Wiltshire. From the South-West. The barn exhibits numerous Gothic\n     features of the period; angle buttresses, transept-like porches,\n     gable crosses, &c. The windows, of which those at the ends are\n     cruciform, are narrow slits, with wide splays internally. The\n     Glastonbury barn is one of the finest in the country; the parochial\n     tithe-barn was a much smaller building.\n]\n\nwas a public-hall, a theatre, a warehouse, a market, a court of justice,\nand a place of worship; but the chancel was rigidly reserved for the\nmysteries and sublime offices of priestly service[404].\u201d Already we have\nglanced at the judicial and legislative aspects of the question; we may\nnow consider the remaining features. Serving the purpose of a warehouse,\nthe thirteenth century church was sometimes used for the storage\nof corn and wool, a small fee being paid to the clergy for the\naccommodation[405]. The practice may not have been usual, but it does\nnot seem to have been rare. For the reception of the grain and fodder\nwhich was paid to the church in kind, there was, as we know, the\nspacious tithe-barn (Figs. 43, 44). But other persons besides\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 44. Interior of barn, Bradford-on-Avon. The windows, which,\n     viewed from the outside (Fig. 43), were narrow slits, are here seen\n     to have a wide internal splay. The timber roof is remarkably fine.\n     Internal measurements 85 ft \u00d7 25\u00be ft.\n]\n\nabbot or priest were often anxious to store goods temporarily--perhaps\nagainst the time of the village fair or feast--and hence the nave of the\nchurch became, for the time, a granary or barn. Bread was stored in\nchurches so recently as A.D. 1665[406]. The English village possessed\nfew buildings, other than the church, which were both capacious and\nweather-proof. Previous to the Reformation, it must be observed, fixed\npews were not often found in churches; at the most, the worshippers were\nsupplied only with movable benches. These benches could be cleared away\nin times of emergency, and the nave was thus admirably fitted to receive\nmerchandise, such as sacks of wheat, wool-packs, and boxes of treasure.\nComparatively large quantities of produce could be packed in the space\nthus set free.\n\nThe evidence that the nave was extensively used as a market-hall is not\nabundant. In view of the repeated attempts to enforce the Scriptural\nprinciple respecting the House of Prayer, we have some difficulty in\ndistinguishing between what was considered lawful and what profane.\nManifestly, it would have puzzled the bishop or priest to justify the\nuse of the nave as a mart or bazaar, save on special or urgent\noccasions. Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln (d. A.D. 1253), expressly\nforbade markets to be held in sacred places (_ne in locis sacris\nhabeantur mercata_)[407]. Frequently, the habit, after having been\ndenounced, crept in again unawares. In one village, pleading necessity\nor stress of weather, and, in another, advancing no plea whatever,\nhucksters coming to the parish wake or the annual fair would boldly set\nup their stalls for the sale of victuals within the church[408]. And\nwhat was done without let or hindrance in the village was contrived\ncraftily in the city. In old St Paul\u2019s, and other cathedrals, stands\nwere erected for special occasions, and were afterwards allowed to\nremain as centres of bargaining[409]. When driven out of the nave, the\ndealers could still find a harbour in the porch. The York Fabric Rolls\nrecord the fact that pedlars sold their wares in the porch of Riccal\nchurch (A.D. 1510)[410]. Even the Reformation did not bring these\ncustoms to an end. Barnabe Googe\u2019s _Popish Kingdome_ (1570)--a\ntranslation, or adaptation, of the Latin work of Thomas Naogeorgus\n(Kirchmayer), contains, among other complaints, a bitter lament over the\nsale of \u201ccarpes and pykes and mullets fat,\u201d in the church on St Ulrick\u2019s\nDay (July 4th). Both Googe and Naogeorgus wrote as strong Protestants,\nhence there is a possibility that their pictures are too highly\ncoloured. But it is more likely that they branded as irreligious what\nwas an acknowledged custom. Whether they exaggerated the evil or not,\ntheir statements are supported by another Protestant, William Harrison,\nwho wrote only a few years later (A.D. 1577). Harrison\u2019s doleful story\nruns thus: \u201cBut as the number of churches increased, so the repair of\nthe faithful unto the cathedrals did diminish, whereby they now become,\nespecially in their nether parts, rather markets and shops for\nmerchandise than solemn places of prayer, whereunto they were first\nerected[411].\u201d In Norwich, he tells us, the church was turned into a\nbarn, while the people, himself among them, heard service further off,\non a green. There, a bell was suspended from an oak, for want of a\nsteeple. \u201cBut now,\u201d says he, \u201cI understand that the oke likewise is\ngone[412].\u201d Like Googe, Harrison was such a strenuous Reformer, that he\nignored the antiquity of some of the customs which he condemned. Had he\nbeen able to take a detached view, he would have seen that the excesses\nwhich he witnessed had not sprung up in his day, but that they were\nextravagances arising from the abuse of a once recognized practice. The\nMediaeval citizen, who sauntered into the church to cross himself and to\nutter a momentary prayer, might often be tempted to stay a full hour to\nconverse with his fellows. The church was a hall for social intercourse,\na comfortable shelter for the poor. It was a museum of sculpture and\npainting, an academy of music. But, running through all these\narrangements, there was a current of salutary religious influence. To\njudge the Mediaeval condition of affairs by the standard of the\neighteenth, or the early nineteenth century, as one might be hastily led\nto do, would be a grievous error. The broken windows, once \u201crichly\ndight,\u201d the defaced carvings, the bare, whitewashed walls and the\nconcealed fresco, the demolished rood-loft, the font out of position,\nthe memorial brass at the back of the kitchen fireplace, the registers\ntorn up by the village shopkeeper--these are features which do not\nbelong to the period when the nave, perchance, was used as a storehouse\nand a market. Such treatment was left to a generation of which\neye-witnesses can still speak. We must discriminate between the\ntheoretical principle that all secular matters are bound up in religion,\nand the lukewarmness which engenders sheer indifference to desecration.\nIf we learn to make this distinction, we shall put a different\nconstruction on such queer survivals as the distribution of doles and\ncharities in church, or the scrambling for loaves in the churchyard.\nThey are not acts of wanton irreverence; commendable or not, they are\ngenuine relics of the older legitimate tradition.\n\nFrom the sale of commodities in the nave we pass to the question of\nguilds and festivals. The English guilds, which once played an important\npart in Church history, largely owed their origin, if Dr F. A. Gasquet\nbe correct, to the revival of the religious spirit after the desolating\neffects of the Black Death in A.D. 1348 and 1349. It will be remembered\nthat the bells of Newcastle summoned the members of the local guild to\nchurch three times annually (p. 131 _supra_). These guilds or\nbrotherhoods were in the habit of holding feasts and banquets. For\nexample, the churchwardens\u2019 accounts for the village of Chagford, Devon\n(A.D. 1550-99), show that a society known as the \u201cYoung Men\u2019s Wardens\u201d\nwere responsible for getting up the \u201cChurch-ales.\u201d These \u201cAles\u201d we shall\ndescribe in a moment. At South Tawton, in the same county, the \u201cSt\nGeorge\u2019s Wardens\u201d undertook the duty[413]. Frequently, the\nentertainments would be provided in the parsonage-house (Figs. 45, 46),\nor the church-house\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 45. Priests\u2019, or Clergy house, Alfriston, Sussex. Fourteenth\n     century. It consists of a central hall (23 ft \u00d7 17 ft), at each end\n     of which are two rooms, one above the other. The framework of the\n     house is of oak, the intervening spaces being filled with wattle\n     and daub. The hall has an open-timbered roof, with king-posts and\n     cambered tie beams. It contains a hooded fireplace. There are\n     several original windows. (See _Vict. Hist. of Sussex_, II. p.\n     384.) The old elm tree, partly visible on the right, is of unusual\n     size for the species, having a girth of 24 feet at a height of 3\n     feet from the ground.\n]\n\n(Fig. 47), the latter of which was sometimes actually called a\nguild-hall[414]. The church-house was essentially a parish room, built\nand maintained by the community, under the direction of the\nchurchwardens. It was built in the architectural style of the period.\nUnlike the parsonage-house, it was not a place of residence for the\nclergy. Brand has shown that barns were also used--presumably the large\ntithe-barns, where these existed. There is reason to believe, however,\nthat the church itself was sometimes the guest-house on these occasions.\nCertainly this was often the case with the \u201cAles\u201d proper, to which we\nmust now very briefly allude. The Church-ale, or\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 46. Clergy, or Parsonage house, West Dean, Sussex (c. A.D.\n     1280). View from North end. The building, which is of stone,\n     consists of a hall (30 ft \u00d7 15 ft internal measurement), with a\n     story above. The walls are 2 ft 6 in. in thickness. The solar, or\n     loft, is approached by a stone newel staircase, built in the\n     buttress-like projection, which is seen at the North-East angle.\n     The chimney is elaborately constructed. In the east wall a\n     double-lighted window, with trefoiled heads, is visible. (For\n     fuller description, see _Vict. Hist. of Sussex_, II. p. 383; A.\n     Hussey, _Churches of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey_, 1852, p. 219;\n     _Sussex Archaeol. Coll._ III. pp. 13-22.)\n]\n\nWhitsun-ale, was a kind of parochial festivity in which the\nchurchwardens usually, though, as just noticed, not always, took the\ninitiative. Subscriptions were invited, and, with the money obtained,\nlarge quantities of malt were bought. Contributions in kind, such as\neggs and meat, were also accepted. The malt was brewed, and the liquor\nbroached, either in the church-house,\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 47. Church House, or St Mary\u2019s Guild Hall, popularly known as\n     John of Gaunt\u2019s Stables, Lincoln. 12th century. Principal front,\n     showing the Transitional Norman entrance doorway, with tooth\n     ornament in a shallow moulding. Above is a rich cornice of\n     sculptured foliage. The buttresses are flat, and there is a Norman\n     loop in the lower story. Within is an ancient fireplace. The roof\n     is modern.\n]\n\nor as Philip Stubbs (or Stubbes), the Puritan, asserts, in the sacred\nbuilding itself[415]. The church-house was doubtless a familiar\ninstitution in Elizabethan England. Examples are on record where the\nleases of such houses expressly stipulate that they should be available\nfor making \u201cQuarter ales\u201d or Church-ales. Such buildings contained all\nthe spits, crocks, and utensils necessary for preparing the\nbanquet[416]. In the tower of Frensham church, Surrey, there is\npreserved a large cauldron of beaten copper, locally known as \u201cMother\nLudlam\u2019s Kettle.\u201d This vessel has doubtless played its part in many a\nparish feast.\n\nThough the church-house, or, alternatively, the tithe-barn, was, after\nthe Reformation, generally the scene of the revels, custom was not\nuniform, as frequent injunctions against the holding of drinking-parties\nand banquets within the church sufficiently testify. The transition from\nchurch to church-house was made, it would appear, in deference to\nPuritan opinion, but the populace was somewhat tenacious of the old\nhabit. One great objection to the Church-ales lay in the rude and\nboisterous sports with which they were associated. However slight might\nbe the murmur against quoits, bowls, or shooting at the butts, it is\nplain that the baiting of bulls, bears, or badgers, the loud, and\npossibly lewd folk-songs, the noisy dancing parties, would pass the\nbounds of decency and decorum, and cry out for suppression. The feast\nlasted a day or two, and occasionally longer. The profits of the\nmerrymaking formed a kind of voluntary church-rate, and were devoted to\nchurch-restoration, or the purchase of service books and vessels. It has\nbeen pertinently suggested that some of the grotesque corbel heads, so\nfrequently found in churches, may mark the restorations which were made\nout of the profits of Church-ales. Nothing but a village feast, it is\nsupposed, could have furnished the sculptor with models to enable him to\nrepresent so well gluttony and drunkenness. The theory is rather harsh,\nbut it may contain a measure of truth.\n\nThere were other Ales besides the one just described. The Bid-ale was a\nco-operative banquet, devised to aid some unfortunate or impoverished\nparishioner. The Clerk-ale was intended to provide, or to increase, the\nsalary of the parish clerk. There were also Lamb-ales, Bride-ales,\nScot-ales, and others. In fact, occasions seem actually to have been\nsought for holding these holy-ales, which were of a nature at once\nsocial and benevolent[417]. Needless to say, there were two sides to\nthis, as to every question. Regrettable, even disgraceful, though the\nproceedings might oftentimes become, we are yet compelled to consider\nthe original and normal conditions. The relief of the poor has been\nmentioned. Tyack states that, in the year 1651, so many as seventy-two\nparish priests of Somersetshire certified that not only were the\ncongregations larger during a Church-ale--not a surprising fact--but\nthat \u201cthe service of God was more solemnly performed[418].\u201d If such\nopinions were held generally--and, so far as they were held at all by\nthe clergy, they would be reciprocated by laymen--one cannot marvel at\nthe action of the villagers of Clungunford, Shropshire, who in 1637\ncomplained to Archbishop Laud about the discontinuance of the Easter\nfeast. For centuries the poor and aged folk had been regaled with bread,\ncheese, and beer, after evensong on Easter Sunday. Fifty years previous\nto the presentation of the petition, in accordance with the wishes of\nthe ruling Archbishop, the feast had been transferred from the church to\nthe parsonage; but now it was abandoned altogether. Laud\u2019s decision ran\nthus: \u201cI shall not go about to break this custom so it be done in the\nparsonage house, in a neighbourly and decent way.\u201d Similar cases might\nbe brought forward to show that the tradition of feasting in church died\nhard[419].\n\nWe leave the tempting subject of church-ales, and, still considering the\nmotives which led to the provision of such ample space within the sacred\nwalls, we must take a glimpse of church-plays. The connection between\nthe church and the drama has been partially dealt with by numerous\nwriters, and exhaustively by Mr E. K. Chambers, in his _Mediaeval\nStage_. On the character of the church plays we cannot dwell at length,\nnor is this necessary, for the subject has interested most antiquaries,\nand descriptions are to be found in many treatises. A brief enumeration,\nhowever, is desirable. There was the Passion Play at Easter, when a\nsolemn representation of the burial and Resurrection of the Saviour was\nenacted at the altar, or beneath a specially constructed \u201csepulchre.\u201d\nThere was the Nativity play at Christmas, when clergy, choristers, and\nother folk, represented the scenes connected with the manger-birth[420].\nBut the best known performances were the Miracle Plays. At first, these\nwere acted within the church walls, but, at a later date, the players\nwere driven into the church-yard. The popularity of these plays became\nso great that the church could not accommodate the audience, and this\nconsideration, rather than clerical disfavour, probably turned the\nscale. Indeed, when the drama had passed out of the hands of the clergy\nand choir, and had become appropriated by trade guilds or strolling\nplayers, when, too--it must be said--the plays had become tinged with\nribaldry and profanity, the authorities seemed to have regretted the\nexpulsion. Within the church, a certain degree of oversight was always\nexercised; on the village green, the censorship was lax and\nintermittent. Occasionally, as Dr J. C. Cox asserts, the wandering\ntroops were still allowed to use the churches[421]. An attempt was made\nto recover lost ground, and miracle plays were declared sinful if played\non the roads or greens[422]. We must shortly return to this phase of the\nquestion, but meanwhile let us recapitulate Mr Chambers\u2019s theory of the\ndevelopment of the religious drama.\n\nMr Chambers, after tracing the steady evolution of religious plays,\nconcludes that the Church gradually came to make the appeal to the\nmimetic instinct in mankind by means of the introduction of dramatic\nelements into its liturgy[423]. From the fourth century, at least, the\nMass was the central object of ritual, and it was from this service,\nlittle by little, that the dramatic dialogues and representations were\nderived and elaborated. Originally a mere symbol of a commemorative\nkind, the Mass became a repetition of the initial sacrifice, invested\nwith a dramatic character[424]. Thus the ritual play proper was evolved,\nand out of this, in later times, sprang the familiar miracle play[425].\n\nWe may infer, then, that there was a valid reason why the religious\nplays should be performed in hallowed buildings. The question arises,\nwhether this was the usual practice, or an exceptional liberty. No less\nan authority than Canon Jessopp, that tireless and conscientious\nelucidator of ancient documents, is of opinion that the use of churches\nfor setting forth miracle plays was rare. He cites an instance where\ntwenty-seven parishes contributed to the expenses of one of these\nspectacles. From this circumstance, he concludes that there must have\nbeen a \u201cmonster performance,\u201d and that the onlookers could not well have\nbeen sheltered within the church[426]. Perhaps the case brought forward\nitself represents the exception, or, at any rate, belongs to the era\nwhen plays had been driven out into the churchyard. And it is extremely\nprobable, I think, that some of the old tithe-barns (Figs. 43, 44, pp.\n171-2 _supra_), when almost, or quite empty, would be very serviceable\nas theatres. Against the verdict of Canon Jessopp--a verdict which\ncannot be airily dismissed--we have to set undeniable facts. Mr Chambers\naffirms that for a long time the church proved sufficient for the\naccommodation of the folk who came to watch the plays. The performances\nspread, perhaps by degrees, from the choir to the nave. \u201cThe _domus_,\n_loca_, or _sedes_ [were] set at intervals against the pillars while the\npeople crowded to watch in the side aisles.\u201d It was during the twelfth\ncentury that the players first sought ampler room outside the\nchurch[427]. The ousting of the performance was a gradual process.\nPerhaps it would be more correct to say that the liturgical play was\nslow in severing its intimate connection with the church. From the\nchurchyard it passed to the church gate, and thence to the market-place,\nor to some croft or field. While all these changes were being made, the\nvillage fair, as a popular institution, was becoming well established,\nand the outdoor play was heartily welcomed by the holiday-makers[428].\n\nThe evidence produced by Mr Chambers shows, therefore, that convenience,\nand not clerical censure, was the prime cause at work in removing the\nplayers from the churches. The demand for ejection was afterwards\nreinforced by the Reformers, but by that time the result was being\notherwise brought about. It now becomes still more intelligible why\nplays on the green were, at one period, actually denounced. The natural\nhome of the play was the church, and in the church it lingered. \u201cQuite\napart from the survival of ritual plays proper, the miracle play, even\nat the moment of its extinction, had not always and everywhere been\nexcluded from the church itself[429].\u201d Mr Chambers gives numerous\nexamples, and avers that the last of all the village plays--he is\nevidently referring to annual institutions--that of Hascombe, Surrey, in\n1539, \u201cwas at, but perhaps not in, the church[430].\u201d A few years later,\nBonner forbade the presentation of plays either in the church or\nchurchyard[431]. This edict does not seem to have been fully obeyed, for\nDr J. C. Cox declares that both in pre-Reformation and post-Reformation\ntimes the authorities occasionally suffered secular country dramas and\nrude historic scenes to be represented in the nave of the church[432].\nNor is this all; in the sixteenth century Bishop John Bale endeavoured\nto counteract the miracle plays by Protestant dramas, conceived in much\nthe same style as the genuine works (A.D. 1538, etc.). The unintentional\nhardihood of some of Bale\u2019s impersonations is said to have bordered on\nblasphemy. This is one view of the matter; allowance must be made for an\nimportant fact, noted by Mr A. W. Pollard, namely, that Bale wrote as an\nantiquary, not as a controversialist[433].\n\nLest anyone should demur to this narrative of the miracle\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 48. Morris dancers, from 14th century MS. in the\nBodleian Library (Strutt).]\n\nplay, a glance at certain customs, either pagan or semi-pagan in their\norigin, may help to dispel all suspicion of unfairness. The old\nmorris-dances (Fig. 48), which were associated with the church, were\noccasionally, as at Whitsuntide, performed within the nave. The wardens\nwere not infrequently entrusted with the \u201cproperties\u201d necessary for the\nperformance of the dances. The earlier churchwardens\u2019 accounts contain\nabundant references to the costumes of the dancers and mummers. The\naccounts of St Mary\u2019s, Reading, contain entries of this kind so late as\nA.D. 1556-7[434]. We may perhaps find the immediate exemplars of some of\nthese dances in the fandango of the Moors, especially if, as\nphilologists tell us, the word \u201cmorris\u201d is connected with the name of\nthis race[435]. The ultimate origin of the custom, however, lies\ndeeper, and goes back to the turn-over from heathenism. Some of the\ndances are as essentially British as any legacies which antiquity has\nbequeathed to us. One example, known as \u201cBean-setting,\u201d is conjectured\nto be derived from a primitive ceremonial dance which was once performed\nin the springtime, when the crops were sown. In fact, dancing, and the\nrevels with which it was accompanied, gave great trouble to the Early\nFathers, who had much difficulty in safeguarding the precincts of the\nchurch from such intrusions[436]. So recently as the seventeenth\ncentury, a writer quoted by Mr Chambers could assert that, in his\nlifetime, he had seen clergy and singing boys dancing at Easter in the\nchurches of Paris. Here, surely, was a vestige of paganism. And,\nalthough one cannot produce apposite parallels from Britain, there are\nastounding modern survivals of this kind reported from Continental\nchurches, for example, at Seville, and at Echternach, in\nLuxembourg[437]. The Whit-Tuesday dancing procession at Echternach still\ntakes place annually and attracts a huge crowd of pilgrims. The dancing\nis a kind of rhythmical leap, and is performed on the way from the Abbey\nchurch to the grave of St Willibrord, and then back again. Dancing in\nchurches at Christmas--a different matter from dancing at Easter--was\nnot unknown in England itself in the seventeenth century. John Aubrey\nsays that, in his day, Yorkshire folk danced in the churches at\nChristmas-tide, singing or crying, \u201cYole, Yole, Yole[438]!\u201d Philip\nStubbes, in 1583, had denounced bitterly the \u201cDevil\u2019s dances\u201d in church.\nMention should not be omitted also of the horn dancers of Abbots\nBromley, Staffordshire, whose reindeer antlers, dresses, and other\nproperties are preserved in the parish church. There are records of\nhorn-dancing from other places, but the Abbots Bromley performance,\nwhich is still continued annually, is most instructive, because it was\ncarefully investigated by Dr J. C. Cox about a dozen years ago. Dr Cox\nthen found persons living who could recollect the accompanying music\nbeing played in the church porch, while the dancers executed their steps\nin the churchyard. Moreover, this authority credits the tradition that,\nin former times, the dance, which was a preliminary to making the round\nof the parish, was performed in the church[439].\n\nHaving considered the use of the nave for purposes of trade and\namusement, we must now notice what really seems to have been an unusual\noccurrence--the confinement of animals within the church. The custom was\nuncommon, because it never seems to have been actually sanctioned. And\nlittle wonder; decency alone demanded some limitation of such ignoble\nuses. In permitting the building to be employed for secular purposes,\nthere was always a danger of licence, yet it must be said that notorious\nlaxity seems to have usually brought a reprimand. But the practice\nalluded to, like a troublesome weed, refused to be extirpated. Von\nHefele relates that, at the Quinsext, or Trullan Synod, held in the\nImperial Palace at Constantinople in A.D. 692, the following decree was\npassed: \u201cNo cattle may be driven into the church, except in the greatest\nneed, if a stranger has no shelter and his animals would otherwise\nperish[440].\u201d One wonders whether a certain Essex vicar, who, in A.D.\n1550, was reported for allowing sheep to be folded in the church, had\never heard of this decree. At all events, he pleaded that his action was\ntaken \u201cfor grete and extreme necessitie sake, and not in anie contempt.\u201d\nHe was able to prove that there had been a heavy and unexpected fall of\nsnow, and that the animals were placed in the church to save their\nlives. After the storm had abated, the sheep had been removed, and the\nchurch cleaned. The offender did not altogether escape punishment, even\nafter this plea, for he was ordered to do penance and to distribute alms\nto the poor of the parish[441]. The vicar might have found a still wider\nloophole provided by an injunction belonging to the reign of the English\nking Edgar. This injunction not only specifically forbids eating,\ndrinking, and indecorous behaviour within the church, but bans the\nentrance of dogs, or of more pigs than could be kept under control. The\nposition is most remarkable, though, indeed, the expression used seems\nequivocal, \u201c_Neque intra ecclesiae sepem canis aliquis veniat, neque\nporcorum plures quam quis regere possit_[442].\u201d If we assume that all\nchurchyards were actually enclosed at this period, and if we allow the\nwider interpretation of \u201c_ecclesiae sepem_,\u201d as meaning the whole\nenclosure of church and churchyard, the decree still appears\ninferentially to permit a considerable latitude of custom. That, in\nperiods of general looseness of discipline, animals were allowed to\ngraze in the churchyard, is well known to most readers. In the same year\nthat the Essex clergyman was summoned for folding sheep in the church,\ncomplaint was made, concerning a churchyard in the Archdeaconry of\nColchester, that \u201chogges do wrote up graves, and besse (= cattle) lie in\nthe porch\u201d; while a parish priest was \u201csworn to penance\u201d for putting his\nhorse in the churchyard[443]. But the practice could not be stopped.\nEssex had an unenviable reputation in this respect, for Peter Kalm, in\n1748, notes that in this county and in the part of Kent around Gravesend\nand Rochester, grazing the churchyard was customary. Horses, pigs, and\ndonkeys, but especially horses, were pastured among the graves. The\nchurchyard was also kept as a meadow for hay. Let the acts be reprobated\nto the uttermost, they could not be entirely brought to an end. During a\ntithe dispute between a Derbyshire prior and the parochial clergy, lambs\nand wool were placed in a church, and a free fight ensued[444]. This was\nbefore the Reformation, but if we turn to such a work as Mackarness\u2019s\nedition of _Prideaux\u2019s Churchwarden\u2019s Guide_ (1895), we find a curious\nhesitancy in pronouncing definitely on a somewhat kindred matter. Should\nthe parson \u201cmerely turn a horse or a few sheep into the churchyard to\npasture therein,\u201d the churchwardens may not feel called upon to\ninterfere. But if he lets loose animals which turn up the soil, and\nprofane the graves, or if, again, he converts the church-porch into a\nstable for his horse, he may rightly be censured[445]. The\nmounting-blocks already mentioned (p. 157 _supra_) show that these\nmaxims must, in former times, have been indifferently followed in some\nparishes.\n\nThroughout the Middle Ages, there was prevalent another custom which is\nrepugnant to modern ideas. This was the keeping of doves in or near\nchurches. Most frequently, it is true, a separate structure seems to\nhave been built to accommodate the birds, as at Garway, Herefordshire.\nThe Garway dovecot, a fourteenth century building, would house 600\nbirds. Sometimes, as we have seen at Gumfreston (p. 115 _supra_), a\nportion of the tower was utilized as a pigeon loft, while again, as at\nElkstone, Gloucestershire, a chamber was built over the chancel[446].\nIncidentally, we may notice that the privilege of building a\ncolumbarium, or culver-house, as it was called, was confined to the lord\nof the manor, the rector, the heads of monastic houses, and freeholders.\nThe existence of a culver-house is usually deemed a sign of Norman\ninfluence. The dovecot of Berwick, Sussex, shown in the illustration\n(Fig. 49), is doubtless several centuries old. A few Sussex\nculver-houses probably go back to the twelfth or thirteenth century, but\nsuch examples are generally in ruins. The Berwick dovecot can be traced\nback at least to the year 1622, when it was rented from the parson for\nfive pounds a year.\n\nMost persons are familiar with the old box pew, in which the territorial\nfamily used to sit during service. Frequently these apartments--for they\nreally deserved this name--contained a fireplace. Pre-Reformation\nfireplaces are rare in churches, but in the Norbury chapel, or chantry,\nat Stoke D\u2019Abernon, Surrey, there is a specimen dating c. A.D. 1490.\nDuring the worst days of the large private pews, which were often\npartially screened from the body of the church, a special compartment\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 49. Ancient dovecot, Berwick Court, Sussex. These buildings\n     are usually attached to the territorial-house of the village.\n     Sussex has many examples; some are much older than the specimen\n     figured, but they are usually not so well preserved. The whole of\n     the interior of the Berwick dovecot is fitted up for the birds.\n     (See description in _Sussex Archaeol. Coll._ VI. pp. 232-3.)\n]\n\nwas sometimes provided for the dogs of the local squire. Examples of\nthese recesses could be seen at Aveley, Essex, and Northorpe,\nLincolnshire, not much more than a century back[447]. At Northorpe, the\ndogs\u2019 pew was just within the chancel arch. Nevertheless, not everyone,\nwas permitted to take his dog to church. The dog-whipper was a\nrecognized officer in many churches, and it is common to find, in church\naccounts, entries relating to the payment of this functionary[448]. In\nsome cases the office was endowed, and the salary, though small, was\nfixed. His pew was sometimes marked with the words \u201cThe dog-whipper.\u201d\nThe dogs kept out of the building were doubtless those belonging to\nfarmers and shepherds. Custom was not uniform, but, as a rule, the\nminister does not seem to have raised any objection to quiet animals.\nSome of the contrivances employed by the dog-whipper, or \u201cdog-noper\u201d\n(_noper_, _knauper_ = striker), are peculiar. Generally, the weapon was\na thick stick, to which was attached a stout lash or thong, but in some\nchurches instruments known as dog-tongs (Fig. 41, p. 169 _supra_) were\nused. These weapons were especially necessary when shepherd dogs flew at\neach other\u2019s throats. Such fights often led to local disputes, and the\nincumbent then felt bound to interfere.\n\nThere are records which are more distasteful even than those which tell\nof taking dogs to church. When we read of card-playing and cock-fighting\nin church, we are really compelled to regard these as acts of wanton\nimpiety which marked a period of deadness in religion. The records are\ncertainly sporadic. Again, there is good reason to believe the\ntradition, met with at Chislehurst and elsewhere, that parishioners left\nthe house of prayer and walked across the green to the cockpit. At\nHayes, in Middlesex, it is said that the uncouth and brutal custom of\nthrowing at cocks in the churchyard was kept up so late as A.D.\n1754[449].\n\nIt has been a difficult feat to disentangle the secular use of the nave\nfrom that of the churchyard. The reason is simple: the play of social\nand administrative forces was rarely quite balanced and continuously\nuniform for any considerable length of time. Alternately, the church and\nthe graveyard were utilized for parochial purposes, as ecclesiastical\npower and public opinion rose and fell. In addition, before the final\nseverance was made, there was a period when assemblies were allowed to\nbe held in the churchyard, on sufferance only. We have seen that, when\nfairs and markets were impending, the clergy sometimes permitted the\nchurch to be used as a warehouse or exchange. Contemporaneously with,\nas well as subsequently to, this use of the church, we find the traders\nbeing pushed into the churchyard, and thence to the village green, or a\npasture field.\n\nThe village fair was commonly held on the day which was dedicated to the\npatron saint of the church. This coincidence often proves helpful to the\ninvestigator, for when the original dedication of a church has been\nlost, it may perhaps be recovered by noticing the date of the fair,\nwhich gives the anniversary of the saint[450]. (The saint\u2019s day and the\ndedication festival are not now always coincident, but the divergence\nmay not be a primitive feature.) The agreement of dates doubtless takes\nus back to the days when Christianity had not yet become supreme, and\nwhen the leaders took advantage of any casual support, such as would be\nobtained by holding the patronal festival on a day devoted to the\naffairs of popular assemblies or the pleasures of a general holiday.\nNaturally, there long remained a close connection between the feast and\nthe church fabric which was the centre of much of the activity of the\ncommunity. When fairs, in the strict sense, began to be held, the old\ndate of the feast would still be retained. For many a century, too, no\nserious attempt was made to deprive the merry-makers of the right to\nmeet within the sacred enclosure. Farmers came to buy or sell stock,\nlabourers stood for hire, merchants arrived from distant towns to trade\nin wool or grain, pedlars spread their wares on the tombstones in the\nchurchyard, while the populace gave itself over to pastime and\nrefreshment.\n\nIntermittently, murmurs were heard respecting these doings. Thus, in a\npresentment (A.D. 1416) from St Michael-le-Belfry, in the city of York,\ncomplaint is made of the tumult and clamour caused by the traders. On\nSundays and holidays there was \u201ca common market of vendibles in the\nchurchyard.\u201d All kinds of goods were exposed for sale (_diversa res et\nbona ac cirpi_ [= rushes] _vendicioni ibidem exponuntur_); while horses\nstood over the dead and defiled the graves[451]. Especially when a\ncathedral or church possessed some famous shrine or relic, as at\nCanterbury, Walsingham, and Glastonbury, pilgrims and traders met on\ncommon ground. For a long time it was customary, at St Audrey\u2019s fair, to\nerect booths in Ely Cathedral, for the sale of laces made of thin\nsilk[452]. Pilgrims from afar would naturally require refreshment at the\nend of their journey, and the victuallers of the cities were always\nready to meet the demand. But, unfortunately, to the legitimate buying\nand selling of food and drink, was appended the boisterousness of\nminstrels, actors, and jugglers[453].\n\nPerhaps the most important legislation against churchyard commerce is\ncontained in the Statute of Winchester, A.D. 1285 (13 Edw. I., c. 6),\nwhich forbade the holding of fairs and markets in churchyards[454]. The\nact, however, proved ineffectual, for, in A.D. 1368, Archbishop Simon\nLangham found it necessary to issue a mandate against Sunday markets in\nthe Isle of Sheppey, where the traders approached so near the church as\nto interrupt the celebration of Mass. Later infractions have already\nbeen noticed (p. 174 _supra_), so that the story may be cut short by\nciting such cases of survival as those of All Saints, Northampton, and\nLaughton-en-le-Morthen, Yorkshire, where, until modern times, fairs were\nheld in the churchyards[455]. The churchyard at Laughton was of enormous\nsize, and in this respect, at least, was well adapted for its purpose.\n\nI have suggested that the coincidence of fair day and saint\u2019s day is a\nvestige of a very early compromise, when the dedication festival was\nsubstituted for heathen ceremonial. The idea may be pursued in two other\ndirections. First, we might observe how many fairs, or feasts, are held\nat seasons which are known to correspond to pagan festivals, for\nexample, Whitsuntide and midsummer. It would then be seen to what extent\nthe dedication periods were in harmony with those of festivals, either\nas regards actual coincidence of dates, or preliminary warnings.\n\nSir Norman Lockyer and the Rev. J. Griffith have called attention to the\nlarge number of fairs which are held on the festival, or quarter days,\nof the \u201cMay Year.\u201d These writers consider that such fairs are the\nrepresentatives of meetings summoned when fires were lighted and\nGorsedds or Gorseddau (see p. 98 _supra_) were erected. The fairs and\nthe churches together \u201cmark for us the _loci_ of the original\ncircle-worship, and the fact that we are dealing with the May Year and\n_not_ the solstice shows that we have to do with a very high antiquity.\u201d\nOur fairs, according to this view, represent \u201cthousands of British\nGorsedds, the pedigrees of which are as unimpeachable as that of the\nWelsh institution[456].\u201d To the present writer, this theory seems to go\nmuch beyond the recorded facts, but time and further inquiry may tell.\n\nThe second mode of research is to ascertain with what frequency the\nvillage fairs are, or were, kept near ancient monuments or earthworks.\nThus, from time immemorial a sheep fair has been held within the oval\ncamp on the top of Woodbury Hill, near Bere Regis, in Dorset[457]. Mr\nThomas Hardy has seized upon this fact, and has deftly worked it into\nthe opening chapter of _Far from the Madding Crowd_. Another earthwork\nused in this way is that known as Yarnborough, or Yarnbury Castle, in\nthe parish of Hanging Langford, Wiltshire[458]. As these words are being\nwritten, one may see bills on the walls in London announcing that\nspecial trains are to be run on the day of the fair.\n\nFurther corroboration might be given, if it were desirable. Sometimes it\nis a \u201cblue stone,\u201d or a stone pillar, where the concourse of traders\ngathered. At North Thoresby, in Lincolnshire, the fair was held near a\n\u201cblue stone\u201d in a meadow near the church called Boundcroft--a\nsignificant name.\n\nIntimately connected with the question of fairs held near old\nearthworks, are the sports which were associated with such places. And,\nin fact, the fairs and the games are two phases of one subject, while\nboth features, in turn, will illustrate the inability of the early\nfounders of the Church to eliminate pagan customs.\n\nHence, though for the moment we may appear to wander from our theme, we\nshall soon see that the matter is not extraneous. When we learn, for\ninstance, that Wiltshire villagers were wont to climb Cley Hill to play\na game with balls and sticks within the British earthwork at the summit,\nand when we hear that this took place on Palm Sunday, we express only\nmild surprise[459]. When, however, we read of a similar procession of\nmen and maidens, again occurring on Palm Sunday, to the prehistoric camp\non the top of St Martin\u2019s Hill (or Martinsell), a steep-sided promontory\nof the chalk range near Marlborough[460], the subject becomes\ninteresting. In discussing the churchyard yew in a later chapter we\nshall have occasion to recall the Martinsell anniversary (p. 381\n_infra_); in the meantime we cast around for other illustrations. A like\nceremony was carried out on Palm Sunday by the villagers of Avebury,\nWiltshire, who mounted the famous Silbury Hill, there to eat fig cakes\nand drink sugar and water. The water was procured from the spring below,\nknown as the Swallow Head. Seeing that Palm Sunday bears elsewhere the\nnickname of \u201cFig Sunday,\u201d and that figs were often eaten at this\nfestival, ecclesiastical writers have supposed that the custom is\nconnected with the Gospel story of the cursing of the barren fig tree.\n(Figs were not always the fruit eaten; in Wessex and the West of England\n\u201cfig\u201d also means a raisin.) To the folk-lorist, however, this item will\nbe regarded as adventitious--as an accretion which is due to ideas\nimpressed from without. Were the habit of making these pilgrimages to\nearly earthworks confined to one or two localities, or to one particular\nfestival, this superficial explanation might pass unchallenged. But when\nwe encounter instance after instance, reported from many counties, and\nconnected with various anniversaries, then, though the ceremony be often\ntouched with curious little tinges of local colour, we are compelled to\ngo beyond the accidents, and to seek a common underlying principle.\nThis, indeed, does not seem discoverable by any purely historical\nprocess. We are driven back to unconscious folk-memory and immemorial\ntradition--which rarely endeavour to supply a fully efficient cause--to\nthe dim period when, though the practice of raising earthworks was not\nobsolete, a considerable amount of superstition, and even of ceremonial\nobservance, was already connected with those old monuments. The period\nreferred to roughly covers the first five or six centuries of our era.\nBehind this transitional stage of superstition lies the prehistoric\nperiod, with its own rites and ceremonies, and its own anniversary\nobservances.\n\nLet us now notice one or two cases of hill customs not connected with\nPalm Sunday. I am informed by Mr W. J. Lucas that it was the custom,\nforty years ago, for youths and maidens to ascend Chilswell Hill, near\nOxford, every Good Friday, to indulge in rude sports and noisy\nmerry-making. So coarse was the play that it was not considered proper\nfor respectable folk to take part in the proceedings. Now one cannot, in\nany reasonable way, seek the origin of these games in the solemn rites\nconnected with the Christian anniversary. Rather must we look to some\nancient spring festival, such as that connected with the Saxon goddess\nEostre. It would appear as if the Church in the early period could not,\nand in the later times would not, altogether abolish the custom. A\nsimilar Good Friday procession was formerly made to St Martha\u2019s Hill,\nnear Guildford, the church of which was described on p. 131 _supra_. The\nloud music and the riotous dancing in which the crowd took part were so\nindecorous that few were found to lament the discontinuance of the\ncustom[461]. There are some curious earth-rings situated to the South of\nthe church, half-hidden by heather, and I have elsewhere suggested that\nthese represent part of a maze[462], within which the sports were once\nheld. If this be correct, there is an indication of a half-hearted\nattempt on the part of the Church to modify the games, and turn them to\na penitential purpose. Some writers have thought that the morris-dancers\nmade use of such circles for their performances. Here, too, we may have\na link which binds these outdoor customs to the practice of dancing in\nchurch.\n\nWe now see that the apparent digression respecting fairs was not\naltogether irrelevant. There is a thread running through the whole\nstory. First, we have the practice of making earthworks, which continued\nin the Early Iron Age, almost to the dawn of documentary history. Within\nthe ramparts, assemblies, whether peaceful or warlike, would often be\nheld, and would be accompanied with some amount of barbaric ritual.\nNext, we have the period when the true purpose of the camps was becoming\nforgotten. Myths arose, and though it was considered fitting to hold\ncouncils within the old fortifications, for a while all was done with\nfear and trembling. The earthworks were peopled with giants, fairies,\nand evil spirits. Time passed, and fairs came into vogue. The dread of\ngiants and \u201clittle folk\u201d diminished, and the buyers and sellers would\noften be conveniently accommodated in, or around, the earthworks. The\nEarly Fathers could not stop the gatherings, or abolish the heathen\npractice of charms and witchcraft, or quell the tumult of the\nfeast-makers. The difficulties could only be circumvented. When the\nChristians erected a church on the site once occupied by a pagan temple,\nthey performed a dance to their God as the heathen had previously done\nto theirs[463]. Occasionally, the Christian teachers built a church near\nan earthwork. More frequently, they retained the pagan feast-day, but\ndiverted the ceremonies to the honour of the patron saint. The moots\nwere allowed to gather within the church. The healing well and the\nprimitive dance were indulgently accepted. Attracting all functions unto\nherself, the Church finally allowed the fairs to be held within hallowed\nground. It was only when the Mediaeval period was reached that a\nreconsideration of policy was seriously proposed.\n\nThe subject of fairs and markets has claimed so much attention that\nchurchyard sports must be treated rather summarily. So early as A.D.\n1225 a provincial synod in Scotland forbade wrestling matches and other\nsports in churchyards; and the Synod of Exeter, A.D. 1287, similarly\nprohibited combats, dances, and stage plays. But these isolated\nordinances were repeatedly ignored. \u201cImproper and prohibited sports,\u201d\nsuch as wrestling, football, and handball, involved the transgressors in\na penalty of twopence for each offence, at Salton, Yorkshire (A.D.\n1472)[464]. The rule was infringed, for, nearly half a century\nlater (A.D. 1519), the disobedient had to be threatened with\nexcommunication[465]. So matters went on until the Reformation, and,\nindeed, down to a much more recent date. Writing in A.D. 1804, Malkin\navers that, at feasts and revels, dancing and games at tennis and fives\nwere \u201cuniversal in [the churchyards of] Radnorshire, and very common in\nother parts of the Principality[466].\u201d It should be noted, however, that\nthese amusements were commonly permitted only on the North side of the\nburial-ground, where there were rarely any graves. (Cf. Chap. VIII.) At\nStoke St Milborough, Shropshire (p. 95 _supra_), the games were not\ndiscontinued until the year 1820[467].\n\nThough this recital of events may cause a shock to devout persons, the\nseverity of the criticism will be relaxed when the conditions are duly\nappreciated. Once grasp the fact that social convenience reigned almost\nsupreme, and the master key is found. Permeating the whole of the old\nsocial customs, though doubtless, to some extent, existing entirely\napart from them, there were influences essentially religious and\nsymbolical. On actual examination, however, it is often impossible to\nmake a severance between the practical and the ideal. Take, for example,\nthe widespread custom of preserving natural or semi-natural curiosities,\nsuch as fossils and aerolites, in churches. Was this practice based\nmerely on superstition, or on the satisfaction of public curiosity? We\nare all conversant with the legends which are attached to some of our\ncommoner fossils, and to \u201cthunderbolts\u201d of various kinds[468]. When the\nBreton peasant, finding a \u201c_pierre de tonnerre_,\u201d or \u201c_pierre de\nfoudre_\u201d--really a Neolithic celt or axe of stone--builds it into his\nchimney to ward off lightning (cf. p. 80 _supra_), he is influenced\npartly by superstitious fear and partly by credulity. His very\nsuperstition is turned to useful account. Similarly, the meteoric\nstones, such as that which Ambrose Parey (Ambroise Par\u00e9) found suspended\nby an iron chain in the church of Sugolia, on the borders of Hungary,\nwas probably believed to protect the building from the effect of\nthunderstorms[469]. Grimm tells us of a _donner-stral_ (= \u201ca flash of\nlightning\u201d; thence, evidently, \u201ca thunder-stone,\u201d i.e. either an\naerolite or a stone celt) which was hung up in Enisheim church, in\nAlsace-Lorraine. In this connection, it would be well to read the\nvaluable paper written by Professor O. Montelius, entitled \u201cThe\nSun-God\u2019s Axe and Thor\u2019s Hammer.\u201d He shows that the superstitious\nrespect paid to the stone celt appears in many countries in the most\ndiverse guises[470]. When stone-axes were unearthed by the plough in\nNorway, they were regarded as gifts from the gods. It is interesting to\nturn to the Scriptural account of \u201cthe image which fell down from\nJupiter[471],\u201d and which was said to represent Diana. Some authorities\nhave considered that the \u201cimage\u201d was in reality an aerolite, but\nProfessor W. M. Ramsay contends that it was a rude idol. This writer is\nof opinion that both the Authorized and the Revised Versions are wrong\nin giving the translation \u201cJupiter\u201d; the original refers to an object\nfalling \u201cfrom a clear sky.\u201d The tradition of images falling from the\nheavens was common. The image of Cybele, at Pessinus, about which a\nstory of this kind was told, is believed to have been a \u201cshapeless\nstone[472].\u201d The reader may feel inclined to ask why, by a similar\nargument, the image of Diana was not likewise a shapeless stone,\nespecially as ignorant folk everywhere are prone to assert that various\nobjects, such as fossil belemnites and lumps of iron pyrites, have\ndropped out of the firmament. But is there any authenticated instance\nwhere an actual image, rather than a natural stone, has been identified\nas connected with this superstition?\n\nThe more noticeable fossil remains attracted attention at an early date.\nThe Emperor Augustus decorated his villa at Capri with large fossil\nbones--\u201cGiants\u2019 bones.\u201d The church was long considered the natural\nrepository for other curious relics. The tusks of fossil animals were\ncommonly placed in Continental churches during the Mediaeval period.\nAlthough there existed a collection of fossils in the museum of the\nVatican, and although these had been described--inefficiently, it is\ntrue--by Michele Mercati, towards the end of the seventeenth century,\nyet such relics still found a home in the church. Mercati\u2019s manuscript,\nwith its mixture of truth and error, was not, indeed, published by\nLancisi until the years A.D. 1717-19, but neither this, nor similar\nworks, made much impression upon the unlettered crowd. Stories soon\ngathered around the treasured bones or fossils. At the church of Pennant\nMelangel, in Montgomeryshire, the rib of a mammoth became metamorphosed\ninto a \u201cGiant\u2019s rib,\u201d as well as into a bone of St Monacella[473]. In\nthe Foljambe Chapel of Chesterfield parish church, the jaw-bone of a\nwhale has become a rib of the Dun Cow of Warwick[474] (cf. p. 485\n_infra_). A bone is preserved in the church of St Mary\u2019s Redcliffe,\nBristol, which, report says, belonged to a cow that once supplied the\nwhole city with milk. Other folk, ruthless destroyers of myths, declare,\nwith more reason, that the bone is that of a whale, and was brought from\nNewfoundland by Cabot. There are many other bones which claim to belong\nto this celebrated Dun Cow. Instances of church curiosities of this kind\ncould be greatly extended; space can be found only for one, which\nhappens to be of great interest.\n\nIn the church chest of Canewdon, near Rochford, Essex, there is\npreserved an immense and somewhat unattractive relic which, in all\nprobability, is a portion of a vertebra of a whale (Fig. 50). How the\nbone came to be deposited in the church, and where it was found, are\nmysteries. The most plausible surmise is that it was dredged up by\nfishermen off the coast. Strange to say, the relic, which is known to\nthe villagers as \u201cCanute\u2019s knee-bone,\u201d is the second which the church\nhas possessed. The predecessor of the present bone long since\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 50. \u201cCanute\u2019s knee-bone,\u201d Canewdon church, Essex. The other\n     objects are: (1) an iron-bound church chest; (2) a carved panel (c.\n     A.D. 1410), probably part of a screen; (3) a cylindrical alms box,\n     8\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4 high and 12\u00b4\u00b4 in circumference, turned out of a solid piece of\n     wood.\n]\n\ndisappeared--no one knows where. There is an entry in the parish\nregister, dated A.D. 1711, which refers to a certain \u201cRibbe Bone\u201d--a\nportion of the skeleton of St Christopher. The Rev. C. R. Hardy, vicar\nof Canewdon, informs me that a later writer alludes to the \u201cknee-cap of\na Dane,\u201d which was kept locked up in the church chest and shown to\nvisitors. The two bones alluded to can scarcely be identical, and the\nfacts show how rapidly a secondary myth can arise, when there is, as\nwill at once be shown, a tributary tradition to support it. This\ntradition asserts that on the hill overlooking the village a battle was\nfought with the Danes. Professor Freeman, who closely investigated\nmatters on the spot, came to the conclusion that the topographical\ndetails harmonized well with the description of Assandun, and that it\nwas here that Canute met Edmund Ironsides in conflict (A.D. 1016). By\nthe way, we notice that Canute\u2019s nephew, Sweyn, was presented with the\nmanor of which Canewdon forms a part. Freeman further considered that\nthe place-name Canewdon may preserve the name of the Danish\nconqueror[475]. The Rev. E. W. Heygate has also suggested that Canewdon\nsignifies \u201cCnut\u2019s Down[476].\u201d In these days, however, when etymology is\nbased on research work, the conjectures of a past generation must be\napproached with suspicion. The Domesday spelling Carenduna, occurring\nonly seventy years after the battle, and the later forms Carendun,\nCannedon, Canvedon, Canudon, seem practically decisive against the\nproposed derivation. Title-deeds of the sixteenth century have Canudon;\nand the parish register of 1636, Canewdon. Mr F. W. Reader, whose\nreputation as an archaeologist and scientific observer is\nwell-established, found, upon inquiry, that the pronunciation of the\nvillage name was Ca\u0144ewdon, and that it is only in modern times that\nthe accentuation of the second syllable has gained ground. Mr Hardy says\nthat the pronunciations are equally common. This fact also tells\nsomewhat against the popular derivation. On the whole, it seems probable\nthat folk-memory may be fairly sound on the question of the battle, and\neven of Canute\u2019s share therein, but that the suggested etymology is\nincorrect, and is an afterthought due to the currency of the \u201cknee-bone\u201d\nmyth.\n\nIn truth, wherever we meet with these curious legacies of bones,\nfossils, or other objects, there we also find what Sir Thomas Browne\ncalled \u201cfallacious enlargements.\u201d The cathedral of St\nBertrand-de-Comminges, in the French department of Haute-Garonne,\npossesses a stuffed crocodile. Legend says that the relic was brought\nthither by a Crusader, but one may doubt the story. A goose feather,\nkept in a recess fashioned in a pillar of Pewsey church, Wiltshire, and\ncarefully screened by a little door of glass, was once thought, so the\ninscription informs us, to be a feather of the wing of the angel\nGabriel. At East Wellow, near Romsey, Hampshire, an old flint-lock gun\nis seen attached to a beam in the chancel, and local tradition has an\nexplanation to offer, though it is probably not the correct one. Those\nwho are fond of such quaint trifles can find other examples[477] of\nsymbolism and superstition. The widespread custom of suspending eggs in\nchurches is symbolical rather than superstitious, though it has given\nrise to considerable debate. In Spanish churches the eggs chosen are\nchiefly those of the goose; and they are usually placed near\nstatues[478]. Elsewhere, however, ostrich eggs are in favour, and\nespecially is this the case in Mohammedan mosques, where they are hung\nfrom the ceiling. At home we have our Easter or Pasque eggs, with which\nmany customs and much folk-lore are associated. Durandus, ever-ready to\nsupply some strained and mystical interpretation, will have it that the\nostrich eggs denote the \u201ccherishing mercy of God[479].\u201d Present-day\nwriters, with a greater knowledge of comparative customs, recognize in\nthe \u201cworld-egg\u201d the great emblem of life, resurrection, and\nrestoration[480]. But into this spacious field we must not now enter.\n\nSome of the objects bequeathed to the twentieth century are not quite so\nfree from superstition as is the ostrich egg. At Laniscat, Pont Croix,\nKerdreuff, and one or two other places in Brittany, there may still be\nseen, in the church, \u201cwheels of fortune.\u201d These are large wheels with\nspokes; to the outside of the rim bells are attached. As the wheel is\nturned, the bells ring. There are boxes for the reception of money, and\nwhen the sufferer from some malady has placed his money in the box, he\npulls the rope to make the bells clang. These wheels, as Mr Baring-Gould\nand others have pointed out, have a long pedigree[481]. They go back,\nfirst to the Roman worship of the goddess Fortuna, and finally, perhaps,\nto sun-worship. Among the Gaulish tribes, the wheel represented the\nprotection afforded by the solar deity; in tombs, it was perhaps\nemblematic of restoration of life and vigour. The wheel, held by a god,\nis also found on Romano-Gaulish statues. In Christian art we meet with\nour wheel windows, symbolical, it is believed, of the Sun of\nRighteousness.\n\nAfter having seen the \u201cwheels of fortune,\u201d one is but little impressed\nby the spectacle of small models of sailing vessels which may be seen\nsuspended in the churches of the smaller seaport towns of Normandy and\nBrittany. These models symbolize in a pleasing manner the idea of the\nChurch\u2019s protection of mariners. In Belgium, votive offerings of silver\nhorses are met with; they are the gifts of persons whose horses have\nrecovered from some disease, or perhaps from the effects of the \u201cevil\neye.\u201d These customs are probably of modern date, and, therefore, not\ndirectly traceable to heathen times.\n\nIt is doubtful whether we could find preserved, in churches on British\nsoil, pagan vestiges exactly comparable with the solar wheel. In early\nart it is otherwise, as our architecture and ritual abundantly testify.\nWith respect to actual relics, many a parish church shelters some\nobject, quaint or grotesque, which had its origin in no sentiment of a\npurely Christian character. When superstition waned, these heirlooms,\neither from oversight, or, more probably, by tacit consent, were often\nallowed to remain within the sacred building, for the idea of the church\nas the house of the people never completely died away. The church\ncontinued to be the receptacle for these curious relics, and few folk\nwere found to deny the fitness of the custom.\n\nOne by one, tiny fragments of testimony accumulate, attesting such a\nsurvival and continuance of folk-memory as few men of to-day have\nsuspected. From the mass of facts there emerges the truth of the twofold\npurpose of Mediaeval church architecture--the religious and the social.\nSome writers have attempted to interpret the evidence on the principle\nthat, as the ecclesiastical power diminished, the secular increased, and\nthat the sway of custom was brought about by encroachments from the one\nside or the other alternately. Certainly, the problem must be surveyed\nfrom that point of view, yet it appears to me that such an outlook is\nonly partial. For instance--to mention one objection only--at the period\nwhen clerical power was in its heyday, the church fabric appears also\nto have been most used for social purposes, and this fact seems to stand\nquite apart from the disorderly tendencies observable in times of\nirreligion and desecration. Whichever power, clerical or lay, chanced to\nbe uppermost, the parochial customs, as a whole, until within the last\nfew centuries, seem to have been fairly, though not entirely, uniform;\nand when external causes, whether political or economical, produced a\nbalance of forces, the right to use the church for secondary purposes\ndoes not seem to have been seriously challenged. For the strength of the\nearlier faiths long continued to lie in the recognized union of\npolitical, social, and religious interests. There was no gulf fixed\nbetween the conceptions of the religious and the secular commonwealth.\n\u201cSuch a distinction,\u201d says Kauffmann, \u201cis foreign to ancient modes of\nthought[482].\u201d And of the tenacity of thought and the persistency of\ncustom we have had ample proof.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE ORIENTATION OF CHURCHES\n\n\nOrientation, as the word is commonly understood nowadays, may be\ndescribed as the principle, and practice, according to which a sacred\nbuilding or other object is set in an East-to-West line. In speaking of\na Christian church, there is implied further that the altar is normally\nplaced at the Eastern end of the building. The word \u201corientate,\u201d it is\nhardly necessary to say, comes primarily from the Latin _oriri_, to\nrise, the reference being, of course, to the sun. To get one\u2019s bearings\nwith respect to the East was therefore naturally called \u201corientation.\u201d\nThere is a more general signification when the word is employed\nscientifically: thus, the crystals in a mass of rock may be orientated,\nand not necessarily to the East. There is also a broader usage of the\nterm, mostly of literary interest, which merely conveys the sense of\ndetermination of one\u2019s position, physically or mentally, so that even\ntheories and opinions may be orientated, honestly or disingenuously, by\ntheir advocates. Under this definition, moreover, a building may be\norientated, and yet the chief part need not face the geographical East.\nBut it has been conjectured that there was also a Mediaeval Latin word,\n_orientare_, which specifically meant \u201cto set towards the East,\u201d and\nthus arose the fuller and more precise connotation familiar to the\nmodern antiquary[483]. From the Mediaeval term we get our verb \u201cto\norientate,\u201d which, like the briefer and more usual term, \u201cto orient,\u201d\nimplies the setting out of a church East to West, with the altar towards\nthe East of the edifice. Merely premising that there is an orientation\nof graves as well as of buildings, we will proceed to consider the case\nof churches only.\n\nThe most heedless observer must have noticed the main facts. The choir\nor chancel of a cathedral or parish church faces East, while the nave\nruns towards the West. The exceptions form a trifling minority. Casting\nabout for an explanation of these exceptions, it will be found that the\nbuildings which infringe the rule are usually modern, or that the\nexigencies of space permitted no alternative, or that there has been a\nspirit of opposition manifested of set purpose. Let us first notice a\nfew examples where the rule is broken. The small, modern church of Well,\nLincolnshire, is indeed built East and West, but the altar is situated\nat the West end. Eastville church, in the same county, runs North and\nSouth, its altar being towards the South[484]. St Mary Major, Exeter,\nwhich lies to the West of the cathedral, is alined North-East and\nSouth-West, but the alteration was probably made in 1866, when the\nchurch was rebuilt. The original building was of Norman date[485], and\nwould scarcely be out of line. St Paul\u2019s, Covent Garden, built by Inigo\nJones in 1633, and rebuilt at the close of the eighteenth century, has\nits axis about 30\u00b0 North of the East-to-West line, but the altar stands\nat what must be called the \u201cEast\u201d end of the church. St John\u2019s, Chatham,\nanother church which transgresses the principle, was erected in the\nyears immediately preceding the Oxford Movement, at a time when the\npractice of orientation had grown lax[486]. Several Georgian churches in\nthe Paddington and Marylebone districts are out of line, while, strange\nto tell, a Primitive Methodist Chapel in Seymour Place, hard by, is\nproperly orientated[487]. The fact is noticeable, since the custom is\nnot widely observed by Nonconformists. Camden church, Peckham, is built\naskew, but that is doubtless owing to its founders having consisted of a\ncoalition of Nonconformists and dissatisfied churchmen from the mother\nparish of Camberwell. In the Georgian era, as is well known, there was\ngeneral slackness: fonts were often placed in the North and South\naisles, ornaments were neglected, brasses stolen, documents mislaid and\nmisused. To this period of slovenly treatment can be traced the\nanomalous alinement of St George\u2019s, Bloomsbury. The Eastern recess\nhaving proved too small to receive an altarpiece which had been\npresented by the Duke of Bedford, the main axis of the church was, as it\nwere, turned through an angle of 90\u00b0, and it is now arranged almost\nNorth and South, the original chancel being represented by a\nbaptistery[488].\n\nOther churches which do not conform to the usual plan are St Edmund the\nKing, Lombard Street, and Immanuel church, Streatham Common (altar at\nWestern end). A number of French examples might also be given, but even\nwere it possible to compile an exhaustive list, it would only weary the\nreader.\n\nRoman Catholic churches are sometimes found to have unorthodox\nalinements, but not so generally as is commonly believed. Frequently,\nthe so-called lack of orientation simply means that the position of the\naltar is reversed. Thus, St George\u2019s Cathedral, in Westminster, like St\nPeter\u2019s at Rome, has its altar at the West end. But since the axis in\nthese cases, as in that of the little Anglican church at Well,\npreviously mentioned, lies East and West, I prefer to consider these\nchurches as not fundamentally violating the rule. To this matter we must\npresently return. It has been asserted, and afterwards stoutly denied,\nthat disregard of orientation, with respect to the Eastern altar, is a\nfeature of the churches of the Jesuits[489].\n\nA goodly number of modern churches owe their incorrect alinements to the\nlimitations of shape, slope, and area of the ground on which the\nbuildings are placed. Thus, while the old parish church of Hornsey,\nMiddlesex, stands correctly, the new building is sadly discordant. This\nvariation is caused by a corresponding difference in the long axis of\nthe rectangular plot on which it is built. The axis of the Roman\nCatholic church of the English Martyrs at Streatham, again, is in marked\ndisagreement with that of the Anglican parish church hard by; a glance\nat the manner in which the former edifice is wedged in seems to supply\nthe reason. Whether the North-to-South line of the Church of the\nOratory, Brompton, is to be so explained, is more uncertain. Of ancient\nEnglish buildings which do not orientate, the classic example is found\nat the Cistercian Abbey of Rievaulx, Yorkshire. A steep bank on the one\nside of the church, and a river on the other, necessitated an axis from\nNorth to South.\n\nThen we have to deal with churches designedly mis-built. The Puritan Sir\nWalter Mildmay, founder of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, built the\noriginal College chapel North and South, as a protest against\nsuperstition, and in marked derogation of catholic usage (A.D. 1584).\nThis action led Evelyn to speak of \u201cthat zealous house\u201d which was\n\u201creformed _ab origine_[490].\u201d The Cambridge example is serviceable as\nshowing the approximate date when early tradition began to be defied.\n\nTo-day, except through pure carelessness on the part of architects or\nbuilders, the Church observes the broad rule, both with respect to the\naxis and the Eastward altar. One or two critical instances will render\nthis evident. When, in India, under the first Bishop of Calcutta, Dr\nMiddleton (A.D. 1814-22), the question arose whether the chancel of a\nchurch should not face the city of Jerusalem, it was decided to build\ntowards the East, and leave the sacred city out of account[491]. Again,\nit was mooted, a few years ago, whether churches situated in, and West\nof, the diocese of Honolulu in the Sandwich Islands (157\u00b0 53\u00b4 W.),\nshould not have occidentation, rather than orientation, and the verdict\nwas that the chancel should point to the rising sun[492]. Someone has\nremarked, in this connection, that in crossing to another hemisphere,\nthe Northern and Southern points may be said to change values[493], but\nthis does not affect the question of orientating from a given place on a\nfixed meridian. Moreover, since Honolulu lies 21\u00b0 North of the Equator,\nit is outside this consideration altogether.\n\nAlthough, as just stated, the modern builder follows the rule, he\nappears to lack precision in his methods. This opinion has been\nexpressed in private letters to the writer from such high authorities as\nProfessor Reginald Blomfield, Mr H. Phillips Fletcher, and Mr P.\nMainwaring Johnston. Mr Johnston says that even in the matter of\ninserting the points of the compass on architectural drawings there is\ngreater laxity than was formerly the case. The builder seems often to\nrely on a small portable compass, which frequently is not corrected for\nthe variation of the needle.\n\nBy way of parenthesis, it may be noted that the lodges of Freemasons\nwere formerly orientated, and, although the rule is not always now\nfollowed in towns, where meeting places are numerous, yet the house of\nassembly is still called Orient, and, in the case of a grand lodge,\nGrand Orient. The explanation is that the Freemasons claimed to be\ndescended from the old ecclesiastical builders[494]. From the annals of\nFreemasonry we can also gather valuable information concerning the\nalinement of churches. In some of the Scotch lodges, there are said to\nexist documents which describe the actual method pursued. The site of\nthe altar having been decided upon, a pole was thrust into the ground,\nand a day appointed for the building to be commenced. \u201cOn the evening\nprevious, the Patrons, Ecclesiastics, and Masons assembled, and spent\nthe night in devotional exercises: one being placed to watch the rising\nof the sun, gave notice when his rays appeared above the horizon. When\nfully in view, the Master Mason sent out a man with a rod, which he\nranged in line between the altar and the sun, and thus fixed the line of\norientation[495].\u201d\n\nWordsworth refers to the ceremony in the following stanzas (he is\nalluding to the rising of the sun):\n\n    \u201cHe rose, and straight--as by divine command,\n     They, who had waited for that sign to trace\n     Their work\u2019s foundation, gave with careful hand\n     To the high Altar its determined place;\n     Mindful of Him, who in the Orient born,\n     There liv\u2019d, and on the Cross His life resign\u2019d,\n     And who, from out the regions of the morn\n     Issuing in pomp, shall come to judge mankind[496].\u201d\n\nIn passing, it will be noticed that Wordsworth seems to attach\nimportance to the fact that the Nativity took place in the East, as if\nthat were the reason for orientation.\n\nHaving seen that, in our day, the custom agrees faithfully with a\nformulated tradition, we will go back, and, pursuing the link-to-link\nmethod, strive to ascertain the origin of the idea. There existed a\nsound tradition in A.D. 1584, for, as already stated, Sir Walter Mildmay\ndeliberately broke with it. A French example will help to carry us on\nour way. During the fourteenth century the church of Saint-Beno\u00eet, in\nParis, had its grand altar turned towards the West, and hence bore the\nnickname of Saint-Beno\u00eet-mal-Tourn\u00e9, i.e. \u201cSanctus Benedictus male\nversus.\u201d The church was rebuilt during the reign of Francis I. (A.D.\n1515-47), when the altar was made to face East. The name, says M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9\nMigne, was consequently changed to Saint-Beno\u00eet-le-B\u00e9tourn\u00e9, which the\nnarrator claims as the equivalent of \u201cBene versus[497].\u201d It has been\nquestioned whether _b\u00e9tourn\u00e9_ does not really mean _mal-tourn\u00e9_[498],\nbut the point to be noticed is, that orientation, in the fuller sense,\nwas recognized in the early sixteenth century, and that even in the\nfourteenth, a true alinement was observed, though the altar was placed\nat the wrong end. M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9 Migne, indeed, asserts that orientation in\nFrance is known to date from the eleventh century at least[499]. Yet, in\nmodern times, the French practice has become very uncertain, and\nnumerous instances might be given of North-to-South alinements.\n\nWilliam Durand, commonly known under his Latinized name, Durandus, who\nwas born in Provence, in A.D. 1237, has some interesting remarks on\norientation. Following St Isidore, he connects the word _temple_ with\n_contemplate_, a kinship which recent lexicographers do not\ndiscountenance. While \u201ccontemplating,\u201d the worshippers must look towards\nthe East, and Durandus lays down the rule that the exact position should\nbe determined at the equinox. This would ensure that the sections of the\nbuilding to the right and left of the true East-and-West line should be\nequal. Thus would the Church Militant show that she behaved herself with\nmoderation, a virtue not symbolized when the median line is taken at the\nsolstice[500].\n\nDr Daniel Rock asserts that the Saxons built their churches\nEast-and-West, and numerous instances might readily be given to\nsubstantiate his statement. A specific example is cited by Dr Rock\nhimself. Wolstan, monk of Winchester (A.D. 990), speaks of a church\nbuilt by Bishop St Ethelwold (b. A.D. 908, d. 984) as pointing to the\nEast. Like Durandus, Dr Rock favoured the equinoctial East, and urged\nthat, in cases where the site was unfavourable, the East-and-West line\nshould be approached as nearly as possible. The chancel should face\nSouth-East rather than North-West, assuming that the axis must run in\nthat line[501]. This principle was formerly undoubtedly considered\nbinding. Brand, quoting from a history of Birmingham, tells how St\nBartholomew\u2019s chapel, in that city, \u201cveres toward the North,\u201d because\nthe ground space would admit of no other position. In planning St John\u2019s\nchapel, Deritend, Birmingham, the architect was so anxious to catch the\nEastern point, that he lost the line of the street, hence the writer\nhumorously adds that the designer sacrificed to the East[502]. Another\ninstance of an attempt to keep in harmony with Mediaeval teaching, is\nseen at Hornsey new church (p. 207 _supra_), which has its chancel at\nthe Southern end, in preference to the Northern.\n\nGranting that the Saxon churches show orientation, we are led to suppose\nthat the idea goes back still earlier, and this is confirmed by facts.\nIn the \u201cApostolical Constitutions,\u201d a document dating probably from the\nlatter part of the fourth century, it is ordained that the churches are\nto be built oblong, with the head to the East, and the congregation is\ndirected to pray Eastward[503]. So early as A.D. 472, there was a\ntradition that the Apostles turned towards the East in prayer[504]. Leo\nI., in A.D. 443, is found condemning the people for bowing to the rising\nsun as they stood on the steps in the Court of St Peter\u2019s[505]. St\nBasil, who flourished in the middle of the fourth century A.D., alludes\ndistinctly to the custom of turning towards the East in prayer[506].\nSeveral early writers might be quoted for corroborative testimony on\nthis point. The fourth Provincial Council of Milan (A.D. 1576), speaks\nof the practice of orientating churches as being usual and in accordance\nwith tradition (_antiquus mos et probata traditio_)[507]. Thus there is\ncumulative evidence, fairly satisfactory in character, of deference paid\nto the Eastern position, practically from the time when the Christians\nbegan to build their own churches[508].\n\nCertain pronouncements to the contrary, which, if accepted, are\ncalculated to weaken the force of these arguments, and to modify our\nviews on the general question of orientation, must not be withheld. For\nexample, Walcott asserts that orientation has never been a law of the\nChurch, and that it has probably an Eastern origin. He also points out\nthat, in Rome, the entrance to a Christian place of worship was\nfrequently at the East, and that the priest at the altar faced the\npeople[509]. The Romano-British church discovered at Silchester (see p.\n23 _supra_) must be noted as an instance of this kind of ground plan.\nThis \u201cbasilica,\u201d as proved by the foundations, had a Western apse, and\npresumably, therefore, a Western altar, the entrance being towards the\nEast. Fergusson, in his _Illustrated Handbook of Architecture_, affirms\nthat orientation is wholly a peculiarity of Northern or Gothic races,\nand that the Italians never knew or practised the custom; it is found\nonly where the inhabitants of an Italian district had been largely\nsuperseded by Gothic peoples[510]. Professor Baldwin Brown, again,\nasserts that \u201cthe Church of early times generally, and the Church of\nRome throughout,\u201d were indifferent to the practice of orientation. A\nfourth writer, whose opinion carries great weight, Professor E. B.\nTylor, deals with Jewish influence, and concludes that it was scarcely\neffective in establishing the principle of orientation in the course of\nEuropean history. He is rather of opinion that the rise of the Christian\ncustom is sufficiently accounted for by Asiatic sun-worshippers, such as\nthe Persians. The rite of orientation, he considers, was unknown to\nprimitive Christianity, and was developed within its first four\ncenturies[511].\n\nLet us examine these statements. That orientation has never been a law\nof the Church may be literally true. I can find no such obligation\nrecorded in works like Sir R. Phillimore\u2019s _Ecclesiastical Law_. Yet Dr\nRock refers to an authority, \u201cone deeply read in liturgical\nlore,\u201d--Bellotte, who pronounced him guilty of mortal sin who wilfully\nbuilt a church which was not directed towards the East[512]. Again, Mgr\nBarbier de Montault, while regretting that the canonists no longer make\norientation rigorously compulsory, observes that the rule, all the same,\nremains prescribed in the rubric of the Missal (\u201c_qui n\u2019en reste pas\nmoins inscrite dans la rubrique du Missel_\u201d)[513]. Above this, the\nevidence already adduced shows that the rule has had a very general\nacceptation in England since the Saxon period at least.\n\nThe churches of Rome, and indeed, of Italy as a whole, are admittedly\nirregular in their adherence to strict orientation. Yet even these\nchurches largely conform to the principle, in its wider sense of\nEast-to-West alinement. Very frequently, however, the second, and\nperhaps almost equally important part of the principle is ignored, that\nis, the altar is placed at the Western end, instead of at the Eastern.\nSt Peter\u2019s itself supplies a good example of this arrangement; other\ninstances are found in St John Lateran, San Paolo fuori le Mura, and Sta\nMaria Maggiore. In these churches, now often called basilicas, the\nentrance is at the East, and the sanctuary at the West[514]. Out of\nfifty early churches in Rome examined by Mr G. G. Scott, forty were\nfound to have the sanctuary at the West; of the remaining examples,\n\u201cthere are only seven which appear to have retained their original form\nand which have an Eastern sanctuary[515].\u201d Of the forty churches just\nmentioned, as of some later ones, it must be noted that the alinement is\nby no means true East-to-West, hence the epigram of the French wit:\n\u201c_Tout syst\u00e8me d\u2019orientation peut trouver son mod\u00e8le \u00e0 Rome_.\u201d\n\nTo leave the matter here would nevertheless convey a false impression.\nIt is credibly asserted that, in the cases where the altar is at the\nWestern extremity, the celebrant faces the East, thus taking the same\nrelative position personally as when, under a reverse arrangement, he\nturns his back on the congregation[516]. If, then, the axis of the\nchurch be situated East-to-West, and if the prayers be offered towards\nthe East, orientation cannot be truly said to be neglected: the relative\ndispositions of portico and altar become secondary considerations.\n\nDr Rock, with a manifest anxiety to reconcile the diversity of practice\nin Rome, submitted, as an explanation, that isolated basilicas (=\nChristian churches) grew up over narrow, lonely pagan grottos, or the\ngraves of martyrs, or sprang out of the halls of patrician\nconverts[517]. That many of the anomalous alinements may be thus\naccounted for is probable, but too much must not be made of this method\nof harmonizing contradictions. Other writers, like Fergusson, have urged\nthat the church was a basilica, or court of justice adapted to Christian\nworship. The word \u201cbasilica,\u201d by the way, is said not to have been used\nby writers or architects of Byzantine times[518]--a significant detail,\nif correct (cf. p. 151 _supra_). For it is contended that there is, in\nRome, no well-authenticated instance of the conversion of any pagan\nforensic basilica into a Christian church, though there are abundant\nexamples of pagan temples which became Christian sanctuaries[519]. The\nactual secular basilicas would generally be still required, and still\nemployed, century after century, for the transaction of legal business;\nthe heathen temples, now useless for their original purpose, would be\nadapted and consecrated by the teachers of the new faith. The Christians\nmost likely copied the basilican type of building for their\nmeeting-places because it offered the simplest and most economical plan\nof accommodating an immense body of worshippers[520].\n\nAn attempt has been made to evolve order out of chaos by supposing that,\nduring the early days of the Church, in some parts of the Empire, the\npriest stood on the Western side of the altar, namely, the side remote\nfrom the people, and that, during the celebrations, he looked towards\nthe East, over the heads of the worshippers. The body of the church thus\nlay to the East of the sanctuary, and the altar was interposed between\npriest and congregation. At a later date, for some unassigned reason,\nthe priest changed his position with respect to the altar, and stood\nwith his back to the people, hence the ground-plan of the building was\nmodified, so that the main entrance was fixed at the West, and the\nsanctuary at the East[521]. Thus the Eastward position of the priest\nwas the essential feature, not the position of the altar in the church.\n\nFergusson\u2019s dictum concerning the churches of Italy, however, need not\nbe accepted without demur. It has been endorsed by writers like Sir E.\nBeckett (Lord Grimthorpe)[522], but is considered by others to involve\noverstatement. Fergusson himself admits that, while it is only by\naccident that we find the rule observed in Pisa, Bologna, and Ferrara,\nyet in more Northerly (\u201cGerman\u201d) cities like Milan and Verona, the\norientation will be found correct nine times out of ten[523]. He\naccounts for the absence of orientation in the three first-named cities\nby supposing that in them the original population was not submerged by\n\u201cGothic races.\u201d Whatever may be the precise meaning which Fergusson\nattaches to this phrase is of little moment, for it is fairly certain,\nas we shall soon see, that the principle was put into practice by\npeoples to whom the term could by no licence be applied. Therefore, at\nany rate, the custom was not, as he believes, wholly a feature of the\nGothic builders. Let us recall the fact that seven out of fifty early\nchurches in Rome are carefully oriented. Link this with the fact that\nmany other ancient churches in that city are more or less accurately\nalined, and the conclusion is clear that the direction of the median\nline was rarely left to chance. This verdict is confirmed by an\nexamination of early Romanesque churches elsewhere. In Auvergne, for\ninstance, the present writer ascertained, by a careful use of the\ncompass, that oriented churches were very common, yet Gothic influence\nhas not, even in our day, penetrated that region to any considerable\nextent.\n\nProfessor Tylor\u2019s opinion that the Jews exercised little influence on\nthe development of the custom among the early Christians, claims great\nrespect and attention, because of the high authority which he deservedly\npossesses. Yet it may be doubted whether he has not under-estimated\nJewish influences, and over-estimated the effects of Jewish contact with\nthe Persians and other peoples living East of Palestine. In the first\nplace, one is led to conclude that Professor Tylor\u2019s argument is\nsomewhat weakened by the stress which is laid upon the differences of\nposition adopted in prayer, with respect to the sun. The Brahmans, we\nare told, pray towards the East, the Thugs towards the West. In the\nfirst case, the symbolism represents hope, the birth of life, the glory\nof the rising sun; in the antithesis of the second, the gloom and horror\nof death, typified by the departure of the life-giver. These\ndistinctions, though not trivial in themselves, and even less so in\ntheir later developments, seem to be largely obliterated by the very\nexistence of adoration performed sunwards. The essence of orientation,\nin its early stages, appears, if one may so express it, to consist in\nrespect paid to the sun. This deference is proved by the East-and-West\naxial line, as exemplified in primitive temples and monuments. Where the\naltar was at the Western end, the sun\u2019s rays fell on the sacred object\nthrough the Eastern doors at sunrise. As the centuries pass by, we still\nfind rival opinions as to the proper positions for the altar or other\nsacred object. The alinement is agreed upon, but the question arises,\nShall the sanctuary be East or West?\n\nNow do we not find noticeable traces of the solar idea in the Hebrew\nScriptures, with a certain tendency, moreover, to the adoption of the\nEastern rather than the Western position? The Tabernacle of Moses and\nthe Temple of Solomon had their entrances towards the East, and in each\nbuilding the Holy of Holies was at the West. There was also an Eastern\nporch to Herod\u2019s Temple[524]. The student of the Bible and the Apocrypha\nwill be familiar with numerous passages, which, without any wresting\nfrom the context, appear to contain the germ of the idea of\norientation[525], displayed in respect paid to prayer at sunrise. In the\nWisdom of Solomon, xvi. 28, these words occur, \u201cWe must prevent the sun\nto give thee thanks, and at the dayspring pray to thee.\u201d Language of a\nvery similar kind is found in more than one of the Psalms. It is\nundeniable that repeated attempts were made by the monotheistic Hebrews\nto prevent adoration of the sun. The practice is implicitly forbidden in\nthe Second Commandment, and expressly in such passages as Deut. iv. 19.\nWhy should these prohibitions have been necessary, unless the Jews were\nprone, in this matter as in some others, either to copy pagan rites, or\nto follow primal instincts inherited from forefathers among whom solar\nworship was common? Ezekiel was horror-stricken at the sight of the\nfive-and-twenty men who worshipped the sun with their backs toward the\nTemple and their faces toward the East[526]. Josiah found it necessary\nto put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained\nto burn incense to Baal, and to the sun, moon, and planets; the\n\u201cchariots of the sun\u201d he burned with fire[527]. The attention paid to\ndirection in offering one\u2019s prayers is illustrated again by the case of\nDaniel. Domiciled in a heathen land, he prayed with his face towards\nJerusalem, although that city lies West, and not East, of Babylon[528].\nTo look again toward the Holy Temple was the prayer uttered by Jonah\nwhen in the belly of the fish[529]. In short, prayer offered towards\nJerusalem was actually recommended, if not stipulated, by Solomon, as a\ncondition of success in warfare[530]. The Jews, in later times, seem\nalways to have been zealous in obeying the precept, though it is not\nrecorded that they carry a compass with them for the purpose, as the\nMohammedans are said to do[531].\n\nThe Book of Job contains a remarkable and enlightening passage\nconcerning sun-worship. Protesting his integrity, the patriarch says:\n\u201cIf I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;\nAnd my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my\nhand: This also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge[532].\u201d Now,\nthe ancient Greeks used to kiss their hands as an act of worship to the\nsun, and Tertullian had to complain that even Christians would move\ntheir lips toward the sunrise, as if affecting adoration[533]. Grimm\nsays that Teutonic peoples would swear an oath by the sun, stretching\nout their hands to the all-seeing god[534].\n\nA moment\u2019s pause may be made to notice a remarkable parallel, suggested\nby Barclay. On the one side, we have the stretching out vertically of\nthe separated fingers. On the other, as Barclay observes, we have the\nfive large trilithons of the outer \u201chorsehoe\u201d of Stonehenge, graduated\nso that the central one corresponds to the middle finger of the hand,\nand the other trilithons to the other fingers, each to each. Similarly,\nif the fingers are brought together so as to form a circle, we get the\nsymbol employed in the sacred salute to the sun[535]. Barclay\u2019s\ncomparisons may be fanciful, but who shall deny their aptness? We cannot\nforget the symbolism adopted in the Greek and Latin churches when the\nBenediction is pronounced. Even a temporary assent to Barclay\u2019s\nhypothesis leads us to ask further, Whence came the custom of shading\nthe face with the hands when the worshipper is engaged in prayer? Did\nthe habit originate in protecting the eyes from the sun during the act\nof supplication?\n\nBut to return: we have seen that sun-worship, and prayer offered towards\nthe East, or towards a hallowed site, are abundantly illustrated in the\nOld Testament. Again, if the Jews did not practise orientation in our\nspecific sense of the word, they observed an East-to-West system in\nplanning their chief place of worship. The older generations of Jews, at\nleast, could not have been ignorant of orientation. As bondmen in Egypt,\nthey must have become acquainted with the principle. In Canaan, they\nwere subjected, as Professor Tylor states, to the influences of solar\nworship on all sides. Their heathen neighbours, the Phoenicians, bowed\nthemselves to Baal, the Ammonites offered sacrifices to Molech, and the\nSyrians worshipped the god Hadad[536].\n\nIf the probabilities favour a knowledge of the idea of orientation among\nthe Jews of the Old Testament times, reason must be shown for the\nassumption of a complete break between the ancient practice and the\ncustoms of the Apostolic period. For primitive Christianity was not only\nin great measure developed from, but was a fulfilment of, the older\nJudaism. The \u201cSun of Righteousness\u201d in Malachi has its counterpart in\nthe \u201cDay spring from on high\u201d of St Luke, the \u201cDay star\u201d of the Second\nEpistle of Peter, and the \u201cMorning star\u201d of the Apocalypse[537]. The\n\u201cLight of the World,\u201d or some variant of the phrase, occurs again and\nagain. While, therefore, it would be folly to force these figurative\nexpressions too far, it would equally be a mistake to overlook them.\nThere is a possibility, then, of an early Christian as well as a Hebraic\ngroundwork for subsequent developments of orientation. Perhaps the\nlesson was soon reinforced by Christian contact with converts from\npaganism, for, as already shown, we do not get far into the Christian\nera before we meet with oriented churches and the custom of praying\ntowards the East. During the rite of baptism, too, as we learn from St\nJerome, the candidate turned towards the West to renounce the devil, and\nthen faced East to confess allegiance to Christ[538].\n\nThis specific inquiry may now be dropped, yet a brief survey of\nreligions and races other than the Jewish will not only elucidate the\nsubject generally, but will cast a light back on the question which we\nare leaving. We are informed, on good authority, that, in the Holy\nEastern Church, orientation is \u201cuniversal through Asia as well as\nEurope[539].\u201d Again, with respect to the ancient Coptic churches of\nEgypt, it is asserted by Butler that the entrance is \u201calmost invariably\ntowards, if not in, the Western side, while the sanctuaries lie always\non the Eastern[540].\u201d This authority suggests that the early Christians\nmay have derived the practice of orientation from Egypt. The ancient\nEgyptian temples afford wide scope for discussion. Sir J. Norman Lockyer\nand other workers have arranged these temples in groups according to\ntheir orientation. One temple, at Karnak, is said to be so planned that\nit acts as a gigantic telescope which allows a two minutes\u2019 flash at the\nsummer solstice, when the building is found to be accurately\noriented[541]. Other temples are so alined that, on the anniversary of\nthe dedication, the rays of the sun fall on the innermost sanctuary, and\nlight up the statues placed therein. The sanctuaries, it should be\nexplained, are situated at the Western end, so that the sun\u2019s beams\nwould shine through the Eastern entrance. Other groups of structures\nmay, perhaps, exhibit \u201corientation\u201d to Sirius, Spica, Capella, and so\non[542]. The evidence goes to show that considerable nicety of\nobservation was required to get the true axis; probably this was done\neither by watching the shadow cast by a vertical object when the sun was\non the meridian, by stretching a cord between two stakes, carefully\nalined, or by keeping a standard line constantly directed towards the\nNorth Pole of the heavens. It has just been stated that Egyptian temples\nare sources of much controversy, and it would be unwise to attempt\nfurther to make clear one complicated question by introducing another\nfully as perplexing. Merely observing, then, that Sir Norman Lockyer\nhas submitted evidence to show that the orientation of Egyptian temples\ninfluenced the temples of Greece, a country which he believes to\nrepresent a transitional stage of the custom[543], we again turn our\nattention to English churches.\n\nThe first obvious fact to demand notice is that few of our churches face\nthe true equinoctial East. Over sixty years ago a series of Norfolk\nchurches was examined, when it was found that, at West Beckham, the axis\nwas due East; at St Peter\u2019s, Bampton, so much as 20\u00b0 North of East; and\nin a number of other examples the discrepancies varied from 5\u00b0 to\n8\u00b0[544]. In 1856, a paper was read by the Rev. W. Airy, in which he\nstated that, among churches which he had inspected, there were hundreds\ndeviating between 5\u00b0 and 10\u00b0 from the true East, six or seven diverged\nabove 20\u00b0, and one more than 30\u00b0[545]. The late Mr T. W. Shore, whose\nknowledge of Hampshire was very comprehensive and thorough, found that a\nline about 20\u00b0 North of East was favoured in that county, about seventy\nchurches having this inclination[546]. If, then, we assume, for the\nmoment, that the orientation was taken from the rising sun on the day\nwhen the building was commenced, the Hampshire figures would indicate\nthat operations were usually begun either about a month after the vernal\nequinox or a month before the autumnal equinox. This conclusion must not\nbe finally accepted without inquiry. From an old map known as John\nLeake\u2019s _Exact Surveigh_ (1667), it has been found that hardly any two\ncity churches then existing agreed in their axes, nor with the true\nEast-to-West line. Such is the assertion made in Smith\u2019s _Old Topography\nof London_, but I doubt whether the map, which one may see in the\nLibrary of the British Museum, will bear the strictest tests. The\nauthority just cited affirms that he made minute measurements for his\nplan of Westminster and discovered that even such close neighbours as\nWestminster Abbey, St Margaret\u2019s, and St Catherine\u2019s in the Little\nCloister, vary many points from each other[547]. Sir Henry Chauncy had\nnoticed similar variations in Hertfordshire at the close of the\nsixteenth century, and had explained them on the theory of seasonal\nalinement just given[548]. It is needless to adduce further examples:\nlet the student take a carefully adjusted compass, and test a number of\nchurches for himself. Like the present writer, he will find that he\nrarely meets with a chancel which faces exactly East.\n\nIf we scan the pages of works on ecclesiology and symbolism we shall\nfind hypotheses regarding orientation in great abundance. Whether or not\nthe Christian practice came directly from Jewish antecedents, concerning\nwhich question, as we have seen, there is a doubt, its ultimate origin\nmust be sought among pagan peoples. Yet the old authors were mainly\nunaware of these beginnings, and they, like the common folk, were driven\nto invent secondary explanations. And it may well be that the subsidiary\nbeliefs were, at certain periods, fully effective--that builders did\norient churches for this or that symbolical reason, unconscious\nmeanwhile of a deeper cause which lay behind, rooted in past heathenism\nand strengthened by long prescription.\n\nAs we follow the tortuous threads of Mediaeval and later traditions, it\nbecomes plain that some of the clues may be dropped as valueless. Thus,\nbecause the Tabernacle and the Temple had each the Holy Place towards\nthe West, and because the Jews turned their faces thitherward in prayer,\nsome writers have ingeniously supposed that the early Christians adopted\nthe opposite arrangement, in order to mark the advent of the new Gospel.\nIn like manner, urge these writers, the Day of Rest was changed from the\nseventh to the first day of the week[549]. This hypothesis respecting\norientation, born in the study of the mystic, is too whimsical and\nlacking in proof to be seriously considered.\n\nTwo of the early Fathers submit that, since Christ, while on the Cross,\nlooked towards the West, His followers should therefore turn towards the\nEast to seek His face[550]. Another view is that, at the Second Advent,\nChrist will appear from the East, hence worship and regard should be\npaid towards that point of the heavens. The East was the traditional\ncradle of the human family; the Magi came from the East; in that\nquarter, relatively to Western Christendom, Christ was born, and from\nthat quarter He ascended to heaven. To the East lies the traditional\nland to which we return after life\u2019s pilgrimage[551]. St Basil had a\ncurious theory that ancient churches were built towards the equinoctial\nEast in order that worshippers might face the Garden of Eden, the\nterrestrial Paradise. As Reusens puts it, \u201c_nous devons tourner nos\nregards vers le paradis terrestre que Dieu planta \u00e0 Eden vers\nl\u2019orient_[552].\u201d The last of these esoteric explanations worth\nmentioning is that the devout have always been anxious to look towards\nJerusalem in prayer; hence altars are built to face that quarter. To\nthis plea, Dr Neale replies that orientation in the Eastern Church is as\ndistinctly an Asiatic as a European practice, hence the idea is\nself-contradictory[553].\n\nHere we encounter a kind of side-theory which has long been a favourite\nwith liturgical writers. It will be remembered that Durandus laid down\nthe ideal rule of building so as to face the equinoctial East. But we\nhave also seen that this counsel of perfection has been little heeded.\nThe obvious explanation of the exceptions is that the sun\u2019s varying\ndaily position has resulted in diversity of alinement. The obvious,\nhowever, not always being the true, other reasons have been sought, and\nother theories formulated. Hence arose the attractive \u201cSaint\u2019s Day\ntheory,\u201d to the effect that the axis of the building depended on the\npoint of sunrise which corresponded to the day of the patron saint to\nwhom the church was dedicated. So far as I am aware, the idea is not\ntraceable, in writing, earlier than the middle of the seventeenth\ncentury, but this origin may perchance be pushed backward as the\nquestion is further studied. The following account may supply a clue.\n\nSilas Taylor, otherwise Silas Domville, was a captain in the\nParliamentary army, who later devoted himself to antiquarian pursuits.\nCareless in money matters, he died in debt, and his manuscripts were\nsold by his creditors at his death, in A.D. 1678. One manuscript\ncontains this passage: \u201cIn the days of yore, when a church was to be\nbuilt, they watched and prayed on the vigil of the dedication, and took\nthat point of the horizon where the sun arose from the East, which makes\nthat variation, so that few [churches] stand true, except those built\nbetween the two equinoxes. I have experimented (_sic_) some churches,\nand have found the line to point to that part of the horizon where the\nsun arises on the day of that Saint to whom the church is\ndedicated[554].\u201d Noting, incidentally, that the expression, \u201cbetween the\ntwo equinoxes,\u201d is evidently a slip, and that the writer means \u201cat the\ntwo equinoxes,\u201d we are struck by the likeness between this account and\nthat which is credited to the old Masonic lodges. The Saint\u2019s Day theory\nis merely an amplification of the earlier Masonic idea, a specific\npractical mode of orientation being introduced.\n\nThe theory just given has been productive of an abiding controversy. It\nhas been sanctioned by several authorities, among others by Sir Norman\nLockyer[555]. But, although the subject will bear deeper investigation,\nthere is already sufficient evidence available to prove that the theory\nis faulty. There exist well-established cases of variation which cannot\nbe forced under the rule. Again, some saints have several festivals\nallotted to them: St Nicholas has two, St Martin three, St John four,\nSt Peter five, St Mary the Virgin eight[556]. Suppose, moreover, the\ncase of an ancient church dedicated, we will say, to St Barnabas, and\nfurther assume that the present-day observer examines the orientation\nand finds it correct for the day of that saint, June 11th. The theory\nwould still fail, since, by an Act of Parliament passed in the year\n1752, eleven days were omitted from the calendar, and the orientation\nwould, by the hypothesis, have been taken on May 30th. In considering\nancient churches, therefore, the change in reckoning must be allowed for\nat the start. To meet the necessities of such an example as that\nproposed, it must also be granted that the advice of Durandus to build\nat the equinox was not generally followed. But we have seen that the\nfacts are in accord with such an assumption, so that this minor\nobjection falls to the ground. Once more; arguing from the fact that the\nvillage feast, which is usually held on the Saint\u2019s Day, does not always\ncoincide with the dedication festival, Mr Airy concluded that the theory\nunder consideration was invalid. Without prejudicing the general\nverdict, we notice that this contention is impaired by evidence which\nproves that the dates of many village feasts have, at various times,\nbeen changed to suit local convenience (cf. p. 191 _supra_).\n\nA more damaging argument is supplied by Mr Airy\u2019s assertion that he had\nnever met with one church pointing to the place of sunrise between the\n1st of May and the 9th of August[557]. If this testimony were\nunassailable, it would seem to indicate at least an approximation to the\nrule of Durandus--a pushing back of building operations towards early\nspring (March 22nd) or forwards to autumn (Sept. 22nd). Unfortunately,\nwe do not know the church which, according to Mr Airy, has a deflection\nof 30\u00b0; unless it be situated in the Northern part of Britain it must\nfall between the 1st of May and the 9th of August. One cannot agree with\nMr Airy\u2019s contentions that festival orientation involved too great a\nknowledge of the variation of sunrise, that the \u201cancients\u201d [apparently\nthe Mediaeval builders] did not observe such \u201crefinements,\u201d that they\nhad no idea of the sun\u2019s movements \u201cin his course Northward and\nSouthward to the \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ae\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u201d [the solstices]. On the contrary, we\nbelieve that from very early times rough observations of this kind must\nhave been taken with some frequency. The possession of this knowledge by\nour forefathers does not, of course, prove the case for the Saint\u2019s Day\ntheory. But between the idea of dedication alinements and Mr Airy\u2019s\nconclusion that the variations are accidental, and represent attempts to\nmake the fabrics bear to the East as nearly as possible, there is room\nfor a middle opinion. Should Domville\u2019s assertion prove true, then,\nwhatever may have been the practice of the early Fathers, the Mediaeval\nbuilders were imbued with the symbolism of festival dedication and\nalinement, and would not fail to give effect to their ideal. Granted\nthat this practice cuts at the root of the equinoctial precept, there is\nyet a possibility that, as with so many other customs, uniformity was\nnever attained. Exceptions alone, numerous though they be, do not\ndisprove the theory altogether. A smaller number of positive cases would\nhave force against them. I incline to the belief that the Mediaeval\nbuilders followed partially the Saint\u2019s Day principle--perhaps invented\nit--and that a limited list of churches may conform to the idea. If John\nLeake\u2019s map, already mentioned, be really accurate, the various City\nchurches dedicated to St Mary have approximately parallel axes, and this\nevidence, so far as it goes, would be confirmatory. That the explanation\ncovers even the majority of instances is very doubtful. And, at most, it\naccounts only for the symbolism which produced variations of the axial\nline, and for the actual routine of the builders. The master reason for\norientation, whether equinoctial or solstitial, is to be sought, as we\nhave seen, in much more primitive times.\n\nA modern theory, propounded by Herr H. Wehner, to account for discordant\naxes of buildings, is based upon the belief that the early Freemasons\nfor centuries possessed, and kept secret, a knowledge of the polarity of\nthe magnetic needle. Should it be ultimately proved that the builders\nemployed the magnetic compass, it is urged that we shall have, in the\ncase of dated churches, a key to the variation of the needle, and,\nconversely, for those churches whose date is unknown, a guide to their\nage[558]. That other folk, besides the Freemasons, were acquainted with\nthe compass, is indisputable. A commonly received opinion is, that the\nmariner\u2019s compass was introduced to Europe from China about the twelfth\ncentury, probably through the medium of the Arabs[559]. Strong evidence\nhas, however, been produced to show that the instrument was discovered\nindependently, or \u201cre-discovered,\u201d in Europe. Among other writers who\nrefer unequivocally to the compass is the Englishman, Alexander Neckham\n(died A.D. 1217), whose description of its properties, as given in two\nLatin treatises, is unmistakeable[560]. Hence, from the early thirteenth\ncentury, and perhaps much before that time, the compass may have been\nused. But were the builders cognizant of the declination of the needle,\nand did they make allowance for it? This is extremely improbable.\nIndeed, it is authoritatively stated that the variation with which we\nare familiar was discovered by Stephen Burrowes (A.D. 1525-84), when\nvoyaging between the North Cape of Finmark and Vaigatch[561]. This\nvoyage would give a date of about the year 1553. The determinations were\nafterwards made by Gillebrand, who was professor of geometry at Gresham\nCollege[562].\n\nIf, then, the compass had been employed by masons previous to A.D. 1553,\nwe should have expected, from their ignorance of its declination,\nconsiderable diversities of alinement. For the changes in declination\nhave been very remarkable. Particulars are available dating from the\nyear 1580. In that year, the needle pointed 11\u00b0 15\u00b4 E.; in 1622, the\nangle was 6\u00b0 E.; while in 1657, there was no declination. By the year\n1692, a swing of 6\u00b0 W. had been attained, this rose to 24\u00b0 41\u00b4 W. in\n1818, from which time the variation has steadily diminished[563]. These\nfigures show that from 1580 to 1818 the needle has varied in London by\nso large an angle as 36\u00b0 (approx.), and one may reasonably suppose that\nduring the two or three centuries preceding there were similar\nalterations. The use of the compass, together with ignorance of its\ndeclination, would therefore supply a very prosaic explanation of\ndifferences in the axial line of churches.\n\nOne further attempt at solution may be mentioned. The Rev. J. Griffith,\nas the result of examinations of ancient megalithic monuments, has\nsubmitted that the stones were erected in such positions in order to\ngive a three weeks\u2019 warning of the coming equinox or solstice (cf. p.\n192 _supra_). Arguing from this assumption, and citing the alinements of\nchurches in corroboration, he suggests that a similar interval of\npreparation was provided for in the orientation of some churches. As a\nrule--he refers evidently to Welsh examples--the older churches are\nfound to be oriented for May and November, then come buildings alined\nfor the equinox. \u201cI find,\u201d he says, \u201cN. 76\u00b0 or 77\u00b0 E., and N. 80\u00b0 or 81\u00b0\nE., to be rather common orientations[564].\u201d [These figures refer to\nazimuths; subtracting the number of degrees from 90\u00b0, we get the\n\u201camplitudes,\u201d 13\u00b0 or 14\u00b0 N. and 9\u00b0 or 10\u00b0 N., respectively. In other\nwords, Mr Griffith found that many churches are alined at these angles\nNorth of East.] With these figures we may compare those of Hampshire,\nalready given. The inference to be drawn from the Welsh churches is that\nthe builders there commenced work at dates rather nearer the equinoxes\nthan did their contemporaries of the South of England. Mr Griffith\u2019s\ninterpretation gives us a theory within a theory, and requires much\nfurther study and observation before it can be accepted.\n\nThis chapter must not close without an allusion to those curious\nexamples of churches in which the axes of nave and chancel do not\ncorrespond, but point to different points of the horizon. Such cases are\noften loosely described under the general term, \u201corientation,\u201d but\neither they really represent double orientations, or, as some contend,\nthe buildings were purposely constructed with an angular twist. The\nsubject is usually treated as if the problem merely concerned the\nchancel, consequently, in works on ecclesiology, and in the\nsemi-popular language of architects and antiquaries, a church possessing\nthe feature now under consideration is described as having a \u201cweeping,\u201d\n\u201ctwisted,\u201d \u201cdeflected,\u201d or \u201cskew chancel.\u201d Manifestly, these expressions\nbeg the question, for, unless it can be proved that nave and chancel are\nof the same age, and that the Eastern limb was purposely deflected, or\nthat it was deflected at some subsequent re-building, it is possible\nthat the nave is the portion which has been mis-alined. Hence we might\nequally well speak of a \u201cweeping nave.\u201d The matter is nevertheless\nunimportant, so long as we do not tacitly allow the popular term to hide\nthe possibility of a re-building or a re-orienting of either limb of the\nchurch. By that one phrase, \u201cweeping chancel,\u201d we might be led to credit\nthe old builders with ideas of which they were utterly unconscious, just\nas\n\n              \u201cLearned commentators view\n    In Homer more than Homer knew.\u201d\n\nGlancing down the columns of a convenient note-book, one observes, as\nfamous examples of deflected buildings, Lichfield cathedral, which leans\nto the North, and Canterbury, Ely, and York cathedrals, which incline to\nthe South. Other cases of Northern deflection are Brent Pelham,\nHertfordshire (\u201cseveral degrees North of East\u201d); St Michael\u2019s, Coventry;\nSt Mary\u2019s, York; North Curry, Somerset; St Mary\u2019s, Bridlington, and\nWhitby Abbey[565].\n\nThe instances of deflections towards the South are much more numerous in\nthis country. My list includes Bishopstone and Bosham, Sussex; St\nMary\u2019s, Coventry; Holy Trinity, Stratford; Priory church, Tynemouth;\nWest Malling, Kent; St Andrew\u2019s, Lammas, Norfolk (15\u00b0); Chipstead and\nMickleham, Surrey, and many others. Further lists have been compiled\nfrom various sources, but, as the direction of the twist is not usually\nspecified, it would serve no purpose to reproduce the whole catalogue.\n\nExamples of unsymmetrical churches abound on the Continent, but the\ndeflection of these is usually to the North. The Southern bend is not\nunknown, however, for it is found in the cathedral choirs of Geneva and\nStuttgart. Some French chancels even, contrary to common belief, lean to\nthe South. Speaking of the deflection of French churches, M. J. K.\nHuysmans, in his romance, _La Cath\u00e9drale_, says, \u201cThis twist in the\nchurch is to be seen almost everywhere--in St Jean at Poitiers, at Tours\nand at Reims[566].\u201d M. de Caumont observed the Northerly deflection in\nmore than a hundred churches of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,\nthe examples being widely scattered[567]. The deviation, in the case of\nBayonne cathedral, is at once noticed by the visitor; Mr Baring-Gould\nclaims this irregularity as the result of English domination and English\narchitects[568].\n\nReturning to our own churches, we find it necessary to clear the ground\nsomewhat. On the one hand, we have the estimate given by the able\neditors of Durandus, to the effect that probably about one quarter of\nour English churches have a deflection, and that it is usually towards\nthe South[569]. The present writer dare not hazard the opinion that the\nproportion is so high, but he feels convinced that the instances are too\nnumerous to be explainable by chance. But consider an experience of an\nopposite kind. About a dozen years ago, Mr G. Watson, of Penrith, stated\nthat he had examined the plans of nearly four hundred churches as shown\non the Ordnance maps, and found either no deflection at all, or, at\nmost, a trifling variation[570]. Precisely what constitutes a trifling\nvariation we are not told, though it may be freely admitted that the\nangle is often very slight. Thus, Mr W. J. Maxton and myself found that\nthe Lady Chapel of St Saviour\u2019s, Southwark, inclined but a degree or two\nEast of the nave, yet surely, even this trivial deflection could have\nbeen avoided by the architect, had it been desired. It has been\nasserted, apparently with some reason, that York cathedral, already\ncited as a \u201cleaning\u201d edifice, has no deflection[571], and to this the\nreply has been given that the variation would be obvious on a good\nground-plan[572]. There is no need to argue about these examples in\ndetail, because there exist sufficient cases of undisputed deflection.\n\nThe \u201cskew chancel\u201d is not confined to one epoch. Yet it is submitted\nthat we have no marked examples before A.D. 1200. The feature is most\nobservable in churches of the time of Edward III. It is said to be\ndoubtful whether any instance could be adduced from the Renaissance\nperiod of building; the apparent exception in the church St Mary\nMagdalen, Taunton, being of later date[573]. That the feature has a\ncertain fixity is shown in the case of St Aldate, Oxford, where it\nexists in spite of the restoration made in 1863[574]. A late example of\nthe \u201ctwisted\u201d ground-plan, which is valueless as regards the present\ndiscussion, occurs in St Peter\u2019s of the Vatican. Here we have a\ndeflection of some feet, due to an architect\u2019s blunder, when the Greek\ncross was formed into a Latin one by prolonging the nave[575].\n\nAdmitting, as we are compelled by the facts to admit, that there exist\nmany undoubted examples of skew chancels, we next look for an\ninterpretation. Two schools of thought, the symbolist and the\nrationalist, are soon encountered. The case presented by the rationalist\ngroup of authorities may be thus summarized; deflection is the result\neither of carelessness or of differences in the dates of building the\nnave and the chancel respectively. We will consider first the\nexplanation involved in the question of dates. It is generally believed\nthat the choir of a church was often consecrated as soon as it was\ncompleted, the consecration of the nave or vestibule being held over\nuntil that part of the building was, in turn, ready for use. For\ninstance, as Mr Parker pointed out, the Norman choir and transepts of\nthe earlier Westminster Abbey are known to have been consecrated in\nA.D. 1065, but the nave, if one were ever added, was probably not\nfinished until the twelfth century. Separate alinements may, in such\ncases, have been set out, and slight errors have been made during the\noperation. Again, in some of the churches which show inharmonious\nalinements, the nave and the choir manifestly belong to different\nepochs, one or other portion having been rebuilt. The architect of the\nlater period unconsciously took an orientation which deviated from the\nfirst axis, or, according to the alternative view, he was actually\nunable to make the axes correspond. If we assume that he employed a\nmagnetic compass, there is a third possibility of error in the variation\nof that instrument. But all these hypothetical causes of miscalculation\nare removed if we attach weight to a simple suggestion which has been\nmade by one or two writers. It is submitted that the axis of the nave or\nthe choir, whichever portion was already standing, would probably be\nhidden from the mason\u2019s view, through the temporary blocking up of the\nchancel arch. This might render harmonious alinement a task of some\ndifficulty[576]. It has been averred that every case of deflection\noccurs in a church which has been partially rebuilt; hence the lack of\nagreement. It is difficult to say whether this statement is absolutely\ncorrect, but it seems to be true in many instances. Even so, why are the\nmisalinements practically confined to re-buildings of the thirteenth and\nfourteenth centuries?\n\nAgain, it is asserted that many cases of deflection were discovered only\nwhen, in modern times, the rood-screen was, for one reason or another,\ntaken down. In such instances, it is argued, the mason would have his\nstandard line concealed while setting out the new section of the\nbuilding. But, as we shall shortly see, this fact about the rood-screen\nmay be interpreted in another way. If we accept the Saint\u2019s Day theory,\nthere remains the possibility of error due to the re-dedication, or\nplural dedication, of churches. The difference might then conceivably\noriginate without any re-building of the fabric. Mr Airy cites the case\nof Clapham, Bedfordshire. A better known example, possibly, is found in\nWhitby Abbey. The building, as a whole, is dedicated to St Peter and St\nHilda jointly--a fact proved by the Abbey seal. St Peter\u2019s Day is on\nthe 29th of June, and St Hilda\u2019s on the 25th of August[577]; it was\ntherefore tentatively submitted that there have been two dedications for\nthe existing building. At this point we are thrown back on the\n\u201ctwo-period\u201d theory, for the Abbey choir dates from the late twelfth\ncentury, while the nave, which is considered to be the deflected limb,\nbelongs to the mid-fourteenth century. Yet why should the axis of the\nnave lie nine feet North of the choir line? Canon Atkinson, who\ncarefully investigated this example, expressed the result thus: the axis\nof the nave diverges from true East and West by 14\u00b0\u00b75, that of the choir\nby 9\u00b0\u00b77. He adds this statement: \u201cThat it was planned so requires no\nelaborate proof[578].\u201d The parish church of Whitby, St Mary\u2019s, which is\nhard by, and which belongs to the twelfth century, runs exactly parallel\nto the Abbey choir. Why, again, assuming the theory of separate\ndedications, should the nave be assigned to one saint, and the choir to\nanother[579]?\n\nThis query leads us to consider, for a moment, the subject of dedication\nto two, or even three patron saints. Miss Frances Arnold-Forster, in her\n_Studies in Church Dedications_, suggests several reasons for \u201ctwofold\nascriptions[580].\u201d The two names may represent that of the founder and\nthat of the patron saint. The Lady chapel or chancel may have been\nplaced under the invocation of one patron, and the rest of the building\nunder another. Or, the founder may have deliberately intended to have a\ndual dedication. Again, when a church was rebuilt and re-dedicated, a\nnew name may have taken its place alongside the old; such re-naming is\nthought to have been of frequent occurrence, especially in Cornwall.\nLastly, the double dedication may be due to the union and consolidation\nof two parishes, as is the case with the large majority of our City\nchurches.\n\nNow, with respect to Whitby, we seem to have obtained a clue to the\ndedication difficulty, at least. The Rev. Canon G. Austen, Rector of\nWhitby, informs me that the Saxon Abbey was dedicated to St Peter alone.\nThough somewhat contrary to popular belief, it must be accepted as a\nproof that the ascription to St Hilda was a later addition. Let us\nsuppose that St Hilda\u2019s name was introduced at one or other of the\nrebuildings of the Abbey; and let us assume that there was a second\nformal dedication. This admission does not, perforce, imply our\nacceptance of the Saint\u2019s Day theory as explaining the discordant\nalinements. Else we should expect to find many more cases of deflection\namong the churches with double dedications. Nor, again, does the fact of\nre-dedication necessarily support the notion that the builder was\nincapable of setting out a straight line. In short, the solution\ntendered enforces the very difficulties which it professes to dispel. If\nit can be clearly shown beyond dispute how the Mediaevalists obtained\ntheir axial line, then the theory that the misalinement is the result of\nre-dedication will have to be faced seriously. Until that time comes,\nthe theory is little more than a fair surmise. As a slight contribution\nto the inquiry, and as a possible instance of the architect\u2019s\nincapacity, the case of Leatherhead parish church may be cited. Here the\ntower is deflected about 3\u00b4\u00b76\u00b4\u00b4 from the axis of the nave, while the\nnave diverges from the chancel. The church is dedicated to St Mary and\nSt Nicholas, but whether there is further connection between the two\nfacts is uncertain. It was a visit to this church which led Dr J. C. Cox\nto refer to \u201csymbolic absurdity,\u201d and the \u201cleaning-head\u201d theory as being\npropounded by \u201cill-instructed persons.\u201d His own explanation of the\ndivergences is twofold: the \u201cendeavours to obtain the true East at\ndiffering periods of the year,\u201d and \u201cthe well-known carelessness of\nMediaeval builders in following out a true square[581].\u201d\n\nWe next consider the arguments of the symbolists. Several solutions are\noffered by these authorities, though there is no great divergence of\nfundamental ideas. The favourite explanation, as just hinted, is that\nChrist, while on the Cross, faced Westwards, and that His head leaned\ntowards the left, or South side. Another school teaches that the\ninclination was to the North, and, as we have already seen, such\nContinental churches as have varying axes, are deflected towards that\npoint. In roods, it may be noted, the head is usually made to fall\ntowards the left[582]. The \u201cleaning-head\u201d theory was accepted by Dr\nRock. M. Huysmans has evidently paid so much attention to this phase of\nthe question that he may be again quoted. Describing the fine abbey\nchurch of Preuilly-sur-Claise, in Touraine, he declares that the\nbuilders gave life to the stones. In its serpentine line, in the\nperspective of its aisles, and the obliquity of its vaulting, the church\ngives an allegorical presentment of Our Lord on the Cross, and\nperpetuates \u201cthe never-to-be-forgotten moment between the \u2018Sitio\u2019 and\nthe \u2018Consummatum est\u2019[583].\u201d M. Huysmans mentions, with reserve, the\nopinion of some writers, that the bent line occasionally represents the\nbody of a saint instead of that of the Saviour; thus the curved axis of\nSt Savin is supposed to be symbolical of the wheel which was the\ninstrument of martyrdom of the saint[584].\n\nThere are not lacking authorities who, like Dr Cox, spurn these theories\nas idle fancies. \u201cSymbolism!\u201d exclaimed Welby Pugin, when viewing a\ntwisted chancel in Leicestershire, \u201cPack of nonsense: it was because\nthey didn\u2019t know how to build straight[585].\u201d This summary verdict, told\nby a person who heard it delivered, may, however, be countered by an\nopinion in the opposite sense, uttered by the same architect, and\nequally well attested. Asked about the bend in the nave at Whitby Abbey,\nwhich has just been mentioned, Pugin declared that it signified that the\ndebt of redemption had been paid; \u201cfor, after the Saviour had expired on\nthe Cross, his head would naturally lean or incline to one side[586].\u201d\nWhich of Pugin\u2019s two opinions is the earlier cannot be ascertained, but\neven if antagonism to the \u201cleaning head\u201d theory were representative of\nhis maturer judgement, he surely could not pretend that the deflection\ncan always be ascribed to a blunder. Mr Parker himself, who advanced the\ntheory that the twist might be due to the consecration of a building\nbefore its completion, admitted that many cases of deflection are\nincapable of a constructional explanation[587]. One may well ask whether\nthe architects who reared our magnificent Gothic cathedrals, edifices\nwhose every part, when untouched by the restorer, exhibits skill in\ndesign and workmanship, were really unable to build straight. What of\nthe deflection at St Ouen, in the city of Rouen, a building which\nFergusson enthusiastically declares was \u201cbeyond comparison the most\nbeautiful and most perfect of the abbey edifices of France[588]?\u201d And,\ncoming to meaner structures, dare we say that a discrepancy of 5\u00b0 or 10\u00b0\nis likely to be the result of mere carelessness? One might as reasonably\nargue that the existence of a \u201clow side window,\u201d with its deviations of\nsize, shape, and position, indicates a clumsy arrangement of\nfenestration.\n\nRebutting arguments against the \u201ctheory of error\u201d may be urged on broad\ngrounds. We have seen that in the greater number of instances, our\nundeflected buildings bear to the North of the equinoctial point,\nindicating, if we suppose a calendar alinement at sunrise, that work was\nbegun either a little after the advent of spring, or, less probably, a\nlittle before the autumnal equinox. Consider, then, the case of a church\nof which one member is to be rebuilt. Under similar conditions of\nstarting work, the assumed error in direction might be on either side of\nthe axis. We might perhaps conclude that it would actually tend to be on\nthe Northern side of that axis--a Northern deviation added to a Northern\ndeviation--for, in spite of liturgical rules, a liking for summer\norientations (North of East) appears to have been very common. But, not\nto press this probability, it is at least claimable that, on a balance\nof instances, the deflections, if due to clumsy workmanship, would\nrange themselves in equal numbers North and South of the earlier\nalinement. But the fact remains that the Southern variations form the\nrule, and we are driven to the belief that they are Southern by reason\nof design.\n\nThis leads us to consider an hypothesis which embraces a purpose more\naesthetic than symbolical. Put shortly, this hypothesis is, that the\nbend was designed to produce an artistic illusion--a perspective effect\nwhereby a building appeared to be longer than it actually was. Thus, if\none of the side walls of a church with a \u201cweeping chancel\u201d be viewed\nfrom the Western entrance, an impression of greater length and of\nundefined distance is received by the spectator. Again, where a rood\nscreen exists, the bend in the wall, not a pleasing feature, considered\nseparately, would be concealed, but a change in the direction in a lofty\nroof would still produce an illusion that the church is indefinitely\nextended. Moreover, as the beholder caught a glimpse of a portion of the\nsanctuary window, which was often richly ornamented, both in form and in\ncolour, the beauty of the vista was much enhanced. On this hypothesis,\nthe screen, instead of being the immediate cause of the inclined axis,\nwas an accessory to a complete design, a feature of which the effect was\nforeseen and provided for. To round off this question, it should be\nadded that not many relics of screen-work exist which belong to a period\nearlier than the fourteenth century. A few specimens of thirteenth\ncentury work remain, and doubtless others were swept away at the\nReformation, but most of the examples which have come down to us are\nassignable to the fifteenth century[589]. In short, the middle stage of\nthe development of rood-lofts seems to correspond roughly with the\nperiod in which deflection is most commonly observable. This coincidence\ndoes not, indeed, solve the riddle, since each of the opposing schools\nmay produce it as testimony.\n\nSeeing that the \u201caesthetic theory\u201d is unsupported by documentary proof,\nevidence must be sought in the possible existence of similar\ncontrivances associated with other architectural features. Can such\nevidence be produced? The reply is in the affirmative. As one enters\ncertain Egyptian temples, he perceives a gradual transition from light\nto darkness. This effect is brought about by the forced ascent of a few\nsteps, combined with a lowering of the roof; thus the sense of gloom and\nmystery increases as the worshipper moves forward[590]. Again, we find\nthat, in the columns of the Parthenon and other Greek buildings, there\nis an entasis, or slight convexity of outline, perchance not more than\nthe length of a finger nail, yet sufficient to prevent the appearance of\nhollowness. The Parthenon is said to possess scarcely a vertical or a\nhorizontal line throughout the whole design. The columns lean a little\ninwards, the corners incline diagonally, the entablature is curved and\nrecedes in the centre[591]. Such subtle niceties, trivial when taken\nsingly, prove that, in Classical times at least, the aesthetic phase of\narchitecture was not ignored. The next question is, Can parallel\ninstances of design be observed in our own country? The Norman church of\nBarfreston, Kent, may be cited. In this building, the axes of the nave\nand chancel correspond, but the walls of the chancel are so built that\nthis portion appears to incline about 5\u00b0 North. One can hardly find a\nrectangle in the plan of the church--\u201ceverything is oblique[592],\u201d and\napparently oblique by intention. Again, the South arcade of the nave of\nScarborough parish church has a distinct curve, as if deliberately thus\nplanned. In the case of Whitby Abbey, before cited, Canon Atkinson\ndiscovered another intentional irregularity. The West wall of the North\ntransept projects into the interior at least a foot more than does the\nEast wall. The view, being thus interrupted by the broken line, has a\npleasing effect upon the mind of the spectator. Consider, too, the\nchurches, to be met with in many a village, in which the pillars and\nmouldings of the Northern arcade are simpler than those of the Southern,\nthe Northern windows less rich in tracery, the specimens of painted\nglass more sombre in motive and execution. It will be understood that a\nreservation must be made for those churches in which the South arcade\nis of slightly later date than the North. The symbolism of the Northern\naspect of Nature must have been clearly appreciated for these conditions\nto have arisen (see p. 334 _infra_). Or, take the feature just alluded\nto as entasis, by which the optical illusion of hollowness in upright\nlines is corrected. Many of our spires exhibit this convexity. Mr\nFrancis Bond, a high authority on such matters, states that the entasis\nprobably does not exceed 1 inch for 60 feet in our best examples of\nGothic spires. The important point to notice is, that the curvature\nexists as the result of design. True, it has been mooted whether the\nbulging is not an incidental consequence of a peculiar method of\nbuilding, but this idea is not commonly accepted, nor does it seem to\nsatisfy the conditions of the problem. Sometimes, as in the Lincolnshire\nspires of Caythorpe and Welbourn, and of Glinton (Northants), the limit\njust given is greatly exceeded, with results not at all pleasing to the\neye[593]. Caythorpe spire, once grotesque with its \u201csugar loaf\u201d\nprotuberance, exhibits the familiar curve even after being shortened and\nrebuilt[594]. That there appears to be an artistic necessity for the\nconvex treatment, or for some equivalent device, is exemplified once\nmore in the steeple at Louth. There, the impression of concavity is\nprevented by increasing the projection of the crockets about one-third\nof the way up the spire[595]. Again, there is the artistic disposition\nand gradation of ornament, the delicate, enriched carvings being\nreserved for the parts of the building near the eye, while a \u201cgreater\neffective quantity\u201d is provided in the upper parts, as on pinnacles and\nparapets. Perhaps the reader will admit that there is no need to press\nfurther the plea of aesthetic artifices on the part of the early\nbuilders. It is, at least, conceivable that our English masons\nunderstood the value and charm of subtle suggestions of spaciousness and\nmystery. To elaborate their art, and to conceal it, and to keep\n\n    \u201cThis modest charm of not too much,\n     Part seen, imagined part,\u201d\n\nmay well have been one of the golden rules of the Gothic architect. For\nthe trained eyes of the sympathetic beholder admire \u201cboth what they half\ncreate, and half perceive,\u201d and they will find privileged pleasures in\nsublimities of form and colour.\n\nNevertheless, in the absence of positive testimony that our early\nbuilders were actuated by artistic principles such as those just\ndescribed, there is no justification for putting the case a whit more\nstrongly. Is there, indeed, any evidence at all for the intentional\ndesigning of deflected churches? St Charles Borromeo (A.D. 1538-1584)\nhas been cited as recommending deflection towards the South, if\ndeflection be necessary[596]. The reference is probably the result of\nmisunderstanding St Charles\u2019s meaning, and, in that case, the claim is\nvitiated. What the writer actually required was, that the High Chapel\n(cappella) should look directly East, equinoctial East. Should dwellings\nexist which obscured the view, that fact did not relieve the builder of\nhis responsibility. If the axis of the building must be turned, it\nshould be towards the South, and not towards the North. The passage\nseems to allude to the church as a whole, not to the High Chapel, but I\nadmit that there is some little ambiguity[597].\n\nAttention has been drawn by Mr W. F. Hobson to an early allusion to\norientation, involving, as he considers, the principle of deflection\nalso. The passage occurs in the writings of St Paulinus of Nola, c. A.D.\n420. Speaking of a church which he had built, St Paulinus remarks,\n\u201c_Prospectus basilicae vero non, ut usitatior mos est, Orientem spectat,\nsed ad Domini mei B. Felicis basilicam pertinent Memoriam ejus\naspiciens_[598].\u201d The statement is that the outlook of the church was\nnot directed towards the East, following the more common practice, but\ntowards a certain basilica, containing a particular tomb, that of the\nmartyred presbyter, St Felix. That we have here an early instance of\norientation is manifest, but whether \u201c_aspiciens_\u201d may be interpreted so\nas to prove deflection is doubtful. It is, however, possible that while\nthe church had its general alinement to the sacred basilica, there was a\nbend or slant which caused the \u201cchancel\u201d--speaking conventionally--to\nface the monument. Mr Hobson urges that, from orientation towards a tomb\nand orientation for a Saint\u2019s Day there is but a slight transition[599].\n\nWe will now attempt to sum up the evidence. Skew chancels were, in some\ncases at least, due to carelessness or unskilfulness. A few deflections\nseem to have been caused by the architect\u2019s dislike to build on old\nfoundations--a prejudice felt by Wren in re-building St Paul\u2019s. The\nSaint\u2019s Day theory may hold for some examples, since a few positive\ninstances of observance, if these can be produced, cannot be nullified\neven by many negative exceptions. As to the symbolism of the leaning\nhead, whimsical though it may at first sight appear, one cannot dismiss\nit as mere folly. Mediaeval symbolism was no dead art, and it is visible\nin many guises, though to a less extent than its advocates would insist.\nUnless, therefore, we are to believe that symbolical explanation is\naltogether an after-thought--the creation of cultured ecclesiastics--we\nhave to find a reason for its existence in Mediaeval days. And, if the\nidea be so old as the foundation of our finest churches, we may\nconjecture that it received an embodiment in architecture. Lastly, the\ntheory of artistic design, though least advocated, seems most in\nconsonance with all the facts. The deflection does cause an agreeable\noptical illusion; and it is probable that this was intended. While we\nsearch in vain for some early document to throw a glimmering of light on\nthe problem, we are bound to consider all tentative solutions\nunsatisfactory. He would be a bold man who should unhesitatingly affirm\nthat one explanation will meet every case, and hardier still would be\nthe prosaic architect who should dismiss every instance of deflection as\nthe result of pure chance or blundering ignorance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE ORIENTATION OF GRAVES\n\n\nWhen the roaming antiquary stops to watch the sexton dig a grave, he\nobserves, not for the first time doubtless, that the graves all lie East\nand West. To the person whose tastes are not antiquarian, the matter is\nquite commonplace and he seldom gives it further thought. Yet, so firmly\nis the custom fixed as a popular institution, and so unconsciously is it\nobeyed, that it is only when it is perforce disregarded, in crowded\ncemetery or churchyard, that one\u2019s feelings receive a slight shock by\nreason of the irregularity. Now these unconscious observances carry with\nthem their certificate of age. For, as John Brand, in the opening words\nof his famous book, well declares, concerning such \u201cvulgar rites\u201d: \u201cThe\nstrongest proof of their remote antiquity is that they have outlived the\ngeneral knowledge of the very causes that gave rise to them.\u201d\n\nPerhaps there is a little danger of a misunderstanding: it should be\nmade clear that it is only in modern times that folk have become unable\nto give any reason whatever for the custom. The earlier churchmen had an\nexplanation to tender, though, as we shall see, it was only of secondary\nand derivative rank. Further, the rule was, and indeed still is, more\nprecise in its operation than above stated, for the head of the corpse\nis directed towards the West and the feet towards the East. In other\nwords, the normal disposition of the corpse, according to the ancient\nteaching of the Church, is that it shall face the East.\n\nDurandus, who has already been frequently cited, states the rule, and\ngives as a reason that the Eastward position is properly assumed in\nprayer[600]. Bede explains the arrangement on the supposition that the\nComing of the Great Day and of the \u201cSun of Righteousness\u201d will be seen\nfrom the East, hence the dead should face the sunrise[601]. The\nScriptural allusion in Zechariah, too, has often been quoted in support\nof the practice; the feet of the Messiah, so the verse runs, shall\n\u201cstand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem\non the East[602].\u201d Larousse, to mention but one more writer, refers to\nthe injunction, but adds that the bodies of priests, martyrs, and\nbishops are laid in a reverse direction--\u201c_caput versus altare_,\u201d so\nthat they face the West. A curious reason is assigned: churchmen of high\nor clerical rank are expected to rise first, and to pass onwards with\nthe head looking West[603], a strange contradiction of Bede\u2019s\nhypothesis.\n\nSince the effective force of a rule is tested by its exceptions, we\nshall now glance at some breaches of conformity. With such\ntransgressions of custom one might profitably compare the deliberate\nrefusal to orient churches, discussed in the preceding chapter. Thus, in\nJohn Aubrey\u2019s _Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme_, we are assured that\nmost of the ancient graves at Middleton Stoney, Oxfordshire, were made\nto lie North and South. Whether this were due to ignorance or to the\nspirit of opposition, the author of the statement, Dr White Kennett, was\nunable to say. In one of the rare and anonymous \u201cMarprelate\u201d tracts\n(A.D. 1589), now familiar to most students through Professor Arber\u2019s\nadmirable \u201cEnglish Scholar\u2019s Library,\u201d we read that Martin Month \u201cwould\nnot be laid East and West (for hee ever went against the haire) but\nNorth and South: I think,\u201d adds the tractarian, \u201cbecause \u2018_ab aquilone\nomne malum_,\u2019 and the South wind ever brings corruption with it[604].\u201d\nMartin Month has not lacked followers. Mr Hissey, in his _Over Fen and\nWold_, has recorded a seventeenth century example from Lincolnshire, a\nstronghold of Puritanism[605]. William Glanville, who died at Wotton,\nnear Dorking, in the year 1750, left documentary injunctions requiring,\namong other curious details, that he should be buried facing the North.\nIn a case of infringement of the rule, as related by Brand, the motive,\nstrangely enough, was not contumacy, but the desire to exhibit a visible\nmark of penitence and humiliation[606]. In support of this view,\nattention may be called to a stone coffin which is built into an\nexterior angle of two walls at Lindisfarne Priory church. The coffin\nlies South-East and North-West, and is believed to have held the body of\na monk who had broken his vows.\n\nThomas Hearne, the antiquary, as befitted a philosopher, ordered that\nhis executors should determine the true orientation of his grave by\nmeans of a compass (A.D. 1735). This was done, with the result that the\nmonument appeared to be awry, though the actual error, it is affirmed,\nlay in the incorrect orientation of the surrounding graves[607]. One is\ninclined to modify this explanation; the divergence was probably caused\nby the different modes of orientation, the earlier graves having been\nmost probably alined by the sun or the church fabric, while that of the\nantiquary was set out by the needle, and, it may be, without making\nallowance for the declination. In a parenthesis, an analogous case,\nwhich came under the notice of the present writer, may be given. An\noblong kerbing of marble was to be placed around a grave in the\nchurchyard of Chipstead, Surrey, and the mason was told to take his\nalinement from the wall of the chancel. When the task was finished the\nkerbing was seen to be out of line with the surrounding graves. Dispute\nwas followed by a careful test. The kerb was true to the chancel wall,\nbut, as was then discovered, the chancel itself was askew, when compared\nwith the nave. Was the twist, then, of a date posterior to that of the\nearliest grave-mounds, and were these made parallel with the nave? I\nthink the answer to the latter question is probably affirmative, but the\npuzzle of dates cannot be so readily solved. It is almost certain that\nnone of the existing mounds is co-eval with the rebuilding or partial\nrebuilding of the chancel[608], but again, the present mounds may have\nbeen alined from a succession of earlier ones.\n\nAs already suggested, direct infraction of the general rule arrests the\nattention; were it not for this, familiarity might make us blind. So\nagain, one may easily pass by at least two Shakespearean allusions.\n\u201cMake her grave straight,\u201d says one sexton to the other, when about to\ndig Ophelia\u2019s grave[609], and, though certain commentators have\nconsidered the words to imply \u201cMake it immediately,\u201d there is good\nauthority against this interpretation. The alternative reading supposes\nthat the command is to dig the grave East and West. This rendering of\nthe words seems very reasonable, seeing that they form part of an answer\nto the question whether Ophelia shall have Christian burial. \u201cI tell\nthee she is: and therefore make her grave straight.\u201d The explanation is\nin full accord with the tradition, held in the South-East of England,\nthat the bodies of suicides were buried in a North and South direction.\nThe instruction given by Guiderius to Cadwal concerning the apparently\ndead body of Imogen is more specific:\n\n    \u201cNay, Cadwal, we must lay his head to the East;\n     My father hath a reason for\u2019t[610].\u201d\n\nThe meaning probably is, \u201cLay his head to face the East\u201d; although the\nother interpretation, \u201cHead directed to East, feet to West,\u201d is\npossible. At any rate the passage clearly shows that the orientation of\ngraves was assumed by the poet to have been observed, even in the\nsolitudes.\n\nA scrap of quaint, but illuminating, evidence comes from the folk-lore\nof Wales, where the East wind is called \u201cthe wind of the dead men\u2019s\nfeet[611].\u201d Nor is the practice of orienting graves confined to Britain.\nA Scandinavian folk-story makes the grave-diggers, either through stress\nof bad weather, or \u201cout of mischief,\u201d bury an unpopular person, one J\u00f3n\nFlak, in a grave dug North and South. Every night the dead man haunted\nthe grave-diggers and repeated this verse:\n\n    \u201cCold\u2019s the mould at choir-back,\n     Cowers beneath it J\u00f3n Flak,\n     Other men lie East and West,\n     Every one but J\u00f3n Flak,\n     Every one but J\u00f3n Flak.\u201d\n\nAnd no rest was obtained until the body was taken up and buried in the\nproper position[612]. A study of comparative customs will, however,\nfurnish us with departures from the British plan, although haphazard\nalinements seem to be exceptional. Thus, some Australian tribes allow\nthe head to front the West, others the East. The Samoans, the Fijians,\nand the North American Indians place the head to the East; this was also\nthe practice of the Peruvians. Some South American tribes and the old\nAinus of Yesso made their dead face the sunrise[613]. Plainly, while all\nthese instances involve alinement of the corpse, they illustrate the two\nopposing ideas mentioned in the last chapter,--that of darkness and\ndeath, connected with sunset, and that of resurrection and new life,\ntypified by sunrise. Sir Thomas Browne, in his _Hydriotaphia_, remarks:\n\u201cThe Persians lay North and South: the Megarians and Phoenicians placed\ntheir heads to the East; the Athenians, some think, towards the West,\nwhich Christians still retain. And Beda will have it to be the posture\nof our Saviour[614].\u201d\n\nVarious Greek authors attest the practice of orienting graves before the\ntime of Solon (died _c._ B.C. 558)[615]. Setting this evidence aside,\nand restricting the inquiry chiefly to our own country, we have good\nreason to believe that there has been continuity of custom from the\nSaxon period at least. Mr Romilly Allen asserts that the East-to-West\nposition was usual in the early days of Christianity. Further it was\nformerly suggested by Mr Reginald A. Smith that, wherever East-to-West\ngraves are met with in Saxon cemeteries, they indicate the burial-places\nof Christians, in contrast to the tombs of the heathen. But the\ndiscoveries at Mitcham, in Surrey, of a large number of skeletons\ncarefully orientated, break the rule, since Mr Smith himself shows that\nthe burials were of pre-Saxon date, while the associated relics point to\npagan interment. Again, a cemetery which was discovered at the Roman\n\u201clevel\u201d in Bishopsgate Street, London, contained bodies laid East and\nWest. Since no pagan objects were associated with the skeletons, we may\nperhaps conjecture that the burials were those of Christians[616]. But\nthe most common position of skeletons in Roman cemeteries, according to\nWright, is found to be East and West; usually, though by no means\nalways, the feet are towards the East[617]. This generalization must now\nbe considered too confident. There is the further complication that some\nof the cemeteries contain burnt, as well as unburnt bodies, suggesting a\nmingling of pagan and Christian burials.\n\nWe next take the pre-Roman period. Two examples from France will serve\nto illustrate one stage. A cemetery at Charvais, belonging to the\nearliest Iron Age, contained more than seventy graves, all but two or\nthree of which were so oriented that the head lay at the West end[618].\nOut of five graves excavated at Pleurs, in the department of Marne,\nthree exhibited a like arrangement[619]. Examples might be multiplied,\nso far as the Continent is concerned; the position of the skeleton in\nEnglish interments of the Iron Age unfortunately seems not to have been\nmuch noted by investigators. Even the excellent _Guide to the\nAntiquities of the Early Iron Age_ does not furnish much information\nabout British orientation, the main cause, doubtless, being the neglect\nof the excavators to record such details. One remarkable interment, at\nKilham, near Driffield, in the East Riding, is worthy of notice. The\ngrave contained the remains of a man, with the head placed at the West\nend; on each side of the body a goat had been laid, with a similar\norientation[620]. Mr J. R. Mortimer, who, in 1897, conducted a series\nof excavations at Kilham, gave this summary respecting the disposition\nof the skeletons. Of twenty burials, eleven bodies had the head towards\nthe North, five towards the South, and only four West[621]. At the\nLate-Celtic cemetery at Harlyn Bay, Cornwall, the majority of the\nskeletons, which were contracted, lay on their left sides, and faced the\nEast. This evidence, which might be supplemented, plainly shows that the\nplacing of corpses East and West was not uniformly observed during the\nEarly Iron Age.\n\nBut we must widen the scope of the inquiry, for it is necessary to\nremember that the round barrows of the Bronze and Aeneolithic periods,\nand the long barrows of the Neolithic Age, were nothing but huge graves.\nMr Mortimer\u2019s excavations in the round barrows of Yorkshire led him to\nthe conclusion, that, while no rule could be formulated concerning the\nalinement of the body, \u201cthe most prevalent position of the head [was] to\nthe West and the East[622].\u201d Canon Greenwell\u2019s explorations revealed a\nlike absence of regularity in the position of round-barrow skeletons,\nthough the tables which he furnishes indicate a tendency to an\nEast-and-West approximation. One of his results is of great interest. He\nfound that, wherever the head of the skeleton pointed, roughly speaking,\ntowards the West, the body had generally been laid on its right side;\nwhere the head was towards the East, the body was usually resting on its\nleft side[623]. The inference has therefore been drawn that the corpse\nwas made to face, not merely the sun, but the position of the sun in the\nsky at the time of burial. This opinion has been widely held until\nrecent years, but it is now becoming customary to heap ridicule upon\nit[624]. The scoffers should, however, in fairness, consider collateral\ntestimony.\n\nFirst, it is well to note an actual record of careful orientations. For\nexample, it is not contested that, in the round barrows of Wiltshire\nthere is a strong tendency for the body to face the South[625]. If the\ntheory just mentioned be correct, the corpse had, in the Wiltshire\ngraves, been placed with the face towards the midday sun, implying a\npossible, but not demonstrable intention, with some fixity of custom.\nGeneral Pitt-Rivers, who believed that the Saxons arranged the body with\nthe head towards the rising sun, examined 31 Saxon graves at Winkelbury.\nHe discovered that, while the skeleton was always alined towards an\nEastern point, the exact axis varied from E. 19\u00b0 S. to E. 28\u00b0 N., but\nwas usually towards the North. Supposing that his theory were valid, he\nadmitted, with great candour, that all but two of the bodies must, from\ntheir positions, have been buried in summer. Here, again, we meet a\npossible, but certainly not provable, adherence to a custom.\n\nLet us now look at Mr Mortimer\u2019s valuable tables, which are found on the\npage of his book to which reference has just been made. From an\nexamination of 383 interments, Mr Mortimer obtained these results:\n\nBodies lying on the right side   178\n  \u201c      \u201c     \u201c    left side    103\n  \u201c      \u201c     \u201c    back          68\n  \u201c      \u201c     \u201c    chest          3\nPosition not known                31\n\nThe 31 unascertained positions must be ignored. The 71 instances in\nwhich the body lay on its back or chest are obviously testimony against\nthe \u201cface-to-sun\u201d hypothesis. Moreover, of the 281 remaining cases, only\n61 will be found to have the head pointing North-East, South-East, or in\nintermediate directions. At first sight, this summary is fatal to the\ntheory. But the question is not easily settled. Other details must be\nknown concerning each individual interment, and these are, to some\nextent, lacking. It is evident that a corpse may occupy any one of\nnumerous linear positions, and may lie on either its right or left side,\nand yet face the sun at some time of the day. For the sun constantly\nchanges its position in the course of its daily journey, and also alters\nits points of rising and setting. The consequence is, that a body lying\non its left side might have its head directed to any point from\nNorth-East round to North-West approximately, and nevertheless face the\nsun. If we do not know the season, or the hour, of the interment, we\ncannot assert that the corpse did not so face the sun. Similarly, if the\ndeceased tribesman were placed on his right side, he might, broadly\nspeaking, occupy any position from East round to West, and yet fulfil\nthe condition. Now the tables show that 245 out of the 281 bodies might\nconceivably have been laid as the theory supposes. Mr Mortimer gives\nGreenwell\u2019s list for comparison: it supplies details of 234 bodies. Of\nthese bodies, 112 lay on the right side, and 122 on the left--there is\nno reference to other positions. An inspection of the columns reveals\nthat about 200 cases might support the \u201cface-to-sun\u201d theory.\n\nIt would be highly undesirable to press the facts further than is\nnecessary to appeal for a suspended verdict. The \u201cface-to-sun\u201d\nhypothesis was never meant to be more than a possible explanation, but\nit has the virtue of accounting for many instances in which the skeleton\nlies, not due East and West, or North and South, but obliquely, at some\nintermediate horizon. And, at least, the alinement of the head, if not\nthe face, towards the sun, is not peculiarly a British feature of\nprehistoric burials. Among the Tlingits, or Tlinkits, of South Alaska,\nthe corpse was buried with the head towards the sun, so as to allow the\nsoul of the deceased person to return; if the body were laid in the\ncontrary direction, the spirit could never come back. Professor Frazer,\nwho records this custom, asserts that other totemistic peoples inter\ntheir dead, according to fixed rules, with the head towards particular\npoints of the compass. Professor E. B. Tylor has also collected abundant\ntestimony corroborative of such customs. In places widely sundered\ngeographically there has existed a strong desire to bury the dead \u201cin\nthe path of the sun[626].\u201d Recently, too, Dr A. W. Howitt has\ndiscovered, just in time, at the Australian station of Wotjo, an\nisolated tribe which still preserves the custom. The arrangement of the\nhead of the corpse is determined by the class and totem of the deceased\nperson, and the direction is fixed by reference to the rising sun. The\npractice is nearing extinction, for, although Dr Howitt was able to\nsecure sufficient information from the natives to construct a kind of\nburial compass, they could give him no reason for the varying\ndispositions. The only explanation proffered was: \u201cOh, that is what our\nfathers told us.\u201d Such a man was buried in such a way because he was\n\u201cnearer to us\u201d than the others[627]. The folk-memory of this tribe will\nsoon become a mere echo of tradition, and the task of reconstructing\nthese primitive burial customs will grow increasingly difficult as each\naboriginal patch of the earth\u2019s surface becomes influenced by\ncivilization.\n\nRespecting graves themselves, we readily perceive that a round barrow,\nfrom its very nature, cannot be normally oriented. But in the British\nlong barrows, usually accepted as the earlier kind, the long axis\ngenerally runs East and West. The broader end of the mound, where the\nsepulchral deposit is, as a rule, discovered, is directed towards the\nEast[628]. So that, during the Neolithic period, some broad principle of\norientation was observed, the constraining motive being probably\nconnected with sun-worship.\n\nOrientation in barrow burials having been considered, one is easily led\nto discuss an allied subject, in part connected with interments, in part\nnot so strictly related, yet tinged with like primitive ideas. This\ntopic is the orientation of megaliths and ancient earthworks, and it has\nbeen so prominently put forward by Sir Norman Lockyer that no\narchaeologist can pretend to be alert and watchful who has not, to some\nextent, followed the discussion. Hence a notice, however slight and\nimperfect, is demanded. Sir Norman Lockyer has made careful\ntriangulations and measurements in connection with the prehistoric\nmonuments of Cornwall, Wiltshire, and other counties, and his general\nconclusion is, that the axes of these monuments, and their mutual\ngeographical relations, were carefully determined by their constructors.\nThe assumption having been made that the monuments were originally\nalined to sunrise, the problem has been to calculate when that\narrangement could have existed, because now, owing to the alteration of\nthe inclination of the earth\u2019s equator with regard to the ecliptic, the\nsolstitial points have considerably shifted their positions. Stonehenge,\nwhich Sir Norman Lockyer considers to have been a solstitial temple, was\naccurately alined by astronomical means when erected. He believes that\nthe original alinement of the circles was adapted (_c._ B.C. 2200) to a\n\u201cfarmer\u2019s year,\u201d May to November; but that, about B.C. 1600, a new cult\nwas introduced, probably from Egypt, and the lines of orientation were\nchanged to harmonize with a June-to-December year[629]. The\ninvestigation has also been applied to other monuments, and it is\nclaimed that not only can we determine to what star a particular\nmegalith was originally oriented, but, as a consequence of this\ndetermination, we can discover the approximate date also of the erection\nof the stones[630]. To any one who, like the present writer, is not a\nskilled practical astronomer, the evidence is difficult to handle, for\nthe actual observations and measurements must, of necessity, be\nimplicitly accepted. Yet, on general grounds, one cannot avoid the\nthought that the assumptions are not self-evidently true, and that even\nif this were the case, the theory is pushed much further than seems\nreasonable. These objections have been raised by several writers, and\nthe views of Sir Norman Lockyer have been exposed to severe, and,\napparently, disintegrating criticism[631]. It is but fair to add that\nthese rebutting arguments have been met by rejoinders, though of varying\nvalue. Do we urge that the theory, with the minute measurements which it\ninvolves, presupposes too high a state of culture for those early times,\ntoo deep a knowledge of astronomy, too complicated a system of religion\nor worship? We are met by the enunciation of another hypothesis, that\nthe Druids of Caesar\u2019s time, admittedly men of some learning, were the\ndescendants of astronomer-priests of a more ancient British\ncivilization[632]. Do we ask for proof of re-orientation, as a result of\nthe immigration of a new race of men? We are thrown back on a further\nseries of intricate astronomical data, reinforced by similar details\nrelating to Egyptian temples. It may be that the objector has some\nmisgivings as to the exactitude of the orientation of these very\ntemples--that is a small matter--but he would like to know the reason\nfor placing our rough, unhewn cromlechs and menhirs in the same\ncategory. To the general archaeologist, the comparison between our rude\n\u201camorpholiths\u201d and an elaborate Eastern temple is not just. Such a\nperson asks questions about the instruments which the builders of the\nmegaliths may have used in their observations, about the possible\nobstacles which may have blocked out of view portions of the horizon,\nabout the difficulty in ascertaining which standard line was used, where\nall the monoliths are so crude and irregular. Again, which was\nconsidered the time of sunrise--the moment when the sun\u2019s rim peeped\nabove the horizon, or when his centre was clearly visible? Each position\nhas been assumed, the one in England, the other in Egypt. In the ages\nwhen not even the Julian calendar had been invented, could primitive\nfolk know, for certain, the exact date of the solstice? In England, the\nsun rises on the slant: where was the observer\u2019s eye placed in relation\nto that oblique line? In one Cornish instance, at least, it has been\nasserted that the stones from which the alinement had been taken cannot\nbe seen from the central group of stones[633]. And of Sidbury Hill,\nwhich was deemed so important in the Stonehenge measurements, Dr T. Rice\nHolmes declares that it cannot be seen from that monument, only the\ntrees on its summit being visible[634].\n\nSomewhat in accord with the conclusions of Sir Norman Lockyer, but by no\nmeans in total agreement, are the theories propounded by the Rev. J. W.\nHayes, of West Thurrock. Mr Hayes, who has made a close study of\nstone-circles, especially with regard to their use in Gorseddau and\nother assemblies, has kindly permitted me to read his unpublished\npapers, and to glean therefrom such information as is germane to the\npresent question. It is manifestly impossible to give more than the\nbriefest summary of the evidence, or to enumerate the miscellaneous\ndocuments, written and printed, which Mr Hayes has consulted. The\nleading idea is, that the stone-circles were first erected to serve as\nindicators of seasons. By means of these \u201cdials,\u201d the priestly caste\ndetermined the times of fasts and feasts. In spring, there were\nsacrifices to ensure bountiful crops. Before entering upon a war, there\nwere offerings to propitiate the gods and thus to win success. A\ncomparison is made between the old festivals and our own Easter--itself\na pagan feast originally, and still depending on the moon for the exact\ndate of its observance. Analogies are also drawn from the customs of the\nJews, the Romans, and the Egyptians. The outstanding menhirs connected\nwith stone-circles are considered to have been intended to provide\nsight-lines, while the trilithons of Stonehenge, it is suggested, marked\nout sky-spaces. It is interesting to note, in passing, that Professor W.\nGowland has recorded the use of wooden trilithons by modern Japanese\nsun-worshippers, for determining the position of the sun and of sacred\nobjects.\n\nIt will be inferred that Mr Hayes\u2019s theory makes the sacrificial use of\nthe circles subsidiary to a primary astronomical and judicial purpose.\nYet he takes note that the old Irish name for a cromlech--the accepted\nterm among modern writers for a \u201cstone-ring\u201d--was _siorcal leacht_, or\n\u201ccircle-stone-of-death.\u201d In old Irish manuscripts such circles are\nalways associated with pagan priests or druids. The sepulchral aspect of\nstone-circles, however, seems to be largely ignored by the modern school\nof investigators.\n\nMr Hayes lays stress upon a singular fact, the true explanation of which\nhas long been an enigma--the frequent occurrence of a definite number of\npillars in the stone-ring. Nine is not an uncommon number in England,\nthough it is recorded from Ireland and Germany. (The stones of the Nine\nMaidens, near St Columb Major, in Cornwall, form a row, not a circle.)\nThe cromlechs of Boscawen-\u00fbn and the Dawns M\u00ean, in Cornwall, of\nWhitemoorstone Down, Dartmoor, as well as the inner \u201chorseshoe\u201d at\nStonehenge, have nineteen uprights. Thirty, again, is the tale of some\ncircles, as in the outer ring of sarsens at Stonehenge. The group of\nnine is puzzling, but the arrangement of nineteen is held to represent\nthe metonic, Indian, or lunar cycle of the astronomers. After the lapse\nof nineteen years, the sun and moon occupy relatively the same positions\nas at the commencement of the cycle, so that full moon and new moon\nrecur on the same days of the months as before. Whether this\nastronomical explanation of the number nineteen can be proved or not,\none curious feature deserves notice. The circles which show nineteen\nstones have a gap towards the East, and no explorations have hitherto\nbrought a twentieth stone to light.\n\nIt further appears that the old Gorsedd circles (p. 98 _supra_)\nconsisted of twelve stones, set 30\u00b0 apart, and said to represent the\ntwelve signs of the Zodiac. The circles reared at the annual Eisteddfod\nby the neo-Druidic cult are arranged similarly. Besides the twelve\npillars, three outstanding menhirs were fixed at the North-East, East,\nand South-East respectively so that the sun\u2019s rays at the solstices, or\nthe equinoxes, as might be, fell on the central stone, or \u201cchair\u201d within\nthe circle. And, by a strange coincidence--or is it due to\nimitation?--another plan of the Gorsedd circle, as preserved in ancient\nmanuscripts, gives nineteen stones, with a gap towards the East. In this\ncase, eight outstanding pillars were erected, so as to indicate, by\nshadows or rays, (1) the summer and winter solstices, (2) the old\nMay-December agricultural year, (3) the equinoxes, and, possibly, (4)\nother solar and lunar periods.\n\nThe weakness in the foregoing theories seems to lie in the assumption,\nup to the present unproved, that the primary purpose of the cromlechs\nwas to serve as places of assembly. True, the convocations are supposed\nto have been hedged with much ceremony, to which the stones were\naccessory. But, dealing with circles, are we not liable to argue in a\ncircle? Until the prime purpose of the cromlechs is ascertained, the\nstudent is forced back like the turnspit in _Hudibras_:\n\n    \u201cAnd still he\u2019s in the selfsame place\n     Where, at his setting out, he was.\u201d\n\nWere the stone-rings first erected for worship, and did the later\nconveners of Gorseddau, retaining faint memories of ancient usages,\ncling to the traditional system of orientation and astronomical\nmeasurement? Or were the cromlechs primarily intended for open-air\nmeetings, which were afterwards invested by the priests with a religious\ncharacter? Or, again, were the circles first of all astronomical, and\nthe assemblies, features of later times? Minor theories may be\nneglected, although, in the present condition of the evidence, even\nthese might claim recognition.\n\nSetting aside the modern Druidical ceremonies, as having a parentage no\nolder than the sixteenth or seventeenth century, there remain the more\nancient Gorseddau. The evidence regarding these, for the past 1500\nyears, notably with respect to the practice of orientation and the use\nof \u201cpointers\u201d to indicate the seasons, is weighty, and cannot be ignored\nby the impartial student. But the grand difficulty remains. We cannot\nyet bridge over the interval between oral tradition and written history,\nbetween the builders of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages and the bards of\nthe Arthurian period. It is quite possible that folk-memory was\neffective during that dim period, but it is equally possible that the\ncromlechs became gradually diverted from their original purpose, whether\nsepulchral, astronomical, or other. This diversion would be a natural\nprocess when the functions of priest and lawgiver became more\ndifferentiated. The religious ceremonies which accompanied legislative\nand judicial meetings would tend to conceal the change which had\noccurred.\n\nSir Norman Lockyer considers the whole question of Gorsedd circles so\nimportant, that, in the second edition of his work (1909), he has\ndevoted a special chapter to the subject. Should it be finally\nestablished, beyond cavil, that Gorsedd circles have been frequently\nerected throughout the period which extends from the fifth century of\nour era until the present day, there will be a fair claim for\ncontinuity, if not of function, yet of habit, from prehistoric times.\nBut there will also arise a grave suspicion whether some of the\ncromlechs, hitherto ascribed to prehistoric peoples, may not, after all,\nbe the more permanent Gorsedd circles of a later date. We cannot forget\nthe misleading stone-circle set up at Pontypridd no farther back than\nfifty years ago, by the \u201cArch-Druid\u201d of that time, Myfyr Morganwg (or\nMyvyr Morgannwg); nor the sham \u201cDruidic structure,\u201d raised in the\nneighbourhood of Pateley Bridge, in Yorkshire, about thirty years\npreviously.\n\nHaving uttered these objections, and having implied the necessity of\nslow-moving circumspection, one cannot think that the boundary of\nknowledge has yet been reached. Frequently, excavations reveal little\nmore evidence than was already suspected after critical external\nexamination. If then the archaeologist and the astronomer can find\nagreement in common premisses, the theodolite may indeed help the spade\nand atone for its limitations. While feeling persuaded that our\nmegalithic monuments were never alined with such nicety that the\norientation can be expressed in seconds, one can still understand that\nthey may have been set out with greater accuracy than is commonly\nsupposed. When we recollect, too, that many of our megaliths had at\nfirst probably a sepulchral purpose, we shall see no sufficient reason\nwhy they should not have been planned, at any rate, as skilfully as\nfuneral earthworks.\n\nThe Rev. J. Griffith, indeed, carries the orientation theory further,\nand applies it to primitive earthworks of a general character--those\nwhich are popularly known as camps and forts. Speaking of Burrington\nCamp, Somerset, he claims that its Southern bank is oriented to the\nequinox, and that another bank corresponds both to the sunset line at\nthe summer solstice, and to sunrise at the winter solstice. He adds that\nthe star alinement of this earthwork has been \u201cworked out\u201d by Sir Norman\nLockyer to Arcturus. Castle Dyke, near Aysgarth, Yorkshire, gives\nindications of an alinement either to Alpha Centauri or to Capella[635].\n\nThese much-canvassed theories have led us away from our highroad, yet\nthe digression was really slight, seeing that many of our megaliths mark\nthe position of early burial-places. It is not asserted that all our\nancient stone monuments are of this character, but some, at least, of\nthose which are claimed as \u201ctemples,\u201d were primarily graves; hence they\ncome under our survey. Here, too, it seems fitting to notice another\nmatter, dependent to some extent on the orientation of graves, and\nillustrative of the persistency of unconscious folk-memory.\n\nThe modern sexton, having filled up the grave, banks up the surplus soil\nin the form of a long, neatly-finished mound. Is there any obvious\nreason why he should do this, instead of spreading out the remaining\nearth until all is level? The explanation of positive necessity is not\nadmissible: I have noticed one churchyard in which mounds are not\nraised, just as, in two or three other instances, all the tombstones are\nlaid in a horizontal position. The popular belief, if it is found to\nexist, ascribes the mound to an economical cause--the advantage of\nbanking up some soil to prevent the shallow depression which is the\nafter result of subsidence. But this does not account for the oblong\nmound with curved ends--a shape which does not altogether correspond\nwith that of the pit which is being closed. Nor does it explain the\ncareful turfing-over which sometimes follows, nor the masonry or coped\ntombstone which is frequently designed to preserve the accepted form of\nthe mound.\n\nThe only satisfactory answer to the question, so far as competent\nauthorities have yet discovered, is that the modern grave-mound is the\nshrunken representative of the long barrow, the features having been\nretained because of the inertia of social custom, and because inveterate\nimitation is easier than new experiment. It is noteworthy that the\nmodern mound is often so large as to be unsightly. The size is\nespecially increased in places where, as in the little Huguenot burying\nground at Wandsworth, the pile is surmounted by a \u201cbox\u201d tomb of brick or\nstone. (These mounds are not, however, comparable in size to that of\nChislehurst, p. 76 _supra_.) To the late Mr Grant Allen belongs, I\nbelieve, the chief credit for the barrow theory, the conclusion having\nbeen forced upon him by long study of the comparative burial customs of\nprimitive folk[636]. Thomas Wright had earlier classed the Saxon barrow\nas the prototype of the modern grave-mound; and, in the eighteenth\ncentury, Hearne had remarked, concerning tumuli and churchyards: \u201cBut\nnow the straitness of [churchyards] will not permit such _aggeres\nconsecratos_, as some terme them, to be made there.\u201d\n\nThe proposed interpretation involves the assumption that the practice of\nbarrow-burial, in the sense of raising a tumulus of some kind over the\ndead, has never completely died out in our country. Link by link, as we\npass onwards from the Neolithic period, through the Bronze and Iron\nAges, and include the Romans, Saxons, and Danes in our survey, we\ndiscover that this claim can be made good. The chief difference between\nthe ancient practice and that of our own day lies in the fact that\nmound-burial is now almost universal, at least throughout our country,\nwhile in former ages it was not quite so general. One may hazard the\nopinion that mound-burial may have been markedly the exception in\nprehistoric times. The great ones of the land were truly laid under\nthese earthen monuments, but in what manner the great masses of the\npoorer folk were buried we may never know. Perhaps these humbler members\nof the community were interred in much the same way as nearly the whole\nof the present population may expect to be interred; that is, a hole was\ndug in the ground, and perhaps a tiny tumulus was heaped above the\nburied corpse. But the mound was not always raised, especially when\ncremation came into fashion. The question need not be here complicated\nby a consideration of the evolution of the coffin, since some remarks\nwill be made on this subject later. An instance or two will tend to\nconfirm the opinion just expressed. Dr T. Rice Holmes has collected\nnumerous records to show that there were moundless graves during the\nBronze Age[637]. Such graves were dug in caverns, or sunk on the chalk\ndowns, or in other soils near a settlement. Doubtless, other examples\nremain yet to be discovered. The reader will, however, note that, except\nin the case of caves, the original absence of a mound cannot always be\nabsolutely proven; the forces of Nature, aided by the plough, may have\nobliterated the external signs of burial. During the Early Iron Age,\nmounds appear to have been even less general than in the preceding\nperiod. Thus, several pit-burials have been recorded from Hagbourne\nHill, near Didcot, Berkshire[638], and from the celebrated \u201curn-field\u201d\nat Aylesford, Kent, which dates from _c._ B.C. 50[639]. For the\nintervening Roman period, there is no need to cite examples, since they\nabound, and of the Anglo-Saxon burials, it may be sufficient to state\nthat in various localities (Cambridge, Northampton, Gloucester,\nWiltshire), groups of graves have been found in such close proximity\nthat the tumuli, if they ever existed, must have been of small\ndimensions[640].\n\nAll through these centuries, nevertheless, barrow-burial had persisted.\nNay, more, the barrows were often collected in groups, representing the\nprototypes of our modern cemeteries. The classic example of such\nclusters is seen in the barrows around Stonehenge; within a circuit of\nthree miles it is said that there are about three hundred barrows[641].\nAnother illuminating record is that of the collection of barrows known\nas the Danes\u2019 Graves, near Kilham, on the Wolds of Yorkshire. Not fewer\nthan 500 graves once existed here, \u201cmassed together as in a modern\nchurchyard, not isolated as in the Bronze period[642].\u201d Mr J. R.\nMortimer found that the burial-mounds of East Yorkshire fell readily\ninto clusters, some of which contained so many as thirty or more\nindividual barrows. From Mr Mortimer\u2019s conclusion that the ground-plans\nof these groups agree with the outlines of certain of the heavenly\nconstellations, notably with that of Charles\u2019s Wain, we must, however,\nwithhold assent. The Stonehenge barrows are grouped, not actually\n\u201cmassed.\u201d Other groups of tumuli might be given; we will merely mention\nthose interesting cases where one or two large barrows are connected\nwith collections of tiny mounds; the smaller ones, perhaps, representing\nthe resting-place of the poorer tribesmen[643]. It would be safe to\nassert that most of the small barrows have ere now been long levelled\ndown. Of the larger mounds not a tithe of the original number remains.\n\nThe clusters of barrows, one may consider, led indirectly to the\nChristian cemeteries. At first, as stated in a sermon by St Chrysostom\n(A.D. 403), the Christian communities had their cemeteries outside the\nwalls of cities[644]. Interment in churchyards was not a primitive\npractice, and was prohibited by the decrees of early church councils.\nThe custom gradually crept into use about the sixth century[645], the\ninnovation appearing first in connection with monastic settlements. By\nthe time of St Cuthbert (_c._ A.D. 742) the practice was becoming well\nknown, the bones of pious men and martyrs being actually admitted within\nthe building itself[646]. To such an extent did the practice grow, that\nthe floors of churches often became too uneven for walking over. As a\nparenthesis, we note that the early ban against churchyard burial must\nnot be interpreted as contradicting the probability of the building of\nchurches near older Christian cemeteries.\n\nScandinavia was apparently in a state of transition from barrow burial\nto small-mound burial at a later date, namely, during the Viking Age\n(A.D. 700-1000). At that period it became the habit to make low barrows\nfor the poorer folk, the \u201cwarrior houes\u201d being reserved for the families\nof powerful chieftains[647]. And one cannot doubt that the collaterals\nof the Scandinavians--the Anglo-Saxons--developed their burial customs\nalong similar lines. In addition, it must be remembered that these\nlatter peoples, when settled in England, had a marked predilection for\nburial in the older and larger barrows which they found already in\nexistence. Such \u201csecondary burials\u201d are familiar to the archaeologist,\nand are discriminated by the level and posture of the skeletons, as well\nas by the associated objects. When the conversion of the people to\nChristianity became more general, such practices were discountenanced.\nDown to the eighth century, however, it was usual to bury the\nillegitimate offspring of nuns and others in these older mounds.\n\nThe Capitularies of Charlemagne (A.D. 789) order the burial of\nChristians in cemeteries, and expressly forbid the pagan practice of\nbarrow-burial: \u201c_Jubemus, ut corpora Christianorum Saxonum ad\ncoemiteria_ [al. _coemeteria_] _Ecclesiae deferantur, et non ad tumulos\npaganorum_[648].\u201d The burial-ground soon became known in Germany as\n\u201cGottes-acker\u201d (God\u2019s Acre). This change, too, completed the break\nbetween cremation and simple burial of the corpse. Orientation of graves\nnow became a fixed rule. Keysler suggests, and his view has since been\nlargely upheld, that the transfer of custom was due to the doctrine of\nthe Resurrection, as epitomized in I Cor. xv. 5 et seqq. and St John\nxii. 24[649]. In other words, the new religion discouraged cremation,\nand enjoined simple earth burial, thus curiously reviving the primitive\nhabit (cf. p. 264 _infra_).\n\nIf we desire, to-day, to see folk who represent the transitional stage\nof culture which connects the large tumulus with the smaller and more\ninsignificant mound, we may visit the natives of the Pandsh valley, in\nthe district of the Pamirs. Recently it has been discovered by Olufsen\nthat these \u201cequine-faced\u201d folk raise a burial-mound over the dead, and\nsurround it by high stones or a clay wall, according to the social\nstanding, riches, or holiness of the deceased man[650]. The\ndistinctions of rank have ever been preserved by the tomb, in spite of\nproverbial wisdom.\n\nReverting to the \u201cmould\u2019ring heap\u201d of which Gray sings in his _Elegy_,\nit may fairly be asked why the mound should be long and not round. A\ndecisive answer cannot be tendered. It is worth considering,\nnevertheless, whether this shape does not represent a \u201cthrow-back\u201d to\nNeolithic custom. The round barrows which fell under the Christian ban\nenclosed the relics of burnt or partially burnt bodies. The long\nbarrows, which, with some possible exceptions[651], are believed to be\nof earlier date, were raised over corpses which had not been cremated.\nNow, if it be true, as Mr Grant Allen supposed, that the shape of the\ncircular tumulus was determined by the cinerary urn around which it was\npiled, while the form of the long barrow depended on the subjacent\nchambered tomb--the underground home or palace of the dead\nperson[652]--we begin to see a glimmer of light. For the subterranean\nchamber, being intended to hold an uncremated corpse, would be roughly\nadapted to the form of the human body. In like manner, when inhumation\nwas again enforced, there would be an unconscious return to the use of\nthe long mound. As if to show once more that no rule is of universal\napplication, certain exceptions must be recorded. In some village\nchurchyards, a few round mounds are interspersed with the long ones.\nOccasionally, the round mounds may be explained by the division of a\nlong mound caused by the tread of careless feet, repeated throughout\nseveral generations. That this is not always the reason, is plain to the\nobservant eye. Do these mounds represent the graves of children, or of\nunbaptized infants? On the Sussex coast, the graves of drowned sailors\nare said to be thus distinguished. Once again, why should it be\ncustomary, as in some churchyards of Dorsetshire and the Isle of Wight,\nto make the long mounds of unusual size?\n\nA fact of some little interest, though it has no scientific bearing on\nour theme, is that the late Professor Tyndall\u2019s grave, in Haslemere\nchurchyard, Surrey, is a round tumulus, clad with bracken and heather.\nThe memorial took this unpretentious form in accordance with the\nexpressed wish of the philosopher himself. Through the kindness of Miss\nTruda Hutchinson, I am enabled to give an illustration (Fig. 51) of the\nmound. For the purpose of comparison, a round barrow situated at\nHenley-on-Thames is shown (Fig. 52).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 51. Tyndall\u2019s grave, Haslemere churchyard, Surrey. A\nmodern round barrow.]\n\nWe have seen that orientation, as we know it, was not strictly observed\nin the burials of prehistoric folk, while, in our day, it is all but\nuniversal. Contrariwise, what was originally a common feature--the\nplacing of the corpse in a crouched or sitting posture--is now decidedly\nexceptional, being restricted to the\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 52. Round barrow, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire.]\n\nburials of very eccentric or very pious persons[653]. Interment in an\nupright position has not, however, been of infrequent occurrence. Ben\nJonson was so buried at Westminster. The case of the Hobarts, who are\nburied in a brickwork vault at Blickling, Norfolk, is also often cited.\nThe vertical position was formerly adopted for the interment of captains\nin the army[654]. The body of Clement Spelman, Recorder of Nottingham,\nwas immured (A.D. 1679) in a pillar in Narburgh church[655]. Many other\ncurious vagaries of custom might be given; one or two instances must\nsuffice. Surrey folk are familiar with Leith Hill Tower, under which lie\nthe remains of Mr Richard Hull, who died in 1772, and whose peculiar\nopinions led him to stipulate burial in this elevated region[656]. In\nanother instance, a corpse was buried within a flint pyramid at the top\nof a fir-clad hill near Great Missenden, in Buckinghamshire. A chapter\nmight easily be filled with such particulars, but enough has been said\nto show that, amid all these eccentricities of habit, there is often an\nunwitting reversion to primitive methods. The similarities have been\nrevealed only by the labours of the barrow-digger and the antiquary. Not\nonly has the practice of orientation been found to have a very ancient\ndescent, but many quaint usages, ofttimes deemed abnormal, have proved\nto be genuine survivals. In the next chapter some of these survivals\nwill be considered. Not a little pathos is associated with our knowledge\nof these details. Bones which had \u201cquietly rested under the drums and\ntramplings of three conquests,\u201d have been unromantically disturbed by\nthe busy archaeologist, and compelled to yield their secret. One cannot\nwithhold sympathy from the investigator who had obtained permission to\nopen a certain barrow, but who pondered and procrastinated, viewing,\nwith indulgent eye, the even outline of the grassy mound. Day by day his\npity for the sleeping warrior increased, and he hesitated to thrust his\nspade into the wind-swept turf, until the opportunity for work had\nslipped away. One admires the spirit, yet to widen the limits of\nknowledge that spirit has to be sadly, though judiciously, corrected.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nSURVIVALS IN BURIAL CUSTOMS\n\n\nA discussion of burial customs might, in the absence of a little careful\nselection of material, tend to become rather gruesome. This may be\nconceded at the outset, but, fortunately, an impersonal treatment is\npossible, and one need not even imitate the mournful example of \u201cOld\nMortality.\u201d There is nothing morbid in a dispassionate review of customs\nwhich, in all ages and among all peoples, seem to have been general,\nbecause born of that vicissitude which is the common lot of man.\nPerhaps, in some measure, the antiquary may be able to reach the\nstandard of stoicism set up by John Earle: \u201cHis grave does not fright\nhim [the antiquary], because he has been used to sepulchers, and he\nlikes Death the better, because it gathers him to his fathers[657].\u201d\n\nAlready we have spoken of the orientation of graves, and the degradation\nof the barrow to the grave-mound. Several kindred matters must now\nreceive attention, and in a later chapter, when chariot-burial is\nconsidered, our eyes will again be turned backward. For customs are like\ncrystals with several facets; to get a true perception we must, in each\ncase, frequently change our point of view.\n\nA few more instances of the development of funeral monuments may be\nfirst noted. It has been shown elsewhere that the churchyard headstone\nmay be traced back, step by step, to the unhewn menhir set up by\nprimitive man on some bleak moorland. Within the last two or three\nyears, there have been discovered in France and Italy remarkable\nconnecting links, in the so-called \u201cstatue-menhirs,\u201d prehistoric stones\nrudely carved\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 53. Inscribed, ornamented, round-headed cross, Sancreed\n     churchyard, Cornwall. In the head of the cross is a figure of Our\n     Lord in relief. The shaft is decorated with interlaced work, and\n     contains a panel with an imperfect inscription.\n]\n\nto represent the human head and trunk[658]. The evidence derived from\nobserving the gradual evolution is corroborated by strange cases of\nsurvival. Thus in St Martha\u2019s churchyard, near Chilworth, Surrey, low\nheadstones, untouched by any tool, have been set up in considerable\nnumbers. The slabs are merely masses of ironstone dug out of the Lower\nGreensand of the hill on which the church is built. Pursuing another\nline of descent, Mr J. Romilly Allen claimed that a similar kind of\ncoarse monolith had developed into the \u201cwheel-cross\u201d and the\n\u201cfree-standing\u201d cross of Christian churchyards[659] (Fig. 53 and Fig.\n62). The dolmen, or \u201cstone-table,\u201d a familiar prehistoric monument, has\nbeen replaced by the family vault and the altar-tomb, the ossuary of\nBrittany, the flat tombstone of the village graveyard, and the\nsarcophagus of the cathedral[660]. The cromlech, a circle of upright\nstone pillars, is by some believed to have been the forerunner of the\ntemple and the round church[661]; but this claim may be waived, as not\nfully proven (cf. p. 99 _supra_). More plausible is the theory that the\nrude, unfashioned grave-stake is represented to-day by the humble wooden\ncross of our cemeteries[662]. Each of these examples of unconscious\nimitation and modern survival might be examined at some length, but the\ntheories which they illustrate are now so familiar as to be commonplace.\nNot quite so well known is the theory that we have derived our custom of\nplacing shrubs on graves from our heathen forefathers of the Bronze Age,\nwho were wont to plant trees on their burial mounds[663]. Mr Grant Allen\nargued, with some reason, that the pine-trees so frequently found on\nround barrows in the South of England are survivors of those placed\nthere by the first mound-raisers, since the Scottish pine is not now\nindigenous to that tract of country[664] (cf. p. 401 _infra_).\n\nAttempts have been made to connect the noun \u201cbarrow\u201d with the verb \u201cto\nbury,\u201d but the relationship cannot really be upheld. The primary notion\ninvolved in \u201cbarrow\u201d was that of a height, while \u201cto bury\u201d was\nassociated with concealment or covering. The word \u201cbarrow,\u201d it may be\nremarked, went out of use in English literature before A.D. 1400, but it\nsurvived locally in dialects, and was ultimately taken back into the\nnomenclature of archaeology[665]. But, though philology forbids us to\nbind these two words together, the actual continuity between\nmound-burial and pit-burial, as we have seen, has never been completely\nbroken. Something has been said about the later development of barrows\nand megaliths; it is now desirable to trace the earliest representatives\nof our wooden coffin. To begin with, we notice that coffins did not come\ninto universal use until a little over two centuries ago. This is proved\nby numerous terriers and by minutes of parish vestries. In London, it is\ntrue, burial in the simple winding-sheet seems to have been discarded so\nfar back as the early years of Elizabeth, but in remote districts the\ncustom lingered much later. Thus in the Isle of Man, down to the early\npart of the eighteenth century, the bodies of the poor were wrapped in a\nblanket fastened with a skewer, and were carried on a bier to the grave.\nA hundred years afterwards, coffinless burials survived to a\nconsiderable extent in county Wexford. Sir R. Phillimore quotes Lord\nStowell\u2019s dictum that funerals were either \u201ccoffined\u201d or \u201ccoffinless,\u201d\nand were charged for accordingly. The use of coffins is extremely\nancient, but at first the custom was by no means common[666]. There\nappears, in fact, to have been no real uniformity in this, as in many\nother practices, since the earliest days of English Christendom. And in\nthis lack of system we find at once an approximation to the customs of\nthe barrow period, when corpses were either enclosed, or buried without\na cist, the exact reason for the difference of treatment being not\nalways explicable by the general ideas held at the time.\n\nLest there should still be any doubt of the antiquity of coffins, it is\nnecessary to recall those coffins of the Middle Ages (Fig. 54), often\nhewn out of a single block, and familiar to persons who have inspected\nthe relics of ruined abbeys and the nooks and corners of our existing\nparish churches. These stone coffins are obviously the representatives\nof prehistoric tombs, though they may not be in the true British line of\ndescent. Rather do they suggest the Roman coffins of stone, lead, or\nbrick (Figs. 55 B, 56). Occasionally, Roman coffins of stone are\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 54. Mediaeval stone coffins. A. From Wellesbourne churchyard,\n     Warwickshire (Bloxam\u2019s _Mon. Archit._). There is a hole in the\n     bottom of the coffin, as in the prehistoric specimen from\n     Gristhorpe (Fig. 55 B). An almost exact replica of this coffin may\n     be seen in the Guildhall Museum, London, associated with a\n     thirteenth century lid bearing a foliated cross. B. From Eynesford\n     church, Kent. This specimen has a raised head-rest.\n]\n\nfound, covered with a lid of undoubted Saxon workmanship, proving that\nthere had been a re-adaptation. We note, in passing, that the stone\ncoffin must be carefully distinguished from those hog-backed or coped\nstones which were employed as grave covers in early Christian times, and\nto which Mr Romilly Allen assigned a Saxon or Scandinavian origin[667].\nWith respect to the wooden coffin, commonly adjudged as of Christian\ndesign, there is occasionally some difficulty. At Colchester, wooden\ncoffins have been found associated with leaden ones,\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 55. A. Prehistoric coffin, formed of a hollowed oak trunk,\n     found in a barrow at Gristhorpe, near Scarborough. The bark is\n     still adhering to the timber. A hole (3\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 1\u00b4\u00b4) has been cut in\n     the bottom of the coffin. The relics indicated that the grave\n     probably belonged to the Bronze Age. (After T. Wright.)\n\n     B. Roman coffin of baked clay, Aldborough, Yorkshire. (After T.\n     Wright.) The shapes of such coffins are rather variable.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 56. Roman coffin of lead, found at Colchester. Length 4\u00b4 3\u00b4\u00b4;\n     depth, exclusive of lid, 9\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4; width at head 15\u00b4\u00b4, at foot 11\u00b4\u00b4.\n     The lid has overlapping edges. The decoration consists of scallop\n     shells, concentric rings, and lines of beaded ornament.\n]\n\nand have been taken to indicate a Christian element among the\npopulation. In connection with the leaden coffins were found Roman\ncoins, mainly, of the Constantine group, so that the burials were of\nlate date. Yet, although there were probably many converts in that part\nof England by the time of the Diocletian persecution, A.D. 303, Mr Guy\nMaynard, who records the discoveries, admits that there is little\ncorroborative evidence of the Christian character of the graves[668].\nLooked at from either standpoint, the association of coffins and coins\nseems to show a period of transition.\n\nWe are able, however, to extend our view much beyond the Roman invasion,\nand to find the counterpart of the coffin in many primitive burials.\nSome of the stone cists which enclosed unburnt bodies of the older\nBronze Age barrows are actually described as \u201ccoffin-shaped\nreceptacles[669].\u201d A Bronze Age barrow at Hove, Brighton, contained an\noak coffin in which objects of bronze, stone, and amber had been\ndeposited with the skeleton[670]. Belonging to the same period was the\nfamous barrow of Gristhorpe, near Scarborough; in this example the\ninterment had been made in a hollowed oak trunk, specially prepared for\nthe purpose[671] (Fig. 55 A). King Barrow, near Wareham, Dorset, was\nfound to be raised over a coffin, wherein a cup of shale had been\ndeposited with the body[672]. Mr J. R. Mortimer asserts that traces of\nwooden supports for protecting the body are often found. In a barrow at\nEasington, in Holderness, broad slabs, made from the trunk of a willow,\nformed the covering. It would be superfluous to continue the list, but\nshould the reader desire to examine further material in justification of\nthe plea of continuity, he will find ample opportunity in Mr Llewellynn\nJewitt\u2019s interesting volume[673].\n\nThe Roman and pre-Roman periods have been considered; we turn to the\nRomano-British burials, and proceed in the forward direction.\n\nGen. Pitt-Rivers discovered \u201cdug-out\u201d coffins at Woodyates, and other\nsites in Cranborne Chase, and he inferred the former existence of\nfurther specimens by the presence of nails which were associated with\nthe burials. To ascertain whether the record can be extended into later\nhistorical times, we might turn especially to our Northern churchyards.\nSome examples of the stone cell, found at Alloa and elsewhere, are\ndescribed by Sir Arthur Mitchell as being simply cists, enlarged so as\nto avoid doubling up the body[674]. Later stages of survival are\nwitnessed by the rude box-shaped tombstones of many churchyards in\nDevonshire, Gloucestershire, and other counties[675]. Stone coffins have\nbeen dug up in the Dorsetshire graveyard of Worth Matravers, almost\nidentical with those which have been unearthed from barrows in the\nsurrounding Isle of Purbeck. In short, it is clear that the stone coffin\nand the table tombstone are derived from the ancient stone cist, and\nthis, in its turn, bears some analogy to the chamber of the long barrow.\n\nThis endurance of custom becomes the more remarkable when we remember\nthat great changes have occurred in the mode of treating the corpse at\nburial. At first there was inhumation; then we have a period during\nwhich inhumation and cremation were, to some extent, contemporaneous,\nwhile, as a variant, partial burning of the body was common. Cremation\ngradually becomes obsolete, and earth-burial again comes into vogue. If\nwe carry back our thoughts to the advent of Christianity into Britain,\nwe see that the trend of custom was the exact reverse of that which\nobtains in our day, when cremation is very slowly replacing\nearth-burial. The substitution of inhumation for the funeral pyre is one\nof the four chief distinctions drawn by Mr Romilly Allen between the\nburial customs of the Celtic pagans and the Celtic Christians[676]. Yet\nthe change was a slow one; in the remote fastnesses of the country, the\ncustom of burning bodies lingered for generations, though it was\ngenerally extinct in the fourth century of our era[677]. Indeed,\nMacrobius, the critic and philosopher, who wrote at the beginning of the\nfifth century, declared that cremation had been discontinued for so long\na time that it was only from books that he could glean information\nconcerning the custom[678]. Whether the turnover from cremation to\nearth-burial were always the result of religious or of racial influences\nis a moot point[679]. The evidence seems to prove, as already hinted,\nthat in Britain the cause was mainly religious (p. 263 _supra_), though\none dare not assert that religion was the sole cause. Cremation must\nalways have been a comparatively expensive process. Someone has well\nsaid, \u201cTo this day we speak of the ashes of the great, and the bones of\nthe poor.\u201d At all events, transitions may be noted, as in the case of\nthe famous flat-earth burial-ground at Aylesford, which was referred to\nin the preceding chapter. The ashes of the \u201cfamily circle\u201d represented\nat Aylesford had been enclosed in urns, and then placed in pits, as\nbefore stated (p. 261 _supra_). Sir A. J. Evans supposes that the\nvariation of custom was due to the influence of Belgic conquerors. The\nurn-burials represented at Aylesford superseded the old skeleton\ninterments of the late-Celtic peoples, as exemplified in the\n\u201cchariot-burials\u201d of Yorkshire, where the skeleton of the departed\nwarrior is laid alongside the chariot[680]. In Scandinavia and Northern\nGermany there was a further intermediate stage, for the ashes were\nsometimes deposited in the grave without any enclosing urn. To such\ngraves the Northern archaeologists apply the term \u201cBrandgruben,\u201d or\ncremation pits. This mode of burial is connected with the La T\u00e8ne period\nof culture[681].\n\nThough this question of cremation may appear to have slight connection\nwith the use of coffins, a little study will show that there is a bond\nof association. The ashes of the dead were, it is true, usually\nenshrined in a cinerary urn, and this vessel was often placed in a\nchamber specially constructed for the purpose. But it was the coffin\nwhich was essentially a receptacle for preserving the entire body, and\nwhich therefore became the sign of earth-burial. Dr Rock lays down the\nrule that bishops, kings, and persons of rank were interred in stone\ncoffins, while the bulk of the people had coffins of wood. Whenever the\nreceptacle was made of wood, and not of stone, one might have supposed\nthat it would readily become an accessory in the rite of cremation. This\nwas apparently not the case, though, obviously, proof would be difficult\nto obtain. The body seems to have been burnt in an open pyre, not\nenclosed in a chest. Contrariwise, in a Saxon cemetery at Sibertswold,\nin Kent, ninety-nine of the coffins had been \u201csubmitted to the fire,\u201d\nthe bodies themselves being unburnt. Again, in the early Christian\nburials a cist of stones, instead of a coffin, was sometimes placed\naround the corpse[682], but there was no reversion to the funeral pyre.\nYet, as already noticed, the employment, in isolated instances, of rude\ncoffins, to say nothing of the cists by which they were foreshadowed,\nwas probably in some measure contemporary with the general pagan custom\nof burning the dead. There was an overlapping of custom. Such seeming\nanachronisms, while they puzzle, do not greatly surprise the\narchaeologist, to whom such occurrences are no new feature. He\nfrequently sees remote traces of the beginnings of a practice of which\nthe general adoption was long delayed; he observes rites and customs\noverlapping in time and struggling for victory; and, in his own day, he\nis a witness of extraordinary vestiges and of ceremonies which must be\ndeemed reversions or \u201cthrow-backs.\u201d The overstepping of one burial rite\nby another of older origin is not a whit more inexplicable than the\ncontemporaneous use, by man, of diverse kinds of clothes or of varying\ntypes of habitation. It is perhaps the more difficult problem to\ndetermine, in the absence of additional data, why, at a particular\nperiod, one group of men is found dwelling in pile-houses on the margins\nof lake or mere, while another class frequents caves and rock-shelters,\nand a third prefers the wattled hut with sunken floor, and roof of reeds\nor heather. Convenience was doubtless a partial cause of these\ndiversities, just as belief was the great regulator of burial customs,\nbut this is not the full answer. We must look to primary race\ndistinctions, in which were the germs of the variations, and to the fact\nthat human immigrations to Britain occurred at intervals, so that mental\nas well as physical territories were invaded and transgressed.\n\nA remarkable instance of anticipation will illustrate, to some extent,\nwhat has just been said. The antiquary is well aware that, during the\nStuart period, in order to encourage the woollen industry, statutes were\npassed (A.D. 1666, 1678, 1680), which made it compulsory to bury the\ndead in woollen shrouds. An interesting chapter of burial-lore might be\nwritten on this curious subject, for the Acts, though they had long been\nin abeyance, were not repealed until late in the reign of George III.\n(A.D. 1814)[683]. The practice is recalled in our own day when, by\nrequest of the dying person, the body is enfolded in some special garb,\nusually of wool, before being committed to the earth. The strange\ncircumstance, however, is that such a custom should have been\nforeshadowed in the far-away past. In Danish burials belonging to the\nearliest Bronze Age, the bodies are sometimes found to have been placed\nin hollowed tree trunks, and the remains show that a woollen shroud had\nbeen used. Skeletons wrapped in a woollen textile have likewise been\ndiscovered at Rylston, in the Western Riding of Yorkshire[684]. I have\nprovisionally regarded these instances as revealing anticipations rather\nthan origins, but it is possible that many intermediate examples could\nbe supplied. One of these gradations is perhaps traceable in the custom\nof burying a person in his ordinary dress. If these links were\ncomplete, there would obviously be entire continuity, but if we\nencountered a gap, it is probable that the eighteenth century practice\nwould have to be considered as a \u201cthrow-back.\u201d\n\nIt is now time to review the custom, still common among uncivilized\npeoples, and once extremely popular in Britain, of placing objects with\nthe corpse in the grave. A mass of evidence has been collated and\nexamined, and though only a portion can be given here, we must, while\nshunning tediousness, present as much detail as is actually profitable.\nA rough preliminary classification of these funerary objects would\ninclude, (1) weapons and useful implements; (2) amulets, talismans, and\nsymbolical objects; (3) trinkets, ornaments, and decorative articles;\n(4) a miscellaneous group, partly useful, partly symbolical or\ncommemorative. It is necessary to premise that this classification is\nconventional, and lacks well-defined boundaries, hence, while dealing\nwith one series of relics, other groups will be forced upon our\nattention, producing, later, unavoidable repetition.\n\nThat the groups enumerated have a somewhat arbitrary basis is rendered\nclear when we perceive a principle running through the whole series,\nmost effective in prehistoric days, but probably reaching, in a vague\nand partial manner, to the utmost confines of modern religious thought.\nThis principle, which must be briefly outlined, has been well described\nby Professor Tylor under the name of Animism. The term implies the\ndoctrine of Spiritual Beings or Souls--a deep-lying belief in the\ntwo-fold nature of both animate and inanimate objects, as opposed to the\nteachings of Materialistic philosophy[685]. Animism supplies us,\naccording to Professor Tylor, with \u201ca minimum definition of\nReligion[686].\u201d The primordial idea, which impelled early man to acts of\nworship, was, according to this theory, the belief that not only his own\nfellows, but the beasts, trees, and surrounding objects, natural or\nartificial, possessed spirits--ethereal images, as it were--of\nthemselves. Hence the dead man must be provided with food, weapons, and\nother necessaries; not that these material objects themselves, but\ntheir corresponding phantasmal shapes, might, when disembodied,\naccompany the departed warrior or huntsman on his journey to the\nspirit-world[687]. In the earliest times, when the dead man was thought\nto be merely asleep, it may have been believed that the actual objects\nwere of service, but at a later period, when it was recognized that the\nsoul had actually left the body, the weapons were burnt, or perchance\nbroken, before being interred. The precise mode of transmission of the\nsimulacral forms to the dead man\u2019s service was left in vague suspense,\nbut the duty was clearly understood. The spirit of the weapon or\nornament must be set free; the ghost desired the immaterial wraiths or\nshadows, not the solid earthly utensils. Mr Grant Allen has ingeniously,\nand with considerable force, contended that the two faiths may be\ncorrelated with the Long-Barrow Period and the Round-Barrow Period\nrespectively. During the former age, when inhumation was in fashion, the\nlife of the grave was considered to be as material and real as life on\nthe earth, and the weapons would serve equally well for both worlds.\nAmong the cremationists of the Bronze Age who imagined the existence of\n\u201ca realm of incorporeal disembodied spirits,\u201d the ghost was conceived to\nbe immaterial, therefore the weapons were broken or charred with\nfire[688]. It must further be noted that Mr Grant Allen, along with some\nother writers, does not altogether accept Professor Tylor\u2019s theory of\nanimism. He does not believe that the ideas involved in animism are\ndemonstrably primitive[689], and, following in the footsteps of Herbert\nSpencer, he seeks the origin of religion in ancestor-worship and its\nassociated ancestral ghosts. According to this hypothesis, objects were\nfirst placed in, or on, the grave, to propitiate the dead. As fear of\nthe corpse gradually diminished, respect became the dominant idea, and\nghost-worship and shade-worship were established. Between this\n\u201cHumanist\u201d school of thought, and that of Animism, as represented by\nProfessor Tylor and Professor Frazer, a reconciliation may, to some\nextent, be effected[690]. We may perhaps look upon ancestor-worship as a\nsub-division of the animistic belief, and as tending towards a higher\nplane of religion. Professor Frazer, in his work on _Totemism and\nExogamy_, has cleared the ground by showing that totemism, which has\noften been regarded as a primitive religion, is only occasionally found\nin connection with the doctrine of external souls. In pure totemism, the\ntotems are in no sense deities, to be propitiated by offerings or\nsacrifices. Professor Westermarck declares that there is no\njustification in facts for regarding the worship of the dead as \u201cthe\nroot of every religion.\u201d The spirits of the dead were not originally\nconceived as the only supernatural agents existing. Whichever be\nconsidered the primitive type of religion is a matter which will not\ngreatly affect our present review of the facts of continuity. Nor need\nwe feel much concerned with a third claim--that certain races may have\nreached the pastoral stage of society without passing through the\nnomadic stage, and may have been worshippers of the sun or some of the\nother external powers of Nature without embracing animism.\n\nFrom the animistic side itself, Professor Tylor has uttered a\nsignificant warning against straining the theory. While in the vast\nnumber of cases, the idea of object-souls is, he informs us, both clear\nand explicit, yet it is notorious that there are peoples who sacrifice\nproperty or deposit offerings to the dead from other motives. Affection,\nfancy, or symbolism, a desire to abandon the dead man\u2019s property,\nanxiety to appease the hovering ghost, may each, in particular cases,\nbe an efficient motive[691]. Again, although the animistic conception,\nso far as primitive peoples were concerned, was world-wide in its\nextent, yet, in our day, and among civilized folk, the system seems to\nbe drawing in its outposts. It has outlived the belief in the objective\nreality of apparitional souls or ghosts; the notion of the souls of\nbeasts is similarly being left behind. The central position is now held\nby the doctrine of the human soul[692].\n\nA still more modern theory, the psychological, is put forward by Mr A.\nE. Crawley, in his recent work, _The Idea of the Soul_. Mr Crawley\nconsiders that the world of spirits is a mental world, and that the soul\nitself is \u201cthe mental duplicate of reality.\u201d As soon as man had the\npower of perception to enable him to form a memory-image, he possessed a\nsoul. The mental replica of the object perceived was, in the earlier\nstages of savage life, concrete, though immaterial; at a later period,\nunder the influence of language and science, abstractions were formed.\nOne is bound to add that Mr Crawley\u2019s theory does not seem to meet with\ngeneral approbation, though it will have to be reckoned with in all\nfuture discussions.\n\nWe shall expect, from these preliminary observations, to encounter\nvarious gradations of belief as we proceed to consider the evidence for\ncontinuity of custom respecting burial gifts. In order that the forest\nmay not lose its importance by being considered in detail, tree by tree,\nlet us keep to our proposed classification, and glance first at the\npractice of burying weapons and other useful objects with the dead.\nThough the custom was not a marked feature of the Long-Barrow Period,\nthe original inspiration dates from that age at least. The Round-Barrow\nepoch, however, was pre-eminently associated with the burial of weapons\nand utensils. A rough enumeration made by Canon Greenwell showed that\nabout one-fifth of the barrows which he had opened contained implements\nof some kind, the commonest materials employed in the manufacture being\nstone, bronze, or horn. To be exact, out of 379 burials by inhumation or\ncremation, 77 had associated implements[693]. A study of the researches\nof Mortimer and Pitt-Rivers will give similar results. Nor when we trace\nthe story onwards to the advent of Christianity, does the force of\ncustom diminish, even if its direction becomes slightly changed. Flint\nscrapers and useful instruments of many kinds are turned out of graves\nbelonging to the Roman period, just as Early Iron Age burials yield\ncorresponding relics. A fragment of a flint celt was found with a Late\nRoman or Early Saxon burial at Leicester[694], while a Saxon grave at\nAsh, in Kent, yielded a polished celt, together with a Roman\nfibula[695]. The celt, in this instance, was evidently an heirloom from\nan earlier period, and had been regarded by its finder with\nsuperstitious reverence. One need scarcely recall the celebrated Saxon\ntumulus in Taplow churchyard, Buckinghamshire (p. 81 _supra_), which\ncontained, in addition to Anglo-Saxon relics of the ordinary kind, flint\nflakes, cores, and scrapers[696]. On the Continent, flint arrow-heads\nare frequently found with Merovingian remains dating from the fifth to\nthe eighth centuries of our era. In one case, an iron sword of the\nFrankish period accompanied the arrow-heads. Such occurrences are not\nwell-attested with respect to Britain, though the collocation of flint\nand bronze articles is frequent[697]. The most remarkable instance of\nthe survival of celt-burial is that supplied by the tumulus in Flanders,\ndescribed by Evans. Within this barrow, arranged in a circle around the\nbody, the mourners had placed six celts in an upright position. The\ncelts, seemingly of different ages, had been gathered from the surface\nof the soil, and deposited within the tomb as amulets[698]. There can be\nlittle doubt, however, that the custom, thus shorn of its primary\nsignificance, was once the expression of a deep conviction of service.\nAn ancient Vedic hymn, or dirge, has the words, \u201cTake not the bow from\nthe hand of him who lies dead.\u201d Does not also Ossian give instructions\nto Oscar on this very subject? \u201cRemember, my son, to place this sword,\nthis bow, the horn of my deer, within that dark and narrow home, whose\nmark is one grey stone[699].\u201d When we observe that parallel ideas are\nactually common the world over, we shall be inclined to believe that\nMacpherson has here recovered a bit of genuine Celtic tradition. Thus,\nthe Greenlanders inter bows and other weapons with the dead, the\nTuranians of Eastern Asia bury axes, flints, and food, and supply the\ndeceased warrior with a spear that he may be ready for future\ncombat[700].\n\nThere is no need to press this point, but having carried the custom to\nSaxon times, when objects of stone still survived along with such burial\nrelics as iron swords, daggers, and knives, let us consider one or two\nlater observances. In Mediaeval days, burial in armour was considered\nmost honourable. Not seldom, the warriors lay uncoffined, their shroud a\npanoply of iron. Their arms and weapons, again, were suspended over the\ntomb. This practice lasted a long time, and allusion to it may be found\nin Shakespeare. Laertes, speaking of the burial of his father Polonius,\ncomplains of\n\n                        \u201chis obscure funeral,\n    No trophy, sword, nor hatchment o\u2019er his bones[701].\u201d\n\nAnd Iden, in the second part of _Henry VI._, inquires,\n\n    \u201cIs\u2019t Cade that I have slain, that monstrous traitor?\n     Sword, I will hallow thee for this thy deed,\n     And hang thee o\u2019er my tomb when I am dead[702].\u201d\n\nEvery ecclesiologist is familiar with such arms and accoutrements as are\nhere mentioned. Dr J. C. Cox has enumerated churches where personal\narmour is still preserved[703]. No further digression can be made here,\nbut the reader may again be reminded that many armorial relics belong to\na later period, and are counterfeits which constituted part of the\nundertaker\u2019s trappings (cf. p. 159 _supra_). One attenuated survival\nlasted until the middle of the nineteenth century in the form of square\nor lozenge-shaped hatchments (= \u201cachievements\u201d), made of wood. On these\nwooden shields, which, after the funeral, were nailed up in the church,\nwere blazoned the coats-of-arms borne by the family of the deceased\nperson. The most recent spectacle of this kind, surprisingly belated,\nwas witnessed at the church of Hunmanby, in the East Riding, during the\nyear 1897[704].\n\nStrangest of all the warrior superstitions was that exemplified in the\nceremony of offering food to weapons. The custom, which is plainly\ntraceable to pagan ideas of worship, continued without interruption, we\nare assured, until the reign of Elizabeth. One instance must suffice.\nSir Howel-y-Furyall, known to his fellows as \u201cSir Howel of the\nBattle-axe,\u201d a weapon which he wielded bravely at Poitiers, ordained\nthat his axe should be hung up in the Tower of London, and a \u201cmesse of\nmeat\u201d served before it daily. The injunction was obeyed, and each day,\nafter the rite had been completed, the food was distributed to\nbeggars[705].\n\nArms and food do not, however, complete our list of serviceable gifts to\nthe dead. Among implements of this nature must be reckoned divers kinds\nof fire-producers. Excavations have shown that flint and iron pyrites\nwere occasionally concealed in round barrows, while, in the mounds of\nlater periods, a piece of iron replaced the customary mineral nodule.\nThese ignition agents, the forerunners of our \u201cstrike-a-lights\u201d and\ntinder boxes, are found so late as the Saxon period. Certain small\n\u201cnests\u201d of chipped flints occurring in Merovingian, Frankish, and Saxon\nsepulchres, are also believed by some authorities to have been intended\nfor fire-kindlers[706], by means of which the departed spirit could be\nprovided with cheerful warmth. To the present writer this theory is not\nentirely satisfactory, at least as regards the later developments of the\npractice. The cases just cited seem to be analogous to those described\nby Pitt-Rivers, who repeatedly found, in British barrows, urns filled\nwith chips of flint[707]. In a notable barrow at Winkelbury Hill, on a\nNorthern spur of the Wiltshire Downs, not only was the urn packed with\nflakes, but it was surrounded by a mass of similar objects[708]. Besides\nthe flakes placed in the cist or urn itself, we have to take into\naccount the very common occurrence of flint spalls in the body of the\nmound, a sight familiar to the barrow-digger. The number of chips is\noften out of all proportion to what might be incidentally brought\ntogether in piling up the substance of the mound from the surface soil.\nThey were evidently struck off for the particular occasion. Now,\nalthough the germ of the ceremony may be discoverable in the burial of a\ntrimmed flint and a lump of iron pyrites, there is no manifest virtue in\nthe multiplication of the chips. Each tribesman may indeed have thrown\nin his tributary flint, or perhaps a handful of small flakes, but the\nintention would scarcely be to increase the opportunities of procuring\nfire. Rather do the chips seem to represent some esoteric doctrine, such\nas that which was held by the primitive Lapps. Hidden in the flint lies\nthe spark, the emblem of life and animation, ready to burst forth. The\nscattered flakes of flint were therefore probably the proofs, not alone\nof dutiful respect, but of a strong faith that the dead man was merely\nasleep, that his spirit would return. Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_ has been\ncredited with the statement that Northern peoples used to throw flint\nchippings into graves in order to confine the dead within those dark\ndominions. Pliny does, indeed, describe certain stones that consume dead\nbodies, and other kinds that have the power to preserve the corpse, and\nto turn it into stone[709]. But the reference to the flint flakes, as\ncommonly given, is bibliographically incorrect, and, although the\npassage may exist, I have not been successful in finding it. Except for\nthe sake of the reason assigned to the custom, the passage is\nunimportant, since we possess actual relics as a testimony of the\npractice. What is of more interest is the fact that we have a reference\nto the custom as apparently existing in Shakespeare\u2019s day. When Ophelia\nis about to be buried, the surly priest makes complaint:\n\n    \u201cShe should in ground unsanctified have lodged\n     Till the last trumpet; for charitable prayers,\n     Shards, flints, and pebbles should be thrown on her[710].\u201d\n\nFrom this passage it seems clear that a ceremony, which, if I interpret\nit aright, was originally indicative of respect, had degenerated into a\nmark of disgrace. The potsherds and flint chips were known to be a mark\nof heathen burial, and were therefore reprobated by Christians, without\nany inquiry as to their purport. There is an alternative explanation:\nthe idea of laying the evil spirit, so that it should not wander abroad\nand annoy the living, may at some time have been operative. If this\nassumption be well founded, it might be urged that the priest had caught\nan echo of the superstition, and actually believed that the ghost of a\nsuicide might return. The usual annotation of the lines, to the effect\nthat Ophelia is worthy only of pagan burial, comes a little short of the\nwhole truth, and one of these ideas--respect or fear--is required to\nround off the meaning. In support of this view, the case of the Czechs\nis apposite. When returning from a funeral, it is the custom of this\nfolk to throw stones, mud, and hot coals in the direction of the grave\nto deter the spirit from following the burial party[711]. Again, the\npurpose of wearing mourning is believed to have arisen from attempts to\ndisguise the person, so that pursuit by the dead may be evaded; or, as\nMr E. S. Hartland contends, the intention was to express sorrow and\nabasement, so as to deprecate the malice of the disembodied spirit[712].\nYet, in spite of these by-theories, one is led to believe that the\nearlier intention of the funeral flints was to express honour and\nrespect, though the feeling may have been tinged with wholesome fear. To\nthis extent the theory of ancestor-worship, as opposed to that of\nanimism, receives some confirmation.\n\nA passage occurring in Herodotus has been noted as throwing some light\non the custom, while not affording an actual explanation. The writer is\ndescribing the ceremony of purification observed after funerals by the\nScythians in Europe. A cavity was made, or a dish was placed in the\nmiddle of a specially constructed tent. Into this hollow they threw\nstones heated to a transparent brightness (\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd)[713]. This description, however, does not really\napply to the rite which we are considering, for Herodotus goes on to say\nthat hemp-seed is put on the red-hot stones. The intention was to\nprepare a kind of vapour bath, and also probably to induce\nintoxication[714]. In other words, the heated stones seem to have been\nour familiar \u201cpot-boilers,\u201d common on all prehistoric camping-grounds,\nand capable of a purely industrial explanation, though often applied to\na ceremonial purpose.\n\nReturning to the shards alluded to by the priest at Ophelia\u2019s grave, we\nnote, as an illustration, that Pitt-Rivers found considerable quantities\nof broken pottery in the Romano-British graves of Dorset and Wiltshire.\nA remarkable coincidence must now be mentioned. Douglas, writing his\n_Nenia Britannica_ in 1793, had noticed that pebbles and fragments of\npottery were often mixed with the earth which had been scattered over\nthe corpses in Saxon graves. The shards were generally of more ancient\ndate than the interment[715]. Douglas had lighted upon the passage in\n_Hamlet_, already quoted, and had connected it with the superstitious\nSaxon practice. Over half a century later, Mr W. M. Wylie, who was\nexploring Saxon graves at Fairford, in Gloucestershire, came upon\nquantities of similar burial shards. The vessels which had furnished the\nfragments had not been newly broken for the occasion, since the pieces\ndid not correspond, but had been previously collected and kept in\nreadiness. Along with these potsherds were found pebbles that had been\nfired, as well as scoriae from iron smeltings, obtained perhaps from the\nneighbourhood of Cirencester, not far away[716]. After referring to the\ndescription of the Scythian custom, which has just been quoted from\nHerodotus, and after making a half-hearted attempt to connect the\nScythians with the Northern Teutons, Wylie cites the now-famous lines\nfrom _Hamlet_. That Wylie should have independently come to the same\nconclusion as Douglas, and should have called attention to the same\nShakespearean allusion, is very noteworthy, for he had never read\nDouglas\u2019s work[717].\n\nAlthough we are considering relics which were judged to be of use to the\ndead, we have transgressed our limits, and have been compelled to glance\nat the ceremonial aspect. Yet before we can safely return to the main\ninquiry, we must notice some instances of survival in this matter of\npotsherds. Numerous records tend to show that the deposition of pieces\nof earthenware in Christian graves was not an uncommon practice during\nthe Middle Ages. At once, however, we must make a reservation: the\nscraps of pottery may, to some extent, represent vessels in which\ncharcoal had been deposited, but which afterwards were fractured by the\nsexton\u2019s spade. For the broken pottery is sometimes, but not always,\nassociated with charcoal, while, as we shall see, the charcoal is often\nfound alone. The Rev. R. Ashington Bullen found traces of the custom at\nLittle Stukeley, Huntingdonshire. At a depth of 4\u00bd feet, graves were\nfound to contain fragments of Mediaeval pottery, possessing a greenish\nglaze, but no charcoal was discovered[718]. Canon Atkinson states that\npotsherds were also found near Dunsley chapel, Yorkshire, which was\nprobably demolished prior to the Dissolution of the Monasteries. This\ncapable antiquary, whose eye was well trained for the work, observed\ncharcoal and broken crocks in abundance in the old churchyard graves of\nDanby-in-Cleveland. The charcoal occurred in lumps of the size of a\nsmall bean. Occasionally, out of half a spade-graft of mould brought to\nthe surface, from one-third to one-half would be principally charcoal.\nFragments of coarse red pottery, partly glazed on the interior surface,\nand without doubt of Mediaeval age, were also constantly lighted upon.\nAbout a wheelbarrow full of shards was turned up within a quarter of a\ncentury, few graves being dug without some scraps being encountered. The\ncharcoal and the pottery were not actually found in contact,\nnevertheless Canon Atkinson believed that charcoal, in the form of live\ncoals [_Qy_ live charcoal, i.e. \u201ccoal\u201d in the older sense?] had been\nplaced in earthen vessels. The reason for this opinion is not given, nor\ndoes the hypothesis harmonize with all the related facts. Canon\nAtkinson, while granting that the idea of purificatory energy may have\nunderlain the custom, stated that collateral evidences showed a desire\nto keep the spirit in abeyance[719]. These opinions have been dealt with\nin advance; it remains to be noted that Danby churchyard seems once to\nhave formed part of an open field. \u201cThat pagan Danes were laid to their\nrest there I make no doubt; and that they were the fore-elders of a\nChristianized generation or series of generations is equally\ncertain[720].\u201d These details, though interesting, are unimportant; the\nessential matter is that the bulk of the pottery was of Mediaeval\ndate--the narrator allows for exceptions--and must therefore have been\nemployed in Christian times (see p. 287 _supra_). The practice had\npossibly a direct lineal descent from the Bronze Age. In one barrow\nbelonging to that period, a deposit of burnt bones was underlain by\nwood, and was covered with charcoal and wood ashes, probably the remains\nof the funeral pile[721]. On the other hand, a barrow which was opened\nby Canon Atkinson contained pieces of charcoal, varying in size from a\nbean to a nutmeg, scattered through the material of the mound[722].\nOther cases might be given from the investigations of Pitt-Rivers. Late\nFrankish cemeteries have yielded fragments of charcoal[723], and the\nsame may be said of Mediaeval graves in France[724]. The accidentals of\ncremation ceremonies clearly survived the essentials, and a pagan\ncustom was engrafted on Christian rite. The Mediaeval churchman\u2019s\nexplanation of the charcoal is thus given by Durandus: _Carbones in\ntestimonium, quod terra illa ad communes usus amplius redigi non potest,\nplus enim durat carbo sub terra quam aliud_[725]; that is: Charcoal is\nemployed to show that the earth can no longer be put to ordinary uses,\nbecause charcoal endures underground longer than any other substance.\n\nIs there any known instance of the actual use of flint flakes at\nChristian funerals? Research has so far given a negative reply, but a\nscrap or two of evidence may be produced. Canon Atkinson found flint\nchippings and even the ruder kinds of implements in the churchyards of\nCleveland[726]. The present writer picked up a flint flake from a\nnewly-dug grave at Northolt, Middlesex, and another, a long, thin\nspecimen, with a \u201cback ridge,\u201d at Warlingham churchyard, Surrey. The\nrisks of drawing an inference from such isolated occurrences as these\nare both numerous and patent. The churchyard was once part of the open\ncountry, and these flakes might, perhaps, originally have been derived\nfrom the surface soil. Again, chips of a rough kind fall as waste when\nflint is dressed and squared for church walls. A sufficient knowledge of\nthe properties of modern and ancient flakes enables the observer to\ndismiss this source of error, though it must be stated that both at\nWarlingham and Northolt flint forms a portion of the structural\nmaterials. Now the two flakes described were not whitened by exposure\nand dissolution of the colloidal portion of the silica. They had\nretained their old unpatinated surface, save that a polish had been\nacquired; one may therefore conclude that they had lain for a\nconsiderable period in a close impervious clay or loam. Probably they\nhad been dug from a depth of two or three feet below the surface. The\nspecimens were certainly ancient. Should instances of this nature be\nrecorded with a fair degree of frequency, the meaning might be\ndeciphered in either of two ways: the adaptation of a pagan site for a\nChristian place of worship, or the casting of flint chips into a\nChristian grave. Whether the occurrence of quantities of ancient\nsplinters of flint near a churchyard, as at St Paul\u2019s Cray, Kent, must\nbe interpreted in the same manner, is not so clear. I prefer to await\nfurther records, which are, from the nature of the case, difficult to\nprocure. The flints are mysterious witnesses, at most, and the sceptic\nmay justly scorn their testimony, if asked to consider these objects\nalone. But the triad of flints, potsherds, and charcoal, stands\nmoderately firm. Concerning the charcoal, we have fortunately, apart\nfrom the relics, the words of Durandus to help us to read the ostensible\nmeaning. But assume that we were unaware of the Mediaeval character of\nsome of the graveyard pottery, who would believe that the custom of\ninterring potsherds was observed at so late a period? The sceptic would\nsay that the scraps represented prehistoric urns accidentally occurring\nin the churchyard soil. We should be justified in refusing our assent at\nthe outset, but we should have to reconsider the matter when we found\nthat the habit of breaking vessels and utensils over the dead is common\namong many races[727]. Moreover, there is a record, within the last\nthirty years, of a Lincolnshire woman\u2019s breaking pottery over her\nhusband\u2019s grave, because she had forgotten to inter the perfect vessels\nwith the body. At present, then, we must allow that there is a possible\npreliminary case in favour of the flints, if these should be now and\nagain detected.\n\nLet us summarize the last few paragraphs. The original purpose of\nplacing apparently useless potsherds with the dead was to provide the\ndeparted tribesman with the spiritual utensils thus represented, the\nspirit-forms having been liberated by the breaking of the vessels.\nSimilarly, the charcoal, the calcined pebbles or \u201cpot-boilers,\u201d and the\nfew scraps of flint, would supply him with fire, first material,\nafterwards spiritual. Thus he had the means of making a fire, and of\ncarrying water and hot embers. \u201cPoor indeed,\u201d says Professor T. Rupert\nJones, \u201cwas the greatest of the heroes, on his dreary death-path, who\nhad not \u2018a sherd to take fire from the hearth, or to take water withal\nout of the pit\u2019 (Isa. xxx. 14)[728].\u201d So far, the theory agrees well\nwith the explanation given respecting votive implements and weapons.\nMoreover, we can see how the idea of \u201claying the spirit\u201d with hot stones\nand fractured flints may have arisen. The homeless ghost would be happy\nonly when fealty had been proved by funeral gifts. Careless or daring\nfolk who neglected to pay the tribute would, in dreams, receive visits\nfrom the disembodied dead. Where no affection or respect existed,\nexperience might teach that formal adherence to custom was prudent. The\nexplanation based on actual needs seems only to suffice for those cases\nwhere the flint and earthenware gifts are solitary, or at any rate, few,\nlike the celts and arrow-heads. Wherever the flint flakes are counted by\nscores, and the potsherds, broken, it may be, from vessels made\nexpressly for the sepulchre, are representative of many individual\npieces of pottery, the idea involved seems to be, not mere utility, but\ndutiful respect, tempered, as some will have it, with fear.\n\nIt may be submitted that, just as the Bedouin Arabs are wont to set up\ngroups of stones around the burial-place of a fakir, so the chief\nmembers of a prehistoric tribe, each carrying his portion, produced the\naccumulation of flint spalls. True; but this does not support the\nsuggested explanation that the flakes were strike-a-lights. So soon as\nthe multiplication of fire-kindlers--if we assume that the flakes were\nat first of this nature--reached to the extent of filling an urn or\ncist, utility must have been the waning, and reverence the waxing\nprinciple. The idea that material objects could benefit the dead\nlingered, it is true, for ages, and in some half-hearted manner\npersisted, as we shall see, until our own day, but it was ultimately\noverpowered by the growth of symbolical rites. It remains to notice\nPitt-Rivers\u2019 theory that the broken pottery may have been buried to mark\nthe site of a barrow, but how this mode of indication could be effective\nthat cautious and experienced investigator does not suggest. In a\nboundary tumulus, entombed pottery might be significant, but even\nthere, it could not form a visible memorial.\n\nReverting for a moment to the subject of fire-kindlers, I would remark\nthat many of the objects known to archaeologists as flint \u201cscrapers\u201d\nwere probably ignition agents[729]. Consequently, to call such flints\n\u201cthumb-scrapers,\u201d or oval scrapers, as is often done by the\nbarrow-digger, is to push aside a debateable question by means of an\nassumption. Scrapers they may have been, but it is at least permissible\nto believe that they were also fire-producers. In due time, the\nstrike-a-light became a specialized article, but both scraper and\nfire-kindler continued to find a place in the grave. Pliny speaks of the\ndiscovery of mirrors and \u201cbody-scrapers\u201d (_specula quoque, et\nstrigiles_)[730], in ancient tombs. These strigils, which Philemon\nHolland quaintly renders \u201ccurrycombes[731],\u201d and Littr\u00e9, as _instruments\npour les oreilles_[732], were actually, in Roman days, the scrapers of\nhorn or metal, used by the bather to remove impurities from the skin.\nThus, considered as a scraper, the strigil reaches back to the rounded\nflint with trimmed edges, and forward to the Mediaeval \u201csleeker\u201d of\nstone or metal, employed by the currier in tawing hides. As a\n\u201cslick-stone\u201d of black glass, degraded, doubtless, to the ornamental\nstage, the object again appears in Islay, associated with a burial of\nthe Viking period[733]. Later records of the scraper, and of the\nstrike-a-light, definitely illustrative of the theory of funeral gifts,\nseem to be lacking.\n\nA survival of the custom of furnishing the dead with fire-kindlers is\npartially traceable in the ancient practice of depositing a candle in\nthe grave, to light the dead man on his way. In Ireland a hammer was\nalso interred, to enable the deceased person to knock at the gates of\nPurgatory, while a sixpenny piece secured admission[734]. Within the\nlast generation a native of Cleveland was buried with a candle for the\npurpose of obtaining light, a bottle of wine for nourishment, and a\npenny to pay the ferryman[735]. The village of Bucklebury, Berkshire, by\nthe way, supplies an instance of a different kind; in a grave apparently\nmodern, two bottles of beer had been placed but no candle[736]! In\nLincolnshire a groat, \u201ca mug and a jug,\u201d were placed in the coffin. The\nLincolnshire widow, who had forgotten to deposit the mug and the jug in\nthe grave, broke the crockery, as we have seen (p. 292 _supra_), and\nlaid the fragments on the mound. In one case, where a bottle, full of\npins, was found in a recently opened grave, the explanation can probably\nbe found in sympathetic magic. The pins had been used to touch warts on\nthe skin, and the operative belief was either that the warts were\ntransferred to the dead person, or that, as the pins rusted, the warts\nwould die away. The former explanation is the more likely, else the pins\nmight as well have been buried anywhere. Mr England Howlett asserts that\nthe burial of a candle in the coffin was once common. He throws doubt on\nthe theory of the provision of light for the dead, and claims that the\ncandle was emblematic of an extinguished life. Support for this new\ntheory is sought in the custom of immuring candles in the foundation of\nchurches and houses, of which, Mr Howlett says, many examples are\nknown[737]. Owing to the amount of correlative evidence bearing on the\nquestion of fire-kindlers and fire-worship, I prefer to regard the\ncandle as representing the attenuated symbolism of light and heat.\n\nEven while referring to candles, we have been forced to observe another\nburial-gift--the coin placed in the hand or mouth. Since the coin had\noriginally a supposed useful purpose, a few words may be devoted to it.\nThe practice is at least as old as the time of the ancient Greeks, who\nwere accustomed to place an obolus in the dead person\u2019s mouth. To a\nclassic origin, however, in the ordinary sense of the term, the custom\ncannot be limited. It prevailed in pagan Germany[738], and in Christian\nEngland. Professor Tylor cites examples from several countries, and\ngives a list of authorities. De Groot states that the silver coin\ndeposited in the mouth of the corpse by the Chinese has replaced the\nearlier cowrie, just as it has superseded the cowrie for purposes of\ncurrency[739]. The custom of coin-burial was well known to the\nRomano-Britons, as is proved by the excavations of General Pitt-Rivers\nin Cranborne Chase. We are compelled, therefore, to postulate a more\nextended history than Greece or Rome would afford. Even in England the\nbelief must have been profound, even touching, in its sincerity. Silver\ncoins are occasionally dug up in English churchyards, and the tradition\nruns that such money had originally been placed in the mouth of the\ncorpse[740]. Evidence of this kind prevents a too confident acceptance\nof Mr Romilly Allen\u2019s conclusion that the idea of Charon\u2019s penny ceased\nwith the introduction of Christianity[741]. The spirit, if not the\nprecise tradition, of the ancient custom long survived with some\nintensity. Sir Mountstuart Grant Duff relates how an old Burgundian\nwoman, being asked why she had placed a sou in the hand of a dead child,\nreplied, _C\u2019est pour payer le trajet \u00e0 Charon_. The narrator supposes,\nwith fair reason, that this incident revealed the lasting influence of\nRoman civilization over the Gaulish people[742]. The woman may have\nheard, or read, the classic tradition, but this is rather improbable.\nFolk-memory had seemingly retained the orthodox explanation, but the\ncustom itself may go back to the time when the newly invented coin\nreplaced some cruder amulet. From what centre, or centres, the belief in\nthe virtue of the coin was transmitted, is at present unknown.\n\nAn illustration drawn from the writings of Mr Thomas Hardy will\ndoubtless be pardoned, since much genuine Wessex folklore has been\npresented to us in the garb of fiction by that shrewd observer and\narchaeologist. In _The Mayor of Casterbridge_ [i.e. Dorchester], after\nhaving been told of the death of Mrs Henchard, the reader is treated to\na rustic gossip on death in general. Mrs Cuxsom gives her own little\ncommentary, and then proceeds to quote the words of her dead neighbour:\n\u201cAnd there\u2019s four ounce pennies, the heaviest I could find, a-tied up in\nbits of linen, for weights--two for my right eye, and two for my left.\nAnd when you\u2019ve used \u2019em, and my eyes don\u2019t open no more, bury the\npennies, good souls, and don\u2019t ye go spending \u2019em, for I shouldn\u2019t like\nit.\u201d In the sequel, a servant buries the coins in the garden, but\nChristopher Coney digs them up and spends them. One of the listeners,\nSolomon Longways, excuses this action, and can see \u201cno treason in it,\u201d\nbut the general verdict ran: \u201c\u2019Twas a cannibal deed[743].\u201d\n\nNow we may be certain that this conversation describes, in all essential\ndetails, the Wessex superstition. Within our own times, Northumbrian\nfolk were wont to bury a penny piece just under the soil of a newly-made\ngrave. And it is a very common belief that misfortune will follow him\nwho desecrates the coin--the ferryman\u2019s penny--by ignoble use. If, as is\nprobable, the \u201ceye-coin\u201d be the genuine representative of this penny, it\nhas degenerated into a humble accessory of the death-chamber; it is not\nnow even deposited in the grave. Nevertheless, the segregated coin must\nnot be put again to everyday uses. Well did Jowett of Balliol in\nluminous phrase speak of \u201cunderground religion,\u201d that strain of\nsuperstition which cannot be banished from the peasant mind. Nor,\nindeed, does orthodoxy, at least as understood by provincial or\nunthinking folk, raise any serious demur to the observance.\n\nWe cannot accept as adequate the superficial explanation that the penny\nis simply used to close the eyes. This is the immediate purpose, of\ncourse, but it does not explain why a penny, though certainly an object\nof convenient size and shape, should alone be used. Least of all does it\naccount for the placing of coins in the mouth, or of burying money in\nthe grave. Norwegian folk-lore supplies us with a curious correlative.\nWhen the Norwegian peasant takes earth from the churchyard to succour\nailing children, he must bury silver coins in place of the stolen\nspecific. Customs like these carry us back, by almost imperceptible\ntransitions, to the building of the British barrow, and to the interment\ntherein of flawless arrow-head or fractured celt. Following the\ncenturies forward, we may dimly surmise why the various changes took\nplace; glancing back, we marvel that the beliefs have been clung to so\ntenaciously.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 57. Grave-celt, of polished flint, from Murols,\nPuy-de-D\u00f4me (Author\u2019s collection). Length 2\u215b\u00b4\u00b4; greatest width 1\u215b\u00b4\u00b4.]\n\nWe must now leave our first group of objects--the axes, the knives, the\narrow-tips, with fire-kindlers, pottery, querns, spindle-whorls, and all\nsimilar appliances, in order to give some attention to the next division\nof the relics. This class, it will be remembered, comprises amulets,\ntalismans, and symbolical objects. Some difficulty arises when we try to\nseparate these from the purely decorative articles, but there are\ncertain relics whose purpose does not seem to admit of doubt. The tiny\npolished celts, of which an example from Puy de D\u00f4me is shown in Fig.\n57, must have been charms. Specimens much smaller than the one\nillustrated are often met with. Still more convincing are the small\namber axes which Professor Montelius has described as occurring in\nScandinavia: these cannot have had any economical use.\n\nExamples of objects wholly symbolical or protective are furnished by the\nwhite or transparent pebbles frequently found in ancient graves. In the\ninnermost chamber of a Scottish cairn opened by Dr Angus Smith, at\nAchnacree, near Loch Etive, a row of quartz pebbles, each larger than a\nwalnut, was seen displayed on a granite ledge. Canon Greenwell, who\nexamined cairns containing similar objects near Crinan, thought that the\nstones had a symbolical meaning[744]. Similarly, Mr Reddie Mallett\ndiscovered shield-shaped masses of quartz deposited in the Celtic\nCemetery at Harlyn Bay, Cornwall[745]. Smooth white pebbles, sometimes\nfive or seven in number, but never more, and usually arranged in\ncrosses, were found in graves under the fallen ramparts of Burghead, in\nElginshire[746]. The belief in the virtues of selected pebbles was of an\nenduring kind, for crystals of quartz and white stones (\u201cGodstones\u201d)\nwere commonly placed in Irish graves within recent times. In ancient\nIrish graves the finding of such objects is of common occurrence.\nPebbles of other hues have also been discovered, representing a small\ncolour-series[747]. The fisher-folk of Inverary have a practice, which\noutruns all memory, and which is independent of everything save\ntradition, of placing little white pebbles on the graves of their\nfriends[748]. More might be said concerning these white stones--the\nsymbols of justification in the Apocalypse[749], the sacred comforters\nof the dying Hindoo, the counters by means of which the ancient\nThracians recorded their happy days[750]. We will, however, pass to a\nmore elaborate kind of amulet, the crystal ball which is often found in\nSaxon graves. Sometimes the crystal is mounted with a silver band or\nring, as if its owner had carried it in suspension. From a consideration\nof the passage in _Beowulf_ respecting the value of such amulets in\nprotecting the head from the blows of the enemy, from a knowledge that\ncrystal pendants have, until modern times, been deemed efficacious in\nstanching the flow of blood, and from a study of parallel beliefs and\ndivinations existing among various races, we conclude that these objects\nwere prized as talismans. It is noticeable that Mr Roach Smith did not\naccept this interpretation, and regarded the balls simply as objects of\nwhich the use was less obvious than that of the ordinary funeral\nrelic[751].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 58. Necklaces from British round barrows.\n\n     A. Barrel-shaped jet beads and pendant of like material, with six\n     smaller glass beads. Tan Hill, Wiltshire. Four-ninths of real size.\n\n     B. Amber beads and links, much decayed. Lake, Wiltshire.\n     Four-ninths of real size.\n]\n\nWhether we ought to consider the amber beads of British barrows as\ncharms, or, like their fellows of glass and clay, as ornaments solely,\nis a moot point. The abundance of the beads increases when we reach the\nSaxon period. Perhaps, where they are numerous, they formed part of a\nnecklace (Fig. 58). In more than one instance an amber bead was found\nattached to, or lying near, a skeleton. I am inclined to put the amber\nbeads in a special class because of the virtues formerly assigned to\nthis substance. Amber shielded the living from evil, and it sped the\ndeparted on their long journey. Decoration, therefore, was not the sole\nreason for the selection. Elton quotes an ancient Welsh poem, in which\nis described, with \u201cHomeric minuteness,\u201d the amber ornaments of the\nBritish chief Gododin:\n\n    \u201cAdorned with a wreath was the leader, the wolf of the holm;\n     Amber beads in ringlets encircled his temples;\n     Precious was the amber, and worth a banquet of wine[752].\u201d\n\nThe amber dug out of British barrows is usually of the red variety, not\nblackish or honey-coloured. Much archaeological warfare has been waged\nas to its place of origin. Along the East coast of Britain, from\nRamsgate to Aberdeen, specimens are frequently picked up, generally of a\nyellowish tint. A native source, however, is not perhaps to be assigned\nto most of the amber beads. From their great abundance in Saxon tumuli,\nElton favoured the hypothesis that the main supply came from over the\nNorth Sea[753].\n\nThe supposition that amber beads were credited with occult virtues is\nstrengthened by folk-lore. Such beads were popularly believed to render\nthe wearer proof against witchcraft. St Eloi forbade women to wear these\nobjects around the neck[754]. Zest is added to our inquiry by the\nsuperstition about the \u201clammerbeads\u201d (Scotch, _lammer_ = amber; cf. Fr.\n_l\u2019ambre_), of Tweedside, which, on being dug out of ancient barrows,\nwere worn as charms for the cure of weak eyes and sprained limbs, and\nwere ultimately handed down as cherished heirlooms[755].\n\nAmong the other articles which seem to have been prized for magical or\nprotective properties may be mentioned wolves\u2019 teeth and boars\u2019 tusks,\nperforated for suspension as charms[756]. Mention, too, must be made of\na naturally perforated flint to which a fossil echinoderm (_Micraster_)\nwas attached, found by Mr E. Lovett on the breast of a skeleton in a\nbarrow on the Sussex Downs[757]. This last example leads us\nimperceptibly to our third group of funeral relics, wherein fossils\noccupy an important position. This third class includes articles\nprimarily of an ornamental or decorative character. Reviewing the\nfossils first, we notice that primitive man had learned at an early\nperiod to collect and store up the flint echinoderms left among the\nresidual drift of the surface over which he daily trod. We may pass by,\nwith but a hasty glance, the fossil \u201csea-urchins\u201d dug up in great\nnumbers by Pitt-Rivers in the Romano-British villages at Rotherly\n(Wilts.) and Woodcuts (Dorset), since these echinoderms are believed to\nhave served purely secular purposes, such as those of coinage[758]. In\nlike manner the ammonites, pierced for spindle-whorls, unearthed at the\nGlastonbury lake-village, may be dismissed as not being graveyard\nspecimens.\n\nThe most famous instance of the occurrence of echinoderms in\nburial-mounds is that recorded by Mr Worthington G. Smith from a round\nbarrow on Dunstable Downs. The description of this discovery, which is\nnot without pathos, is worthy of even greater renown than it has yet\nachieved. The barrow, on being opened, revealed the skeleton of a woman,\nclasping the almost perished relics of a child. One is tempted here to\ncompare the later superstitious practice of burying an unbaptized child\nat the feet of an adult, to prevent the child-spirit from wandering\naround its former home. It has been suggested that the child may have\nbeen buried alive with its mother. Be this disquieting thought well\nbased or not, the objects associated with the burial were of a striking\nnature. Besides celts and scrapers of flint, the excavators found a\ndozen fossil echinoderms. On extending the diggings, nearly 100 more\nspecimens came to light, and after repeatedly shovelling and raking the\nsoil which formed the tumulus, still more, to the number of over 200,\nwere added to the spoils. Mr Smith, who was unfortunately not present at\nthe first opening of the mound, concluded that the fossils had formed a\nborder around the bodies. In his fascinating volume, _Man the Primeval\nSavage_, he has given us an interesting illustration of the grave as it\nwas probably arranged before the mound was piled over it (Fig. 59). The\nfossils were of two species: the \u201cHeart urchin\u201d (_Micraster\ncor-anguinum_) and the \u201cFairy loaf\u201d (_Echinocorys ovatus_, Leske =\n_Ananchytes scutatus_)[759]. A belief became somewhat generally current\namong archaeologists that these \u201curchins\u201d had been directly obtained\nfrom the chalk. If that had been the case, the fossils would have been\ncomposed of unabraded flint, with a whitened surface, or the \u201ctests\u201d or\nouter coverings would have been of calcite, with an amorphous interior\nfilling of chalk. But this opinion, confidently and frequently repeated,\nseemed to credit the Bronze Age man with much too great a familiarity\nwith chalk fossils. It appeared strange that he should have extracted\nthe fossils from the parent chalk by the aid of a deerhorn pick or a\ncelt of flint or bronze. The presumption was more likely that the\nspecimens were silicified \u201ccasts\u201d which had been dissolved out of the\nchalk mass ages previously, and which, lying on, or near the surface,\nwhen the primitive settler tilled the downs for a livelihood, met with\nthe approval of his keen eye. Accordingly, I wrote to Mr Smith, who, in\na letter dated 3 May, 1909, stated that this supposition was\ncorrect--the fossils were of flint, and had been washed out of the\nClay-with-Flints. In other words, they had not been derived immediately\nfrom the parent chalk.\n\nIt may be appositely remarked in this place that the fame of fossil\nechinoderms is well attested by the folk-name \u201cFairy loaf,\u201d already\ngiven, not to speak of such genuine popular terms as \u201cShepherd\u2019s crown\u201d\nor \u201cShepherd\u2019s helmet\u201d (_Echinocorys_), and \u201cSugar loaf\u201d (_Conulus =\nEchincconus = Galerites_). Concerning the Fairy loaf, the legend runs\nthat whoso will keep a specimen in his house shall never lack bread.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 59. Skeletons of woman and child, surrounded by fossil\n     echinoderms. The relics were found by Mr Worthington G. Smith in a\n     round barrow on Dunstable Downs.\n]\n\nBut the watchful eye of the barrow-builder saw other derelict fossils\nbesides Micrasters and their allies. Man of the Neolithic and Bronze\nAges, though deficient in the artistic skill of his Palaeolithic\npredecessor, exhibited some selective taste even in matters of daily\nlife. Often one lights upon an implement which has been made from a\nparticular substance chosen for its natural beauty. Thus, one perforated\nhammer is of a green colour; another, of gneissose rock, is banded\nalternately black and white; a third, from a Wiltshire barrow, contains\na mass of fossil serpulae (worm-tubes). Sir John Evans, who records the\nlast-named example, leaves it an open question whether superstition or\nlove of beauty determined the choice[760]. While, as already suggested,\nthe detached fossil was probably regarded as a charm, the section of\nsuch a fossil, visible on the surface of a polished celt, or the\ndelicately moulded impression of a shell on a flint flake, was carefully\nleft untouched, mainly for artistic reasons. One occasionally sees an\naxe in which a fossil remains intact, yet the tool was meant for\neveryday use. Scrapers, too, are often deftly fashioned from portions of\na banded flint, and many arrow-heads chipped from agate or chalcedony\nspeak of beauty as well as utility. In the course of time such objects\nmay indeed have appealed to their owners as talismans.\n\nEndowed, then, with acute vision which was trained to a high degree\nalong certain lines, and gifted with the first glimmerings of artistic\ntaste, prehistoric man learned to appreciate any conspicuous and\nattractive-looking fossil. That very common chalk fossil, which seems to\nhave settled down finally to the name of _Porosphaera globularis_, and\nwhich is by general consent now regarded as a sponge, was a special\nfavourite with men of the Barrow period. This small, spherical fossil,\nunfortunately nameless among common folk, occurs somewhat plentifully as\na flint \u201cpebble\u201d in drift gravels which have originally been eroded from\nthe chalk. Sometimes the _Porosphaera_ has a natural perforation,\ncorresponding with one of its diameters, and thus the searcher could\nobtain a ready-made bead. By stringing together these fossils, a\nnecklace was formed, and of these necklaces, the \u201cthreads\u201d of which have\nperished, the number of flint \u201cbeads\u201d found in the barrows supply\nconvincing testimony. The salient fact is that, in several recorded\ninstances,\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 60. Specimens of the fossil sponge _Porosphaera_ (=\n     _Coscinopora_) _globularis_, with orifices artificially enlarged.\n\n     A, B, C, sections of the fossil; A, with hole artificially enlarged\n     at both ends; B, in the middle; C, at one end only. D, E, F, show\n     the natural shapes of _Porosphaera_, and the attempts made to\n     enlarge the openings. H, J, K, L, exhibit sections of the \u201cbeads,\u201d\n     which contained a little organic matter, probably the remains of\n     the ligament by which the beads were strung. G is a perforated\n     fossil shell.\n]\n\nthe fossils were found in groups; thus precluding natural agencies as a\ncause of their occurrence. In ordinary circumstances, the fossils would\nbe isolated and scattered throughout the gravels somewhat sparingly.\nMoreover, Mr James Wyatt, who examined over 200 specimens of\n_Porosphaera_, believed, from markings which were visible when sections\nwere cut, that in several cases the hole had been artificially enlarged\nwith a drill[761] (Fig. 60). To enumerate barrows which have yielded\nthis particular fossil would be wearisome, but another globular fossil,\nthe beautifully ornamented echinoderm known as _Cidaris_, deserves a\nnote. Evans records his having seen specimens of this fossil bored so as\nto form part of a Saxon necklace, and, in other cases, to serve as\nspindle-whorls[762].\n\nAmong the other grave-mound fossils, those of cephalopods find a place.\nA considerable number of belemnites lay in a \u201clarge\u201d [i.e. British or\npre-Saxon] Dorsetshire barrow opened in the eighteenth century by\nColonel Drax. Douglas, who saw the specimens, figures one of them in his\n_Nenia Britannica_[763]. Canon Greenwell found a portion of an ammonite\nlying beside a skeleton in one of the Yorkshire mounds[764]. It is well\nto remember that a black ammonite, of which the species is not stated,\nis associated with the religious ceremonies of the Brahmans, being\nregarded by the devout as the embodiment of Vishnu[765]. Some of the\nlarger fish teeth, occurring as fossils, also come in our list. In a\ntumulus described by Dr Henry Woodward, the sides of the grave were\nlined with the teeth of _Lepidotus_ (= _Sphaerodus_) _gigas_, a Mesozoic\nfish allied to the \u201cbony pike\u201d of North American lakes and rivers. In\none case a locket-like arrangement was noticed, a kind of keyhole having\nbeen cut in the tooth[766]. I record this evidence, but not having seen\nthe specimens referred to, cannot express an opinion on the individual\nexample, and will merely say that the artificial nature of the hole is\nantecedently probable. But it is only right to add that doubt has been\ncast on the necessity of invoking human skill to explain certain of\nthese orifices. Some species of boring mollusc may possibly have been\nthe real agent. One recalls the controversy respecting the perforated\nsharks\u2019 teeth of the Crag formation. To explain this feature, Mr H. A.\nBurrows suggested that the cavities originally represented hollows for\nthe passage of blood-vessels, and that the perforations had been\ncompleted by subsequent friction and solution. It remains to be noted\nthat the first collectors of fossil fish teeth lived in Palaeolithic\ntimes, since specimens, associated with flint flakes, were found at the\ncelebrated \u201cPalaeolithic floor\u201d at Stoke Newington[767]. Similarly,\nfossil and \u201crecent\u201d shells, perforated for suspension, have been found\nin the Palaeolithic caves of France and Belgium[768]. A limestone\ncavern, opened by M. Dupont in the latter country in 1860, yielded a\ncollection of fossil molluscan shells, including _Cerithium_, which must\nhave been brought a distance of 40-50 miles. Accompanying the fossils\nwere a piece of fluor spar and other curiosities, so that it has been\nsuggested, with reason, as well as mirth, that here was a primitive\nmuseum[769]. British barrows have furnished specimens of the joints of\nencrinites (\u201csea-lilies\u201d), known in folk-lore as \u201cSt Cuthbert\u2019s\nbeads[770].\u201d In one case the specimen had actually been bored for\nstringing[771]. It is probable, indeed, that from the earliest ages men\nhave never ceased to collect these beautiful little \u201cbeads.\u201d\n\nLand-and sea-shells, not usually so hard as the fossil species, have\nalso been assiduously collected by early man for funeral gifts. It has\nbeen asserted that nearly every barrow on the Chalk Downs contains\nland-shells[772]. Limpet shells have been found under the megaliths of\nCornwall and Brittany[773]. Saxon graves in Kent frequently yield, not\nonly native land-and sea-shells, but also exotic cowries, which must\nhave come from the East[774]. Necklaces made of the curious little\nshell, known from its shape as the \u201celephant\u2019s tusk\u201d (_Dentalium_), are\nrecorded from barrows, and there is also a note of the discovery of the\n\u201cVenus\u2019s ear\u201d (_Haliotis_)[775]. The catalogue might be extended, but it\nis already long enough to illustrate the topic under discussion.\n\nMention must be made of a parallel custom which was observed in Lapland\nin both ancient and modern times. Old Lappish graves opened near\nVaranger Fiord contained, besides our familiar quartz and flint, numbers\nof sea-urchins, presumably, though it is not explicitly so stated,\nbelonging to recent species[776]. More interesting were the\nsnail-shells, known by the Laplanders as _Hundsjael_, or \u201cdog-souls,\u201d\nand mussel-shells, or \u201ccow-souls.\u201d It seems that the natives, down to a\ncomparatively recent period, treasured fossils and queerly-shaped stones\nas fetishes. Nordvi, who opened the graves, conjectured that the shells\nwere substitutes for living dogs and cows, these animals being too\nprecious for sacrifice[777]. This explanation is plausible as an\nexplanation of this particular case. The natives of Ceylon, however,\nemployed shells of a certain species for funeral purposes[778], and\naltogether the custom is too widely known to be explicable on narrow\ngrounds. To round off these examples, we may note the strange cases\nreported from Frampton church, near Boston, in Lincolnshire. Several\nstone coffins, discovered in this church, were found to be filled with\nsand, together with the shells of cockles and other molluscans. The\nshells had evidently been placed in the receptacles by design, and as\nthe bones had not perished, the speculation was put forward that the\npurpose of the shells was to preserve the skeleton[779]. This solution\nof the puzzle does not appear to be allowable, but the circumstances are\ncertainly peculiar. The fact that the coffins were filled with material\nleads us to suspect that they had been tampered with at some unknown\nperiod[780]. Alternatively, we may suppose that the maritime folk of\nFrampton were especially given over to the belief in shells, and carried\nthe principle to extremes. For the graves of sailors and fishermen are\neminently marked out for shell decoration, though, it is true, these\nornaments are now placed above ground. Frequently one reads of the\npractice being observed when a sailor dies in a strange land.\n\nOur list of grave ornaments is by no means exhausted. Brooches and pins,\narmlets and bracelets, trinkets of gold or silver, perforated boars\u2019\ntusks and crescents of wolves\u2019 teeth, are among the relics known to the\nbarrow-digger. Oftentimes, the decorative and the useful objects lie\nside by side. We have already noticed Pliny\u2019s allusion to mirrors. A\nvaluable commentary is afforded by the old Swedish custom of depositing\na looking-glass in the coffin of an unmarried woman[781]. Instances of\nthe discovery of golden ornaments abound in archaeological handbooks. We\nlook around for an instance of survival, and meet with a startling\nexample of recent date. The incident took place at the funeral of Lord\nPalmerston in Westminster Abbey, in 1865, and is thus described by Mr\nMoncure D. Conway: \u201cThe rain fell heavily, the wind howled about the old\nwalls, and in that darkness the body was lowered--gold rings along with\ndust falling on the coffin[782].\u201d This story is of the provoking kind\nwhich makes the reader put questions, but Mr Conway, alas, has now also\npassed beyond the reach of inquiries, and we must be content with the\ndefinite statement, inherently probable, and made in all honesty.\nPerhaps light may come from a study of the practice of presenting rings\nat funerals to the mourners,--a custom frequently alluded to by John\nEvelyn in his _Diary_. Were these funeral gifts ever thrown into the\ngrave as votive offerings?\n\nWith the foregoing incident we may compare the evidence given in the\n_Victoria History of Cornwall_, tending to show that the practice of\nburying rings, coins, and other articles, was common in Cornwall during\nthe Mediaeval period and lasted until the latter part of the sixteenth\ncentury. Still more singular is the persistence of the practice of\nlaying combs along with the other mortuary furniture. Wooden combs are\nnot unusually found in settlements of the Bronze Age[783], and examples\nin bone are of common occurrence on Early Iron Age sites. It is\nbelieved, however, that some of these combs were employed, not for\narranging the hair, but for pressing home the weft in the manufacture of\nfabrics[784]. But when we approach the Saxon period, we find the\nordinary comb installed as a recognized grave gift. Contemporary burials\non the Continent, in North France, in Luxembourg, in Belgium, tell the\nsame story[785]. The Saxon combs, incised with lines and circles, were\nlaid in the graves both of men and women. Turning to our _Hydriotaphia_,\nand reading once more of Browne\u2019s discovery, in his beloved Norfolk, of\n\u201cnippers\u201d and \u201ccombs handsomely wrought[786],\u201d we are tempted to pursue\nthe matter. The sequel is curious: combs, in later history, appear to\nhave been reserved for burials of members of the priestly order. The\nbeginnings of the practice are seen as early as the days of St Cuthbert,\non whose breast was found, when his body was disinterred in Durham\nCathedral, a plain simple Saxon comb of ivory[787]. Later records are\nnumerous, and it has been conjectured that the combs were those which\nhad been used at the first tonsure of the novice[788]. The comb played\nan important part in Mediaeval ritual, as related by Dr Daniel Rock.\nThese objects were of ivory, elaborately carved, and studded with gems.\nAt the High Mass, the hair of the celebrant was combed by someone\nappointed for that purpose, this coadjutor varying according to the rank\nof his superior[789]. Mr Romilly Allen, in discussing the changes in the\nmethods of sepulture brought about by the spread of Christianity,\nasserts that no objects were placed in the grave with the Christian\ndead[790]. This pronouncement, even when made by such a high authority,\nmust not be accepted literally. Apart from the comb, ecclesiastics had\nother special articles buried with them. Mr Allen himself notices the\nstriking exception of burying a crozier in the coffin of a bishop[791].\nThe chalice and paten were also commonly deposited with priests.\nSpecimens of these articles, with a pair of scissors, were found in the\ncoffin of St Cuthbert. Dr Rock tells us, too, that small wooden crosses,\ngilded with metal, were placed in the coffin, and on the breast of the\ncorpse was a parchment scroll, inscribed with the Absolution. Again,\nwhile on the one hand, Professor Tylor has shown that the early\nChristians of Rome and Greece retained the heathen custom of placing in\nthe tomb articles of toilet and children\u2019s playthings[792]; on the\nother, records prove that in our own country there has always been a\nsecret longing to place gifts in the grave. The truth seems to be that,\ndown to our own day, there has existed among the more ignorant classes\nan undercurrent of belief, essentially pagan in its origin, usually\ndriven under by the external pressure of orthodoxy and public opinion,\nbut so strong and permanent, that it often reaches the surface, to the\nsurprise of the more intelligent folk. But the heathen belief has been\npresent all the time, and need not greatly astonish us, since the most\nadvanced materialist is frequently a victim of trivial superstitions\nwhich are scouted by scientific men as absurd and baseless.\n\nThe fourth group of articles with which we have to deal, comprising\nobjects partly useful and partly symbolical or commemorative, will not\ndetain us long. The sole reason for considering this miscellaneous group\nseparately is its diversified character--the objects do not so readily\nfall into classes. One or two modern examples will illustrate the kind\nof collection sometimes met with. While this chapter was being written,\nthe daily newspaper supplied an account of the burial of a gipsy woman\nand her son at Tiverton. All the woman\u2019s jewellery was deposited in her\ncoffin, and, by the side of her son, the mourners laid his watch and\nchain. All the other personal effects were burned. A short time\npreviously the same journal had recorded the funeral of an old mountain\nhermit at Carnarvon. The dead man was buried in his ordinary clothes,\nand with him were placed his pipe, his tobacco pouch and walking-stick.\nOnly a whim, exclaims the careless reader, but the fancy was not bred\nfor the first time in the brain of that old recluse. Other folk, not\nunobservant, recognize that such a miscellany of votive offerings is\nevidence of an older condition of culture, and that the variety of\nobjects proves only the decay of tradition, with a consequent confusion\nof ideas. To some degree this is true, but the ethnologist and the\narchaeologist can decipher the meaning otherwise, and can show that\nprimitive peoples love to offer a wealth of objects. First, the student\nof ethnology notices similar customs prevailing in many countries. The\npractice was well known to the ancients, and the translator of Ovid has\nthus rendered the idea:\n\n    \u201cTombs have their honours, too, our parents crave\n     Some slender present to adorn the grave....\n     They only ask a tile, with garlands crowned,\n     And fruit and salt to scatter on the ground.\u201d\n\nSalt, by the way, was formerly strewn on graves in the North of England.\nSir William Turner tells how the grave of an aboriginal Australian\nsavage, who was buried only a little over sixty years ago, contained a\nvaried assortment of articles, not all of quite the same age.\nThe list included a large piece of flint and the handle of a\npocket-knife--probably fire agents--a clay pipe, an iron spoon, and the\nremains of a rusted pannikin[793]. In Bengal, modern graves have\nrevealed such diverse objects as rice, tinfoil coins, pipes, paper\nhouses, and models of boats[794]. Thus the custom under notice, though\nof isolated occurrence in Britain, has its correlative in other lands.\nBut even in Britain, one hears whisperings of weird customs. A lock of\nwool used to be placed in the coffins of Wiltshire shepherds. The\ntraditional explanation was that shepherds are often unavoidably absent\nfrom church, and the wool was a guarantee that the nature of the man\u2019s\ncalling would not be overlooked at the great assize. But elsewhere we\nread of the desire to inter some tool or vessel typical of the\noccupation of the deceased person; and with this habit we might connect\nthe practice, common in Scotland and the North of England, of carving\ntools and implements on gravestones.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 61. Roman Sepulchral chest, found at Avisford, Sussex. The\n     chest was formed out of a single block and was covered with a flat\n     slab. The square glass vessel in the middle contained calcined\n     bones. Around this vessel were disposed three earthen vases with\n     handles, several paterae, a pair of sandals, an oval dish, with\n     handle, scalloped round the edge, containing a transparent\n     egg-shaped agate. Three lamps are fixed on supporting projections\n     of stone.\n]\n\nThe archaeologist advances to inspect examples of early tombs rich in\nfuneral relics. He pauses a moment to remark the abundance of objects\nsometimes found in Saxon graves: swords and buckets, rivets and nails,\nweighing scales and bunches of keys, drinking-cups, brooches, buttons,\nand many other articles[795]. The Romans, too, besides entombing coins\nand jewellery, added such objects as sandals, glass vessels, and\namphorae[796] (Fig. 61). The taste for accumulating grave-gifts can be\nobserved in the earlier Barrow period. A Bronze Age barrow at Aldbourne,\nWiltshire, supplies perhaps the most noteworthy example. This grave\ncontained an exceptional number of articles. Besides the \u201cincense-cup,\u201d\nwith its characteristic ornament, the excavators found, among the burnt\nbones, a small bronze knife and two bronze awls, each tool bearing signs\nof having passed through the funeral fire. Beads were also discovered,\nwrought from such different materials as glass-paste, amber, and\nlignite, and one from the stem of an encrinite. The list further\nincluded a large flat ring and a pendant ornament of lignite, a conical\nbutton made of shale, a small polished pebble of haematite, and the cast\nof a cardium shell, presumably in a fossil condition. The flint flakes,\nthe arrow-heads and shards, the bones, tusks, and teeth of animals,\nwhich complete the list[797], seem unimpressive by the side of such a\ncollection. Here then, in very early times, we see the system of funeral\ngifts highly developed. The abundance of objects displayed in the\nAldbourne barrow may indicate the burial of someone whose importance was\npre-eminent, but in other cases, where the number, rather than the\nvalue, of the gifts is noticeable, there seems to have been a desire to\nsupply the deceased person with all things conveniently obtainable.\nFood, weapons, and charms, ornaments and luxuries were thus provided.\nOur modern representative relics of this cultural stage furnish a list,\nmeagre by comparison, but still significant by reason of its eclectic\ncharacter. The same idea, materialized in somewhat different forms,\nimpelled the man of old and the man of yesterday. Belief in a future\nstate, at times modified by fear and faint in its expression, at others\namounting to a profound conviction, has tinctured almost all of our\nfuneral ceremonies. Savage and sage, for some thousands of years past,\nseem to have acted towards the dead in accordance with the word of our\nEnglish philosopher: \u201cIt is the heaviest stone that melancholy can throw\nat a man to tell him he is at the end of his nature[798].\u201d\n\nWe have yet to review, very briefly, three or four interesting subjects\nwhich fall within the scope of this already lengthy chapter. The Burial\nService of the Anglican Church provides for earth to be cast on the\ncoffin \u201cby some standing by,\u201d while the priest pronounces the solemn\nwords, \u201cearth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.\u201d This combination\nof phrases has been traced to a similar passage in the Sarum Manual, a\npassage founded in turn, it is supposed, on several Biblical\nexpressions[799]. A little doubt, however, hangs over the ultimate\norigin of the words of the Commendation, though the precise form of the\nphrases may be due to Scriptural influence. The idea underlying the\nwords, and its mode of operation, are alike ancient. For my part, I\nthink that the expression plainly points to a time when cremation and\ninhumation were both familiar to the community; that is to say, some\nequivalent words were used when the early Christians of Britain had\nbegun to combat, not altogether with success, the system of burning the\nbody. If the words \u201cearth to earth\u201d and \u201cdust to dust\u201d stood alone, it\nmight fairly be argued that the compilers of the earliest Services\nbelieved literally in the creation of man from the dust. But the phrase\n\u201cashes to ashes\u201d forbids that interpretation. It has, so far as may be\nknown, never been taught that man originally came from ashes, though,\nfiguratively, in moments of contrition, he has declared himself to be\n\u201cbut dust and ashes.\u201d The collocation of the phrases seems to betray a\ncompromise between modes of burial. Parenthetically, we note that the\nRoman practice, as described by Horace, was to cast earth three times\nupon the body[800]. Until this was done, the spirit could not enter\nElysium. It is probable that a like custom goes back to the Barrow\nperiod. Canon Greenwell supposes that, at a barrow funeral, each of the\ntribesmen carried his portion of earth, probably in a basket[801]. This\nconjecture receives support from the conduct of certain South African\ntribes, the members of which share the task of scooping together the\nmaterial for the burial-mound, using however, for that purpose, the\nhands alone. The same procedure is followed by Lascars when burying a\ncomrade in a strange land[802].\n\nLet us examine a little further this co-operation of the mourners, as\ntestified by actual survival. As already stated, the rubric directs that\nthe earth shall be cast upon the body \u201cby some standing by,\u201d while the\npriest repeats the collect or \u201cCommendation.\u201d In practice, the sexton\nusually throws in the earth, although I feel certain that I have more\nthan once seen the officiating clergyman perform this office. The\nrubric, as we know it, was formulated in the year 1552. Prior to that\ndate, the soil was cast upon the corpse by the priest[803]. We may take\nit that this was the more common practice in Mediaeval times. The\nceremony was also rendered symbolical in some districts by strewing the\nearth in the form of a cross[804]. Again, as in the Ritual of Brixen,\nthe priest scattered the earth three times with a shovel[805]. In the\nGreek rite, too, the lot fell to the priest[806]. Among the Jews, each\nrelative of the dead person threw earth on the coffin[807], and there\nare records of a like observance in Christian communities[808]. The\ndaily newspapers occasionally report instances of the practice in our\nown day. Taking these isolated examples, and comparing them with the\ncustom, once common in rural England, of five or six persons assisting\nthe sexton to fill up the grave[809], we can outline a simple\nhypothesis. The early Christians probably followed their heathen\ncontemporaries in allowing the interment to be a common labour.\nAfterwards, the throwing in of handfuls of earth--and perhaps of ashes\nalso (cf. p. 290 _supra_, concerning charcoal)--was a rite in which many\ntook part, the antiphonal service being chanted during the act. In the\nlater Mediaeval period the priest seems largely to have usurped the\noffice. The Reformation allotted the function once more to the mourners\nin general, at least nominally, and on rare occasions the right is still\nexercised. The original meaning is forgotten, and symbolism is evoked to\nexplain the practice. And just as some writers are content to see, in\nthe ashes, merely a symbol of penitence and humiliation, as illustrated\nin the old Ash Wednesday observances, so other authorities, with what\nappears to be a short view, deem the earth simply typical of man\u2019s\nreputed origin and mortality: _Hodie mihi, cras tibi_. It seems more in\naccord with facts to recognize the bit of soil thrown into the grave as\na vestigial proof of the continuity of habit, weakened to some degree\nbecause the ceremony, instead of being generally shared by the mourners,\nis performed vicariously by the sexton.\n\nThe next survival to claim our attention is illustrated by the\nLancashire custom, in vogue not further back than the year 1888, of\nsending a small sheaf of wheat to be distributed, at the time of the\nfuneral, to the relatives of the deceased person[810]. At once the words\nof the Burial Service, and the Scriptural allusion to the \u201ccorn of\nwheat,\u201d come to mind[811]. The ancient Christians considered wheat to be\na symbol of the resurrection of the body, and this idea is exemplified\non a gem described by De Montfaucon. The ear of wheat, carved in wood or\nstone, seems to perpetuate an old pagan belief. The custom, in varied\nforms, is as widespread as it is time-honoured. At a modern Greek\nfuneral two men were observed carrying each a dish of parboiled wheat to\nbe deposited over the corpse[812]. General Pitt-Rivers quotes Professor\nPearson to the effect that the burning of corn on graves was forbidden\nby the Church in Saxon times[813]. This ban implies that the practice\nhad its roots in pagan soil, so that all that the Christians did was to\nchange the underlying principle. General Pitt-Rivers himself found ears\nof corn mixed with the sand near a Romano-British grave which contained\na skeleton, and he also recorded the finding of charred wheat in\ncontiguity with skeletons belonging probably to the Roman period[814].\nClosely connected with these observances is the practice of placing corn\nand other articles of food on the grave. Instances are multitudinous. In\nthe recesses of the Pamirs, corn, berries, and flowers are the\nofferings[815]; the Spaniards deposit bread and wine on the anniversary\nof death; the Bulgarians hold a special Feast of the Dead on Palm\nSunday, and eat the remains of the funeral offerings[816]. The subject\nis, indeed, wide and complicated. At the back of the attenuated ceremony\nof to-day lies the primitive belief in the life of the dead, with the\nconsequent feasts and sacrifices. The inquiry, upon which we cannot now\nenter, soon leads us into an investigation of the corn-gods and \u201cgods of\ncultivation,\u201d which are associated with the religions of primitive\nfolk. For a discussion of these matters, the reader is referred to the\nexhaustive works of Professor Frazer and Mr Grant Allen.\n\nWith respect to the burial feasts of the prehistoric period, the line of\ndescent might be easily traced. The funeral suppers given by the Greeks\nand Romans to the relatives of a dead person are frequently referred to\nby classical authors. Similar feasts are mentioned by our English\nwriters from the time of Robert de Brunne (fl. A.D. 1288-1338)\nonwards[817]. Huge repasts--shall we not say orgies?--continued in\nfashion until the eighteenth century at least. Brand relates that, at\nthe funeral of a Highland lord in 1725, not fewer than 100 black cattle\nand 300 sheep were slain \u201cfor the entertainment of the company[818].\u201d\nNowadays the feast has dwindled, in most localities, to a glass of wine\nand a biscuit. But there have been some amazing exceptions. Canon\nAtkinson, in the earlier years of his incumbency at Danby-in-Cleveland,\nabout the middle of the nineteenth century, found that the \u201cfuneral\nbak\u2019d meats\u201d were held in high esteem. On the death of a villager of\nimportance, invitations were sent out \u201cnot merely by the score, but by\nthe hundred. I have myself counted,\u201d he says, \u201cmore than three hundred\nseated in the church on at least four, if not five, different occasions.\nAnd the rule is, and, still more, was, that the preponderating majority\nof these \u2018went to the burial\u2019 at the house where the corpse lay,\nbeginning at ten o\u2019clock and continuing to drop in, according to\nconvenience or distance to be traversed, throughout the morning and\nafternoon till it became time to \u2018lift the body\u2019 and make a start for\nthe church. And all these were fed--entertained, rather--at the house of\nmourning, if it chanced to be that of one of the principal inhabitants.\u201d\nAll day long there were relays of visitors, from a dozen up to a score,\nsmoking and drinking at the house[819]. During the latter part of the\nentertainment glasses of wine were handed round, with crisp cakes,\ncolloquially known as \u201caverils\u201d or \u201caveril bread[820].\u201d Canon Atkinson\ntraced this word thus: _averil_, _avril_, then by transposition, _arvil_\nor _arvel_ (= heir-ale). This \u201cheir-ale,\u201d or succession-ale, thus stands\nfor the feast at which the heirs drank themselves into their father\u2019s\nland. It is interesting to note that this etymology is supported by the\nhighest authorities--for example, by the _New Oxford Dictionary_.\n\nWhilst insisting on the continuity of custom and folk-memory, as proved\nby survivals, it would be very unwise to ignore the changes which have\nbeen gradually taking place since the Barrow period. Looking, for the\nmoment, at extreme cases, the actual result appears to reveal a wide\ngap, and for the sake of contrast, I will quote Mr Grant Allen\u2019s\nfanciful description of the burial of a chieftain in a long barrow on\nOgbury Downs, Wiltshire. The passage is long and somewhat ornate, but,\nbecause it is probably correct in most of the details, and helps us to\n\u201cvisualize the past,\u201d it shall be given in full. \u201cI saw them bear aloft,\nwith beating of breasts and loud gesticulations, the bent corpse of\ntheir dead chieftain: I saw the terrified and fainting wives haled along\nby thongs of raw oxhide, and the weeping prisoners driven passively like\nsheep to the slaughter: I saw the fearful orgy of massacre and rapine\naround the open tumulus, the wild priest shattering with his gleaming\ntomahawk the skulls of his victims, the fire of gorse and low brushwood\nprepared to roast them, the heads and feet flung carelessly on the top\nof the yet uncovered stone chamber, the awful dance of blood-stained\ncannibals around the mangled remains of men and oxen, and, finally, the\nlong task of heaping up above the stone hut of the dead king the earthen\nmound that was never again to be opened to the light of day till, ten\nthousand years later, we modern Britons invaded with our prying,\nsacrilegious mattock the sacred privacy of the cannibal ghost[821].\u201d\n\nA curious side-question is raised by this mention of funeral feasts--the\ndifficulty sometimes felt in accounting for the abundance of teeth,\nhuman and non-human, in ancient graves. Granted, that the heads of\nanimals might be thrown into the grave as uneatable, or, perchance, as\nhaving accredited virtues, and granted, again, that teeth are among the\nmost durable portions of a skeleton, the facts are occasionally\npuzzling. Baron de Baye suggests that the heads of sacrificial\nanimals--he is referring to the Saxon period--were fixed on large stakes\nas offerings to the gods, and that, as the heads decayed, the teeth\nbecame detached, and were scattered over the ground, to be accidentally\nmixed with the soil when a fresh burial took place[822]. The explanation\nmay be partially true, but one thinks that a simpler solution is at\nhand, in the successive interments and sacrifices which would be\nassociated with one grave. This would lead to inevitable mingling of\nbones and teeth, and if, as is probable, the skeletons of the dead were\noften kept some time before they were buried, the confusion would be\nincreased. This would account for the numbers of human teeth found in\nthe Late-Celtic cemetery at Harlyn Bay, not corresponding to the\nskeletons with which they were associated. In one cist there were\ntwenty-three teeth which did not belong to that particular\ninterment[823]. Though putting forward the prosaic explanation of\nunintentional mixture, I think that there is another phase of the\nquestion--the superstitious. Among primitive folk there is commonly a\nbelief in the efficacy of human bones as talismans. The atlas and axis\nbones of the neck have been preserved for this purpose, and the skull\nespecially has been treasured and worshipped[824]. It is very probable\nthat pieces of human skulls which had, either in life or after death,\nundergone the operation of trepanning, were kept as mascots. And,\nremembering the part played by teeth in folk-lore and superstition, one\nis compelled to retain an open mind on the subject of teeth found in\nancient graves. Messrs Spencer and Gillen have described, in a vivid\nmanner, the ceremony of knocking out the teeth, as performed by some of\nthe tribes of Central Australia. The operation is accompanied by the\ndrinking of blood as an act of fealty, the displaced teeth being\npounded, laid on a scrap of meat, and eaten by a specified\nrelative[825]. Again, in Cornwall, the very county, as it happens, in\nwhich Harlyn Bay is situated, teeth were formerly stolen from the\ncoffins under the floors of churches and sold as charms against\ndisease[826]. According to the Devonshire superstition, a tooth bitten\nout of a churchyard skull will ward off toothache, and the Shropshire\npeasant has a similar legend[827]. All over England we hear of the fancy\nfor preserving or ceremonially burning teeth which have been extracted.\nSomersetshire women would hide the teeth in their hair[828], but more\nusually, the teeth, like the parings of the nails and locks of hair, are\nburnt, lest they should fall into the hands of an enemy who, by\n\u201csympathetic magic,\u201d might injure the whole body of the owner[829]. The\nmost suggestive evidence, however, comes from Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and\nCornwall. In those counties all the teeth shed during a person\u2019s\nlifetime were saved and placed in his coffin, being \u201crequired at the\nResurrection.\u201d Authentic instances are on record[830].\n\nWe have now surveyed, however inadequately, our modes of burial, the\nforms of the graves, the gifts deposited with the dead, and funeral\nfeasts, and incidentally we have noticed a number of superstitions. We\nmay fittingly terminate the discussion by glancing at the closing\nceremony of a modern funeral--the placing of flowers on the grave. The\npractice has its aesthetic as well as its religious side, and\nrepresents the refinement of ideas which are really very ancient. Even\nin the time of Durandus, the funeral evergreens were deemed to be\nsymbolical only[831]. The rite of strewing graves with flowers was\nsymbolical, too, among the Romans. Yet this kindly ceremony belongs, in\nthe first place, to the pre-Christian age[832], and we are bound to\nbelieve that the original objects scattered over the dead were neither\nevergreens nor flowers. Perhaps these prototypes were the flints and\nshards of which we have spoken. These \u201cforgotten things, long cast\nbehind,\u201d have reappeared, in a more attractive guise, and, consecrated\nby time, have secured a firm hold in the sentiments of European\nnations.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE FOLK-LORE OF THE CARDINAL POINTS\n\n\nTo weave romance and mystery around the four points of the compass might\nappear an impossible task, yet this feat was successfully performed by\nour rude forefathers, to whose primitive minds the plain, undeviating\nphenomena of Nature conveyed comfort or warning. A few simple\nsuperstitions, bequeathed from father to son, and ever amplified\nthroughout a thousand generations, became at last a somewhat complex\nbody of doctrine. This accumulated lore is now being rapidly scattered\nto the winds by the growth of science and the spread of education, but\nstray fragments may still be gathered by the student.\n\nThe magnetic compass, of which the history is a little uncertain (see p.\n228, _supra_), may be put aside in our present inquiry, since it belongs\nto a state of society of comparatively high development. The\nunembellished teaching which is to be examined dates far earlier than\nthe birth of science in the Middle Ages, or the period of the\nintroduction of the magnetic needle into Europe. We shall find, however,\nthat the folk-lore of the Cardinal Points received many additions at the\nhands of Mediaeval symbolists. The mythology of that epoch has, indeed,\nbeen fitly compared to a complex alloy, formed by the blending of pure\nores from various sources. The traditions of previous ages were\nretained, and blended, but new material was thrown into the crucible.\n\nCertain patent facts would appeal even to the elementary minds of the\nStone Age men. These folk saw the sun rise daily in the East, traverse\nthe sky by way of the South, and finally set at evening in the West.\nBirth and brightness were followed by ascendancy and power; the descent\nled to disappearance and darkness. There was the dawn, followed by warm\nbeams which dispersed both gloom and vapour. The blue South yielded the\nheat of noonday, at which time the sunbeams were genial, even in the\ndepth of winter. But when the dying sun had withdrawn for the day,\nprimitive men would experience discomfort and uneasy forebodings. This\ndisappearance of the great luminary, the lord and giver of life, was a\npermanent mystery; the rebirth next morning was even more perplexing. At\na later period, the men of China and North America, of Greece and Rome,\nevolved curious explanations of these phenomena, but at first only the\nphysical effects of the sun\u2019s apparent movements would concern the\nbarbaric mind.\n\nVery early in the growth of ideas man would learn that the position of\nthe sun was a good index of direction. It has been mooted whether the\nmost ancient method of denoting direction, that is, \u201corientation\u201d in its\nwider sense, was not to describe the speaker\u2019s surroundings, or to\nindicate natural features known to him and his fellows[833]. Thus, a\nhunter might speak of a place by reference to some prominent rock or\ntree; his direction might, in the same way, be told in terms of the\nprevailing winds. One is nevertheless driven to believe that simple\nobservations of the sun\u2019s position would be made almost as soon as man\nbegan to take notice of any natural features or occurrences whatever; in\neither case, any slight priority of method is of such trivial account as\nto be negligible.\n\nSeeing that the East and West points are much more clearly marked than\nthe North and South, one would naturally expect that the ancients found\nthose points more convenient as standards. To make accurate use of the\nNorth-to-South direction, one would either need to have an approximate\nmethod of determining time by the length of shadows, or to know how to\nfind the Pole Star or the Great Bear by night. The modern schoolboy is\noccasionally taught to reckon his position by facing the East, and long\nago Canon Isaac Taylor suggested that some of the early Aryan peoples\nsimilarly took the East as their standard[834]. According to this\nauthority, the place-name Deccan is connected with the Latin _dexter_,\nthe right hand, that is, the right hand as the observer faces the East.\nOn this view, Deccan would be the right-hand, or South country. As an\nanalogy, Taylor cites the Arabic word _yemin_, which means both\nright-hand and South (whence el-Yemen for Southern Arabia)[835]. These\nideas have received considerable modern support. The Welsh name for\nSouth, _dehau_, like the Old Irish _dess_ (Mod. Irish, _deas_) means\nalso right-hand[836]. Hence we get _Deheu-dir_, the South land, for\nSouth Wales, and the Brit-Latin adjectives, _dextralis_, Southern;\n_sinistralis_, Northern. So, too, the Continental names, Texel and\nTeisterbant, are supposed to mean places lying towards the South[837].\nSimilarly, with the Eskimos, the words used for North and South\ncorrespond with those used for the sides of the body[838]. Other\nlanguages might be cited to show like peculiarities, but it will be\nsufficient here to note a few curious instances of folk-memory\nillustrative of the root idea.\n\nThe Jewish rabbis taught that man was born with his face towards the\nEast; hence the right and left hand directions were respectively\nindicative of good and evil[839]. We infer this from the New Testament\nparable, wherein the sheep are set on the right hand and the goats on\nthe left. Our words _dexterous_ and _sinister_ have a groundwork of the\nold belief to support them; the latter word, at least, is not\nexclusively concerned with physical awkwardness or ineptitude. The\nsuperstition concerning the left-hand colours the current meaning. A\ndifficulty, however, arises when we discover that the Roman augurs\ndeemed the left side indicative of good-luck. How can the two ideas be\nreconciled? Schrader conjectures that the East, and not the North side,\nwas intended as the equivalent of the left hand, the supposition being\nthat the soothsayer faced the South in his divination. Seyffert states\nthis as a fact, adding that, in ancient Greece, augurs looked towards\nthe North[840]. The Greek usage seems to be reflected in Homer\u2019s\nfrequent employment of \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, in the sense of favourable, or boding\ngood, with respect to the flight of birds and other omens. It would\nappear that the Latin poets (e.g. Virgil and Livy) copied the Greek idea\nand mode of expression, using the cognate word _dexter_ to denote\nskilful or fortunate. This theory implies that the restricted meaning of\n_dexter_ is borrowed, and is not directly derived from Roman augury.\nMoreover, since the Roman diviner faced the South, _dexter_ could not be\napplied to that point of the compass. To this extent, then, the attempt\nto connect the word with Deccan and similar place-names breaks down. The\nmain conclusion, nevertheless, is little affected, namely, that words of\nthis character were often employed to distinguish the Cardinal Points.\nThe pitfall to be avoided is the assumption that superstitions and\nbeliefs everywhere take precisely the same form of expression. Professor\nSkeat traces a connection, for example, between the Malay word _kidal_\n(= South), and _kidul_ (= left-handed)[841]. This relationship would\nsuggest that the standard point for observation was the West, not the\nEast. In Greece and Rome, as we have seen, the North and South\nrespectively were so chosen.\n\nIn some districts, where the distinctive names of the four Cardinal\nPoints have been fully accepted, the reverse principle is seen at work:\nthe peasant, instead of using the terms \u201cright hand\u201d and \u201cleft hand\u201d to\nsignify East and West, applies the compass points to indicate position\nwith respect to the body. Thus, in some parts of Scotland, one still\nhears such expressions as \u201cthe East trouser pocket[842].\u201d And Miss C. F.\nGordon-Cumming tells of an old Highland woman who inquired at the\npost-office whether the envelope should be stamped in the East or the\nWest corner[843].\n\nA little detail respecting the folk-lore of the Cardinal Points may not\nbe unacceptable. Taking first the East, we find that this quarter,\nbesides serving as the point of determination for certain races whose\nspeech was of the Aryan stock, was the reputed home of deities. We have\nseen that folk of many climes turned to the East in prayer. That portion\nof the firmament was symbolical of hope, and purity, and fulness of\nlife. Milton speaks of\n\n... \u201cthe Eastern gate,\n    Where the great sun begins his state\u201d--\n\nas if the grandeur of dawn could not be overlooked by the most\nunresponsive eye. St Augustine considers the East emblematic of the\n\u201cLight of Heaven.\u201d How important this point of the compass was esteemed\nby Christian and pagan architects is proved by the practice of\norientation--the word itself marks out the idea. Hawker, of Morwenstow,\never mystical in his beliefs, declared that the East was the realm of\noracles and represented the special throne of God, while the West was\nthe domain of the people--the Galilee of all nations[844].\n\nThe South, the region of warmth and midday, has always been beloved by\nthe religious, as well as the superstitious, of most countries,\nespecially in the Northern parts of the world. The prose Eddas speak of\nthe Southern edge of heaven as the everlasting abode of righteous men.\nAgain, one of the roots of the magic tree Yggdrasill springs from the\nwarm South side, over the Urdur fountain. The preference for the South\nis well seen in ecclesiastical matters. The churchyard cross usually\nstands on the South side of the church (Fig. 62). As will be shown in\nChapter IX., on this side the churchyard yew is most generally found.\nThe Southern doorway is somewhat more common than the Northern; where\nboth exist, the Southern is more in favour with the worshippers. On a\nbalance of observations, I find that the Southern side of a church is\nmore\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 62. Churchyard cross, on the South side of Bakewell church,\n     Derbyshire. The cross, which belongs to the latter half of the\n     eighth century, is complete, except the top arm. It exhibits\n     foliage and fine interlaced work, with sculptured figures\n     illustrating the Life and Death of Christ. (See _Vict. Hist. of\n     Derby_, I. pp. 280, 287.) The cross is supposed to indicate a\n     pre-Conquest burial ground.\n]\n\nelaborately decorated than the Northern (cf. p. 239, _supra_, and the\nreservation there made), a fact illustrated in the mouldings and\ncapitals (Fig. 63), the window tracery and the painted glass. The\nbishop\u2019s throne is customarily placed on the South side of the\ncathedral. The so-called \u201clow side windows\u201d (Fig. 64) occur most\nfrequently in the South walls. Those curious oblique passages, known as\nsquints or hagioscopes, cut through church walls (cf. p. 148, _supra_),\nare most commonly Southern features, in which case they often point\ndirectly to the Southern entrance of the building. In this country, we\nare accustomed to look for the cloisters of a Benedictine abbey on the\nSouth side of the church, but in Italy the covered way usually lies to\nthe North[845]. Here, all symbolism seems to be stripped away, and\nprimal considerations of comfort gain the ascendancy. Our variable\nclimate renders a sunny outlook desirable, and we notice efforts to\nsecure this end in the familiar arrangement of old farmsteads, where the\nbarns and enclosures frequently stand to the South of the dwelling. In a\nhot country, like Italy, coolness and shade would be sought, hence we\nfind the dissimilar ground plan of the Italian abbeys.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 63. Capitals, Seaford church, Sussex, (c. A.D. 1190.) A, from\n     the North arcade, bears the ordinary stiff-leaved foliage of the\n     period. B, from the South arcade, has elaborate carvings\n     representing the Crucifixion, the Stoning of Stephen, and the\n     Baptism of Christ.\n]\n\nBut if the arrangement of the cloisters be adjudged a mere matter of\neconomy and convenience, there exist well-rooted superstitions which\ncannot be so explained. \u201cThe front of everything to the South,\u201d is an\nold Irish maxim, and though, as Mr W. G. Wood-Martin suggests, the\nsaying may have reference to the ceremony of making the deiseal, or\nright-hand circle, yet the words are pregnant of folk-custom. Formerly\nthe Irish ploughman turned the head of his horses towards the South\nbefore yoking or unyoking. Taking an English example, we find that in\nSuffolk, wherever the churches possessed both a\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 64. Quatrefoil low side window, on the South side of the\n     chancel wall, Tatsfield church, Surrey. c. A.D. 1300. A feature\n     most frequently found on the South side of churches.\n]\n\nNorth and a South entrance, it was the practice to carry the coffin into\nthe building by the South door, allow it to rest at the West end of the\naisle, and then take it out by the North door[846]. In Lincolnshire, the\nNorth door was entirely reserved for funerals, the South and West doors\nbeing used for weddings and christenings[847]. At baptisms, again, there\nwas a prevalent belief that the Holy Spirit entered the church by the\nSouth door, while the devil departed through the opening opposite--the\nDevil\u2019s Door (Fig. 65). Lastly, to abbreviate our list of superstitions,\nPennant may be cited, to the effect that in North Wales the mourners\nused to bring the corpse into the churchyard by means of the South gate\nonly[848]. With this we may compare the Welsh superstition that a\nhealing spring should have an outlet towards the South, and should be\nvisited at midsummer. Girls who wished to know their lovers\u2019 intentions\nwere accustomed to spread a pocket-handkerchief over the water of the\nwell. If the waters pushed the handkerchief towards the South, so Sir\nJohn Rh\u0177s informs us, the lovers were honest and honourable; if the\narticle shifted Northwards, the omen was bad. These marked preferences\nfor the South prove that the motive involved was sentimental as well as\nphysical.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 65. Devil\u2019s Door (Saxon), Worth church, Sussex.\nAccording to legend, the exorcized spirit passed through this door at\nthe time of the baptismal renunciation.]\n\nWe have referred to the superstitions connected with the East and the\nSouth, and we now follow the sun to the region where he descends into\nthe dark underworld. Professor Tylor neatly expresses the symbolism of\nthese three positions: \u201cMan\u2019s life in dawning beauty, in midday glory,\nin evening death[849].\u201d The West, then, represents the kingdom of the\ndead, and, by transfer of ideas, the territory of alien peoples. A\nnatural metaphor makes it the abode of shadow, of sleep, of ignorance of\nthe Divine. In sharp contrast to these ideas is the teaching of certain\nraces that the West is the Garden-land, the Earthly Paradise, \u201cthe new\nheaven and the new earth[850].\u201d Such notions, so directly contradictory\nto the first-mentioned, seem to indicate worship paid to the setting sun\n(cf. p. 217, _supra_).\n\nThe older advocates of the Asiatic origin of the Aryan peoples were led\ncaptive by the proverb, \u201c_Ex oriente lux_.\u201d This phrase doubtless\ninfluenced philologists like Pott and M\u00fcller, while to Grimm must be\ncredited the complementary epigram, \u201cthe irresistible impulse towards\nthe West[851].\u201d Along with the fallacy hidden in these aphorisms there\nis some amount of truth. Berkeley\u2019s assertion, \u201cWestward the course of\nEmpire takes its way,\u201d is historically justified, and is still apposite\nto a large degree. The more modern idea, expressed by Kipling, \u201cOh, East\nis East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet[852],\u201d though\ncorrect as a key to manners and customs, may be much canvassed if\napplied to actual migrations of men. To carry our parallels further\nwould lead us to the purely fanciful, and would evoke the derision of\nthe scornful. Yet the mention of one more whimsical belief may be\npardoned on the ground of its age. Peter Heylyn gave utterance to the\nidea two and a half centuries ago, though it is likely that he was a\nborrower from earlier geographers. He tells us that the poets turn their\nfaces to the West, the Fortunate Islands, \u201cso memorized and chanted by\nthem.\u201d To the poets, then, the North is the right hand, the South is\nleft. But to the \u201cAugures of old, and in our days, to Priests and Men in\nholy Orders, [who] usually in sacrifice and divine oblations convert\nthemselves unto the East,\u201d the South is the right hand. Astronomers face\nthe South, because in that way the motions of the planets may best be\nobserved. Finally, geographers, who have \u201cso much to do with the\nElevations of the Pole,\u201d turn their faces to the North, and, to them,\nthe left hand is West[853].\n\nIf the West, according to one superstition, is the realm of death, what\nshall be said of the North? From that quarter no sunny rays are sent\nforth. The North blast brings ice and snow. A time-honoured tradition\nmakes all fogs and storms rise from the Northern heavens[854]. Even\nto-day the Wiltshire peasant avers that thunder always comes from the\nNorth, though the sound may reach the ear from another direction[855].\nThe Northern slopes of an undulating meadow are overrun with moss and\ntussocks of coarse grass. But lichens, lovers of sunlight, avoid the\nNorth side of trees. An East-to-West wall built further North of East\nthan 41\u00b0 26\u00b4 can, in latitude 51\u00b0 N., receive no rays of the sun except\non the South side. In the same manner a chancel which is deflected very\nmuch towards the North gets no sunshine on that side, except in the\nearly morning, and then only in the summer season. Let hardy souls, like\nKingsley, extol the North wind, if they desire, but the mass of men will\nstill hold the icy blast in detestation. Hence the superstitions\nregarding the North are closely knit with physical dislike and\ndiscomfort, and rest on a basis of sound reason.\n\nBearing these facts in mind, we are not astonished to learn that early\nbeliefs allocated the North to the Spirit of Evil. The idea is rife\nthroughout the heathen legends of Northern nations[856]. The underworld,\nin Teutonic mythology, is placed under the third root of the ash tree,\nYggdrasill, \u201clow down toward the North,\u201d where there is cold, eternal\nnight. In this mist-hell, the unhappy sojourner wanders down valleys\ndeep and dark; he enters joyless caverns; oftentimes, too, he hears the\nroaring of the waterfall which belongs to the demons[857]. Nor are such\nideas confined to heathen folk. Again and again, in the Old Testament,\nespecially in Job and Isaiah, \u201cthe sides of the North\u201d are represented\nas the abode of the Prince of Darkness[858]. Even the New Testament has\nfaint allusions to the same belief. Naturally, then, English literature\nbecame permeated with this idea. Shakespeare, all-embracing in his\nreferences to prevailing superstitions, makes La Pucelle invoke\ndemons--\u201csubstitutes under the lordly monarch of the North[859].\u201d In\n_Paradise Lost_ we are told how the banded powers of Satan appear in\n\u201cthe spacious North,\u201d where the arch-rebel has erected his throne[860].\nMilton recurs to the idea several times; thus, in one of the sonnets, we\nmeet with the epithet, \u201cthe false North[861].\u201d Later poets, perhaps\nunconsciously imitating Milton, have expressed the same fancy. Kirke\nWhite, in the _Christiad_, the poem on which, as Southey tells us, the\nhapless young poet bestowed most pains, placed his hosts of demons among\nthe impenetrable fogs and lamenting gales--\n\n    \u201cWhere the North Pole, in moody solitude,\n     Spreads her huge tracks and frozen wastes around[862].\u201d\n\nThese illustrations show that the Northern quarter of the heavens was\nthe source of much superstition. The simple childish myth was often\namplified. Origen taught that the place of everlasting damnation was at\nthe earth\u2019s centre, and that the entrance was situated at the North\nPole. Each time the Aurora Borealis flashed, the gates of hell opened\nanew, and the wicked on earth were warned of their doom[863]. The\ndoctrine of fear of the North creeps in everywhere. The parish church,\naccording to some writers, is most suitably built on the North side of\nthe graveyard, so that it may not cast a shadow on the graves[864]. This\n\u201crule\u201d is undoubtedly beset by many transgressions, but it embodies a\ntendency, and I have noticed some remarkable confirmations. Many\nchurchyards have but a very narrow strip of ground lying to the North of\nthe edifice. In spite of these instances, I consider that the\ngeneralization is too definite, and that the alleged reason lacks\nadequate support. The superstition concerning the Northern, or Devil\u2019s\ndoor, on the contrary, is general and well-authenticated.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 66. Gateway, at Eastern entrance to St Stephen\u2019s church,\n     Coleman Street, London. The carving (5 feet \u00d7 2\u00bd feet) on the upper\n     portion was originally over the North gateway. The subject is the\n     Day of Judgement, and the figures are in high relief. The Judge is\n     seen enthroned above, Satan is falling from heaven, and the dead\n     are rising from their coffins. Representations of this kind are\n     often called \u201cDooms.\u201d\n]\n\nThe building itself affords evidence of the current superstition. Part\nof this testimony was put forward, inferentially, when the South was\nbeing considered; one or two additional facts may now be noticed. On the\nNorthern gate of the church, there were sometimes represented the\nterrible scenes connected with the Last Judgement. An elaborate example\nof this treatment formerly existed over the Northern gateway of St\nGiles-in-the-Fields, London, and another at St Stephen\u2019s, Coleman Street\n(Fig. 66), though in each case the craftsman\u2019s work now occupies a\ndifferent position[865]. Gloomy subjects, like the one mentioned, were\nalso reserved for the North face of the church by those Mediaeval\nsculptors whose sermons in stone warned many long-past generations.\nRheims Cathedral has the terrors of the Last Day thus depicted on its\nNorth side. The arrangements of the church services also show traces of\nthe influence now under discussion. In the North of Europe, where the\nusual rule for orienting churches is observed, the Gospel is read from\nthe North side of the altar, so that, according to Mediaeval symbolism,\nlight may be given \u201cto them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of\ndeath[866].\u201d Or, as Durandus has it, the North side is allotted to\nsinners, and the Gospel calls sinners to repentance[867]. Conversely,\nthe Epistle is read from the South side, the abode of the faithful and\nthe converted. If one person has to read both the Epistle and the\nGospel, he crosses from the South to the North before reading the latter\nservice. To account for this change of position, other reasons have been\nadvanced. Some writers think that the spread of the Word from the South\nto the North is intended; others declare that the crossing over was a\nmatter of mere convenience. Moreover, while a similar custom prevailed\nin the early churches of Rome, the position of the reader in those days\nwas to the right or left of the celebrant; consequently, where the\nbuilding was not alined East and West, the mystical interpretation could\nnot apply. Whatever be the origin or the date of the introduction of the\ncustom, it seems fairly conclusive that some such symbolical meaning was\nunderstood during the Mediaeval period[868]. Nevertheless, we should be\non our guard against the meticulous and over-strained interpretations\nwhich the symbolists are wont to produce for the most trivial ceremonies\nand occurrences. Most readers will recall the passage in Ecclesiastes\nconcerning the fall of the tree to the South, or to the North. On these\nexpressions, Coverdale, in his treatise entitled \u201cPraying for the Dead,\u201d\nbases a far-fetched fragment of symbolism. It runs as follows: \u201cAs men\ndie, so shall they arise; if in faith in the Lord, towards the South,\nthey need no prayers; they are happy, and shall arise in glory\npresently; if in unbelief, without the Lord, towards the North then are\nthey past all help, in the damned state presently, and shall rise in\neternal shame[869].\u201d\n\nTo descend to the prosaic affairs of life, we notice some curious facts\nwhich seem to confirm the evil reputation of the North. It may be deemed\na trifle, but why did our ancestors, under the old open-field system of\ncultivation, divide their territories into East, West, and South\nFields[870], not North? To reply that, since the land was cultivated\nchiefly under a three-field system, with its three-course rotation of\ncrops, one quarter of the compass must necessarily be omitted, is\nscarcely satisfactory. Why should it be the North particularly which is\navoided in the allotment of areas and in the nomenclature? Besides,\nwhere the two-field system was in vogue, we commonly find East and West,\nrather than North and South. One does not wish to press such nice\npoints, but was it by chance that in the old Lombardic boundary treaties\nthe Northern tract was styled \u201c_nulla ora_[871]\u201d? Undoubtedly, it is a\nfair response to say that these matters were instinctively settled on\nprinciples of convenience and physical comfort. The motive for the\nchoice was at first probably thus simple, but supplementary ideas sprang\nup, and tended to harden the preference into a rule. One or two further\nillustrations will now be given.\n\nA study of the ancient Pilgrims\u2019 Way of the South of England shows that\nthe Mediaeval wayfarers, and, doubtless, the far earlier prehistoric\nfolk, preferred to travel along the Southern slope of the hills, and\nconsistently avoided the Northern. The Southern, or drier, side of a\nstream was also selected, wherever the pathway chanced to follow a\nwatercourse for a short distance. Mr Hilaire Belloc states that he has\ncounted but four exceptions to this rule in the whole course of the\nMediaeval Pilgrims\u2019 Way. And, again, where the Mediaeval track leads to\na church, Mr Belloc asserts that it passes on the South side, leaving\nthe building on the North[872]. One exception seems to have been\noverlooked by Mr Belloc--the church of Paddlesworth, near Snodland, in\nKent, which has the Pilgrims\u2019 Way passing by its North door. Another\napparent exception, at Puttenham, Surrey, is accounted for by a modern\ndiversion of the old road.\n\nIsaac Taylor, writing to prove the predilection of our forefathers for\nthe South, once asserted that there are more villages named Sutton than\nNorton, Weston, or Aston[873]. He gave no statistics in support of his\ncontention, but the clue seemed worth following. I have therefore\nexamined the place-names contained in the most recent Post Office Guide,\nand have supplemented these from other lists. All village-names\nconsisting of a single compounded word, one member of which is clearly\nderived from the Cardinal Points, were counted and classified. Doubtful\nexamples were set aside; many others, though disguised under curious\northographies, were properly included. The result showed\n\n32  Nortons, + 58 other place-names obviously\n       traceable to \u201cNorth\u201d                                  90\n\n52  Suttons, + 49 other place-names obviously\n       traceable to \u201cSouth\u201d                                 101\n\n35  Astons and Eastons, + 38 other place-names\n       obviously traceable to \u201cEast\u201d                         73\n\n41  Westons, + 63 other place-names obviously\n       traceable to \u201cWest\u201d                                  104\n\nAs might have been anticipated, the disparities are not so great as\nTaylor\u2019s statement implied, because, on the whole, the village-names run\nin pairs; a North keeps company with a South. With respect to North and\nSouth, there is indeed a slight preponderance in favour of the sunny\nquarter. The Wests, likewise, outnumber the Easts, from which we may\ninfer that a sheltered situation was operative in determining the choice\nof a site. The coombe which opened towards the West or South, and the\nhill-slope similarly situated, would attract the first settlers.\n\nThe place-names which consist of two separate words, one of which was a\nprefix indicating position, revealed somewhat similar preferences. Of\nthis class, comprising such names as North Cheam and West Ham, there\nwere 241 Wests to 181 Easts, thus confirming the first list. Then came a\nsurprise; 164 Norths against 133 Souths. There are, it is true, names\nlike North Cotes, with no corresponding South Cotes[874], but this also\nholds good conversely. On the other hand, it is probable, either that\nthese double names which have not coalesced represent comparatively\nrecent parochial divisions (e.g. East and West Horsley, Surrey), or that\none name is a modern imitation or duplicate of the other (e.g. East and\nWest Wickham, Kent, several miles apart, the first being a later\ngeographical distinction). If any support is lent to Taylor\u2019s dictum\ntherefore, it could only come from a consideration of names originally\ngiven to genuinely ancient settlements, and to obtain these names a very\naccurate and intimate study of thousands of local documents would be\nnecessary.\n\nThough not strictly concerned with the Cardinal Points, an old custom\nwhich bears on the question of sites may be noticed here. This is the\npastoral habit, adopted by primitive shepherd folk, of living, during\nsummer, in booths or tents set up on elevated pastures, and of\ndescending, in winter, from these grazing grounds to the plains, where\nthere were substantial houses, each having its ox-stalls and other\noutbuildings. The \u201csummer-houses\u201d may be preserved for us in many\nplace-names, as in Somerscales and Summer Lodge, Yorkshire; Somersby,\nNorth and South Somercoates, Lincolnshire; besides Somergranges,\nSomersall, Summerley, and many others in other counties. With these\nplaces, one may compare the Norwegian settlements, known as _saeters_,\nwhich exist to-day. There are also, in England, _sets_ or _seats_ (=\nsummer abodes), such as Moorseats, Outseats, Runsett, and\nThornsett[875]. The names indicative of winter sites are not so common,\nperhaps because, representing permanent settlements, they required no\ndistinctive term; that is to say, it was the temporary hut which called\nforth the need of a separate name. Against twenty \u201cSummers\u201d there are\nopposed only nine \u201cWinters,\u201d reckoning the seventeen Winterbournes once\nonly: it is questionable whether this last name is an instance in point,\nsince it probably denotes a site where an intermittent stream was wont\nto appear after rainy seasons. From the nature of the case, we should\nexpect no \u201cSummerbournes.\u201d Of the other Winters, one or two, like\nWinteringham, may be reminiscent of a Saxon family name. The late Mr T.\nW. Shore considered that not only the various Winterbournes, but also\nWinterton and Winteringham, signify \u201cWendish\u201d settlements, _Windr_ being\nan old name applied to Northern nations[876]. This idea seems too\nfanciful and strained, the more so, because, in the case of\nWinterbourne, a simple explanation based on familiar physical phenomena\nis at hand.\n\nReturning to our proper subject, we find a curious superstition which\nmerits detailed examination, namely the general antipathy of country\nfolk to burial on the North side of the churchyard. This strange\naversion must have come within the experience of most antiquaries and\nfolk-lorists. During the peregrinations of many years, the writer has\ncollected a large number of instances illustrative of the belief, and a\nfew of these will be submitted.\n\nSo recently as the year 1904 there was buried, in a quiet Surrey\nchurchyard, the body of a well-known public man who had poisoned himself\nshortly after receiving a sentence of penal servitude. The newspapers\nduly recorded that the interment took place on the North side of the\nchurchyard, and that a specially adapted service was read, but no one\nseemed to notice the significance of these details. An explanation, as\nwe shall see, is nevertheless discoverable. A few years earlier, in\n1899, during the discussion of a Burials Bill, then before the House of\nCommons, it was alleged that in most village churchyards there remained\nburial accommodation sufficient for some time to come. Against this\nplea, it was urged that the space still available was usually situated\non the North side of the graveyard, and that there was a rooted\nobjection among villagers to burial in that quarter. The Home Secretary\nreplied that he had never heard of the prejudice, and a somewhat general\nincredulity as to its existence was revealed among the Commoners.\nThereupon a correspondent, writing to _Notes and Queries_, clinched the\nargument based on superstition by quoting the inscription on a tombstone\nin the graveyard of Epworth, the village of the Wesleys. The epitaph ran\nthus:\n\n    \u201cThat I might longer undisturb\u2019d abide,\n     I choos\u2019d to be laid on this Northern side[877].\u201d\n\nSuch a wish was no new, crazy fancy, for earlier instances are on\nrecord. From an account published in 1657, we learn that Benjamin\nRhodes, steward to Thomas, Earl of Elgin, requested to be buried on the\nNorth side of Malden churchyard (Bedford), \u201cto crosse the received\nsuperstition[878].\u201d Combining the last two incidents, we may infer that\nthe Northern portion of the churchyard was little used, and that neglect\nwas due to its ill-repute. So, then, in the remark made by Edmund Burke,\n\u201cI would rather sleep in the Southern corner of a country churchyard\nthan in the tomb of the Capulets[879],\u201d the indication of the Southern\nposition is not mere rhetoric. Let us proceed to examine some further\ninstances, in order to show that our generalization is sound.\n\nAt Winterton, a village not far from Epworth, at the time of the\ncontroversy of which mention has been made, the burials on the North\nside had all taken place within living memory. It was a matter of doubt\nwhether \u201ca dozen gravestones, over fifty years old, could be found in as\nmany parishes in [that] deanery on the North sides of churchyards[880].\u201d\nAnother Lincolnshire village, Springthorpe, had no Northern graves;\nwhile, at Saltfleetby All Saints, so recently as 1880, as the present\nwriter can avouch, not a single stone or grave existed on the North\nside, though monuments were closely crowded on the South side. Dr Alfred\nGatty, who was vicar of Ecclesfield, Yorkshire, for more than fifty\nyears, once stated that, in the early nineteenth century, there were\npractically no interments in the North yard of his church. In the year\n1823 a clergyman was buried in that portion, and the evil reputation was\nbanished[881]. Morwenstow, Cornwall, Hawker\u2019s beloved \u201cDaughter of the\nRock,\u201d formerly exemplified the same superstition[882]. The prejudice\nwas especially strong in Norfolk[883]. It was also very prevalent in the\nneighbouring county of Suffolk[884]. At Newbourne, in that county, while\nthe graveyard was filled on the South, East, and West, the turf had long\nappeared unbroken on the North. \u201cThe bishop had never walked on it,\u201d so\nran the story, and all endeavours to break down the superstition proved\nfruitless for many years[885]. In churchyards situated in the Border\nCounties, on both banks of the Tweed, the prejudice is barely removed\neven at the time of writing. John Brand (A.D. 1744-1806) discovered\nthat, in his day, the belief still pervaded many \u201cinland and Northern\nparts,\u201d but had been \u201ceradicated from the vicinity of the metropolis.\u201d\nHe quotes numerous authorities to prove that the prejudice was also\nrampant in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales[886]. Another eighteenth century\nwriter, none other than Gilbert White, recorded that the Southern side\nof the churchyard of Selborne had \u201cbecome such a mass of mortality that\nno person [could] be there interred without disturbing or displacing the\nbones of his ancestors.\u201d However, \u201ctwo or three families of the best\nrepute\u201d had begun to bury on the North side, and White had hoped that,\nby degrees, the prejudice might wear out[887].\n\nFrequently we encounter evidence which, without directly alluding to the\nsuperstition, implies its existence. A curious bequest made at the close\nof the seventeenth century will serve as an illustration. Archbishop\nTenison having presented a burial ground to the parish of Lambeth, it\nwas deemed necessary, in order to lessen the number of Southern\ninterments, to charge double fees for that portion of the yard[888].\n\nAdditional testimony, though inconclusive, is gleaned from an\nexamination of the position of the fabric with respect to the\nchurchyard. As already stated, in many instances the North yard is all\nbut non-existent. This is the case at Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex; Caterham\nand Weybridge, Surrey; Littleton, Middlesex; Barnet, Hertfordshire;\nNorth Cockerington, Lincolnshire; Upper Beeding, Falmer, Street,\nBishopstone, and West Dean, in Sussex; Manningford Bruce,\nBradford-on-Avon, and Amesbury, in Wiltshire. The list could be greatly\nextended. At the last-named village there were no gravestones in the\nNorth yard at the time of my visit in 1901. Mr J. T. Micklethwaite has\npointed out that, when an aisle was added to Wakefield parish church\nduring the twelfth century, it was built on the North side, because at\nthat period all the burials were on the South side[889]. One is\ncompelled to regard this line of evidence as only partially\nsatisfactory, not because the instances are insufficiently numerous, but\nbecause cases can be cited where the South yard, not the North, is very\nnarrow and insignificant. At Whitchurch, Oxfordshire; Alciston, Sussex;\nHatfield Peverel, Essex; and Chertsey, Surrey, the burial ground is cut\noff almost sheer with the South side of the church. Nevertheless these\ninstances are much fewer than those in which the North yard is so\ntreated, and to this extent the theory stands good.\n\nMore satisfactory confirmation of the belief is afforded by the actual\ndisuse of the North graveyard in many parishes. A reference to Fig. 21\n(p. 77 _supra_) will show that, a century back, scarcely a headstone was\nto be seen on the North side of Chislehurst churchyard, yet we know that\nnumerous examples existed on the South side. One may visit village after\nvillage and find that the tombstones on the North side are all erections\nbelonging to the last half-century. The writer\u2019s notebook abounds with\ninstances of this kind, but it would serve no purpose to give the\ncatalogue here. Two or three striking examples may, however, be quoted.\nAt Faringdon, or Farington, Hampshire, where Gilbert White was once\ncurate, there is a large strip of graveyard towards the North, yet, on\nvisiting the place in 1899, I found not a single tombstone in that\nquarter. At Yateley, in the same\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 67. Norham churchyard, Northumberland. North side,\nshowing the undisturbed turf, and absence of tombstones.]\n\ncounty, the Southern area has been enlarged, though the Northern portion\nwas still partly available. Strangest of all was the case of Eversley,\nwhich is not far distant from the last-named parish, and which is always\nassociated with the name of Charles Kingsley. Here, at the date just\nmentioned, an additional plot of burial-ground on the opposite side of\nthe road had been consecrated, yet the Northern part of the old yard\nremained unfilled. Whatley, in Somerset, had only four graves on the\nNorth side in 1910, and all of these were recent. The North yard was,\nindeed, small, yet it still had accommodation, in spite of which fact\nthe churchyard had evidently been enlarged on the South. Widdicombe,\nDevonshire, had no Northern tombstones in 1906, and Denton, in Sussex,\nbut one stone on the North side in 1910. In the same year, I found no\nstones on the North yard proper at Norham, Northumberland; a group of\nelms occupied the space enclosed by the Northern boundary and an\nimaginary line continued from the East wall of the church (Fig. 67). In\n1911, no North stones existed at Ford, Sussex, and Abbotsham and\nCountisbury, Devon.\n\nA note of warning must now be uttered. The antiquary who is bent on\nexamining this question will doubtless be guided, in the absence of\ndocumentary proof and of modern excavations, by two kinds of visible\nevidence: the level, unbroken condition of the turf, and the age of the\ntombstones, if these be present. A perfectly even area of turf is, as we\nshall see, not distinctly conclusive against the existence of former\ninterments, since it may only imply carelessness in the raising, or in\nthe preserving, of any possible grave-mounds. The evidence deduced from\ntombstones, too, must always be judiciously weighed. The absence, or the\nmodernity, of the monuments is a fair test, if applied only to the\nperiod during which such memorials are known to have been erected. But\nthe investigator will be on his guard against giving what Bishop Butler,\nin fine phrase, termed \u201can otiose assent.\u201d If the level state of the\nsward agrees with absence of gravestones, we may infer, either that no\nburials have taken place, or that they have been of a peculiar and\nexceptional nature. The wearing down of undisturbed mounds by\natmospheric denudation may be left out of consideration, as being an\nunlikely occurrence.\n\nSpeaking generally, the upright headstone and the outdoor altar-tomb go\nback no farther than the middle of the seventeenth century[890]. It has\nbeen surmised that existing churchyard monuments which exhibit an\nearlier date may have been, in some cases, originally set up inside the\nbuilding[891]. But genuine outdoor stones are found which belong to the\nlate sixteenth century at least. There are two dwarf headstones on the\nSouth side of Branscombe churchyard, Devon, dated 1570 (? 1579) and 1580\nrespectively[892]. Headstones belonging to the fifteenth century have\nbeen recorded from Thrapstone, Northampton; Lavenham, Suffolk;\nBlyborough and Kirton-in-Lindsey, Lincolnshire; and Loversall,\nYorkshire[893]. An allusion to the upright stone occurs in _Hamlet_:\n\n    \u201cHe is dead and gone, lady,\n     He is dead and gone;\n     At his head a grass-green turf,\n     At his heels a stone[894].\u201d\n\nWhere flat slabs occur in the churchyard, they are frequently a century\nearlier than the upright stones. Specimens of these early \u201cledger\nstones\u201d may be seen in the church porches at High Halden, Kent (1583),\nand Wellington, Somerset (1589). There seems to be little doubt that\nthis form of monument is much older as a class than the vertical,\nlettered stone. The ledger stone is a familiar object on the floors of\nchurches, as a Mediaeval relic, and it is, no doubt, this kind of\nmonument which is referred to as having been sometimes ejected from the\nsacred building[895]. There is strong reason for believing that rude,\nuninscribed wooden crosses preceded the upright headstones.\n\nWorking by the light of these facts, the searcher will discover that\nthere is ample proof of the unpopularity of the North graveyard for\nthree centuries past. And it would appear that there is good ground for\nthe supposition that the unpopularity was as great, or even greater,\nduring the long period which elapsed before stone monuments came into\ngeneral use. These conclusions are based on the cumulative evidence of\nindividual instances, but some remarkable exceptions to the rule demand\ndue consideration.\n\nFrequently, where one finds the oldest headstones on the North side, a\nprobable reason can be advanced. Thus, in Norfolk, a county where the\nsuperstition is common, the three contiguous parishes of Garvestone,\nReymerstone, and Thuxton, have the majority of burials on the North\nside. The explanation may be that the main entrance to the church, in\neach case, is by the North porch. Expressed otherwise, the North yard is\nthe portion most traversed by the villagers on their way to the\nservices[896]. Burlingham St Andrew has the North side of the yard well\nfilled, while, so late as 1899, there were no burials on the South side.\nThis is the more extraordinary, since the parishioners used the Southern\nporch as an entrance, and the local territorial family, the\nNorthern[897]. We might conjecture, though there are no data at hand,\nthat this was a case like that of Selborne, described by White, in which\nsome highly-placed person or persons set a bold example, and helped to\ndestroy the tradition. At Martin Hussingtree, near Worcester, all the\nburials, down to the year 1853, were on the North side, but it is\nnoteworthy that the only entrance to the church was from that\nquarter[898]. Similarly, at Oystermouth, Glamorganshire, the graves were\nthickly clustered to the North of the church. A few only lay at the East\nand West; and not one on the South, but here, again, the sole access to\nthe building was from the North[899]. Numerous other instances have come\nunder the writer\u2019s own notice, tending to show that the objection to\nNorthern burial is partly neutralized by the position of the church\ndoor, especially in those cases where only one door exists. Should there\nbe two or three entrances to the church, the one most employed seems to\nbe connected with the burial customs--the Western entrance to a smaller\ndegree than the other. Needless to say, it is not the position of the\ndoorway which primarily provoked the belief, though it may have modified\nthe practice. As a matter of actual statistics, it will be found that,\nwhere there are two or three ways of approach, the South door is the one\nmost used.\n\nIs it a coincidence that the South is the prevailing quarter for the\nchurchyard yew and the ancient cross, and that this sunny side has other\nsuperstitions attached to it? Mr Harry Hems asserts, with truth, that\nchurches and churchyards generally lie to the North of the roads which\ngive access to them (cf. p. 335 _supra_), and he seems to imply that\nsome cases of preference may be explained by the position of the roads\nwhich lead to the fabric[900]. But surely, this is mistaking the effect\nfor the cause. The problem is: why should the churches have been built\non the North side of the road? Had they been erected on the opposite\n(South) side, worshippers would have been admitted from the reverse\npoint of the compass (the North). Some early pagan belief influenced the\nchoice of position; casual or arbitrary circumstances, including,\noccasionally, the disposition of roads and pathways, may have held the\nbelief in check. The road, assuming that it existed before the church,\ncould scarcely have influenced the position of the latter, in the\nabsence of superstition. While we admit that Mr Hems\u2019s rule is fairly\nsafe, it must not be forgotten that, where churches are built to the\nSouth of the road, the pathway often winds round the Western tower to\ngive admission by a South door--an important aim with the builder.\n\nCandour now compels us to notice a few records, which, in view of the\nparticulars already given, seem inexplicable. The church of\nAshby-de-la-Zouch is said to be built so near the South wall, as to\nindicate that the North side was clearly intended for burial[901].\nStreatley, in Berkshire, is one example out of a fair-sized list,\nexhibiting a large North yard with very old stones. The ancient church\nof Swanscombe, Kent, had, on the whole, its oldest monuments towards the\nNorth, but the South doorway had been blocked by masonry. In most\ninstances of this kind there is doubtless some circumstance, or series\nof circumstances, which would explain the departure from custom. Let us\npause a moment to consider the exact importance of these exceptions.\n\nThe headstones, it will be remembered, carry us back only a few\ncenturies. But, so far as these memorials reach, they tell\noverwhelmingly in favour of the superstition. Twenty years ago, this\nevidence was much more patent to the eye. A very general exception,\nhowever, must be made of the town churchyards, in which the old\ntombstones are often found evenly distributed over the available space.\nSeveral reasons may be adduced for this non-observance of the usual\npractice. The town church, as a rule, stands centrally in its graveyard;\nit is commonly approached by several alleys and paths, leading from a\nthoroughfare or market-place; it is frequently cruciform in plan, with\nNorth and South doors, and this design, wherever met with, seems to have\nhad some effect in counteracting the fears of the ignorant. Above all\nthese reasons, must be set the fact that populous districts would\nsoonest lose touch with the superstition, so that, even before the era\nof headstones, the belief retained but a comparatively feeble foothold\namong the inhabitants of towns. The argument from monuments fails in\ncases such as these. We must seek the tradition in the rural districts,\nand turn back to a time when it was more firmly held. We shall then see\nthat the present exceptions, numerous as they are, cannot invalidate the\ngeneral practice. They represent what Professor L. C. Miall, writing on\na vexed question in botany, calls \u201cnegative exceptions.\u201d I venture to\nrepeat his witty illustration: \u201cA wooden leg is used to enable a man to\nwalk when he has lost his natural leg. If you saw a one-legged man\nwalking with a pair of crutches, and no wooden leg at all, would that\nshake your belief in the motive for using wooden legs[902]?\u201d The\n\u201cnegative exceptions\u201d which we have been studying may, indeed, testify\nto a weakening of tradition, or occasionally, to its apparent local\nnon-existence, but they do not abolish it, or change its purport one\nwhit. How it chances that, of two adjacent parishes, the present-day\nevidence shows the belief at work in the first, but seemingly unknown,\nor in abeyance, in the second, is a matter upon which we can only\nspeculate. The puzzle reminds one of the difficulty which meets the\npalaeontologist when he strives to explain why one line of animal\ndescent stops, and remains fixed, while another continues to develop;\nwhy creatures which seem to be completely adapted to their surroundings\nbecome extinct; why one species or genus is taken, and another left.\n\nWe now go behind the testimony of the tombstones, and meet some apparent\ncontradictions. When the turf on the Northern side of a churchyard is\nbroken up, for the first time, as the sexton thinks--since there are\nneither mounds nor tombstones to serve as \u201cfrail memorials,\u201d bones are\nsometimes discovered. At Bottesford, Lincolnshire, though the North yard\nhad been wholly unused until our day, yet when graves were actually\ndug, traces of former burials were revealed[903]. The churchyard of\nSwinhope, in the same county, yielded stronger proofs. Seven or eight\nvery old interments, closely grouped, were found; in one case there was\na coffin formed of loose slabs of chalk[904]. The late Canon A. R.\nPennington, of Utterby, again in the same county, told the writer of his\nsurprise when bones were thrown out of the first grave made towards the\nNorth of his church. It is a fair inference that no mounds had been\nraised over the earlier interments. Further instances could be added,\nbut these will suffice. The details concerning the Swinhope interments\nare peculiar, especially the finding of the chalk coffin. These\nparticular burials may point to the building of the church on a\npre-Christian site. The other examples, however, have a different\ninterpretation; namely, that the Northern portion of the churchyard was\nformerly reserved for the bodies of murderers, suicides, excommunicated\npersons, and still-born or unbaptized children[905]. That the custom is\nnot yet obsolete is attested by the case already described on p. 341\n_supra_, which is one of many.\n\nThis ecclesiastical rule has found its expression in literature. A\nmodern poet, Professor A. E. Housman, has deftly wrought the tradition\nand the practice into his sad story, _A Shropshire Lad_:\n\n    \u201cTo South the headstones cluster,\n     The sunny mounds lie thick;\n     The dead are more in muster\n     At Hughley than the quick.\n     North, for the soon-told number,\n     Chill graves the sexton delves,\n     And steeple-shadowed slumber\n     The slayers of themselves.\u201d\n\nParochial histories supply the facts necessary for the confirmation of\nthe tradition. Brand cites the case of a burying-ground in Edinburgh,\nwhere the North was reserved for the unbaptized and suicides. The\ngraveyard belonged to the Quakers, and thus is of especial\ninterest[906]. Another record tells how, a century ago, the body of a\nmurderer who had been executed at Lincoln was carried to Swine, over\nthe Yorkshire boundary, and was there interred on the North side \u201cas the\nproper place in which to bury a felon[907].\u201d To the Irish peasantry, the\nNorth is the \u201cwrong side,\u201d and we have a contemporary account of a\nmurder in the year 1786, which incidentally states that the malefactor\nwas buried on the \u201cwrong side\u201d of Turlagh churchyard[908]. Miss\nGordon-Cumming found that, among the Hebrideans, the belief was full of\nvitality. A young Englishman, who had committed suicide, was carried\nhead foremost to a grave on the North side of Portree church, and was\nthere buried, with his head towards the East, instead of towards the\nWest. Even this qualified reception into consecrated ground sometimes\nmeets with opposition, from fear that a suicide so buried will cause the\nherrings to desert the coast. The suspicious fishermen have been known\nto dig up a corpse from the kirkyard, secretly, by night, and to\nre-inter the accursed thing either on the shore, at low-water mark, or\non the summit of a high mountain. Burials of this kind have taken place\non the top of Aird Dhubh, and also on a mountain on the border of\nInverness and Ross-shire, two years after the original sepulture[909].\n\nStill bearing on this question, it has been suggested that a part of the\nchurchyard, presumably the Northern, was formerly left unconsecrated for\nthe burial of such persons as have been enumerated. Burn, in his\n_History of Parish Registers_, expressly states this as a fact, and\ngives, as an example, \u201cthe single woman\u2019s churchyard,\u201d in Southwark,\nwhere the dead bodies of the inmates of the licensed stews were\nburied[910]. This part of the graveyard was frequently known as the\n\u201cback side[911].\u201d The West of England tradition taught that this area\nwas designedly left unconsecrated to serve as a playground for the\nvillage children. To speak more generally, the North was reserved for\nthe village sports during the period when these were permitted in the\nchurchyard. And, although there seems no clear proof that butts for the\nuse of archers were set up in the churchyard itself, the ground\nimmediately adjoining the North boundary was so used. Such a strip of\nland, of some length, known as \u201cthe Butts,\u201d lies to the North of the\nchurchyard at Beeston-next-Mileham, in Norfolk[912], and at Coleshill,\nin Warwick. The theory of non-consecration, though not for the purposes\njust named, receives some support from Durandus, who observes that to be\nburied on the North side is to be buried \u201cout of sanctuary[913].\u201d And\nthrough all the centuries which have rolled away since the date of this\nlearned ecclesiastic, the country folk have shunned the North side,\nwhich lies \u201cbenighted in the midday sun.\u201d There was always a dislike of\nlying alone in death. The accustomed path, leading to the South door,\nwas trodden by the assembling worshippers[914]. Under the shadow of the\ngraveyard cross or the sombre yew the country folk could stop to whisper\na prayer. In far-away times, Gregory the Great had taught that it is\nmore profitable to be buried in the churchyard than in the distant\ncemetery, because, in the former case, the survivors may frequently\nbehold the sepulchres as they enter the sacred building, and may put\nforth their petitions. (Cf. p. 262 _supra._)\n\nThe distant cemetery, mentioned by Gregory, seems oftentimes to have\nformed an incentive to church-building in its neighbourhood. It would\nappear that the earliest Christian graveyards, like the cemeteries of\nthe heathen, were often unenclosed. Being hallowed spots, a preaching\ncross would be erected near the graves. The setting up of a cross, the\n\u201ctruly precious rood,\u201d must precede the actual building of the church,\naccording to the decree of the Emperor Justinian (A.D. 530). This act of\nconsecration was the work of the bishop of the diocese. Durandus notices\nthe claim of some churchmen that a space of thirty feet around the\nchurch ought to be set apart for burial, while others contended that the\nspace actually enclosed by the circuit of the bishop was\nsufficient[915]. Though the cross may at first have been portable and\nadapted only for temporary use, yet a permanent symbol was frequently\nemployed. The heathen Saxons are said to have had a rooted dread of\nentering an enclosed place of worship, lest they should be the victims\nof supposed magical rites[916]. An enclosed graveyard was also a decided\ninnovation. So late as the reign of Canute, one class of building, the\n\u201cfeld-cirice\u201d (= field-church), was unprovided with a graveyard. As time\npassed away, however, boundary hedges were planted, or walls were built\naround to form a burial-ground. The sacred garth, as well as the\nbuilding, became a sanctuary, with its \u201cbenefit of adjuration,\u201d and its\nright of appeal to trial by ordeal. The actual enclosure of spaces\naround the churches dates from about the year A.D. 750. (Cf. remarks on\nthe early cemeteries in Chap. VI.) The practice must have been loosely\nobserved, for we find, down to the year A.D. 1603, statutes and canons\nrepeatedly enforcing the law[917].\n\nChance excavations sometimes attest the early laxity of custom. Outside\nthe churchyard wall of Kirby Grindalythe, in the East Riding, stretching\ntowards the West, are many ancient interments. This fact seems to\nindicate, either that the Norman church originally stood in an unfenced\nportion of the hillside, a part of the cemetery being excluded when the\nwall was built, or that the open wold had been used for burials,\nChristian or pagan, before the church was erected[918]. Gilbert White\nwas of opinion that the churchyard of Selborne was once larger, and had\nextended to what was, in his day, the vicarage garden[919]. Maplescombe\nchurch, the ruins of which were referred to on p. 38, seems to have\nnever been properly fenced in from the fields. The retired churchyard of\nBranxton, in Northumberland, which lies within a bowshot of Flodden\nField, has at least two features which are illustrative of our subject.\nThe present churchwarden, Mr John Rankin, the representative of a family\nwhich has long held that office, informs me that the graveyard was\nformerly unfenced, save on the South side, where a thorn hedge separated\nit from the road. On this side, also, there is a narrow strip of land\nwhich contains no graves, and which, Mr Rankin asserts, has, through an\noversight, never been consecrated. (Cf. p. 343 _supra._) The churchyard\nat Norton, near Evesham, was unenclosed, except on the Eastern side,\ndown to the year 1844. It stood in a grass field which formed part of\nthe church glebe, thus illustrating Wordsworth\u2019s lines, descriptive of\nan Oxfordshire parsonage:\n\n    \u201cWhere holy ground begins, unhallowed ends,\n     Is marked by no distinguishable line[920].\u201d\n\nThe sonnet from which these lines are taken seems to show clearly that\nthe poet was writing of a churchyard which was open on one side. Again,\none often discovers churches of ancient foundation standing apart in the\nfields, and having a fence composed of wooden rails or iron hurdles of\nsuch modern date that one is forced to believe that the area has only\nbeen shut in for a few generations. The church of Little Washbourne,\nGloucestershire, already ruinous when I saw it in 1888, is an instance\nwhich comes to mind. The tiny church of Woldingham (Fig. 68), which is\nsituated near the escarpment of the North Downs, lay in the open fields,\nand the ground was apparently unenclosed down to the year 1852. The\nbuilding, which measured only 30 feet by 17 feet, was rudely constructed\nof flints and \u201cfirestone\u201d (from the Upper Greensand), but has since been\nrestored more than once. The old structure was \u201cdesolate [and]\ndilapidated\u201d so far back as the time of Evelyn[921]. The illustration\nshows the restored church of a century ago. To-day the building is\napproached by a short road. The visitor will notice how small a strip of\nground was left on the North side when the boundaries were marked out.\nSeeking examples elsewhere, we observe that, in the marshland of East\nLincolnshire, churches must have been built before the district was\neffectively drained, and therefore, before the existing boundary ditches\nor dykes were cut[922].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 68. The restored church of Woldingham, Surrey, as it appeared\n     in 1809. (Manning and Bray.) The view seems to be taken from the\n     North side. Behind the church, on the South side, is a large yew,\n     much decayed, and partially hollow. To the right, just out of the\n     drawing, is a huge ash, which to-day measures 20 feet in\n     circumference at a height of 3 feet from the ground. The churchyard\n     was probably unenclosed until a comparatively late date.\n]\n\nThe prejudice against burial on the North side can be traced beyond the\nadvent of Christianity. It is one of those \u201cclinging faiths and fears\u201d\nwhich beset the early folk of these islands. As a result of the\nexamination of several hundred British barrows, Canon Greenwell found\nthat, in secondary burials, bodies were rarely deposited on the North\nside of the mound, the most favoured positions being towards the South\nand East[923]. Mr J. R. Mortimer, after quoting Canon Greenwell\u2019s\nobservations, confirms them by the testimony of the mounds of\nYorkshire. Canon Atkinson\u2019s experiences yielded similar results. During\nthe course of many years, he opened some eighty \u201choues\u201d or grave-mounds\nin his own district of Danby-in-Cleveland, and found one interment only\nin which the body \u201clay a little, and but a little, North of the magnetic\nEast-and-West line[924]\u201d (i.e. the median line). The evidence derived\nfrom megalithic monuments and prehistoric dwellings and settlements\ntends the same way. The chilly North was shunned; the brilliant East and\nthe gracious South were courted. These ancient preferences were\nemphasized in the building of temples and Christian places of worship.\nEgregious among these old-world superstitions stands the hatred of the\nNorth. All the inherited antipathies of primeval folk were long retained\nby their civilized successors, and hence the Northern portion of the\ngraveyard was allotted to those who were deemed spiritually undeveloped\nor spiritually lost.\n\nAnother fact which tends to prove the continuity of the superstition is\nthat, during the Romano-British period, the bodies of persons who had\ncommitted suicide were not allowed to be burnt. The prohibition was\nafterwards extended to those who had died in their infancy[925].\n\nSurveying the general question of suicide, one or two intermediate\nstages of folk-custom may be noted. In the early days of English\nhistory, suicides and murderers were buried at crossroads. It has been\nargued that this procedure was not altogether intended to heap indignity\non the corpse, but that the intersecting roads were emblematic of the\nCross, for which reason such spots were therefore deemed\nself-consecrated[926]. That this idea was prevalent two or three hundred\nyears ago, one would not care to deny; nevertheless it was a late\naccretion. Else, why was a stake driven through the body of the person\nso interred? Dishonour to the dead may not, indeed, have been the\nprimary motive which impelled the survivors to behave in this manner,\nalthough a desire to prevent the ghost walking was doubtless a strong\nconstituent[927]. The living would naturally object to the burial of a\ncriminal or murderer near an inhabited house[928]; the ghost, angry at\nbeing disembodied, according to the elementary notions of our\nforefathers, might walk abroad, and wreak vengeance or disaster on\nwhomsoever it would. This fear was common among priscan folk, and is\nwidespread even at the present day. Professor Frazer has shown how the\nnatives of Uganda bury still-born babes, and children born feet\nforemost, at cross-roads. Women, passing by, throw dust or grass on the\nmound to prevent the spirit entering themselves and being reborn. The\nbodies of suicides are also burned at cross-roads. Westermarck has\ncollected and collated many analogous practices and beliefs from such\nfar-sundered countries as India and Servia, Japan and Morocco[929]. If,\nfollowing this high authority, we are disposed to agree that the\ncrossways were believed to disperse such energy as might be ascribed to\nthe deceased person[930], that this mode of interment diverted diseases,\nand warded off all evil influences from the living, we shall the more\nreadily perceive why the superstition retained its vitality in later\ntimes. When the Cross became the symbol of the new religion, the old\nbelief about suicides was reinforced so far as the idea of protection\nwas concerned, though the superstition might be weakened in respect of\nany supposed indignity to the dead. Even here, however, there is room\nfor further investigation, and writers like Mr Andrew Lang have\nquestioned whether the supposed efficacy of the Cross is a sufficient\nexplanation[931]. The idea of abandonment, as it appears to the present\nwriter, must have been an essential portion of the ceremony, and this\nwas the natural consequence of the theory that the soul of the suicide\nwas self-doomed to perish.\n\nA middle stage of the belief is illustrated by the Scottish practice of\nburying self-murderers outside the churchyard, but close by the wall.\n(Cf. p. 352 _supra._) This plan was afterwards modified to the extent\nof allowing the body to come technically within the yard, but to be\nplaced actually beneath the wall, so that no one might walk over the\ngrave[932]. In England, we find constant reference to the burial of\nsuicides in the open fields. The custom of driving a stake through the\nbodies of persons found _felo de se_ has been noticed. This brutal\ntreatment, excusable in folk who, in the dawn of the world, had a real\nhorror of ghosts and vampires, was only abolished by law in the year\n1823[933]. Yet, as if to prove the unequal working of the human mind,\nand to exemplify the truism that like customs have not everywhere the\nsame lease of life, we find remarkable exceptions to the rule. While the\nbarbarous belief concerning suicide still held its sway, church\ndiscipline was, on the whole, gradually relaxing, and ordinary burials\nwere permitted to take place within the sacred building. Then came the\nexception which we have examined. A certain part of the burial-ground\nwas devoted to burials of murderers and suicides. In at least two cases,\nas attested by parish registers, the bodies of murderers were admitted\ninto the church, though still on the North side of the fabric (A.D. 1616\nand 1620)[934]. The fact is, that one can scarcely mention a single\ncustom or tradition which has not been disregarded exceptionally at\ncertain periods, though the main current has flowed on almost as\nstrongly as ever. No doubt each particular infraction was the result of\npowerful local influences. For, even to this hour, as has been clearly\nshown, the body of the suicide or the manslayer may be interred in the\nchurchyard, and yet remain, according to the superstition, \u201cout of\nsanctuary.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE CHURCHYARD YEW\n\n\nThe student who attempts to master the problem of the churchyard yew\nfinds himself in danger of being bowed down by the burden of conflicting\nfacts and theories.\n\nWith respect to the facts, there lies at hand a note-book containing the\njottings of years, but so plethoric are its pages, that a mass of detail\nmust be correlated and much matter shorn away before the case can be\npresented with any degree of lucidity.\n\nConcerning the theories, folk-memory lends us little help. It does not\nring true, and there is more than a suspicion that it has been\ninfluenced by ideas gathered from the printed book of the ecclesiologist\nand the antiquary.\n\n\u201cThings are as they are, and the consequences of them will be what they\nwill be, wherefore, then, should we desire to be deceived?\u201d Following\nthe spirit of Butler\u2019s philosophy, let us leave aside all hypotheses for\nthe present, and review the facts. It will conduce to clearness if the\nparticulars are summarized in due order.\n\nThe botanist will tell us that the yew (_Taxus baccata_) is a\nfine-grained, slow-growing tree belonging to the sub-division Taxineae\nof the Natural Order Coniferae, or Pinaceae. Its timber is tough,\ndurable, and elastic, so that there is some truth in the New Forest\nproverb: \u201cA post of yew will outlast a post of iron.\u201d The trunk of the\nyew is deeply channelled, and its reddish-brown bark easily peels off.\nLooking at the narrow, leathery leaves, which are dark and glossy on the\nupper surface, but rather pale on the undersides, one might casually\nconclude that they are arranged in two rows on opposite sides of the\ntwig. Closer inspection, however, proves that the leaves spring from all\nsides of the axis, but that a twist at the base of each leaf gives a\nfalse appearance of a plain double series[935]. The yew is dioecious,\nthat is, the male and the female flowers grow on separate trees, but\noccasionally both kinds of inflorescence may be seen on the same tree.\nOver a large area of the Northern Hemisphere our familiar yew is met\nwith, and an allied species grows in North-East America and Japan. The\ncolumnar variety (var. _fastigiata_), known as the Irish, or Florence\nCourt yew, is said to have originated as a wild sport at Florence Court,\nin county Fermanagh, about 130 years ago[936]. Its outline looks very\nunlike that of the common yew, which has horizontal branches, and it has\nno further practical bearing on our subject.\n\nIt is important to note that the yew is demonstrably indigenous to\nBritain. It can be traced back not merely to the Neolithic Age[937], but\neven to the Glacial period[938]; hence there need be no debate\nconcerning its possible introduction in later times.\n\nWhether the yew be poisonous--no unimportant matter, as will shortly be\nseen--has been discussed frequently and at great length. The disputants\noften argue at cross-purposes, each side in turn misapprehending the\nexact point at issue. Having read all the literature which is reasonably\naccessible on this subject, I am convinced of the overwhelming proof\nthat the yew has poisonous properties, though the noxiousness may be\ncomparatively slight at certain seasons, in certain years, and with\nrespect to certain animals. The results are most fatal when the beasts\neat the leaves on a fasting stomach. When the leaves are dry and tough\nthere is the additional evil of indigestibility. Yet there is an\nopposing fact. Mixed with three or four times their bulk of other food,\ngreen yew leaves are actually employed as fodder for cattle in times of\nscarcity. Records of this custom come from Hanover, Hesse, and other\nparts of the Continent. Stated in general terms, then, the poisonous\nprinciple (taxine) cannot be very intensely concentrated; it may even be\ninoperative until acted upon by the juices of the stomach. Again, the\npulpy portion of the fruit is eaten with impunity, but the stones are\nconsidered highly injurious. Sufficient references are given in the\nfootnote to obviate further discussion here[939], but it will be seen\nlater that the modern theory was preceded by an empirical knowledge\nwhich harmonizes well with the ascertained facts.\n\nThe belief in the pernicious properties of the juice of the yew is,\nindeed, as old as Pliny, who tells us that arrows were dipped in the\npoison (_toxicum_), and that the hurtfulness might be neutralized by\npreviously driving a brass nail into the tree[940]. He adds that some\nwriters have asserted that _toxicum_ was formerly _taxicum_, from the\nname of the yew (_taxus_). The assumption seems to be that _taxus_ is\nconnected not only with \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03bf\u03c2, a yew, but also with \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03bd, a bow (\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 = _bow and arrows_, and perhaps _arrows_ only)[941], and \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd,\npoison. But even if these links be allowed, the claim is vitiated by the\nrefusal of the lexicographers to admit such a word as _taxicum_.\n\nCaesar informs us that Cativolcus, one of the rulers of the Eburones,\npoisoned himself with yew[942]. Since a doubt has been raised whether\nthe Latin _taxus_ and the Greek \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 accurately represent our word\n\u201cyew,\u201d it may be said that the latest authorities on both languages\ngive that rendering to the respective words[943]. It must nevertheless\nbe observed that there is an alternative word in Greek, for one of the\nseveral meanings of \u03c3\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b1\u03be, or \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03be, is \u201cyew.\u201d Pliny\u2019s word _tristis_\n(sad), applied to _taxus_, stands good therefore for the yew. It has\nbeen suggested that the Greek word is allied to \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, arrangement (from\n\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2\u03c2\u03c9 = I arrange), the allusion being to the apparent double row of\nleaves.\n\nBefore leaving the philological section, some English equivalents of the\nword must be noticed. \u201cEarly Modern English\u201d forms include _yewe_,\n_yeugh_, _eugh_, _yowe_, etc. These come to us from the Middle English\n_ew_ or _u_, and these, again, represent the A.S. _\u012bw_ and _e\u00f3w_[944]. A\nseventh century manuscript has a still earlier form, _\u012buu_, and this is\nsaid to be the oldest spelling in any Teutonic language[945]. There are,\nsays the _Century Dictionary_, Danish, Old High German, Spanish, Old\nIrish, Welsh, Gaelic, and Cornish equivalents, and of these, the Celtic\nforms are possibly original and not derivative[946]. Professor W. W.\nSkeat supports the Celtic origin of the word _yew_, which, by the way,\nis quite distinct from the word _ivy_, although the various forms of\n_yew_ and _ivy_ suggest one another[947]. Dr Schrader says that the Old\nHigh German word _iva_, in the sense of \u201cyew,\u201d disappears as we go\nfurther East, and, in Sclavonic dialects, signifies a willow. The same\nholds good of the word for \u201cbeech,\u201d and Dr Schrader believes that the\nchange is due to the thinning out of these trees Eastwards. In\nLithuania, again, the meanings of \u201cfir\u201d and \u201cyew\u201d run into each\nother[948]. Professor V. Hehn called attention to the same series of\nfacts, from which he drew similar conclusions.\n\nThe etymological road leading us no further, we take counsel of the\nforester and the arboriculturist. We wish to ascertain the greatest age\nwhich the yew is believed to reach.\n\nThe older authorities followed implicitly the dictum of the Swiss\nbotanist Augustin De Candolle, who, basing his conclusions upon a study\nof the annual rings of the yew, and upon the sizes of yews of known age,\nformulated the rule: An increase in diameter of one line annually. If we\nallow an average yearly growth of one line in diameter, we shall\nprobably over-estimate the rate of growth for very aged trees (\u201c_il est\nprobable qu\u2019on est au-dessus de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9_\u201d), so that while we may, in\npractice, reckon each line of the diameter as a year, we shall, in\nreality, make the trees younger than they actually are[949]. De\nCandolle, in another place, admitted that for the first 150 years the\nannual growth somewhat exceeded a line in diameter, though for older\ntrees it was less than this amount[950]. Abridging this rather involved\nstatement, let us put the rule thus: Up to the age of 150 years the yews\nincrease annually a line or a little more in diameter, and a little less\nthan a line afterwards.\n\nSince De Candolle\u2019s day, it has been contended that his estimate makes\nthe trees too old. Dr J. Lowe, in his interesting volume on _Yew-Trees_,\nhas combated the conclusions at some length; his chapters are here\nfreely drawn upon and compared with my own private notes. Dr Lowe\u2019s\nestimate, taking young and old trees together, allows a growth of one\nfoot in diameter for each period of 60-70 years. De Candolle\u2019s rule\nwould make a like growth represent 144 years at least (1 foot = 144\nlines), or, supposing him to have taken the line as one-tenth of an\ninch--as some writers mistakenly believe[951]--120 years, or a little\nover. In the absence of testimony to the contrary, I think we may safely\nconsider that De Candolle\u2019s line was reckoned on the one-twelfth basis:\nindeed there appears to be no valid reason for doubting this. We note,\nin passing, that the calculations of Edward Jesse, the naturalist, made\nafter measuring trees at intervals, agree closely with those of the\nSwiss savant[952].\n\nBetween the estimates of De Candolle and those of Dr Lowe, but far\nnearer to those of the latter observer, is the determination adopted by\nSir R. Christison and his son, Dr D. Christison. Working on the\neminently scientific method of measuring the increase of girth at a\nfixed point during stated periods, these observers decided that one foot\nfor every 75 years would be more than the average rate of increase[953].\nThe three varying results may therefore be thus stated:\n\nDe Candolle        1 foot represents 144 years\n\nThe Christisons    \u201c  \u201c       \u201c      75 years\n\nDr Lowe            \u201c  \u201c       \u201c      60-70, say 65 years\n\nMr J. E. Bowman, making use of the trephine, came to the conclusion that\nyoung trees may add two lines per year, and if the soil be very rich,\nthree lines, but that, after a diameter of two feet has been reached, De\nCandolle\u2019s limit of one line yearly holds true. De Candolle\u2019s formula,\nBowman considered, \u201cmakes old trees too young, and young trees too old.\u201d\nCommenting on Bowman\u2019s mode of experiment, Dr Lowe asserts that it has\n\u201cno utility whatever,\u201d because the external rings of the tree--those\nreached by the trephine--are not concentric, and are not formed in the\nsame manner as those of the young shoot. Further, Bowman\u2019s experiments\nseem to have been performed on young trees only[954].\n\nThe true estimate, therefore, seems to lie between the determinations of\nDe Candolle and Dr Lowe respectively. The latter writer admits that De\nCandolle\u2019s rule is fairly sound when applied to young trees with\nundecayed centres, but he stipulates that the tree must be cut down and\nproved to have not more than one centre. He refers to the case of a yew\nin Kyre Park, Worcestershire, which possesses two huge trunks, united\nbelow, and he proceeds to argue that, if we suppose the tops to have\nbeen broken off underneath the junction, and young shoots to have sprung\nup from the base, the trees would have been deemed as old as our most\nnoted specimens in the British Isles. Such a case, however, would\nrarely be encountered in actual experience.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 69. Transverse section of yew, showing annual rings. Longest\n     diameter, 5\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4; shortest, 4\u215b\u00b4\u00b4; number of rings, 51. It will be\n     noticed that the section is excentric; this is due to irregular\n     growth. The light coloured, outer zone, is the alburnum, or\n     sap-wood; the dark, inner zone, the duramen, or heart-wood. The\n     large, radial cracks are the results of shrinkage. These cracks run\n     along the lines of the medullary rays, though the actual rays are\n     much too fine to be seen without a good lens. (For an excellent\n     description of such a section, see G. S. Boulger, _Wood_, 2nd\n     edition, 1908, p. 301.)\n]\n\nWe will now examine De Candolle\u2019s \u201cring method\u201d a little more closely.\nFirst, what is the botanical theory respecting the formation of the\nrings in a tree? In our climate trees make little or no growth during\nthe winter season, hence the new spring wood, with its wide, thin-walled\nvessels, is rather sharply defined against the narrower, compact,\ndense-walled vessels which were formed in the preceding autumn or late\nsummer. The successive concentric cylinders of new wood, therefore, when\nseen in cross-section, appear as zones, or \u201cannual rings.\u201d These rings\nare well shown in the transverse section of yew (Fig. 69). In vertical\nsection the rings appear as parallel strips, forming what is popularly\ncalled the \u201cgrain\u201d of the wood (Fig. 70). It is true, in general, that\none ring represents one year\u2019s growth. The rule must, however, be\napplied under slight reserve. Dr D. H. Scott clamped the branch of an\nelm in June, thus increasing the pressure on the cells. The result was\nthat wood was formed similar to that which is usually associated with\nautumn. After six weeks, during which the nutrition had been practically\nuniform, the clamp was removed, and another ring was produced.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 70. Longitudinal, tangential section of yew. In this section,\n     taken with the \u201cgrain,\u201d the annual rings appear as alternate\n     parallel strips of dark and light wood. The tracheids, or elongated\n     thick-walled cells, are invisible to the unaided eye.\n\n     A branch is seen emerging on the right, forming a \u201cpin,\u201d which\n     would be obnoxious to bowyers.\n]\n\nThe conditions just described were artificial and abnormal, but varying\ntemperatures, if extreme, might act in a similar manner. Sequoias and\nred-woods may naturally form several concentric wood rings in a year, a\nresult probably due to alternations of heat and cold. Against the danger\nof over-calculation of age from neglecting such factors, may be set the\nconsideration that, owing to damage by frost, or to seasonal\npeculiarities, no ring may be formed within the year[955]. In normal\ncircumstances, \u201cone ring, one year\u201d is a trustworthy maxim.\nUnfortunately, to verify this rule, should its accuracy be challenged,\nthe tree must be cut down--a most undesirable proceeding. Moreover, if\nthe tree be aged, counting the rings is a matter of some difficulty; one\nmust use a lens and a pair of needles, moving these \u201ccounters\u201d as if\nscoring at a game of cribbage. Now Dr Lowe, while doubting whether the\nyew may not form more than one ring per year--a contingency that would\nseriously upset all computations based on this system--feels confident\nthat in this country young trees produce one only. He is of opinion that\nthe ring test consequently holds good for uninjured trees up to 200 or\n250 years. Beyond that period, he asserts confidently that the yew\nsustains injuries from storm or disease sufficient to invalidate the\nrule. To the extent, let us say, of 250 years, Dr Lowe\u2019s assumption runs\nparallel with that of De Candolle, who believed that there is\npractically no limit to the age of the yew, except disease. After the\nthird century, Dr Lowe, as we shall soon see, actually claims a more\nrapid rate of growth, at least, intermittently.\n\nThe errors to which De Candolle\u2019s method is liable are thus epitomized.\nA yew which has been maltreated by lopping or injured by the browsing of\nanimals may thicken and form bosses, and so increase the apparent girth.\nTrunks may be fused together. Wounds may prevent the formation of rings.\nSmall shoots may be enveloped by the spread of the \u201cbark,\u201d and thus a\nvast number of rings may be formed which eventually become\nconcentric[956].\n\nNevertheless, since we cannot always cut a tree down, some other method\nof estimating the age must be followed. And if the actual circumference\nbe not always the true measure of the normal free-growing parent stem,\nour observations should, by way of counterpoise, be correspondingly\nnumerous. Whoever has attempted to measure a yew, with the object of\nemploying De Candolle\u2019s rule, will recognize the force of Dr Lowe\u2019s\ncontentions, yet one cannot but think that the risk of error has been\nexaggerated.\n\nWe are told, again, that there may be a difference in the number of\nrings on the two sides of a tree, even at the same level, in other\nwords, a given ring may not be everywhere of the same thickness. This is\nnoticeable in the specimen, Fig. 69. In the famous yew of Darley Dale,\nDerbyshire, it is asserted that the number of rings varied from 33 to 66\nin an inch of radius, taken horizontally--a curiously neat ratio[957].\nMichel Montaigne, so far back as 1581, pointed out that the rings were\nnarrower on the north side of the tree. Yet these occurrences do not\nhopelessly affect our conclusions. The writer possesses a section of a\nbranch of yew from Offchurch, Warwickshire, which was over-developed on\none side, the result of proximity to a stream, and of a sunny aspect.\nThe consequent curvature of the heart wood, though certainly\ndisappointing to the bowyer, who bought the tree, did not prove very\ntroublesome even to the amateur ring-counter. Taking the average of a\nlong series of years, and examining a large number of specimens, the\ninequalities in such specimens would be found to cancel each other. In\nan aged tree like that of Darley Dale, the coalescence of the rings\nwould be far more perplexing than the unsymmetrical growth.\n\nWith respect to one source of error, Dr Lowe seems to answer his own\nobjection. \u201cA tree may have died on one side,\u201d says he, \u201cor may have\nceased forming, while the other side is growing vigorously.\u201d Yes, but in\nthat case the error would be one of under-calculation; the yew would be\ncredited with fewer years than the measurements warranted.\n\nOnce again, it is argued that not only may a particular ring have\ninequalities of width, but the different rings vary among themselves in\nthickness. And we have seen that growth does not increase uniformly with\nage. An oak of 50 years had a circumference equal to another which was\nfour times that age. Nor is the rate of growth always uniformly\ndiminished as the tree becomes older. De Candolle found an oak, 333\nyears old, which showed as great an increase between the rings of 320\nand 330 as between those of 90 and 100 years. Now it is not mere\ncaptiousness to remark that these figures refer to an oak, not to a\nsteady-growing yew, though Dr Lowe claims that the observation would\napply equally well to the latter tree[958]. We may repeat: while\nvariations in rainfall, temperature, and food-supply, correspondingly\naffect the rate of growth, it is a matter of common knowledge that our\nseasons tend to follow ill-defined cycles, and that a series of such\ncycles may be expected to equalize each other with a fair approximation\nto exactitude.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 71. Yew at West end of Tandridge churchyard, Surrey.\nThough hollow, it is one of the finest specimens in England.]\n\nA far graver indictment of De Candolle\u2019s figures is contained in the\ninsinuation that his selected trees were stunted and ill-grown, so that\nthe rate of growth was made to appear too slow[959]. The supposition, if\nwell grounded, would severely shake De Candolle\u2019s rule, but at present\nit is a supposition merely, as readers of the _Physiologie V\u00e9g\u00e9tale_ may\nlearn for themselves. De Candolle did indeed believe that trees die from\naccident or disease rather than from old age, but how could the bias\nresulting from such an opinion make the age of a yew greater than it\nactually was? An injured tree whose development had been arrested would\nbe credited with too few years rather than with too many. Take the case\nof the Tandridge yew, in Surrey (Fig. 71). Aubrey found that this tree\nhad a girth of 30 feet at a height of five feet from the ground. Manning\nand Bray, about 130 years later, gave the corresponding measurement as\n32 feet 9 inches. To-day the reading is only 32 feet 4 inches. Allowing\nfor some discrepancies in the modes of measurement, the results are\nstriking. The explanation is that, though the tree is still vigorous, it\nhas long been hollow, and growth must have been slight, if indeed there\nhas not been an actual arrest for the past century.\n\nThe method, adopted by the two Christisons, of measuring a tree at known\nintervals of time, is perhaps open to less objection than that of\nassuming a mean rate of growth, based on the enumeration of the rings of\nselected specimens. A combination of both systems would be better, if\nnot ideal. The \u201cinterval method,\u201d nevertheless, overlooks the objection\nthat growth is not quite uniform. De Candolle urged, as already noticed,\nthat the rate diminishes in aged trees, and gave several reasons. The\nroots are farther from the air, and they are also working in competition\nwith those of neighbouring trees. Should the soil be rocky or otherwise\nuncongenial the lessened elasticity of the bark retards growth. Add to\nthese factors the likelihood of oncoming disease, and the slackened\ndevelopment would be appreciable. Against these considerations, Dr Lowe\nboldly affirms that \u201cthere is abundant evidence to show that old trees\ngrow, at intervals, much more rapidly than young ones\u201d; but he makes\nthis concession: \u201cthey do not, as I have said, grow uniformly, but have\nperiods of comparative arrest of growth[960].\u201d These pauses, he\nbelieves, are due to the overshadowing head of the tree. Were the head\nto be broken every half century or so, rapid growth would again\ncommence. But to what degree does such a pollarding occur in nature?\nDoes not the head continue, in the main, to overshadow the trunk and\nroots? (The lopping of yews for making bows, as apart from true\npollarding, will be discussed later.) One reiterates, all systems are\nliable to error, but some systems are more accurate than others. And the\n\u201cinterval method,\u201d especially if supplemented by estimating the total\nnumber of rings, according to an ascertained standard rate of increase,\nstill awaits the coming of a better system to supersede it.\n\nThe obtruding difficulty which now meets us is, Where are we to measure\nthe girth? Sir Robert Christison thought the ground level best, but,\nwherever possible, he also measured the tree at five feet from the\nbase[961]. Yews, however, frequently thicken upwards; there may be\nswellings under the branches; the stem is often encumbered by bunches of\nyoung sprays; aged trees are usually deformed, and are studded with\nknobs and excrescences. To follow Christison\u2019s plan with the trees at\nDryburgh, Roseneath, and Sanderstead, and other yews which have\nprotuberances at the base, would result in too liberal an estimate. The\nreaction of root-pressure tends to make trees \u201clift themselves out of\nthe ground.\u201d Moreover, in exposed situations, scraping animals, such as\nrabbits and foxes, lay bare the roots of trees, and increase the\napparent girth. Rain tends to wash away the soil, and so aids in the\ndeception.\n\nOn the other hand, the level of the soil in churchyards is gradually\nrising (cf. p. 90 _supra_), and it is primarily with churchyard yews\nthat we are concerned. Hence it is proposed that the measurement should\nbe taken at the base, and also at a height of three feet from the\nground. De Candolle recommended a height of two feet for exogenous\ntrees. Those who have had practical experience in measuring yews, will,\nwhile employing the tape at both these levels, recognize that there must\nbe a slightly varied treatment for each individual tree. Perhaps, like\nSir R. Christison[962], the investigator will be impelled, where the\ntrunk is short, to take the girth at the narrowest part.\n\nUnfortunately few actual records have been kept of measurements of yew\ntrees taken at intervals. One or two cases may, however, be instructive.\nAt Hurstbourne Tarrant, near Andover (Hants), there are two churchyard\nyews, which, the parish register informs us, were planted in 1693 and\n1743 respectively. Now, if we accept Dr Lowe\u2019s mean rate of one foot for\n65 years, the first tree, when re-measured in 1896, should have been\nabout 9\u00b4 10\u00b4\u00b4 in circumference, and the second 7\u00b4 6\u00b4\u00b4. The actual\nmeasurements were[963]:\n\n1st tree. 8\u00b4 4\u00b4\u00b4 at base; 6\u00b4 8\u00b4\u00b4 at a height of five feet.\n\n2nd  \u201c    7\u00b4 3\u00b4\u00b4  \u201c   \u201c ; 7\u00b4 3\u00b4\u00b4   \u201c    \u201c      \u201c       \u201c\n\nHence Dr Lowe\u2019s rate of growth would be too high for these trees; in the\nfirst example, markedly, yet the trees were still only of moderate age,\nand growth must have been active.\n\nOther good records refer to two yews in the churchyard of Basildon,\nBerkshire. Details of the measurement of the first tree were entered in\nthe parish register in 1780, and of the second in 1834, though both\ntrees had been planted by Lord Fane at a considerably earlier date than\nthe year 1780. In 1889 the trees were again measured by Mr Walter Money,\nand the results thus compared[964]:\n\n1st tree. From 1780-1889, an increase from 6\u00b4 3\u00b4\u00b4 to\n            9\u00b4 10\u00b4\u00b4; a gain of 3\u00b4 7\u00b4\u00b4.\n\n2nd  \u201c    From 1834-1889, an increase from 9\u00b4 2\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4 to\n            9\u00b4 6\u00b4\u00b4; a gain of 3\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4.\n\nNow, if it be true, as Dr Lowe\u2019s rule supposes, that a mean period of 65\nyears represents a gain of one foot in diameter, the first tree should\nhave increased 5\u00b4 3\u00b4\u00b4 in circumference, and the second 2\u00b4 8\u00b4\u00b4. But here,\nagain, the postulated rate of growth is far too high; in the second\nexample, nine times too high. Even if we grant that \u201cold trees grow, at\nintervals, much more rapidly than young ones,\u201d Dr Lowe\u2019s main rule is\nnot verified. For it happens that measurements of the first tree were\nmade at two intermediate dates, 1796 and 1834. During the first period,\n1780-1796, the increase was indeed three times as great as Dr Lowe\u2019s\nformula would demand, but in the second, and longer period, 1796-1889,\nthe growth was less than a quarter of the estimated amount. These\nmeasurements of yews, dealing with odd inches, truly suggest some degree\nof error, due to the substitution of one observer for another,\nnevertheless, we may assume the figures to be roughly correct. At the\nsame time, these rather surprising results indicate the wisdom of\ncalling in the aid of the total ring-estimate as a supplementary\nwitness, since the increase of girth tends to be so variable.\n\nParticulars respecting the growth of yews at Wrexham, as given by John\nTimbs, also show that an increase of one foot in 65 years is somewhat\nover the limit[965]. More records are desirable, yet the facts generally\nseem to favour Dr Lowe\u2019s higher limit of 70 years for each foot of\ngrowth, or even the 75 years proposed by the Christisons. On the whole,\nDr Lowe himself seems to sanction the last-named estimate, for, while he\nthinks that one foot in 75 years is \u201cbelow the average rate of growth,\u201d\nyet for purposes of calculation he prefers to adopt that scale[966].\n\nThe basis of 75 years, then, shall be taken in the present chapter. Two\nreservations, dependent upon what has been said previously, must,\nhowever, be borne in mind. First, seeing that young trees have,\nproportionately, a more extended leaf surface than old ones, larger\nrings are formed and the 75-years rule will make the trees too old.\nSecondly, and more important, there seems to come a period when aged\ntrees are practically at a standstill; they make no more increase, but\nlinger until disease and decay set in and slowly drain off the vitality.\nOf the yew at Aldworth, Berkshire, it is asserted that it has not\nincreased in circumference since 1760[967]. I feel sure that this\narrest, though not usually absolute, is very common; hence, for aged\ntrees, additions to the age must be made after applying the 75-years\nrule. Much stress should be laid on this point.\n\nThis slightly technical review has brought us so far as this: there was\na certain proneness among earlier observers to over-estimate the age of\nthe yew, and it is only as a result of modern observation that the\ntendency has been checked. Whoever has walked along the Pilgrims\u2019 Way of\nthe Southern counties, and has stopped to pass his tape-measure around\nthe oldest yews, must have realized that popular notions concerning the\nage of these trees are not justified. Elsewhere, I have attempted to\nshow that many of these yews are successors of earlier ones, and that\nthey were designedly preserved by pilgrims and other wayfarers[968].\nThat explanation embraces the spirit of the folk-tales which point to\nexisting yew-trees as ante-dating particular Norman or Saxon churches.\nThe traditions cover the fact that trees have studded the Pilgrims\u2019 Way\nfor many centuries--a conclusion differing from the reckless guesses of\nguide-book antiquaries respecting the vast age of individual existing\nyews.\n\nIn some few instances, as we shall see, churchyard yews are extremely\nancient, and it is a sound hypothesis that a replacement of dead yews\nhas often been made, thus bridging over the period which has elapsed\nfrom the introduction of Christianity and the rearing of churches to the\npresent day. But, in general, deductions drawn from the age of existing\nbuildings are faulty. A caution must also be entered against\nover-estimating the age of particular trees in yew groves which are\nknown to be ancient. Popular tradition says that the yews in Kingly\nBottom, or Vale, near Chichester, existed when the sea-kings landed. The\nlegend may be doubted, yet if we were to express it as Dr Lowe\nsuggests--\u201cyews were there\u201d at that date--the statement would probably\nbe accurate. Presented in this form, we may fairly assume the statement\ntrue for earlier periods. Doubtless the Neolithic flint-workers of the\nVale, of whose old mines large numbers were discovered in 1910, looked\nupon a dusky yew grove as they went to their labours. Once more: in\nspite of the oft-repeated assertion that this or that yew is alluded to\nin Domesday Book, it is none the less a fact that no individual yew, no\nindividual tree, in short, is mentioned therein[969].\n\nFrom a long descriptive list of aged yew trees, slowly accumulated in a\nnote-book, a few examples only need be extracted. At the head, in regard\nto antiquity, stands probably the yew in the graveyard of Fortingal\n(Fortingale, or erroneously, Fotheringhall), Perthshire. Sir R.\nChristison estimated this tree to be 3000 years old, and deemed it \u201cthe\nmost venerable specimen of living European vegetation[970].\u201d De\nCandolle\u2019s determination was about the same as Christison\u2019s. The hollow\nstump, which has been carefully railed in, is now the merest wreckage.\nThe Fortingal yew was measured by Daines Barrington in 1769, when the\ncircumference was set down as 52 feet[971]. Pennant, a few years later,\ngave the result as 56\u00bd feet, so that, reckoning on the 75-year basis,\nthe tree would at that date be about 1340 years old. Mr C. T. Ramage,\nbasing his calculations on the observed rate of growth of a yew in\nMontgomeryshire, arrived at the total of 1400 years[972]. It is worthy\nof notice that a very old ecclesiastical establishment once existed near\nthe Fortingal yew[973]. Loudon gives us a woodcut representing the tree\nas it appeared in 1837[974]; beyond this we have to rely on the figures\nquoted, and on oral tradition.\n\nCompeting with the Fortingal yew for the premier position, there\nformerly existed that of Brabourne, in Kent. It was alluded to by Evelyn\nin his _Discourse on Forest Trees_ (1664), as already \u201csupperannuated,\u201d\nand it disappeared about a century ago[975]. De Candolle put its age at\nmore than 3000 years[976], and while this was doubtless an\nover-estimate, yet, if the recorded circumference, 59 feet[977], be\ncorrectly stated, the tree was actually more ancient than its Scottish\nrival.\n\nA third claimant, from Hensor (Bucks), must be introduced with a\nwavering pen. Its circumference, according to Mr J. R. Jackson, of Kew,\nwas 81 feet[978], hence, if this measurement be accurate, the yews\nalready mentioned are hopelessly out-ranged, for here we should have a\ntree 2000 years old. Unfortunately, this yew no longer remains to tell\nits own story, or to allow the measurement to be checked.\n\nThe celebrated churchyard yew of Darley Dale, Derbyshire, has suffered\nmuch in reputation owing to travellers\u2019 tales. Half a century since its\ndiameter was approximately 9\u00bd feet[979], its age may therefore be\nroughly estimated as 760-770 years.\n\nA dead yew, under-propped, and chained together so as to preserve the\nupright position, stands in the grounds of Kersal Cell, Lancashire. This\ncell was founded about the middle of the twelfth century, and Mr Arthur\nMayall has suggested that the seed from which the yew sprang was brought\nfrom the Holy Land at the close of the Second Crusade (1149)[980].\n\nThe yews known as the \u201cSeven Sisters,\u201d which grew on a knoll near the\nmill at Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, but of which only two remain, have\nbeen deemed by an able, though anonymous, authority to be \u201cmost certain\nrelics\u201d of the mid-twelfth century[981]. The Abbey was founded in A.D.\n1135. For the sake of comparison, De Candolle\u2019s figures--1280\nyears[982]--although too high, may be noted.\n\nThe Buckland yew, near Dover, which was removed from the churchyard in\n1880, was one of those erroneously reputed to have been mentioned in\nDomesday Book. Serious historians, however, like Hasted, do not make\nthis mistake. The tree was of vast size, though details are now lacking.\nAt Watcombe, a lonely farm on the roadside between Wantage and\nHungerford, stands a cluster of aged yews, possibly coeval with the\nBenedictine cell and church which were built there at the close of the\neleventh century. The trees form a kind of covered way or cloister and\nnow surround a central pond[983]. Of \u201cTalbot\u2019s yew,\u201d in Tankersley Park,\nYorkshire, it is said that a man on horseback could turn round inside\nits hollow trunk[984], and similar stories are related of other yew\ntrees.\n\nOur catalogue might be extended, but there is scant space to describe\nthe yew of South Hayling (Hants), 33 feet round at its narrowest\ngirth[985]; that of Tisbury (Wilts.), 37 feet[986]; of Crowhurst\n(Surrey) (Fig. 72), nearly 32\u00be feet at a yard from the ground[987]; or\nof its namesake, the Sussex Crowhurst, 27 feet[988]. The Chipstead yew,\nin Surrey (Fig. 73), and the two yews of Mells, in Somerset, one of\nwhich is shown in Fig. 74, are also well-grown trees. Hambledon, in\nSurrey, possesses two good examples; the larger is seen in Fig. 75. A\nmere glimpse only can be taken of the Swallowfield yew, Berkshire,\nbelieved by Kingsley to be older than the parish church (built A.D.\n1286)[989]; of Evelyn\u2019s specimen at Scottshall (Kent), which he said was\neighteen of his paces \u201cin compasse[990]\u201d; the huge monarch of Twyford\nchurchyard, Hampshire; and the memorable, oft-described yew of Gilbert\nWhite\u2019s village of Selborne[991].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 72. Crowhurst yew, Surrey. East side of churchyard. 32\u00be feet\n     in circumference at a height of 3 feet from the ground. The inside,\n     which was artificially hollowed in the year 1820, contains a table,\n     around which a dozen persons can be seated.\n]\n\nBefore taking final leave of individual trees, an example given by\nStrutt claims passing notice. Strutt cites an original charter which\nrefers to the building of a church at P\u00e9rone, or P\u00e9ronne, in Picardy, in\nA.D. 684. In this charter, a remarkable clause was inserted, giving\ninstructions for the preservation of a particular yew tree. The writer\nadds that the tree was in existence in A.D. 1799[992]. If we could be\nsure that the charter referred to the identical tree which survived till\nthe latter date, we should here have a rival to the veterans of\nFortingal and Brabourne.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 73. Yew on North side of Chipstead church, Surrey.\n     Circumference at 4 feet from the ground: 25 feet. The blocked-up\n     doorway is Transitional Norman (c. A.D. 1175); the arch is round,\n     but is ornamented with the \u201cdog-tooth.\u201d The Northern position of\n     the yew was probably determined by the Northern approach to the\n     church.\n]\n\nIt has now been made clear that neither the exaggerated estimates of the\nearlier school of botanists, nor the under-calculations of recent\nwriters, are quite satisfactory, and that, as of old\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 74. Yew, Mells churchyard, Somerset. Girth, at a height of 3\n     feet from the ground, 11 ft 8 in. A slightly smaller tree stands a\n     little towards the East, both specimens being situated on the South\n     side.\n]\n\nthe middle path is safest. We next ask how the yew came to be planted in\nchurchyards. One section of antiquaries teaches that the object was to\nensure a supply of evergreens for great festivals, and to furnish, in\nparticular, \u201cpalms\u201d for the procession on Palm Sunday (the second Sunday\nin Lent). That the \u201cyew, or palm,\u201d served this purpose is abundantly\nproved by entries in churchwardens\u2019 accounts, and by the actual evidence\nof living eye-witnesses. Nor is it entirely a valid objection that box,\nlaurel, broom and willow, have been or are still used for a like\npurpose[993]. It is on record, too, that twigs of yew were employed by\nthe priests for sprinkling the Holy Water, in the Asperges, before\nMass[994]. This class of evidence can be extended. The _Liber\nFestivalis_, or \u201cDirectory for keeping the Festivals,\u201d an old\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 75. Yew, Hambledon churchyard, Surrey.\nCircumference, at 3 feet from the ground, 29 feet; at 4 feet from the\nground, 30 feet.]\n\nblack-letter volume dated 1483, states that yew is carried about on Palm\nSunday, \u201cfor encheson (= cause)[995] that we have none olyve that berith\ngreene leef algate (= always)[996].\u201d Irish peasants were wont to carry\nsprays of yew in their caps during Passion Week, and to place small\nportions beside the crucifix at the head of the bed[997]. On St Martin\u2019s\nHill, near Marlborough, as previously noted (p. 194 _supra_), there is\nan ancient earthwork, to which, so recently as 1858, a band of villagers\nwent in procession on Palm Sunday, carrying boughs of hazel, not of\nyew[998]. Although the yew was absent, the ceremony supplies an\ninteresting link, and the connection of a Christian festival with\nprehistoric remains seems to indicate an early origin of the custom.\nAgain, a well-known ecclesiastical ceremony consisted in the solemn\nblessing by the priest, on Palm Sunday, of branches of yew and box,\nwhich were then burnt to ashes, and these were preserved for use on the\nAsh Wednesday of the following year[999]. When visiting Wookey, in\nSomerset, during the summer of 1906, I was told that the old churchyard\ncross, recently restored, was known as \u201cYew Cross,\u201d because it was\nformerly decorated with yew on Palm Sunday. It is an astonishing fact,\nmoreover, that in the North-West Himalayas the yew is not only an object\nof veneration, but its twigs are carried in processions and incense is\nmade of its timber[1000]. The enthusiastic antiquary might rashly adduce\nthis as a proof of the Asiatic origin of the \u201cAryans,\u201d let us rather\nsuppose, without prejudicing that vexed question, that it is another\ninstance of similarity of custom developing independently among diverse\nraces.\n\nPlainly, then, we have obtained at least a partial answer to our\nquestion. Further usages, of a somewhat kindred nature, suggest reasons\nfor the presence of the tree in the churchyard. Yew branches were\ncarried by mourners at funerals; sprigs of yew were scattered on the\ncoffin; corpses were even rubbed with an infusion of the leaves, with a\nview to preservation[1001]. Dryden speaks of the \u201cmourner yew\u201d; in\n_Twelfth Night_ the clown sings of \u201cMy shroud of white, stuck all with\nyew[1002]\u201d; allusions are also found in the works of Dekker (1603),\nThomas Stanley (1651), and other seventeenth century writers. The\nassociation of the yew with funerals survived until our day[1003]. Sir\nThomas Browne, discussing, with sonorous eloquence, the burials of the\nancient Greeks and Romans, tells us that \u201cthe funeral pyre consisted of\nsweet fuel, cypress, fir, larix, yew, and trees perpetually verdant,\u201d\nand continues, later, \u201cwhether the planting of yew in churchyards hold\nnot its original from ancient funeral rites, or as an emblem of\nresurrection, from its perpetual verdure, may also admit\nconjecture[1004].\u201d\n\nTurning to a more prosaic theory, we find it urged that yew-trees were\nplanted in churchyards to protect the fabric from high storms and to\nshelter the assembling congregation before the doors were opened. The\nchief basis for this opinion is discoverable in the notable statute of\nwhich the date is believed to be 35 Edward I. (A.D. 1307): _Ne rector\nprosternat arbores in cemiterio_, that is, the rector must not cut down\ntrees in the churchyard, save, as the act proceeds to specify, for the\nrepair of the chancel[1005]. The statute was a repetition of a decree of\nthe Synod of Exeter (A.D. 1287), which forbade the felling of churchyard\ntrees, and expressly stated that they are often planted to prevent\ninjury to the building during storms[1006]. A like prohibition, it is\nasserted, though mistakenly, had been earlier embodied in Magna\nCharta[1007]. It is more pertinent to the present inquiry to remark that\nthe law is still binding. A foreign writer, whose name I cannot\nascertain, is quoted as stating that the yew was planted for shade and\n_conciones_ (= assemblies)[1008]. With reference to the above-mentioned\ndecrees, it is argued that the yew would be the principal, if not the\nonly, kind of tree which needed preservation. If, then, with Gilbert\nWhite[1009], we adopt the shelter theory as one explanation of the\npresence of the yew, we tacitly admit that the tree, to have been of any\nservice, must have been planted long anterior to the date of the\nstatutes. Was the yew, it will reasonably be asked, well adapted for a\nscreen or shelter? On the one hand, Dr Lowe urges, as objections, the\ntree\u2019s slow growth and the horizontal habit of its branches. Against\nthis opinion we may set the more plausible view of Daines Barrington,\nthat the thick foliage of the yew renders it better for the purpose than\nother trees[1010]. While not admitting that the shelter theory accounts\nfor the original intention of the earliest planters, it seems obvious\nthat even one yew would be effective in breaking the force of the wind\nfrom a particular quarter. Moreover, two or three trees were often grown\nin the churchyard. Slowness in reaching maturity would not be an\nabsolute bar, if, indeed, the tree were not already well advanced in\ngrowth ere the church fabric was actually reared. As a matter of\nhistory, a case cited by Barrington shows that the felling of yews\ncaused the roof of the church to suffer.\n\nOther trees besides the yew would, without doubt, be also employed;\nwhether this was the case in primitive times may, however, be\nquestioned. The \u201crugged elm\u201d of the _Elegy_ would come into favour in\ndue course. Examples of magnificent elms are to be seen at North Mimms\n(Herts), Iford (Sussex), East Bedfont (Middlesex), and in many Essex\nvillages. Alfriston, in Sussex, has an immense elm, hollow with age.\nSomewhat later, the sycamore, as at Plumpton (Sussex), and the horse\nchestnut, as at Thursley (Surrey), were also utilized. This brings us\nprobably to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, though the precise\ndates are usually not ascertainable. Cedars occasionally replace the\nyew[1011], for example, in the churchyard of Lullingstone (Kent), or\nthey supplement it, as at Ashtead (Surrey). Rodmell, in Sussex has a\nmagnificent holm oak, besides a large horse-chestnut and numerous elms.\nWalnuts are not uncommon; Mitcham and Great Bookham (Surrey), Clee and\nGreat Coates (Lincs.), furnish good examples. Boldre churchyard (Hants)\ncontains a maple which was considered by Gilpin and Strutt to be the\nlargest in England. A huge ash borders the Eastern yard at Westmeston\n(Sussex), but the ash, especially the \u201cweeping\u201d variety, is a feature of\nchurchyards in the Northern counties. \u201cThey, too, had once their\noffice, they handed on the fire.\u201d Of these miscellaneous trees I have\ncompiled, from observation, a goodly list, but always one meets the yew,\neither sporadically, or in each successive churchyard. Whatever may have\nbeen the case with our indigenous trees, such as the oak, and beech, or\nthe common elm--a tree now acknowledged to be endemic--at the date\nreferred to in the ordinances for protection, we do know that the yew\nthen existed as a churchyard tree. Its most common position--on the\nSouth side of the building--is also that which is exposed to the\nprevailing winds and rainstorms.\n\nA very popular theory, and one which merits close examination, is that\nyews were grown in the churchyard so as to ensure a ready supply of\nmaterial for the manufacture of bows. Even should anyone audaciously\ndeny that the yew is poisonous, he cannot dispute the existence of an\nold-standing belief to that effect. A tree dangerous to cattle, it was\ntherefore argued, must be grown in an enclosed area. In Mediaeval times,\nthough perhaps not so commonly in the early Saxon period, such a space\nwas already furnished by the conveniently fenced churchyard. While we\ncannot allow the claim that the fact of the tree\u2019s being poisonous will\naccount for the felling of yew groves, while, rather, we must believe\nthat the needs of archery would demand the actual plantation of thickets\nand woodlands, there is no reason for doubting that, where an additional\ntree was preserved for the village bowyers, the husbandman would desire\nto have it railed in. The yew groves, at least those artificially\nplanted, would usually have their own fences, and would be inaccessible\nto cattle. Partly, the bow theory goes against the shelter theory, since\nconstant lopping would impair the tree\u2019s usefulness as a curtain. The\nbow theory, however, is not quite inconsistent with the employment of\nsprays of the tree on festal occasions.\n\nTo review briefly the subject of British archery let us start fairly at\nthe Norman Conquest. It is known that the Normans were acquainted with\nthe cross-bow[1012] or arbalest (prob. from _arcus_ = a bow; _ballista_\n= a military engine: the later spelling\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 76. Shooting birds with the cross-bow. From a 14th\ncentury MS. (Strutt.)]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 77. Shooting at the butts, with the cross-bow. 16th\ncentury. (Strutt.)]\n\n\u201carrowblest\u201d is discredited), a somewhat complicated weapon, having a\nhandle or stock, to which was attached a bowstave of yew or steel (Figs.\n76, 77). The cross-bow was drawn by means of a stirrup fixed at the end\nof the stock, or it was slowly and laboriously wound up by cords and\nwindlass, and then drawn by means of a lever. Besides this cumbrous\nweapon, the Normans, as we learn from the Bayeux \u201ctapestry,\u201d were\naccustomed to use the simpler long-bow[1013], a plain arched weapon--a\n\u201cself\u201d bow made of a single yew stave. These bows were employed at the\nBattle of Hastings, and some writers have hastily assumed that the\nlong-bow \u201ccame over with the Conqueror.\u201d This conclusion cannot be\naccepted in silence.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 78. Saxon bow and arrow; an elaborate specimen. From\na 10th century MS., in the Cotton Library. (Strutt.)]\n\nAble authorities state that the long-bow (Figs. 78, 79) was peculiarly\nthe weapon of Northern races in general[1014]. The Danes and the Saxons\nused it in warfare[1015], and it is noteworthy that we inherit the\nAnglo-Saxon words, _boga_, _boge_ (bow), and _arwe_ (arrow), the last\nterm having been in use so early as A.D. 835[1016]. There is also\nevidence, based on examples of decorative ornament and on runes, that\narchery was practised in England about the year A.D. 750. By some\nauthorities the Romans are supposed to have introduced the bow,\npresumably the cross-bow, which is really a kind of portable ballista,\ninto the country[1017]. Sir John Evans, while admitting that the\ncross-bow was in use during the Roman period, believes that it was not\nknown in the Neolithic\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 79. Saxon archers, with long-bows. From an 8th\ncentury MS. in the Cotton Library. (After Strutt.)]\n\nAge, when long-bows made of yew were probably employed[1018]. Between\nthese two periods vast centuries roll, and we may fairly assume that the\ncross-bow does not belong to pre-Roman Britain. But what impresses us is\nthe conviction that the plain long-bow had never been entirely\nsuperseded. A yew bow, made of indifferent material, consisting of a\nsingle stave about five feet long, was dug out of deep peat near\nCambridge in 1885, and was judged to be prehistoric[1019]. Switzerland\nhas also yielded a few specimens, but bows of undoubted Neolithic Age\nare rare. Reasoning from the unnumbered arrowheads of stone which have\ncome down to us and which are now preserved in collections, we may infer\nthat the long-bow was in common use during the Later Stone Age, even\nsupposing that many \u201carrow-heads\u201d were really tips for shafts thrown by\nhand. We may peer yet further into a darker past, when, as Pitt-Rivers\nsuggests, primeval man fastened his lance to the stem of a young forest\ntree, which he improvised as a spring-trap or an elastic throwing\nstick[1020].\n\nThis slight digression carries us thus far: the cross-bow may possibly\nreach back to the Roman period, but the long-bow is certainly of\nprehistoric origin. These conclusions have some bearing on the\nartificial planting of yews, and are important to the upholders of the\n\u201cbow theory.\u201d It may be advisable, too, to notice the discovery of a\nspearhead of yew in the peat of the Fenland[1021].\n\nNow we may return to the Norman Conquest, and the Norman cross-bow. To\nwind up and discharge this weapon was obviously a difficult and tardy\nprocess. For every bolt shot by the cross-bowman, the archer could\ndeliver six arrows[1022]. Mr C. F. Longman and Col. H. Walrond consider\nthis ratio much too favourable to the clumsier engine[1023]. Be that as\nit may, the long-bow, swift and deadly, won for us Cre\u00e7y and Poitiers.\nAided by their field entrenchments, the English were able to give the\nnational arm free scope, and the \u201cquarrels\u201d discharged by the Genoese\ncross-bowmen were more than answered by the English arrows[1024]. The\nscene makes us remember Gilpin\u2019s apposite observation, that the\nFrenchman drew a bow, while the English bent a bow. For, in England, the\ncross-bow had given the first place to its lightsome competitor in the\nthirteenth century[1025]. But the bolt and cross-bow lingered for two\nmore centuries, until the long-bow itself was struggling for supremacy\nwith the hand-gun or hand-cannon, which had been introduced about the\nyear A.D. 1446. A statute, passed in A.D. 1515, increased the property\nqualification for using a cross-bow or hand-gun to 300 marks a year,\nand this sum was again raised a few years later. At the same time the\nuse of the long-bow was enforced[1026].\n\nWe will now deal exclusively with the long-bow. Statutes relating to\narchery are very numerous, and range from the time of Edward I. to that\nof Charles II., during whose reign the long-bow practically died out as\na weapon, in spite of many patriotic attempts at resuscitation. Very\npleasant reading is afforded by some of these old ordinances. The first\nstatute, 13 Edward I. (A.D. 1285), known as the Statute of Winchester,\nordered all males of a certain rank to shoot from the age of seven, and\nthis act was not repealed until A.D. 1557. Statutes passed during the\nreign of Edward III. commanded that bows and arrows should be provided\nby the local authorities, and archery should be encouraged. Under\nRichard II. all servants were to practise at the target, and Sunday was\nspecially nominated for the purpose. Henry IV. (A.D. 1405) regulated the\nmanufacture of arrow-heads, which were to have a steel point, and to\nbear the mark of the maker. Most important legislation was passed under\n5 Edward IV. c. 4 (Irish Statutes): \u201cEvery Englishman, and every\nIrishman dwelling with Englishmen, shall have a bow of his own height.\u201d\nLater, came laws regulating the importation of bowstaves. Here it should\nbe explained that the timber of the yew, dense and elastic, was\nconsidered to form the ideal raw material, but modern bowyers have\nlargely abandoned \u201cself-yew\u201d bows, and seem to prefer a combination of\ntwo kinds of wood, yew for the inner, and hickory for the outer layer.\nSince English yew was inferior to that of Spain, Portugal and Italy,\nbecause it suffered from an excess of \u201cpins\u201d--spots from which branches\nhad been trimmed (Fig. 70, p. 367 _supra_)--importation was necessary.\nFirst, then, bowstaves were ordered to be brought over with other\nmerchandise, and marked accordingly. Next, they were to be imported with\nevery butt of wine. The price was fixed, and soon the scale of charges\nbecame complicated. In A.D. 1504, good bowstaves were admitted free of\nduty. And so the story might be continued. There are commands to\npractise the sport on feast-days, and on every possible occasion; the\nquality of the bowstaves and arrows is to be improved; butts are to be\nerected or repaired. Entries under this last head are found in parish\naccounts extending well into the seventeenth century. The churchwardens\u2019\naccounts of Ashburton (Devon) for instance, refer (A.D. 1558-9) to\n\u201clopping the yew-tree\u201d and to payments \u201cto the Bowyer.\u201d So late as A.D.\n1772, several thousand bowstaves came to England, chiefly from the\nBaltic ports and from Rhineland[1027].\n\nSeeing then, that the making of bows and arrows was, for many centuries,\na leading industry both in England and on the Continent, we are led to\nask to what extent Sir A. Conan Doyle\u2019s lines express historical facts,\nsince they are obviously not correct as they stand.\n\n        \u201cWhat of the bow?\n         The bow was made in England:\n         Of true wood, of yew-wood,\n         The wood of English bows.\n         So men who are free\n         Love the old yew-tree\n    And the land where the yew-tree grows[1028].\u201d\n\nIn the first place, it is abundantly clear that yew was the material\nmost sought after. Roger Ascham says that yew was best for \u201cparfite\nshootyng,\u201d and that \u201cBrasell (a hard, red, dye-wood), Elme, Wych, and\nAsshe\u201d were \u201cmeane for bowes[1029].\u201d Now the importation of foreign yew\nwas rendered necessary, as already noticed, because the native material\nwas not the most suitable. More than this, the supply of yew, even with\nthe addition of cargoes from abroad, was insufficient. Thus, in 1541, to\ngive one instance only, it was enacted that the bowyer should make four\ncommon bows of \u201celme, wych, brasil, ashe,\u201d or other wood, for one of\nyew. Near London, the proportion might be reduced--two bows of common\nwood to one of yew[1030]. Our English yew was so knotty, that, as Brady\nsadly remarks, it was \u201cused for bows of boys, and other weak\nshooters[1031].\u201d While a bow made of the best foreign yew was to be sold\nfor 6_s._ 8_d._, a bow of English yew was assessed at a value of 2_s._\nonly. The main point to be noticed here is that, as an historical fact,\nEnglish yew was employed, at any rate, in part. And Warner, a writer of\nthe late eighteenth century, asserts that among the \u201clower ranks\u201d there\nwas, in his time, a tradition that the churchyard yew was the source of\nbowstaves[1032]. Apart from the churchyard tree, there were other\nsupplies. A general plantation of yews, we are informed, was\nspecifically commanded in 1483[1033]; Strutt cites the remarkable yew\nwood on the isle of Inchconakhead, Loch Lomond, as a probable result of\nsuch afforestation[1034]. General Pitt-Rivers suggested a like date and\norigin for the yews of Cranborne Chase, and it is possible that several\nancient copses of yew were much extended in area about this time. In the\nreign of Elizabeth--so we are told, but I doubt whether the assertion\ncan be upheld--yews were actually ordered to be planted in\nchurchyards[1035]. It is also stated that Charles VII. of France (A.D.\n1422-1461) commanded that the tree should be grown in all the\nchurchyards of Normandy expressly to provide wood for cross-bows[1036].\nIncidentally, we observe that the yew was employed in making both kinds\nof bow. Connecting these facts with the practice of archery on the\nvillage green, and with the ordinances for the repair of the parish\nbutts, it is a fair supposition that the churchyard yew served, though\nperhaps as a secondary purpose of its existence, the demands of the\nlocal bowyers.\n\nSeveral objections have been raised against this last-named theory. The\ninferiority of English yew has been mentioned; in the face of a\nconstant lack in the supply of yew, the objection is not weighty. Then\nit is pointed out that the English churchyard seldom contains more than\none full-grown yew, and as a final word, Hansard affirms that \u201cEvery\nyew-tree growing within the united churchyards of England and Wales,\nadmitting that they could have been renewed five times in the course of\na century, would not have produced one-fiftieth of the bows required for\nmilitary supplies[1037].\u201d This is a hard saying. But, in fact,\nchurchyards sometimes have two or three yews, and probably, as Dr Lowe\nhints, there may formerly have been more, though few have survived the\nsevere periodical loppings. Again, it is not claimed that the churchyard\nstock of timber was more than supplementary and subsidiary. The yew\navenues and yew groves of many a nobleman\u2019s estate would give toll. To\nargue that the churchyard yew could not have been pruned to make bows\nbecause that supply was insufficient, would be as erroneous as if the\nfuture historian were to assert that English wheat could not have been\nused for bread in the year 1911, because five out of six loaves were\nobtained from external sources. And, as we have already seen, the plain\nfacts prove that the combined native and Continental stores of yew were\nso inadequate that the laws compelled the substitution of other kinds of\ntimber in fixed proportions.\n\nThis deficiency of raw material has led some writers to raise the\nquestion whether the artificial scarcity did not render the planting of\nyew trees in graveyards a strict necessity[1038]. Hansard himself admits\nthat the inferiority of English yew has been too much insisted on[1039].\nHis other statement--that Henry IV. forbade the royal bowyer, Nicholas\nFrost, to trespass for wood on the estates of any religious\norder[1040]--does not finally dispose of the claim of churchyard trees,\nthough, in its own connections, the fact has some importance. A wary\ncontroversialist, with a position to defend, might urge that the\ninjunction implies a former practice which was now, after this order, to\nbe discontinued. Here we are concerned, however, to test fairly all the\ntheories. Without wresting the evidence, there seems good ground for\nbelieving that the churchyard yew supplied its quota of bowstaves to the\nvillage, and that this may have possibly been the case even in the\npre-Conquest period. Not for a moment, however, do I believe that the\nneeds of archery explain the primary purpose of the first planters.\n\nA faint side-light on the general subject of the utilization of\nchurchyard trees comes from Rodmell, in Sussex. During the sixteenth\ncentury the rearing of silkworms was one of the industries of this\nvillage, and a portion of the necessary supply of mulberry leaves was\nobtained from trees grown in the churchyard. It is stated that specimens\nof the trees were still standing in the eighteenth century.\n\nFrom interpretations based on social economy, to those which make\nornament the primary purpose of the churchyard yew, the leap is not\ngreat, since the latter idea, after running parallel with, may have been\nultimately superseded by the former. Thus, the churchwardens\u2019 accounts\nof Bridgenorth (Salop) record the planting of a yew-tree \u201cfor reverence\nsake[1041].\u201d Again, Giraldus de Barri, commonly called Giraldus\nCambrensis, who visited Ireland about the year A.D. 1184, observed the\nyew in burial grounds and holy places. His words are: \u201c_Prae terris\nautem omnibus, quas intravimus, longe copiosus amara hic succo taxus\nabundat, maxime vero in coemiteriis antiquis, locisque sacris, sanctorum\nvirorum manibus olim plantatas_, [al. _plantatis_] _et decorum et\nornamentum_ [al. _ornatum_] _quem addere poterant, arborum istarum\ncopiam videas_[1042].\u201d The style of Giraldus is not beyond criticism,\nbut his meaning is quite clear: \u201cIn this country more than any other\nwhich I have visited, yew-trees, having a bitter sap, abound, but you\nwill see them principally in ancient cemeteries and sacred places, where\nthey were formerly planted by the hands of holy men, to give what\nornament and beauty they could[1043].\u201d While offering this as an\nexplanation of the original intention, Giraldus informs us, in another\npart of his work, that, when Henry II. made his expedition to Ireland,\nhis archers went to Finglas, about two miles from Dublin, and\nsacrilegiously laid violent hands on a beautiful group of yews, in a\nmost irreverent and atrocious manner (\u201c_enormiter et irreverenter\ndesaevire coeperunt_\u201d)[1044]. This took place, it will be noted, but a\nfew years before the Welsh antiquary\u2019s own visit to Ireland, as\nsecretary to Prince John (A.D. 1185). Incidentally, we may glance at a\ncurious suggestion made by Mr C. I. Elton. Referring to the reputed\nintroduction of hive-bees to Ireland by St Dominic of Ossory, Mr Elton\nsupposes that there could have been little bee-culture until the yews\nhad largely disappeared, for the tree is prejudicial to this\nindustry[1045]. One would like to hear the opinion of bee-keepers on\nthis question; so far, one\u2019s own inquiries have been fruitless.\n\nFrom the idea of ornament we turn to the motive force of superstition.\nThe most curious example of this folly is given in a fantastic\ndescription by Robert Turner, a seventeenth century writer on botany.\nThe passage merits full quotation. The yew was planted \u201ccommonly on the\nWest side [this is an error, W. J.] because those places being fuller of\nputrefaction and gross oleaginous vapours exhaled out of the graves by\nthe setting sun, and sometimes drawn into those Meteors called Ignes\nfatui, divers have been frightened, supposing some dead bodies to walk,\nothers have been blasted, not that it is able to drive away Devils, as\nsome superstitious Monks have imagined; nor yet that it was ever used to\nsprinkle Holy Water, as some quarrelsome Presbyters, altogether ignorant\nof natural Causes, as the signification of Emblems and useful Ornaments,\nhave fondly conceived.\u201d The writer further admits that the yew is\npoisonous; \u201cyet the growing of it in the Church-yard is useful, and\ntherefore it ought not to be cut down upon what pittiful pretence\nsoever[1046].\u201d Turner\u2019s lofty disdain of \u201csuperstitious Monks\u201d and\n\u201cquarrelsome Presbyters,\u201d coupled with his own ideas of \u201cnatural\ncauses,\u201d is very diverting, but discounts his claim to accuracy. Yet we\nnotice that, while pressing his own interpretation, he alludes to others\nwhich were probably current in his day. We should remember, moreover,\nthat Turner wrote nearly two and a half centuries ago, and that he was,\nto this extent, nearer the origin of the custom. Consequently, he may\nhave caught the record of genuine folk-memory, though that might have\nalready become confused.\n\nIn opposition to Turner\u2019s scepticism about the power of the yew to\nbanish devils, was the popular belief that the tree protects the\ngraveyard from witches[1047]. Henderson says that the yew was indeed \u201ca\nvery upas tree to witches,\u201d and that this accounts for its proximity to\nthe church[1048]. Another writer, Mr W. G. Black, in an excellent paper,\ntakes a contrary view. Witchcraft was ever most powerful when it\nexercised its mysterious influences through instruments usually\nconnected with the Church. Hence the value of divination by church key\nand a book of Psalms; hence charms by coffin-rings and churchyard grass\n(cf. pp. 164, 302 _supra_). The yew was actually helpful to witches\nbecause it grew near the church[1049]. To harmonize these conflicting\nsuperstitions is unnecessary, yet they might perhaps be traced along\nconverging lines to a common source. From religious consecration to\nsorcery is a short journey for the ignorant. Besides this, the antiquary\nis thoroughly accustomed to what one may call the \u201ccontradiction of\nlocalities\u201d; the yew may have been a guardian against witches in one\nvillage, while in the next village the \u201cmidnight hag\u201d used it as a\nspell. Superstitions and customs cannot be adequately represented in a\nunilinear series. The tree of descent throws out branches which lie in\nmany planes, and the terminal points may often be opposed to one\nanother.\n\nIt chances that a passage in _Macbeth_, easily glided over unthinkingly,\nbears upon this subject of the yew\u2019s uncanny properties: \u201cSlips of yew,\nsliver\u2019d in the moon\u2019s eclipse[1050].\u201d (_Sliver_, diminutive of Earlier\nMod. Eng. _slive_, a variant of _slip_ = to cut off[1051].) The allusion\nto the balefulness of the eclipse arouses no special comment. The \u201cfatal\nand perfidious barque\u201d which proved so unfriendly to Lycidas was \u201cbuilt\nin th\u2019 eclipse[1052].\u201d The Venerable Bede found it necessary to forbid\nChristians to practise witchery by the moon. The Chinese believe that\nthe eclipsed sun or moon is being devoured by a dragon, and the Hindoos\nattempt to ward off the ill-effects of an eclipse by breaking\nearthenware vessels and casting out the food contained therein[1053]. It\nwas natural, then, that eclipses represented times of foreboding and of\nmysterious rites. But why employ a \u201csliver\u201d of yew? The answer is\nprobably supplied by Sclavonic folk-lore. The devil, or storm-spirit,\nclaims the yew as his own. To use a beam of this tree, or even a branch\nbroken off by the wind, that is, a picked-up portion, was unlucky. The\ndevil would haunt the house of the sorcerer to regain his own. The\nwitch, therefore, employs a mere insignificant slip, useless either to\nwoodman or demon[1054]. Or was it that the three hags, being in league\nwith the Evil One, might lawfully use his instruments?\n\nIn German folk-lore, there was a belief that the wood of the yew, ground\nto powder, made into paste, and baked in an oven, was a sovereign remedy\nagainst the bite of a mad dog[1055]. Alternatively, a die was made of\nyew and letters and signs were cut in the block. Cakes stamped with this\ncharm (_Toll-holz_) were given to the mad animal. These instances show\nthat the yew, while feared as of ill-omen, brought its measure of luck\nto him who could obtain and use it aright.\n\nThe foregoing beliefs seem to form part of a tangled skein, which, if\ntemporarily dropped, must be picked up again shortly. In the interval,\nmaterial of a like nature may be examined.\n\nThe dense, heavy tree, \u201cstanding single in the midst of its own\ndarkness,\u201d has been considered a just emblem of sin, death, and\nmortality. Being, perhaps, our most deadly indigenous tree, it\nmaterializes the adverse spirit of evil and destruction[1056]. In\npartial conflict with this idea, the vitality of the tree, its\nlongevity, its durable timber, and its evergreen leaves, have suggested\nto some minds the Resurrection and the eternal life. This latter fancy\nmay have been strengthened by the sight of young shoots springing out of\nthe old, apparently dead, wood, even from a decaying stump, or a hole\nentirely hollow, and charred perchance by fire. Whether these symbolisms\nare altogether adventitious and derivative, and whether they can be\nquite reconciled, are difficult questions. The ideas have a Mediaeval\ntinge, but none the less they may be relics of an older mysticism.\n\nThe inquiry may be pushed back further, because there are a few\nmiscellaneous fragments of evidence to be collected. Dr Daniel Rock,\nwhose volumes show wide research and carefulness in sifting\necclesiological details, casts aside the bow theory, and proceeds to say\nthat many of our yews were planted by Anglo-Saxons, and not a few by\nBritish Christians. The hardy evergreen yew is the analogue of the\ncypress of hotter climes. The converted Britons, he believes, \u201coften, if\nnot always, sought to build their churches near to some fine\nyew-tree--even then, maybe, a few hundred years old[1057].\u201d Dr Rock\ngives the grand yew of Aldworth, Berkshire, as an example of this early\nplanting, but we can scarcely accept his opinion. Although, by actual\nmeasurement, it was found, as already mentioned, that this tree has not\nincreased in girth since the year 1760, yet this girth is but 27 feet,\nand will not satisfy the claim of so great an antiquity. Undoubtedly the\nyew-tree was reverenced in the early times. Two churches, alluded to by\nan ancient Welsh bard, were renowned for their prodigious trees: the\nminsters of Esgor and He\u00fbllan, \u201cof celebrity for sheltering yews[1058].\u201d\nBoswell Syme, the authority for this statement, adds that He\u00fbllan\nsignifies an old grove. We read, too, of consecrated yews. In the old\nWelsh laws, a consecrated yew was assessed at \u00a31, a specimen of\nordinary yew at 15 pence only. With these prices we may compare those of\na mistletoe branch and an oak branch, which were threescore pence and\nsixscore pence respectively[1059].\n\nIn the North of Scotland the yew was credited with a peculiar property.\nA branch of graveyard yew would enable one chief to denounce another, in\nsuch a manner that, while the clansmen standing by could hear the\nthreats, the intended victim could not hear a word[1060].\n\nAccumulated testimony shows that the yew was an object of veneration in\npre-Christian times. Mr H. C. Coote has dragged forth evidence on this\nsubject, as on many kindred questions, which had previously lain\nunnoticed. \u201cBut of these old-world superstitions,\u201d he writes, \u201cthat\nconnected with the yew-tree is the most interesting. For, as of old, it\nwas associated with the passage of the soul to its new abode,--so ever\nsince the introduction of Christianity into this country it has\ncontinued to adorn the last resting place of the body which the soul had\nleft[1061].\u201d He then quotes the poet Statius, who flourished about A.D.\n81: \u201c_Necdum illum_ [i.e. Amphiaraum] _aut trunca lustraverat obvia taxa\nEumenis_[1062],\u201d that is, Amphiaraus had descended into Hades so quickly\nthat the Eumenides, or Furies, had no time to purify him by a touch of\nthe holy yew branch[1063]. The Furies are also fabled to have made\ntorches of yew[1064]. In connection with the superstition mentioned by\nStatius, a discovery described by Wright is of interest. In a Roman\ncinerary urn there was found a dark incrustation of vegetable matter,\nbelieved to be caused by the decay of a branch of yew[1065].\n\nSince, then, the yew called forth tributary respect in pagan times, we\nare led nearer the centre of mystery, and the Cimmerian shades close in\nrapidly. Can we be sure of the primary cause of the veneration? The tree\nhas been popularly associated with that much misunderstood priestly\ncaste, which embraced the Druids of classical writers. Dr Lowe contends\nthat there is no evidence to show that the Britons held the yew in\nreverence; to disprove the notion, he adds, \u201cI have been unable to\ndiscover a single instance of a Druidical stone being associated with a\nChristian church[1066].\u201d If, as is fairly evident, \u201cDruidical stone\u201d is\nto be interpreted as \u201cprehistoric megalith,\u201d a reference to Chapter I.\nwill show that such cases were probably not uncommon. Concerning the\nDruids and their sacred trees our direct knowledge is scanty, but\nabsence of allusions to the yew in connection with Druidical rites is\nnot completely conclusive against the ceremonial virtues of the tree.\nBesides, there are some half hints which are not quite negligible.\n\nTo speak of the worship of sacred trees would carry us far from our\nbearings. Those who desire to study this subject would do well to read\nProfessor J. G. Frazer\u2019s _Golden Bough_, and the famous seventh chapter\nof Mr Grant Allen\u2019s _Evolution of the Idea of God_. From these writers\nwe learn not only the significance of tree-worship and tree-spirits, but\nwe understand the inspiring motive of ceremonial tree-planting. The\nfirst trees which grew on barrows may have become rooted there by\naccident, such as the chance visits of birds, or the scraping together\nof the material of the mound. The trees would receive the more\nencouragement from the fact that the soil had been turned over and\nlaboured. Again, is it too fanciful to suggest that a sacred\ngrave-stake, freshly trimmed, might occasionally put forth leaves and\ntake root? Whatever the origin of the practice, direct planting, with a\nfixed purpose, would eventually come into vogue. Shrubs, especially\nevergreens, would be placed on the graves of dead tribesmen (cf. p. 323\n_supra_). Like practices have been recorded the world over. Greeks,\nArabs, Etruscans, Phoenicians, Hindoos, Chinese, and various American\npeoples furnish examples. A survival is seen in the English custom of\nthrusting slips of bay and yew into the green turf of Christian\ngraves[1067].\n\nFrequently the round or Bronze Age barrows of the South of England are\ntopped by the Scotch pine, a tree which is not indigenous to that\nregion. In Southern Europe the cypress is the favoured evergreen of\ntombs and cemeteries, but in Italy and Provence the holm-oak is equally\na conventional graveyard tree. In Northern Europe it is the yew which\nreceives the place of honour[1068]. Branches of cypress and yew were\nemployed in ancient Greece and Rome as signals that a household was in\nmourning[1069]. No great stress can be laid on the passage from\nMacpherson\u2019s _Ossian_, \u201cThe yew was a funereal tree, the companion of\nthe grave among the Celtic tribes. Here rests their dust, Cuthullen!\nThese lonely yews sprang from their tomb and shaded them from the\nstorm[1070].\u201d Without daring to re-open the _Ossian_ controversy, one\nmay, however, hazard the opinion that the passage enshrines a genuine\ntradition.\n\nAt Knowlton, Dorset, as stated on p. 13 _supra_, the church, which is\nnow utterly ruined, and which is of Norman, or, as some have supposed,\nperhaps even Saxon foundation, stood within a round British earthwork,\none of a small group. The earthworks, which were first carefully\ndescribed by Warne, are themselves now nearly obliterated, but a group\nof storm-swept yews, it will be recollected, marks the site[1071]. It is\nperhaps justifiable to suppose that our early ancestors, like the\nchurchmen of Mediaeval days, replaced dead or uprooted yews by fresh\nsaplings. The group of yews at Kingly Vale, to which we have already\npaid some attention, stands in the neighbourhood of four barrows, and\nnumerous excavations, probably prehistoric, dot the turfy slopes of the\nhillside.\n\nFolk-lore lends a little help in attaching the yew to prehistoric\nobservances. Sir John Rh\u0177s relates a story of an Irish hero, who, by the\naid of his druid or magician, defied the fairies, dug into the heart of\ntheir underground home, and recovered his lost wife. To accomplish\nthis, the druid used \u201cpowerful ogams\u201d written on rods of yew[1072].\nO\u2019Curry records a saga wherein the druids employ divination wands made\nof yew[1073]. Sir G. L. Gomme thinks that the change from oak or\nmistletoe to yew was the result of Christian influence, and that\nDruidism continued to exist long after it was officially dead[1074].\nThis may be so, but, theory for theory, there is a little more reason\nfor supposing that the early Church diplomatically accepted a settled\ncustom. Moreover, though the yew was planted in the graveyard, and\nthough it was pressed into service on Palm Sunday, it is only in modern\ntimes that its branches have been admitted into the sacred building as a\nportion of the Christmas decorations. Even to-day an East Anglian\nsuperstition says that if anyone accidentally brings yew into the house\nalong with the other Christmas evergreens, a death will occur in his\nfamily within a twelvemonth[1075]. This refusal of a place of honour\nduring the great period of joyousness and festivity seems to indicate\nthat the tree was originally adopted by the Christians, not from choice,\nbut from policy; in other words, a pagan emblem was adopted, but not\nunreservedly. Yew twigs were appropriate only to the more solemn\nservices of the Church. Again, the branches were doubtless proper\ndecorations for a maypole, as one may learn to-day from outlying\ndistricts like the Aland Isles; but for centuries the yew was not\nrecognized at the great Christian anniversary.\n\nIn a legend related to the king of Tara by Finntann, the cultivator and\ncraftsman of the yew, it is said that the first household vessels were\nmade of the timber of this tree[1076]. In the British Museum, London, as\nwell as in the Science and Art Museum of Dublin, many early implements\nmade of yew are exhibited. Ossian speaks of the war chariot thus: \u201cOf\npolished yew is its beam; its seat of the smoothest bone.\u201d This\ntradition may point to a former abundance of the tree, or it may denote\na slackening of ceremonial, followed by the employment of yew wood for\neconomic purposes.\n\nThere remain a few more \u201chalf-hints.\u201d The Fortingal yew (p. 375 _supra_)\nhad its career shortened by the lighting of Beltane fires against its\ntrunk[1077]. The origin of Beltane fires is on all hands admitted to be\nat least pre-Roman. Another illuminating fact is that when this aged\ntree had become separated into two portions, funeral processions were\naccustomed to pass between the limbs[1078].\n\nReaders of Scott will remember that in the _Lady of the Lake_ (canto\niii., st. 8), the fiery cross by which clansmen were gathered to battle\nwas made of yew, and we may assume that the poet had heard of the\nmystical associations of the tree. The lines run thus:\n\n    \u201cA slender crosslet formed with care,\n     A cubit\u2019s length in measure due:\n     The shaft and limbs were rods of yew.\u201d\n\nWe return for a moment to the question of the association of yews with\nancient remains. Professor H. Conwenz, at the meeting of the British\nAssociation in 1901, asserted that there exist some hundreds of\nplace-names in England, Scotland and Ireland, connected with the word\n\u201cyew.\u201d Ireland was especially rich in this respect, and in some of the\nIrish localities fossil yew had been found. The statement, if\nverifiable, is of deep interest, but our English philologists, up to the\npresent, do not seem to have dealt with this series of place-names. Near\nthe churchyard yew of Darley Dale are traces of British dwellings[1079].\nThe Cranborne Chase yew grove is not far from the camp at Winkelbury,\nnor from the Romano-British villages of Woodcuts and Rotherly. Our\nchurchyards, as shown in Chapters I. and II., are sometimes in\nclose proximity to prehistoric antiquities. The allusion to\nassemblies--\u201cconciones\u201d--around the yew-tree (p. 383 _supra_) may carry\nus back to Saxon or even early British customs. At least one example of\nsuch ancient usage has been brought to light by Sir G. L. Gomme. It\nrefers to the market and fair of Langsett, Yorkshire, which, together\nwith the manorial court, were held under an old yew. During the\neighteenth century, when the tree still flourished, tradition said that\nthe meetings went back to time immemorial[1080]. Within these last sixty\nyears, again, a yearly fair or wake was held on Palm Sunday--a\nnoteworthy date--under the boughs of the old Surrey yew in Crowhurst\nchurchyard[1081] (Fig. 72, p. 378).\n\nOne further problem remains to be noticed. Why is the yew, in a majority\nof instances, placed on the South side of the churchyard, or, failing\nthe South, why on the West? For it is manifest to the careful observer\nthat the North side is little favoured, and the East even less. In\ndiscussing the folk-lore of the cardinal points we saw that parishioners\nformerly shunned the North side of \u201cGod\u2019s Acre,\u201d and craved burial in\nthe Southern or Western portions. The roots of this preference spread\nwide and deep, but even superficially there were reasons good enough. On\nthe South side stood usually the churchyard cross (p. 328 _supra_). The\nmain door and the entrance gate commonly faced the noonday sun. In Saxon\ntimes, when, as Dr Rock remarks, the simple building had often only one\ndoor, this door looked to the South[1082]. Clearly this quarter was\npopular. Originally, man would be guided in his selection by\nconsiderations of physical warmth; respect for solar influences on\nanimated nature may have followed. Based on these feelings, ideas of\nsentiment, and later, of reverence, would be kindled in the minds of the\nworshippers.\n\nFor many years I have been collecting details concerning the position of\nyews in churchyards. Turning to the county of Surrey, I find well-grown\nyews tabulated for 41 churchyards--the list is not quite exhaustive. Of\ncourse, many churches lack the attendant yew. To simplify the question,\nwe will imagine a median line passing East and West through the church,\nand prolonged through the churchyard. Trees standing South-East and\nSouth-West may for our present purpose be considered to be on the South\nside; the North-East and North-West corners are similarly reckoned as\nNorth. There remain the yews which occur roughly on the median\nline--East or West. On this basis, five Surrey yews were noted as being\non the North side, and only six on the West. One only is recorded as\nstanding due East. The remainder are situated due South or at\nintermediate positions in the sun\u2019s track. Partial explanations may\nfrequently be offered. In one case of a Western yew, there is a doorway\nat the West end only; in another, the tree is rather young, and is a\ndoubtful claimant to be catalogued. Again, at Chipstead (Fig. 73, p.\n379), a noble yew on the North overshadows a blocked-up Northern door of\nTransitional Norman date, so that formerly the villagers passed this\ntree as they entered the edifice. Still again, one North yew is perhaps\naccounted for by the fact that the Southern yard is a mere strip,\nthough, to present the case fully, we must note that occasionally one\nfinds a North yew where the Southern burial ground is spacious, and the\nNorthern actually narrow and stinted.\n\nIn order to form a just opinion on the subject of the yew\u2019s position, we\nought to ascertain the earliest plan of the church and the original\nextent of the burial-ground. It would then, I think, be discovered that\nthe space most used for interments, and the porch or door through which\nthe worshippers generally entered the building, correspond, in the vast\nmajority of cases, with the position of the sentinel yew. Which is\ncause, and which is effect, may be an open question. Did the yew obtain\nits place--generally, as we have seen, with the South aspect--because of\nthe superstitious notions already given, and were the graves afterwards\nmade in a cluster around it? Or did the accumulating burials on a\nparticular side call forth a desire for a funereal emblem, a \u201cwarder of\nthese buried bones,\u201d as Tennyson sang? Again, did the yew precede the\nchurch, or the church the yew, or were they co-eval? Probably no single\nsolution is the true one. Surveying the whole field, I think that the\nplanting of the yew was generally an after-event, because a preference\nfor interment on the sunny side goes back to pre-Christian times, and\nbecause the yew is not a universal feature in churchyards. In some few\ncases the building and the tree are apparently of equal age; in other\ninstances, the church may have been built, one imagines, adjacent to an\nalready existing tree.\n\nThe Surrey statistics are borne out by those of Hampshire. Out of\ntwenty-one ancient yews which I have scheduled for that county, five\nonly stand on the North side, two on the West, and one on the East. If a\ncomplete list were obtainable, it might tell a similar story. Here, as\nin dealing with Surrey, should two yews be present, the classification\nconsiders the older and more important tree; should there be more than\ntwo, the positions of the majority of old trees are taken. It frequently\nhappens that there are several young trees, in those cases what may be\ncalled a \u201cfoundation yew\u201d often dominates the graveyard. Two Easterly\nyews and one Northerly are alone recorded for those positions in\nMiddlesex; two Northerly for Berkshire, and similarly for other\ncounties, though in no county is the list at all complete. Again, out of\nnineteen Normandy villages with churchyard yews, the figures were:\nthirteen yews on the South, five West, one North, and none East. Hence,\nthe preference is French as well as British. In districts where chalk\nand limestone are absent, the yew is comparatively scarce. On the\nBoulder Clay of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and, in fact, over the North\nof England as a whole, the ash, elm, and horse chestnut are the most\nusual trees. Frequently they are supplemented by a few pyramidal Irish\nyews of no great age.\n\nA rapid co-ordination of details may now be given. The yew appears to\nhave been held in superstitious respect during the Bronze Age[1083], and\nit is possible, in the preceding Neolithic period. The Romans and\nGreeks favoured the tree for its funereal symbolism. The earliest\nChristians in Britain seem to have adopted the yew as a sacred emblem,\noccasionally, perhaps, building their churches by its side; and,\nreverencing it because of its hallowed associations, they employed it\nfor certain gloomy ceremonies. Early Mediaeval symbolists saw in the\ntree a type alike of death and of resurrection, and the yew actually\nobtained a position in ritual, and prestige in the Church Calendar. Much\nlater, it crept into the Christmas decorations. Meanwhile, in harmony\nwith the Mediaeval practice of combining the secular and religious life\nof the community, the yew seems to have been in some instances a\ntrysting-place for open-air assemblies. It sheltered the church fabric\nfrom storms, and, at a time when \u201cEngland was but a fling, But for the\neugh and the grey goose wing,\u201d it lent its aid in protecting the country\nitself. The \u201csad, unsociable plant\u201d most likely increased\nnumerically--in churchyards, in avenues, and on upland wastes where it\nhad flourished in Pleistocene times but had afterwards disappeared.\nHistory tells little of all these incidents, but in the minds of most\nmen, ignorant or learned, there is an instinctive feeling, not dissonant\nwith reasonable probability, that this mysterious, old-world tree\nderives its dignity and expressiveness from the customs of ages\nexceedingly remote. Well might Mr William Watson, sitting--not indeed,\nunder some aged tree in a sequestered graveyard, but beneath the shade\nof the monarch yew near Newlands Corner, in Surrey--sing of the\nexceeding longevity of these sentinels, which guard their secrets with\nsuch jealousy:\n\n    \u201cOld emperor yew, fantastic sire,\n       Girt with thy guard of dotard kings,--\n     What ages hast thou seen retire\n       Into the dusk of alien things?\n     What mighty news hath stormed thy shade,\n     Of armies perished, realms unmade[1084]?\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE CULT OF THE HORSE\n\n\nIt is probable that the story of the horse fascinates more diverse\ngroups of students than does that of any other domestic animal. Truly,\ntoo, has it been said, though with a touch of cynicism, that association\nwith this creature will draw out all that is knavish in man, just as it\nwill encourage acts of the finest heroism. But whether the cynic or the\nidealist be right, or each partly right, there can be no denial of the\nleading place taken by the horse in the history of man\u2019s conquest of\nNature or in the decisive battles which have determined the supremacy of\nnations.\n\nTo the expert palaeontologist, who prepares the way for the patient\nworkers in zoology and folk-lore, the descent of the horse is attractive\nbecause it illustrates, with great beauty and precision, the modern\ndoctrine of development. From an examination of many collections of\nbones, derived both from the Old and the New Worlds, Huxley and Marsh\nconstructed a general pedigree, of which the details, as discoveries\nhave gradually accumulated, have been filled in by such workers as Sir\nE. Ray Lankester, Dr C. W. Andrews, Mr R. Lydekker, and Professor J.\nCossar Ewart, in Britain, and, in the United States, by Professor R. S.\nLull. We begin, far back in the lowest Eocene division of the Tertiary\nperiod, with a small hypothetical, or at least unidentified, plantigrade\ncreature, perhaps no larger than a rabbit, with five digits on each of\nits fore and hind limbs. It would be difficult to produce a specimen of\nthe exact ancestral animal which would satisfy all investigators, but\nits former existence is doubted by few[1085]. Still keeping to the\nEocene formation, though mounting to a higher horizon--the London\nClay--we come to _Hyracotherium_, which was an animal about the size of\na hare or very small fox, and which fed on the soft, green vegetation\naround the margins of lakes and rivers[1086]. _Hyracotherium_ (Fig. 80)\nhad four toes on its fore feet[1087], with vestiges, or \u201crudiments,\u201d as\nthey are unfortunately called, of a fifth. In _Palaeotherium_ of the\nUpper Eocene, there are three toes only, but these are nearly equal in\nsize[1088]. (It may be well to recall the geological systems of the\nTertiary period: they are, in ascending order, Eocene, Oligocene,\nMiocene, Pliocene.) In the Oligocene genus _Mesohippus_, of which the\nmembers were perhaps as large as a sheep, there is still a suggestion of\na fourth toe in the fore foot[1089], but the two side toes which are\nactually discernible do not themselves quite touch the ground. In\n_Hipparion_ of the Miocene and Pliocene formations, the lateral toes,\neach terminated by hoofs, were still shorter; and the earlier\n_Anchitherium_ was in much the same plight. Both the last-named animals\nare now deemed to be off the direct ancestral line of our present-day\nhorses[1090], but they may stand as early types. Indeed it is difficult\nto formulate a genealogy which is everywhere accepted. Chiefly owing to\nthe migrations which must have occurred, no complete family tree can be\nprepared, and all attempts, while true as a whole, are only\napproximately correct as regards the detailed relationships. The general\ndirection being clear, onward we go, passing creatures as large as a\ndonkey, still preserving vestiges of the lateral toes, till at last we\nreach the horses of history. The horse which we know\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 80. The ancestors of the horse and its relatives:\ncomparison of sizes and forms.\n\n_a._ _Hyracotherium_ (Lower Eocene deposits).\n_b._ _Plagiolophus_ (Middle Eocene).\n_c._ _Mesohippus_ (Oligocene).\n_d._ _Merychippus_ (Miocene).\n_e._ _Pliohippus_ (Pliocene).\n_f._ Typical modern domesticated horse (_Equus caballus_).\n\nFrom the _Amer. Jour. Science_, XXIII. p. 167; by the courtesy of\nProfessor R. S. Lull.]\n\nhas but one central, solid-nailed or hoofed toe, but it retains, hidden\nbeneath the skin, traces of two side toes in the form of the \u201csplint\nbones,\u201d as they are called by the anatomist and the veterinary surgeon.\n\nThus we see that the primitive creature, which throve on the lowlands\nand in the damp forests, was succeeded by representatives which had lost\nthe divided hoof. We infer that a change of habitat had occurred: the\ncloven, spreading foot was no longer necessary. Accompanying this\nmodification, great structural changes were developed in the teeth,\nsuggesting that the animal had begun to feed on harder, drier herbage.\nThere are other \u201cdecadent remnants\u201d visible in the modern horse, such as\nthe callosities, or \u201cchestnuts,\u201d of the limbs, which are believed to\nhave once been functional, possibly as scent-glands[1091]. Viewed as a\nwhole, the developed genus _Equus_ is larger, swifter, and stronger than\nits ancestors, and it is proportionately more supple and graceful.\n\nThe story just outlined is not a whispering vision vouchsafed to a few\nfavoured palaeontologists. Behind the theory there is reality, as may\neasily be proved by a study of authoritative works[1092], or by an\nexamination of the specimens in the Natural History Museum at South\nKensington.\n\nOur first intimation of human contact with the horse is furnished by the\nSolutrean and Magdalenian caves and rock-shelters of France.\nRepresentations of the animal, both on the flat and the round, are not\nuncommonly found associated with remains of the latter period. The\ncavern of Bruniquel, Tarn-et-Garonne (Magdalenian period), yielded\nsculptures of horses\u2019 heads, representing carved objects which were\nprobably portions of javelin-throwers. A fragment of a horse\u2019s rib from\nthe same site was engraved with three horses\u2019 heads[1093]. From the\ncave-shelter of La Madelaine, Dordogne, there was obtained a bone\nincised with the figure of a naked man, on each side of which was a\nhorse\u2019s head[1094]. Other French examples might be given (Fig. 81 A).\nOnly one English specimen is on record--a polished fragment of a rib,\nengraved with the head of a horse, found at Robin Hood\u2019s Cave, Cresswell\nCrags, Derbyshire[1095] (Fig. 81 B).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 81. A. Drawing of a horse, by a cave-man. Dordogne,\nFrance. (British Museum.) The large head and the upright mane are\nespecially noticeable.\n\nB. Horse\u2019s head, incised on a piece of bone; Limestone cave, Cresswell\nCrags, Derbyshire. (British Museum.)]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 82. Prejevalski\u2019s (or the Mongolian) wild horse\n(_Equus prejevalskii_). This animal has a large head, a short upright\nmane, and relatively long ears. The body colour is yellow dun, merging\ninto rufus brown. A narrow dark stripe runs down the back. The\nillustration may be compared with the cave-man\u2019s drawing (Fig. 81 A).]\n\nFrom a casual inspection of these early and priceless works of art, we\nmight conclude that the horse known to Palaeolithic man was of a stunted\nbreed, small and heavy, with a large head, rounded forehead, short neck,\nand an upright or \u201chog mane.\u201d But this generalization would be lacking\nin precision. Professor Ewart has discriminated three types. The first\ntype includes horses the features of which closely agree with those of\nthe wild species (_Equus prejevalskii_) recently discovered in the Great\nGobi Desert. (There is a wide diversity of usage in spelling the\nscientific name of this animal, as also the name of its Russian\ndiscoverer.) This horse, a specimen of which is to be seen in the\nZoological Gardens, London (Fig. 82), resembles pre-eminently the Cave\nhorse just described. The second type embraces animals which resemble\nthe broad-browed ponies often met with in the Western Highlands of\nScotland, while the third type suggests the slender-limbed,\nnarrow-headed ponies of Western and North-Western Europe[1096].\n\nWhether Palaeolithic man, even during the latest Cave Period, had begun\nto tame the horse, is a question which has been keenly debated. Bones\nfound by M. \u00c9. Piette in the celebrated cave of Mas d\u2019Azil, on the left\nbank of the Ari\u00e8ge, in Southern France, were incised with drawings of\nhorses\u2019 heads. In one example there was a delineation of what are\nsupposed to be halters, and in another, of some kind of trappings[1097].\nI believe that the nature of these ornaments is not widely disputed, so\nthat the controversy turns upon their exact signification. The trappings\nhave, indeed, been thought to represent a hunter\u2019s fur cloak, carelessly\nthrown over a subjugated horse; and again, with slightly more reason, it\nis urged that the \u201csaddle\u201d is imaginary, the lines being merely a\nconventional finish to the drawing, comparable to the marks on early\npottery. Again, the use of anything of the nature of a saddle could\nscarcely appertain to the earliest stages of domestication. M.\nZaborowski has conjectured that the supposed halters are really lassoes,\nand it has therefore been inferred that horses were kept\nsemi-domesticated in a kind of compound, for purposes of food[1098]. We\nmay notice, as bearing on this contention, the description given by\nHerodotus respecting the Sagarthians, an ancient people allied to the\nPersians in speech and in dress. The Sagarthians were in the habit of\ncapturing their foe--\u201cbe it man, or be it horse\u201d--by the aid of lassoes\nterminating in nooses[1099]. Canon Rawlinson tells us that this practice\nwas common to many of the ancient nations of Western Asia[1100]. As to\nthe horse of the Cave Period, MM. Carl Vogt, \u00c9mile Cartailhac, and G.\nde Mortillet, consider that its domestication would be possible only by\nthe help of the dog, the first animal to be tamed; and since remains of\nthe dog are lacking at Palaeolithic stations, a presumably fatal\nobjection is lodged[1101]. This view is not, however, uniformly\naccepted. M. Julien Fraipont, for instance, grants that the drawings\nshow that man had tamed the animals represented, but denies that this\nimplies domestication. The creatures were probably captured young[1102].\nBut is not this tantamount to an admission that the first step towards\ndomestication had been taken?\n\nEarly man, as a modern humorist has remarked, would indeed at first take\nto his heels to avoid the heels of the early horse. But this fear did\nnot last for ever. Palaeolithic man both hunted the animal and ate its\nflesh. At the rock-shelter of Solutr\u00e9, Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire, there was\ndiscovered, around the primitive hearths, a veritable wall of horse\nbones, the relics of thousands of animals[1103]. At La Laugerie, horses\u2019\nteeth abounded[1104]. At the rock-shelter of Cro-Magnon remains of the\nhorse were predominant. It has been urged that these remains were not\nthose of wild animals. Professor N. Joly supposes that the horse would\nbe sheltered, and gradually brought to a less precarious condition of\nlife. He also cites M. Toussaint, who boldly claims that the horse bones\nof Solutr\u00e9 are those of domesticated animals. Allowing for minor\ndifferences, it is submitted that the bones are quite similar to those\nof modern horses. The quantity of bones and the age of the horses which\nthey represent--four, five, or six years--are deemed to indicate a\ndomestic herd. The remains are assembled in one place, and it is\ntherefore assumed that the horses were boiled, cut up, and eaten at that\nspot, just as would be the case with domesticated animals. Had the\nhorses been hunted in a wild state, they would have been carried\npiecemeal from a distance, as is the case with the earliest caves of\nthe archaeolithic age[1105]. These arguments are by no means without a\nflaw, but they carry some weight. And English opinion, so far as can be\ngathered, is rather in favour of the theory that the Palaeolithic\ncave-men had made tentative efforts in taming the horse. Our English\nauthorities seem to lay more stress on the Mas d\u2019Azil trappings than do\ntheir French brethren[1106].\n\nWhen we come to the Neolithic Age, we find an anomaly; the horse seems\nto be a much rarer animal than in the preceding period. Yet horses of a\ntype closely resembling those of the Palaeolithic Age were probably\ndomesticated in several parts of Europe[1107]. Skulls obtained from\nPleistocene deposits at Walthamstow, Essex, seem, on the one hand, to\nindicate a race allied to, if not identical with, the Solutrean\ncave-horse of the Mongolian type (_E. prejevalskii_)[1108]. Horse\nremains, however, from later superficial deposits, associated with\nNeolithic relics only, appear to be rare. Though found amid the ruins of\nNeolithic lake-dwellings in Switzerland, bones of the horse cannot be\ndeclared abundant, even at those stations. The British evidence is so\nunsatisfactory that some writers, like Lord Avebury, have doubted\nwhether the horse was known in Britain during the Neolithic Age. Lord\nAvebury states that he knows of no well-authenticated instance of the\noccurrence of the horse in a long barrow. After analysing the records of\nexcavations made by Greenwell and Bateman, he concludes that the horse\nbones tabulated by these investigators belong to the Bronze Age, or even\nto a later period[1109]. Again, Professor Ridgeway, after asserting\nthat it is by no means clear that Neolithic man had tamed the horse,\nconjectures that the primeval horses had become extinct, and had been\nreplaced by a re-introduced species only at the end of the Bronze, or\nthe beginning of the Iron Age[1110].\n\nAgainst these conclusions may be set the opinion of Canon Greenwell: \u201cI\ncannot understand how any one with the evidence properly before him can\ndoubt that the goat, sheep, horse, and dog were, in the earliest\nNeolithic times, imported as domesticated animals into this country and\ninto Switzerland[1111]\u201d--a notable statement. Since it is the horse\nalone with which we are now dealing, I select some of Canon Greenwell\u2019s\nexamples of barrows which yielded bones of that animal. In a round\nbarrow of the East Riding, two pelvic bones were found associated with\nimplements of flint and greenstone[1112]. Another round barrow contained\nthe remains of three horses, accompanied, however, by a bronze dagger as\nwell as pottery[1113]. The famous Rudstone barrow, in which horse teeth\nwere discovered, furnished large quantities of implements, all of\nstone[1114]. With these typical cases, the reader may compare those\ndescribed by Mr J. R. Mortimer, whose researches were also made in\nYorkshire[1115]. If it be objected that round barrows are not Neolithic,\nit must be remembered that the Yorkshire round barrows form a special\nclass. They enclose human remains which do not belong to one race only,\nand many of them are now assigned to the Transition period which is\nknown as the Aeneolithic (i.e. Bronze-Stone Age)[1116]. When stone\nimplements alone are found in the barrows, the early, or, at least,\ntransitional character of such mounds is emphasized.\n\nThere is other evidence available. Professor Boyd Dawkins has recorded\nthe discovery of remains of the horse (_Equus caballus_) from five\nBritish bone caves, and from one refuse heap in North Wales, all the\nstations being considered as belonging to the Neolithic period[1117].\nMr W. J. Knowles, in a letter to the writer, dated February 10, 1909,\nstates that he has frequently found teeth and bones of the horse at the\nWhitepark Bay site, co. Antrim; the associated implements found there\nare classed as early Neolithic or Mesolithic. Although Mr Knowles has\nnot himself found the relics in the \u201cold floor,\u201d he believes that they\nwere derived from that level; moreover, the Rev. G. R. Buick has\nactually obtained similar remains from this undisturbed \u201cblack layer.\u201d\nAgain, Mr Wintour F. Gwinnell informs me that he has in his possession\nhorse teeth, which there is every reason to believe were found in\nassociation with a flint celt, also in his possession. The implement and\nthe teeth were dug up at Wiggonholt, in Sussex. Dr A. Irving, again,\ndescribing to the British Association (1910) horse remains found at\nBishops Stortford, claimed that the relics were those of a late\nPleistocene type of animal, and further that this type persisted down to\nthe Early Iron Age. Since the associated objects included some which\nbelonged to the Bronze and Early Iron, as well as the Neolithic,\nperiods, the age of this particular deposit could not, unfortunately, be\nsettled beyond dispute. Some have even thought the remains modern[1118].\n\nThere is thus a measure of reasonableness in the belief that \u201cthe horse\nhas been here all the time,\u201d as a witty naturalist once expressed it. It\nis also not improbable that Neolithic man of Britain had tamed the\nanimal, and that, partly in consequence, it had become less familiar to\nthe primitive butcher. That the horse was eaten by man during the Bronze\nAge seems proven. The bones and teeth found in grave-mounds of the\nperiod appear to be the relics of funeral feasts. Mr J. R. Mortimer,\nwho has excavated large numbers of barrows of the Aeneolithic and Bronze\nAges, deems it certain that the horse was eaten at the burial banquet.\nHe relies for proof mainly on the fact that the bones were always found\ndetached, and often broken[1119].\n\nFrom a study of classical references to the horse, and from a comparison\nof survivals existing among primitive peoples, one is led to infer that\nthe horse was first domesticated, not for riding, but for yoking to\ncarts and chariots. By some writers it is conjectured that there was\neven an earlier stage, when Turko-Tartaric tribes impounded the horse\nand reared it for the sake of its milk and flesh. In corroboration of\nthis hypothesis, Professor Ridgeway and Dr O. Schrader refer to the\nmodern Kalmucks and Tartars, who retain a rooted preference for mares\u2019\nmilk, a legacy from the days when this liquid was used for daily\nnutrition[1120]. Among other races, and in other climes, the ox may have\nhad a parallel history. But from this debateable ground we move to\nmatters better attested. Riding a horse (\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) was such a rare and\ncurious exhibition in ancient Greece, that but a single casual instance\nis recorded in the writings of Homer. Equestrian exercise was \u201cthe\nhalf-foreign accomplishment of the Kentauroi[1121].\u201d It has, indeed,\nbeen suggested that the fable concerning the Thessalian Centaurs, who\nwere half-man and half-horse, originated in accounts of the earliest\nfeats of horsemanship. At Marathon (B.C. 490), the Persians, but not the\nGreeks, used cavalry. The story of the horse in Greece seems to have\nbeen repeated in Ireland, as shown by the poetical literature of the\nlatter country. Professor Ridgeway states that, in the earliest Irish\nepics, the warriors all fight from chariots--there are no riders on\nhorseback. In the later cycle--that of Finn and Ossian (A.D. 150-300),\nhorses are little used, and, when mentioned at all, they are ridden.\n\nHerodotus tells us of tribes who lived North of the Danube and who\npossessed horses of a peculiar kind. The description is somewhat\nprecise. The horses were small and flat-nosed (or \u201cshort-faced\u201d) and\nwere incapable of carrying men (\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f50\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f10 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f30 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u1f50\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f30 \u1f00\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd). The animals were covered entirely with a coat of shaggy\nhair, five fingers in length--about 3\u00bd inches. (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f30 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2--\u201cto the depth of five fingers.\u201d) Though not strong enough to bear\nmen, the horses, when yoked to chariots, were among the swiftest\nknown[1122]. While some writers have seen in this passage an allusion to\ncreatures of the type of the Shetland pony, Professor Ridgeway has\nremarked that the description agrees well with the skeletons of horses\nfound near M\u00e2con (Sa\u00f4ne-et-Loire), especially in respect to the short,\nugly-shaped skulls[1123].\n\nThe Hebrew Scriptures contain numerous references to the horse, in\nconnection with both riding and charioteering. Yet it is noteworthy that\nno mention is made of the animal at all until after the return of the\nIsraelites from Egypt. Earlier enumerations of patriarchal wealth speak\nof sheep, oxen, camels, and asses, but not of horses. The first mention\nof the horse on Egyptian monuments appears during the 18th Dynasty (c.\nB.C. 1520)[1124]. After the Egyptian Captivity, Scriptural allusions\nbegin to grow common. No lover of literary form will forget Job\u2019s\nmagnificent description of a war-horse, whose neck is clothed with\nthunder, and the glory of whose nostrils is terrible[1125]. It is well,\ntoo, to remember, as an historical event, the establishment, by David,\nof a force of cavalry and charioteers after his crushing defeat of\nHadadezer[1126].\n\nThe deplorable deficiency of pictorial art in the Neolithic and Bronze\nperiods deprives us of the means of fully checking the sequence of the\nstages in horse-taming in Europe. The rock-carvings, however, of Norway\nand Sweden, which date from the Bronze Age, show that the horse was\nused for riding and driving[1127]. That this age was preceded, in\nScandinavia or Central Europe, by an era when the horse was employed for\ntraction and transport only, is very probable. Swiss lake-dwellings of\nthe Bronze Age seem to indicate an overlapping of the stages. The\ndiscovery, on these sites, of numerous horse-bits and wooden wheels\nwould suggest that the villagers both rode horses and drove waggons or\nchariots[1128].\n\nAn incidental matter is of some little interest. How did the very\nearliest horsemen--who, by the way, would ride barebacked--mount their\nsteeds? Stirrups, and perhaps even bridles, were, at the beginning of\nthe experiments, unknown. Four modes have been suggested as possible:\nvaulting, vaulting with the help of a pole or spear, making the horse\ncrouch, and lastly, as in the old Persian fashion, stepping from a\nslave\u2019s back[1129].\n\nThat the Britons of Caesar\u2019s day were expert equestrians and\ncharioteers, is sufficiently clear from the _Commentaries_[1130]. The\ngreat general describes, with manifest admiration, the manner in which\nthe Britons, suddenly quitting their chariots, charged the Romans in an\nunequal contest on foot (_ex essedis desilirent et pedibus dispari\nproelio contenderent_)[1131]. More startling still was the amazing\ntrick, exhibited by the drivers of chariots, of running along the pole,\nor standing upon the yoke, while the chariot was going at full speed.\n\nWhile the Celts of Britain were pre-eminently noted for their fighting\nby a combination of infantry and cavalry, some of the more Easterly\nAryan races were unaccustomed to the latter mode of warfare. Dr\nSchrader, whose authority has already been invoked on the question of\nthe use of mare\u2019s milk by tribes living on the Asiatic steppes, brings\nout the contrast by a reference to the European Celts. These Celts built\nwaggons and chariots, and it seems probable, from a study of the Latin\nvocabulary, that the Romans were dependent on the vanquished for the\nmanufacture of such objects. Dr Schrader cites, among other words,\n_reda_, a mail-coach, and _carrus_, a waggon, which are derived from\nCeltic sources[1132]. To Dr Schrader\u2019s list may be added Caesar\u2019s word\nfor chariot, _essedum_, and its synonym, employed by Tacitus,\n_covinus_[1133].\n\nSince it is not intended to trace here fully the story of the horse in\nhistoric times, a short digression may be allowed in order to notice one\nor two important details. That the Saxons practised horsemanship to some\nextent is proved by Bede\u2019s allusion to a party of young men trying the\nspeed of their horses on an open piece of ground[1134]. Much earlier, in\nthe reign of Alexander Severus, about A.D. 222, there is an authentic\nrecord of horse-races, but these were probably held under Roman\npatronage. Like records are known, referring to races at the Roman\nstations of Netherby, Caerleon, Silchester, and Dorchester[1135]. King\nAthelstan paid some attention to the breeding of horses, and imported\nanimals from Spain to improve the species[1136]. William of Malmesbury\ndescribes a present sent to this monarch by Hugh the Great, Count of\nParis. A portion of the gift consisted of racehorses (_equos cursores_),\nwith their rich trappings (_cum phaleris_)[1137]. Again, William\nFitzstephen, writing in the twelfth century, supplies us with a spirited\nand detailed account of an English horse-race[1138]. During the reigns\nof John and Edward III. horse-breeding received further encouragement;\nthe latter king forbade the exportation of English horses. Henry VIII.\nmade various enactments with a like general purpose, but stress was\nespecially laid on the deterioration of breed due to promiscuous\ncrossing of strains. The pasturing of entire horses on the common lands\nwas therefore forbidden[1139]. Gradually the English cart-horse began\nto be developed--to some extent, perhaps, from sires and dams of the old\nwar-horse type. By the time of Charles II., James II., and William of\nOrange, marked changes became apparent[1140]. But there is no space at\npresent to pursue the subject. Else we might refer to the evolution of\nthe modern racehorse, and the rise of the bewildering breeds which one\nsees to-day. In the next chapter, however, it will be shown by what\nmeans the horse came to supplant the ox for work in the fields and on\nthe high roads.\n\nA subsidiary matter must be lightly touched. Were the horses of\nclassical times provided with shoes? Much contradictory evidence has\nbeen put forward in reply, and the case seems to depend upon the\nperiodical swing of ancient opinion and practice, neither of which moved\nuniformly. At times, shoeing was entirely deprecated. Yet the feet of\nRoman horses of the first century B.C. were often clad with coverings of\nreeds or hemp (_soleae sparteae_), or, more rarely, with leather[1141].\nThese coverings constituted a sort of sandal, and it has been supposed\nthat their use was temporary, as is the case to-day with the leather\nslippers worn by horses when drawing a mowing machine across a lawn.\nThin soles or shoes of iron were also used, being fixed, according to Mr\nBasil Tozer, to the leather cap just described[1142]. Whether this were\nthe actual mode of attachment or not, we find Nero, in the first century\nA.D., shoeing his mules with \u201csoleae\u201d of silver, instead of iron, while\nhis wife Poppaea, with the arrogance of wealth, used plates of gold for\na similar purpose[1143]. Professor Ridgeway supposes that the next\nadvance from the sole of metal would be to cut a piece out of the\nmiddle, thus economizing material, and giving the horse a firmer\ngrip[1144]. This lies in the realm of conjecture, but of more direct\nimportance is Professor Ridgeway\u2019s opinion that there is no reason to\ndoubt the Roman date of certain horseshoes found in France, seeing that\nthe associated objects pointed to that period[1145]. Horseshoes of\nsupposed Roman date are exhibited in various museums. Four specimens are\nto be seen in the Guildhall Museum, London; one is sketched in Fig. 83\nE.\n\nRichard Berenger (A.D. 1771), in his _History and Art of Horsemanship_,\nstates that a horseshoe was found in the tomb of Childeric I. of\nFrance[1146] (d. A.D. 481). Berenger gives an illustration of the shoe,\ncopied from De Montfaucon; it has four nail-holes on each side, and\nlooks remarkably like the modern article. Mr Tozer asserts that iron\nshoes came into regular use in the first half of the sixth century\n(A.D.). Yet General Pitt-Rivers describes and figures horseshoes (Fig.\n83 A, 83 B) which were found in the Romano-British settlements of\nWoodyates and Woodcuts, in Cranborne Chase. He records other specimens,\nand asserts that the people of that period shod their horses with\niron[1147]. Professor Ridgeway, while believing it improbable that the\nAngles brought with them any particular shape of horseshoe[1148],\nreproduces from the _Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society_\nProfessor T. McKenny Hughes\u2019s\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 83. A, B. Portions of small horseshoes, much corroded, found\n     by Pitt-Rivers in Cranborne Chase. The worn fragment, B, exhibits\n     three holes, with T-shaped nails. There is a calkin at _k_, formed\n     by turning up the lower surface of the shoe. C. Ancient horseshoe\n     found by Mr E. C. Youens, at Edenbridge, Kent. The shoe, which is\n     formed of wrought iron, is markedly concavo-convex, the convex\n     surface being the lower one. The \u201cwale-holes\u201d are very near the\n     edge. There is no raised rim. D. Side view of the same shoe. E.\n     Small horseshoe, Guildhall Museum, London. Roman layer, City. The\n     curve is sinuous, the holes are elliptical, and the calkins are\n     well formed.\n]\n\ndrawings of seven Old English shoes, two of which, the circular and the\nsplit types, would appear to be rather primitive.\n\nWe need not linger over the allusion to horseshoes in Domesday Book. The\nreference to the blacksmiths of Hereford, who were liable to be called\nupon to make horseshoes for the king at a fixed rate, is well known to\nmost students.\n\nThe circular horseshoe, which has just been mentioned, and which is\noccasionally dug up in the Fens, is still commonly employed in\nNorthumberland. Through the kindness of the Rev. Hastings M. Neville, of\nFord, Cornhill-on-Tweed, I am enabled to give illustrations of this form\nof shoe (Figs. 84, 85). The shoe, which has been somewhat abraded by\nwear, is markedly convex on the lower surface, and correspondingly\nconcave where it is fitted to the hoof. In this respect it resembles the\nbroad shoe (Fig. 83 C, D) of the ordinary outline, discovered in making\na main drainage trench at Edenbridge, Kent. This latter specimen is now\nin the possession of Mr C. E. Youens, of Dartford, through whose\ncourtesy a sketch has been obtained. As in the Northumbrian example, the\n\u201cwale-holes\u201d are very near the margin; but while the iron of the former\nshoe is carried completely round to give support behind, the Edenbridge\nspecimen does not even possess calkins--that is, portions projecting\ndownward at the \u201cheel.\u201d The Edenbridge shoe appears to be Mediaeval, but\nit may perhaps be Saxon, or even of earlier date. The specimen should be\ncompared with the Mediaeval examples in the Guildhall Museum.\n\nThe circular form of shoe, according to Mr James Weatherston, the\nblacksmith at Duddo, near Norham, Northumberland, is advantageous to a\nhorse which has a weak \u201ctoe\u201d or heel. This shape has been used from time\nimmemorial. Sometimes a leather sole, covering the whole foot, is placed\nbetween the hoof and the circular shoe. Again, a detachable iron plate,\nor \u201ccomplete shoe,\u201d is occasionally screwed on to the outside surface of\nthe round one, so that, by removing the plate, the horse\u2019s foot can be\nexamined without interfering with the shoe. In this case, the leather\nsole is omitted. The screws or \u201ccogs\u201d are square-headed, and project to\nsuch a degree that the animal walks on them alone.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 84. Round horseshoe, lower convex surface, from Ford,\n     Northumberland. Greatest breadth 6\u00bd inches.\n]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 85. Round horseshoe, upper concave surface. Scale of\ninches shown.]\n\nThe purpose of the convexity of the round shoe is to break the shock as\nthe horse\u2019s foot strikes the ground. The efficacy of this shoe is\nspecially noticeable with \u201cfoundered\u201d horses--those which have inflamed\nfeet. An animal, thus suffering, tends to tread more on the heel than\nthe toe, and the convexity allows a better grip to be obtained. Indeed,\nthe ordinary form of shoe is sometimes slightly bent for the same\nreason. The Northumberland practice, with regard to \u201csoles\u201d and round\nshoes, while now based on expert veterinary principles, seems to\nrepresent a primitive plan. It is noteworthy that the round form of shoe\nis especially prized as a bringer of luck. Obviously, it is the material\nof the shoe--witch-hated iron--which is there considered important; all\nfolk-memory respecting the virtues of the crescentic shape has perished.\nYouatt describes a shoe, under the name of the \u201cbar-shoe,\u201d which appears\nroughly to correspond to the Northumberland type[1149]. The observant\nperson will occasionally see a London dray horse wearing a somewhat\nsimilar kind of shoe, the difference being in the hinder portion, which\nis either straight or slightly re-entering. This peculiar mode of\nshoeing, in all cases, seems to be due to the advice of the veterinary\nsurgeon. It will be well, for anyone who wishes to pursue the subject,\nto read the opinions of the authorities already given (pp. 423 n., 424\nn.).\n\nA slight digression may here be made to consider a kindred topic. Iron\nobjects of peculiar shape, commonly called hippo-sandals, have been\ndiscovered in various places, notably by Pitt-Rivers, in the\nRomano-British settlements in Cranborne Chase. Some authorities have\nthought that the hippo-sandal represents a kind of horseshoe, but\nPitt-Rivers agrees with Fleming in scouting this theory. The shape, he\nconsiders, would be inconvenient for this purpose. Moreover, horseshoes,\nand--so it is believed--ox-shoes, are represented among the relics of\nthe settlements, so that another type of shoe, he argues, would scarcely\nbe found at the same spot. This objection is, as Mr C. Roach Smith has\nhinted, not conclusive against the use of hippo-sandals for special\noccasions. The suggestion was made by Pitt-Rivers that the hippo-sandals\nwere intended for shoeing the poles of sledges, and he figures a form of\nthat vehicle in which the shaft skids along the ground. In a footnote,\nhowever, he betrays some uncertainty, and admits that specimens of\nhippo-sandals which are displayed in the Museum at Mayence must have\nbeen fitted to the feet of horses, probably as splints when the hoofs\nhad been accidently broken. The hippo-sandals, in those cases, would\ndoubtless be attached by cords or straps which passed through the iron\nrings. Mr Roach Smith, writing in 1859, stated that iron pattens,\nfastened to the hoof by means of leather straps, were still used in\nHolland. This fact supplies, doubtless, the key to the puzzle. The\nhippo-sandal shown in the illustration (Fig. 86) was discovered, along\nwith many other relics, at the Roman villa at Darenth, in Kent, and was\nfirst figured by Mr George Payne, in _Archaeologia Cantiana_. About half\na dozen specimens are on view in the Guildhall Museum[1150]. In\nconnection with this subject it may be noted that Youatt, in his book on\n_The Horse_, describes and illustrates a light kind of open-work sandal\nfor horses with delicate hoofs, made of strap-work and iron clips.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 86. Hippo-sandal, found on the site of a Roman\nvilla, at Darenth, Kent, and now in the Rochester Museum.]\n\nA slight retrospect of the shoeing question will be made when we deal\nwith oxen, but we must now return to the British horsemen of the Early\nIron Age. At that period, so engrossing was the craft of the\nchariot-warrior, that care was often taken to provide the dead chieftain\nwith the means of renewing his pastime elsewhere. Thus it was not\nunusual to inter a horse, or chariot, or both of these, in the burial\nmound. Keysler quotes numerous instances of the custom, chiefly with\nrespect to the ancient Scythian and Scandinavian peoples[1151]. Records\nalso implicate Tartars, Franks, Wends, and Finns as agents in like\nceremonies. A well-known passage in Virgil seems to show that the\npractice obtained in classical times. Aeneas, on his descent into the\nlower regions, views with wonder the empty chariots of the chiefs, and\nthe horses feeding at large on the plain. The heroes retained their old\nfondness for chariots and shining steeds[1152], and these necessaries\nhad evidently been deposited in the earth at the time of the funeral.\n\nThe English records of chariot-burial are fairly numerous. The Rev. E.\nW. Stillingfleet (c. A.D. 1816), and Canon W. Greenwell (A.D. 1876),\nexcavated several round barrows at a farm called Arras, near Market\nWeighton, in Yorkshire, and discovered therein remains of horses,\nchariots, and harness. Associated with these mute memorials, there was\nfound, in one instance, a boar\u2019s tusk, which had been invested with some\nceremonial value, since it was perforated with a square hole, and was\nmounted in a brazen case. Interments of this class belong usually to the\nLate-Celtic period. A small urn, of unspecified age, dug up near\nEastbourne in 1778, contained about a dozen horse\u2019s teeth. Mr J. Romilly\nAllen compiled a considerable list of instances of chariot-burial. Many\nothers are given in the _Guide to the Early Iron Age_ (British Museum),\nas well as in the writings of Messrs L. Jewitt and J. R. Mortimer. So\nrecently as 1906, a chariot-burial was discovered at Hunmanby,\nin Yorkshire, and was described by Canon Green well in\n_Archaeologia_[1153]. The \u201ctrappings\u201d found in connection with the other\nremains comprised bridle-bits, buckles, head-ornaments, and similar\narticles.\n\nOne of the Wold barrows, which was opened by Canon Greenwell, contained\na whole chariot and the bones of two horses, placed alongside a human\nskeleton. In another mound the wheels alone had been buried[1154]. A\nthird grave yielded wheels and an iron bit[1155]. Similar discoveries\nwere made at Nanterre, in France; horses were found entombed with\nportions of their trappings, together with tires of wheels, and various\nbronze and iron objects, evidently betokening a Transitional\nperiod[1156]. In all the foregoing cases we must suppose that the horse\nwas sacrificed at its master\u2019s funeral--the coincidence of natural or of\nviolent death must have been exceedingly uncommon save in warfare. The\ncustom of chariot-burial persisted for centuries into the Christian era,\nand an assemblage of relics, kindred to those mentioned, is common in\nScandinavian graves of the Viking Age (A.D. 700-1000), wherein unburnt\nbodies were interred[1157]. Again, an Anglo-Saxon grave at Reading was\nshown to contain the skeleton of a horse, human bones, and a sword\nremarkably rich in its ornament[1158]. At a still later date, A.D. 1389,\nwhen Bertrand Duguesclin was buried at St Denis, several horses, which\nhad been previously blessed by the Bishop of Auxerre, were sacrificed,\nor, as one account says, compounded for by the owners.\n\nWere we ignorant of the foregoing facts, certain modern practices of an\nanalogous nature would have to be dismissed as inexplicable. Once\nacquainted with the ancient instances, however, the student can account\nfor the atavism which here and there betrays itself. We cannot, of\ncourse, in the absence of overlapping evidence, be certain that the\nburial of the horse along with its master is a custom which has never\ndied out. There may have been a continuous bond of tradition, or again,\nfolk-memory may have lain almost dormant for centuries, to be\nunconsciously revived at a later time. A few instances will now be\nrapidly surveyed.\n\nA surgeon, one Mr Thomas Sheffield, dying in 1798, at Downton, in\nWiltshire, left instructions that he should be interred in his garden,\nand that, when his favourite horse should die, it was to be laid by his\nside. Mr Sheffield was buried as he desired, but in 1807 his body was\nremoved to the village churchyard[1159]. We are left to infer that the\nhorse was placed in its master\u2019s grave, as was undoubtedly done in the\ncase, quoted by Southey, in which a man of Salisbury, \u201cin derision of\nreligion,\u201d commanded that his horse should be slaughtered and buried\nwith him[1160]. Again, so recently as 1866, when Queen Victoria\u2019s\nhuntsman died, his favourite horse was shot, and its ears were placed in\nhis coffin and buried in his grave in Sunninghill churchyard,\nBerkshire[1161]. Parenthetically, we notice that, in Patagonia, the\nhorse of a deceased person is still killed at the grave[1162]. Such\nincidents as these do not seem to be far removed in time from the days\nof barrow burial. Not quite so apposite is the case of Wellington\u2019s\nhorse, Copenhagen, which was buried (A.D. 1836) with full military\nhonours at Strathfieldsaye (Hampshire), and which was commemorated by a\ntombstone bearing an appropriate inscription and epitaph. In thus\nhonouring his charger, however, the Duke had a prototype in the Emperor\nAugustus, who, as Pliny relates, erected a tomb to his horse, on which\noccasion Germanicus Caesar wrote a poem[1163]. Turn the facts which way\nwe will, they seem to tell of an ingrained instinct which unexpectedly\nreveals itself to the surprise of the majority of folk--surprise,\nnevertheless, which speedily becomes tinged with sympathy.\n\nNot so distinctly a reversion, but still probably a custom derived from\nprimitive observances, was the Mediaeval ceremony, when a great person\nwas buried, of leading his horse before the body and presenting the\nanimal to the ecclesiastical authorities as an obituary due[1164]. Such\nlegacies were very common, so that a single example will suffice. At the\nobsequies of Henry V., three war-steeds were led to the altar, and were\nthere formally bequeathed to the Church[1165]. It will be fresh in the\nmemory of all, how, at the funeral of King Edward VII., that monarch\u2019s\nfavourite horse was led by a groom behind the body of his late master.\n\nIn considering how far these lingering customs may represent real\nsurvivals, it will be of some assistance to collect examples showing to\nwhat extent the horse cult was observed in the ceremonial routine of the\nancient Celts and Teutons. In the first place, we are struck by the\nrespect which was paid to white horses in particular. Tacitus, in a\nfamiliar passage, asserts that the German tribes kept milk-white horses\nin consecrated woods and groves[1166]. From these horses, which were\nnever degraded by being put to any kind of labour, warnings and auguries\nwere received by the priestly caste. Grimm tells us that there existed,\nat Drontheim, temples in which sacred horses were kept and fed[1167].\nOther peoples have betrayed a similar affection for the white horse.\nSuch animals, Virgil relates, are not usually put to work, since they\nare beloved of the gods; it is criminal to kill or wound them, except\nfor sacrifice. Herodotus describes how the sacred white horses of the\nPersians were drowned when Cyrus was endeavouring to cross the river\nGyndes[1168]. The same writer states that, in his day, Russia teemed\nwith white horses[1169]. White was pre-eminently the noble colour. In\nthe Apocalypse, a white horse is symbolical of victory and\ntriumph[1170]. This idea is also common among classical writers[1171].\nThe figure of a white horse appeared on the Standard of the Saxons, and\nlater, in the arms of Saxony and the House of Brunswick. In our day, a\nwhite horse constitutes the Kentish emblem, and is popular as a tavern\nsign. The celebrated \u201cWhite Horse\u201d carved on the Chalk downs near\nUffington, Berkshire, and its fellow, incised on Bratton Hill, near\nWestbury, Wiltshire, though usually believed to commemorate victories\nover the Danes, are more probably to be referred to the Late Bronze, or\nEarly Iron Age. In each case, the neighbouring country abounds with\nprehistoric remains--earthworks, barrows, and trackways[1172]. Certain\ndetails of the carvings, such as the bird-like head of the Uffington\nHorse, and the crescentic tail of the original, but now destroyed,\n\u201cHorse\u201d of Bratton, have been compared with corresponding features on\nearly British coins[1173]. These coins were probably debased\nrepresentations of the gold stater of Philip II. of Macedon. In modern\ntimes, other intaglios have been cut on our hillsides; these, while\nreviving the practice, have introduced breeds of horses unknown to the\nBritons. This seems a fitting place to observe that we have some\nindication of horse figures in Late-Celtic ornament. On a Late-Celtic\nbucket (_c._ first century B.C.) unearthed near Marlborough, in 1807,\nand enclosing burnt human bones, curious representations of the horse\nwere carved[1174]. Belonging to about the same period are the queer\nhorse-like figures depicted on a bronze-mounted wooden bucket, coming\nfrom the Late-Celtic cemetery of Aylesford, Kent[1175]. And, to conclude\nthis section of our subject, we will note that the Anglo-Saxon tumulus\nin Taplow churchyard, Bucks. (cf. p. 81 _supra_), yielded portions of a\nbucket decorated with horseshoe symbols[1176]. We find representations\nof supposed horses appearing later on church fonts; the celebrated\neleventh-century font of Burnsall, in Wharfedale, will serve as an\nexample[1177].\n\nOur discussion of the white horse has carried us far afield, and may\nhave momentarily masked the general question. Not white horses alone\nwere used in sacrifice and divination. The sacrifice of any horse was a\nmost solemn event, attended with much ceremony, alike among Persians and\nIndians, among Teutons, Finns and Slavs[1178]. In auguries, too, the\nanimal bore an honoured part. The Greeks, Strabo informs us, deemed the\nneighing of a horse an omen of good[1179]. In Germany, divinations by\nmeans of the horse lasted till the seventh century, for, when St Gall\ndied,\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 87. Capturing the White Horse. In this scene the\nartist depicts an imaginary incident in connection with the legend of\nthe \u201cWhite Horse of Kent.\u201d The animal, which is of a rather idealized\nstrain, has broken the cords of the captors, and remains \u201cInvictus.\u201d]\n\nunbroken horses were charged with the burden of his coffin, and to their\ndecision was entrusted the choice of a burial-place[1180]. In Denmark,\nhorse-sacrifices lingered until the early part of the eleventh century;\na specific instance is given by Keysler, on the authority of the\nhistorian Dithmar, who was the Bishop of Mersburg, or Merseburg, and who\ndied A.D. 1028. Dithmar relates that the Danes were wont to celebrate\nthe Feast of the Epiphany by sacrificing ninety human victims, together\nwith an equal number of dogs and cocks, in order to appease the infernal\ndeities[1181]. The custom indicates a not infrequent kind of early\ncompromise. Kemble states that, although bulls are known to have been\nused for divination in England, he knows of no allusion to augury by\nmeans of horses[1182]. A few faint traces, however, suggestive of the\nhorse cult, may be detected. There is, for example, that curious story,\ntold by Bede, how the priest Coifi rode on a stallion when he went to\ndestroy the images in the heathen temple at Godmundingham (now\nGoodmanham) in Yorkshire[1183] (cf. p. 32 _supra_). As Bede\u2019s narrative\nruns its length, we learn that a high priest among the pagan Saxons\nmight lawfully ride only on a mare[1184], and one is inclined to\nspeculate whether any of the idols took the form of this animal. We know\nthat the stallion was the most honoured among horses[1185], and it is\nexpressly stated that, when Coifi borrowed the king\u2019s stallion, he did\nso in contempt of his former superstitions. The change of steed, at any\nrate, coincided with an onslaught upon established custom, and we shall\nsee later that the priestly rule about riding mares only was abandoned.\nAnother vestige of the horse cult was the belief, common among Teutonic\npeoples, that the last wisp of corn in the harvest field was inhabited\nby the sacred horse. For this reason, a horse, representing the\ncorn-god, was customarily slaughtered, and eaten with special rites by\nthe reapers at the harvest supper. Professor Frazer describes some\nquaint harvest customs, prevalent in Hertfordshire and Shropshire, which\nfurnish examples of the corn-spirit, appearing in the shape of a horse\nor mare. And, again, in his recent work, _Totemism and Exogamy_, he\nrecords the Red Indian practice of sacrificing costly horses to appease\nthe \u201cmedicine\u201d or corn-spirit[1186].\n\nUnderlying such observances as those which have been described, there is\nan idea which gives a clue to a much-discussed problem. Folk of our\ngeneration are continually asking why the flesh of such a clean-feeding\nanimal as the horse--a true vegetarian--should be despised as food. The\nquestion is not indeed altogether of recent date, for it was propounded\nin A.D. 1720 by Keysler, who reviews the subject at some length[1187].\nHe contends that the stringent prohibition must not be credited to the\ninfluence of the Mosaic Law; first, because no flesh, in itself, was\ndeemed unclean for the saints, and secondly, because other articles of\nthe ceremonial law had already at various times been abandoned with\nimpunity[1188]. The rejection of horseflesh for food, Keysler concludes,\nwas due to the Christian teachers, who found our pagan ancestors\nemploying the animal in sacrifices and auguries, and eating its flesh in\nthe subsequent repasts; hence, as a mark of disapprobation, this kind of\nfood was forbidden to converts. The results, it is urged by the old\nantiquary, have been deplorable, more especially, because there is no\nlaw of Christ which prescribes this rule of conduct (_Christi certe lex\nnulla exstat, quae eum agendi modum praescribat_)[1189].\n\nThese propositions, in the main, seem undeniable. We have seen that the\nPalaeolithic cave-man ate horseflesh freely, and that the Britons of the\nRound Barrow Period were probably addicted to a like custom. There is\nlittle doubt, again, that throughout Roman Britain horseflesh was a\ncommon article of food. This is attested by the frequency of the\noccurrence of broken bones of the horse in the \u201cBrit-Welsh\u201d caves of the\nIron Age[1190]. Corroboration of Keysler\u2019s theory is afforded by\nhistorical facts. Pope Gregory III. (ruled A.D. 731-741), in a letter to\nSt Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, forbade the eating of the flesh of\nwild horses as an unclean and execrable act[1191]. Yet at a somewhat\nearlier date, Gregory II., when consulted on the same perplexing\nsubject, had sent a temporizing answer, shielding himself behind the\nfamous passage in the Epistle to the Corinthians respecting meat offered\nto idols[1192]. So long as the new faith held its converts insecurely,\nand wherever Christianity was merely nominal, the frontier line of\nauthority alternatively advanced and receded. Nearly half a century\nafter the death of Gregory III., at the Council of Celchyth (A.D. 787),\nthe consumption of horseflesh was noted as a stain on the character of\nthe British Christians; their fellow-believers in the East were not\nguilty of such a sin (_quod nullus Christianorum in orientalibus\nfacit_)[1193]. Yet the monks of St Gall not only ate horse-flesh, but\nreturned thanks for it in the metrical grace, written by the monk\nEkkehard III. (died _c._ A.D. 1036): \u201c_Sit feralis equi caro dulcis sub\ncruce Christi_.\u201d Elsewhere, too, the habit seemed incurable. The\nNorwegians, apparently in paying devotional honour to Odin, still ate\nthe forbidden food during the eleventh and twelfth centuries[1194]. The\ngrowth of superstition tended to strengthen the Christian ban against\nhorseflesh. This food was the reputed diet of giants and witches[1195];\nits preparation was associated with sacrifices; it was eaten with\nhallowed salt. The sacrifices, in turn, were connected with popular\nassemblies or folk-moots[1196]. Now witches and trolls were supposed to\nlive under mounds. Inside these mounds they held their dances, and\nplayed on pipes made of horse bones[1197]. The hillocks were, as a rule,\nactually barrows, the burial-places of bygone peoples, and the folk who\nhad once raised them probably not only ate horseflesh ceremonially, but\nregarded it as welcome fare in times of dearth and scarcity. Successors\nof the mound builders continued to partake of horseflesh, and coupled\nthe act with the worship of Odin. The ecclesiastical decrees were thus\nprimarily directed against the pagan practice, but, because of\nsuperstition, the ban remained when its original necessity had passed\naway.\n\nL\u2019Abb\u00e9 Valentin Dufour, who in the year 1868 translated and edited\nKeysler\u2019s valuable chapter on the eating of horseflesh, adds a few facts\nwhich bring the story down to modern times. He tells us that the sale of\nhorseflesh was forbidden in Paris in A.D. 1739, no reason being assigned\nfor the prohibition. When, however, in A.D. 1784, a similar promulgation\nwas issued, the ostensible motive was to prevent disease--there were\ncertain maladies \u201c_que l\u2019usage de pareilles chairs ne pouvait manquer\nd\u2019occasionner_[1198].\u201d Since considerable importance was also attached\nto the assumed novelty of eating horseflesh, Dufour is at some pains to\nshow that slaughter-houses (_boucheries_, _\u00e9corcheries_) existed, and\nthat the forbidden flesh was vended, during the early part of the\nfifteenth century[1199]. Statutes continued to be passed against the use\nof horseflesh in France, until, in the early nineteenth century (1814,\n1816, 1817), the commodity was allowed to be sold by certain persons who\nhad secured the special privilege[1200]. Scarcity of food was doubtless\na factor in bringing about a relaxation. By some writers it is supposed\nthat the revulsion of feeling dates from the siege of Copenhagen (A.D.\n1807), when the Danes ate horseflesh from necessity, and that the habit\ngradually spread all over Europe[1201]. This may be true in the general\nsense, but, archaeologically considered, one may doubt whether the\npractice had ever been really quite extinct.\n\nThe old pre-Christian veneration of the horse probably touches the\ngroundwork of much of the folk-lore about the animal. Professor A. de\nGubernatis, in his work on _Zoological Mythology_, deals fully with\nhorse legends as exemplified in the Vedic, Greek, and Latin literatures,\nand particularly with the horse as the favourite animal of the solar\nhero[1202]. It is common, in ancient art, to find symbols of sun-worship\nassociated either with the horse or the chariot, or with both. All that\ncan be done in this place is to supply the reference. One old story may,\nnevertheless, be noted: that which tells how the Emperor Caligula spoke\nof raising his horse to the consulship. The usual explanation attributes\nthe remark to a passing caprice, but another interpretation is\nconceivable. May it not be that Caligula intended the observation as a\ncompliment to British and Gallic opinions concerning the sanctity of\nselected horses, opinions with which he must have been well acquainted?\n\nWe retrace our steps a little. Evidence seems to show that when the\nearly Palaeolithic cave-men hunted the horse, they were accustomed to\ncarry into their shelters only the fleshy parts of the carcass, together\nwith the head of the animal, and--for ornamental purposes--the valuable\ntail. The long bones, which were crushed to obtain the marrow, do not\nappear, as a rule, to have been taken into the caves[1203]. Light may\nbe cast on the anomalous separation of flesh and bones by a study of\nancient Egyptian custom as described by Herodotus. This writer states\nthat imprecations were heaped on the head of the sacrificial victim, so\nthat any impending evil might fall thereon; the Egyptians, in\nconsequence, would never eat the head of any animal[1204]. Strict taboo,\nas imposed among common folk, is not inconsistent with ceremonial eating\nby privileged individuals, and numerous instances might be given in\nsupport of this antinomy of custom. Merely as a speculation, it might be\nsuggested that the head of the victim was at one time a delicate morsel\nreserved for the chieftain. In the caves of the Neolithic and Bronze\nAges, the skull does not seem to be of common occurrence, but in the\nearly historic period, as shown by folklore, we catch echoes of its\nlegendary repute. Tacitus relates that the ancient German tribes hung\nthe heads of animals on trees as offerings to Odin. In Teutonic fairy\ntales, the horse\u2019s head works miracles, especially when played upon as\nan instrument[1205]. It was thrown by witches into the Midsummer\nfire[1206]--a notable collocation of details. Russian magic teaches that\nambrosia comes out of a horse\u2019s head, and enables its possessor to do\ndeeds of prowess. By virtue of this ambrosia one hero discomfited\nninety-nine hostile monsters[1207]. In parts of Germany, horses\u2019 heads\nwere buried in stables; in Holland, they were hung over pigstyes; in\nMecklenburg, they were placed under a sick man\u2019s pillow[1208]. Again, in\nLower Saxony, horses\u2019 heads, projecting outwards, were carved on the\ngables of buildings, ostensibly for ornament, but in reality, it is\nprobable, to prevent mischief to the horses kept within. A similar\npractice was observed by the builders of the older houses in\nRhaetia[1209]. In modern Norway, the handles of bowls, and the ends of\nthe wooden lever by which the primitive mangles are worked, are often\nformed of carved horse-heads. Numerous examples may be seen in the\nHorniman Museum, London. Specimens are said to have been met with in\nEnglish houses also. Some authorities considered that the figures\nrepresented a Celtic legacy, but Grimm claims that the custom of carving\nthese images, like that of horse-worship generally, belongs \u201cequally to\nCelts, Teutons, and Slavs[1210].\u201d The domain might be much extended.\nEven in our own day (1865), such carvings as those described have been\nrecorded from Jutland. They were once common, it is stated, in Sussex,\nand Miss M. Braitmaier has figured a series of modern gable ornaments\nfrom different parts of Germany[1211]. When someone asked the meaning of\nthe horses\u2019 heads on the Jutish gables, the natives answered, \u201cOh, they\nare Hengist and Horsa[1212].\u201d (Note that the name Hengist = a stallion,\nand Horsa = a mare.) Whether or not Hengist and Horsa were historical\npersonages may be left in abeyance, the fact remains that they were\nsometimes represented by horses\u2019 heads carried in front of the army as\ntutelary deities.\n\nIn certain parts of England, notably in Kent, there still survives the\ncustom of a group of men going round at Christmas carrying a horse\u2019s\nhead, crudely carved in wood, and known as the \u201choodening horse.\u201d\nSometimes, it would appear, a skull long buried in the soil, and\nafterwards dug up by chance, formed the \u201cwooser,\u201d \u201cwooset,\u201d or\n\u201chusset[1213].\u201d Mr P. Maylam, who has carefully collated the records of\nanalogous customs from both England and Germany, considers that the word\n\u201choodening\u201d is not, as popularly supposed, derived either from the Norse\nword Odin or the Low German form Woden. He prefers to connect it with\nthose old performances in which the hobby horse and characters\nrepresenting Robin Hood and Maid Marian were prominent. A writer in the\n_Athenaeum_ ridicules this idea, and prosaically refers the name to the\nhood or sack which concealed the supposed body of the horse--really the\nbody of the hoodener, or performer[1214]. Yes, but why should the\nhorse, hooded or otherwise, enter into the ceremonies at all? It is easy\nto deride the early school, of which Grimm is a representative, as\nold-fashioned and full of extravagances. But we have to face a series of\nconverging customs, which were not begotten of a complex society like\nthat of modern or even Mediaeval England. Only by an appeal to some\nprimitive form of the horse cult can an ultimate solution be really\nobtained.\n\nStanding in close relationship to the \u201choodening horse\u201d custom, is a\nsomewhat weird Welsh practice, which is now nearly extinct, but which\nsome enthusiasts have lately attempted to revive. A horse\u2019s skull is\ndressed up and carried about by a performer who is enveloped in a cloak.\nHe makes the jaws of the skull snap to the accompaniment of Welsh\nrhymes. Houses are visited, and largesse is demanded. The performance,\nknown colloquially as Mari Lwyd, is traced by some to pre-Reformation\nusage. But doubtless, it goes back, like the \u201choodening horse,\u201d of\nwhich, perhaps, it is a mere variant, to pagan times[1215].\n\nVirgil relates a curious tradition which bears on our subject. As the\nCarthaginians were digging near a venerable wood, they dug up a horse\u2019s\nskull--a \u201ccourser\u2019s head,\u201d as the phrase runs in Dryden\u2019s translation,\nand this discovery was accounted such a prosperous omen that a temple\nwas raised to Juno on that spot[1216]. Professor Conington, garnering\nhis knowledge from several classical writers, gives us the additional\ninformation that the head of an ox was first lighted upon, and that this\nwas thought to portend servitude, but after further excavation, the\nhorse\u2019s head appeared--an earnest of plenty, combined with success in\nwar[1217]. From Vishnu mythology comes a contradictory item, for, in\nthat system, the mouth of hell is conceived as a huge horse head[1218].\n\nBefore quitting this department of folk-lore, we may scan the wider\nfield of skull superstitions in general. A fox\u2019s head, nailed to a\nScotch stable door, was supposed to keep off the dreaded witch. I\nnoticed an instance of this custom at Rottingdean, near Brighton, in\n1908, but cannot be sure that any significance was attached to the fox\u2019s\nhead[1219]. Why, again, does the gamekeeper suspend rows of weasels,\nstoats, cats, magpies, and jays on his gibbet? Certainly he does this,\nin the first place, to prove his zealous stewardship, and perhaps with\nsome dimly conscious belief that similar \u201cevil-doers\u201d will take warning.\nBut from observation of other curious practices, scarcely to be\ndiscussed here, one suspects that the origin was ceremonial. We must\nalso remember cases like that described by Mr Baring-Gould, who once\nsaw, hanging on a magnificent elm at Westmeston, under Ditchling Beacon,\nin Sussex, the carcasses of two horses and three calves. The reason\noffered for this custom was that the suspension of the bodies was lucky\nfor cattle. Keeping, however, to a consideration of heads, we notice\nthat Sir G. L. Gomme records a peculiar instance from Hornchurch, in\nEssex, where the lessee of the tithes used to pay, as a Christmas\ntribute, a boar\u2019s head. This payment could not depend upon the intrinsic\nvalue of the toll, nor could the destruction of a single boar be counted\nmeritorious in itself. The tribute was obviously symbolical. Camden\nrelates that a stag was formerly paid as part of the rent of Church\nlands situated in Essex. He adds that, when he was a boy, namely, in the\nthird quarter of the sixteenth century, the priests of St Paul\u2019s\nCathedral were accustomed to meet the stag as it was brought up the\nsteps of the sacred building. The animal\u2019s head was then carried on a\nspear round the cathedral, which echoed meanwhile to the sound of horns.\nOf this curious ceremony, the young antiquary was an eye-witness[1220].\n\nFrom a review of these facts, we may deduce that the head of a\nslaughtered animal bore an imputed sanctity. This was essentially the\ncase when the animal had been offered in sacrifice, and it is to pagan\nand prehistoric ritual that we must look for an interpretation of the\nfacts. The species of animal esteemed most sacred would vary with the\ntime and the place--here, the horse, there, the ox. Later days brought\nother competitors for the position of honour. Only by keeping well in\nmind the widespread belief in the efficacy of skulls, are we enabled to\nunderstand another series of records, which we now proceed to summarize.\n\nMore than half a century ago, when the chancel of St Botolph\u2019s church,\nBoston, was being rebuilt, a quantity of horses\u2019 bones and the jaw-bones\nof sheep were found under the floor[1221]. Again, we have seen that, on\nthe site of the present St Paul\u2019s Cathedral, a deposit of bones of oxen\nand other animals was discovered indicating a pagan site[1222] (cf. p.\n83 _supra_). Secular buildings have also yielded horse remains. In 1895,\nwhen Colonel Stanley Scott was taking up the ground floor of a house in\nNorth Devon, he discovered, laid in order and well preserved, the skulls\nof eight horses and ten bullocks[1223]. In Wharfedale, again, under the\nfloor of a house, probably from two to three hundred years old, the\nworkmen took up the skulls of seven horses and a cow[1224]. With these\ndiscoveries one naturally associates the Dutch and German customs\nalready mentioned (p. 440 _supra_). And, of course, the primitive idea\nmust be connected with that which underlies foundation sacrifices,\nalthough complication arises from the unique merit attached to skulls.\nThe foundation sacrifice is widely prevalent, but the burial of skulls\nis a more specialized custom.\n\nIt will be noticed that, of the last two examples, one is recent, and\nthe other comparatively recent, therefore any folk-memory associated\nwith the deposition of the skulls was probably defective. According to\npopular belief in Ireland, the skulls which are nowadays placed under\nbuildings are intended to \u201ccause an echo.\u201d Just as a public building\nhas, or has not, a horses skull buried beneath it, so will it be good or\nbad for the purpose of hearing. A certain field which possessed a good\necho was commonly believed to have a horse interred in it; the tradition\nwas sound, but it is not known whether the horse was buried for that\npurpose[1225]. Why, it may be pertinently asked, does a field need a\ngood echo?\n\nOn broad grounds, it is sufficiently obvious that the sacrificial idea\npreceded the economic, yet there must have been a period of overlapping.\nFor not only was some variation of the custom observed, as we shall see,\nby Mediaeval church builders, but the practice was kept up until our own\ndays. Noticeably has this been the case in the Scottish Presbyterian\nChurch[1226]. When the old Bristol Street meeting-house, in Edinburgh,\nwas being demolished a century ago, eight horse skulls were found\nconcealed in the sounding-board of the pulpit[1227]. Less than half a\ncentury back, the same class of object was put under an organ in a\nparish church in the province of Munster to increase the effect of the\nmusic[1228].\n\nThe modern theory of the acoustic purpose of the skulls fades as we\ntrace the custom to more remote times. A small chamber in the belfry of\nElsdon church, Northumberland, appeared to have been built specially to\ncontain three horse skulls, which had lain piled against each other for\nhundreds of years[1229]. The masons of old time doubtless imagined that\nthe skulls would make the tones of the bells more resonant, but, \u201clulled\nin the countless chambers of the brain\u201d there must have been\nalmost-forgotten memories of these traditional talismans. These sacred\nand oracular heads, there can be little question, were built into\nheathen temples before the dawn of history, and the habit was passed on\nfrom one generation to another[1230]. Does this theory seem far-fetched?\nConsider the conditions at Elsdon. Here is a district teeming with\nearthworks and other British and Roman remains. The population is\nscanty, the moorland wild and pathless; there was, until recently,\nlittle inter-communication among the scattered folk. Hereditary custom\nheld firm sway. Such was the preference for burial in Elsdon\nchurchyard, that corpses were carried many miles over the moors for\ninterment. Yet pagan customs were rife. Well-worship was carried on here\nuntil our own times, and not many decades have passed since cattle were\ndriven through the Midsummer bonfires to ward off disease. How much\nstronger was superstition when the village church of Elsdon was first\nbuilt! There must have been dark, undisturbed depths of paganism in the\nlives of the countryfolk. We really know little of the true beliefs of\nthe Mediaeval peasant, as recorded by himself. Even our information\nabout the faiths held by the official classes, though somewhat exiguous,\nreveals a basis of gross superstition. The gap between the twentieth\ncentury and the sixteenth is almost immeasurable as compared with that\nbetween the sixteenth century and the Neolithic period.\n\nLet us halt, to draw a comparison from Brittany. Who, in the absence of\ndirect evidence, would have imagined that, in our own generation, a\npeople, nominally Christian, could have been found to set out dishes of\ncream for the dead on All Souls\u2019 Eve, to employ grave-earth for the cure\nof fevers, to pour out milk on tombs as a libation, to anoint menhirs\nwith oil and honey, to scatter the ashes of the festival fires over the\nfields to ensure a fat harvest? Yet all these customs have been\npractised by the Bretons in recent times. Well-worship, the blessing of\noxen at Carnac, the ghastly reverence paid to images personifying Death,\nand all such rites, we pass by, as being everywhere somewhat persistent.\nThe parallel which I wish to draw is between the Mediaeval Englishman\nand the more modern Breton. Could we turn back and thoroughly understand\nthe pages of history, I am convinced that even the seventeenth century\npeasant of the English Cornwall, for example, would be found quite as\nsuperstitious as the nineteenth century peasant of the French Cornwall.\nWhat is true of Cornwall, holds good for the Highlands of Scotland, for\nIreland and Wales, and, in a lesser degree, for the whole of rural\nEngland.\n\nTo return: the acoustic idea had its birth so far back as Roman times at\nleast, though at that period it was associated with the use of sounding\njars. Probably horse skulls were still buried sacrificially, but the\npurpose was being forgotten. The belief in the efficacy of horse skulls\nas reverberators seems to have been derived from the employment of these\njars, at a rather later time when the sacramental idea concerning skulls\nwas obsolete. About the jars themselves there has been a vast\ncontroversy, which, even at the risk of being discursive, we must\nbriefly notice.\n\nTo take a Roman example first: along the seats of the Coliseum there was\na peculiar arrangement of horizontal pots, which Sir E. Beckett (Lord\nGrimthorpe) believed were intended to augment the sound. As a result of\nexperiment, this authority found that the vessels acted much in the same\nway as would a series of short, wide tubes, if presented to a\nhemispherical bell when this was struck[1231]. Vitruvius mentions brazen\nvessels, perhaps comparable to the gong or kettle-drum, as being in use\nin Roman theatres. Some writers have thought that the purpose was to\nmake the voices of the actors more distinct, others consider that the\nvessels were accessories in the imitation of thunder.\n\nComing to Mediaeval times, we find that the church of the Celestins at\nMetz was furnished (A.D. 1439) with jars, expressly to improve the\nchanting, but it is affirmed that experience showed them to be useless.\nMr Gordon M. Hills, in a valuable paper on this subject, says that the\njars were \u201ca great disfigurement to the building, the marvel of all\nbeholders, and the jest of fools[1232].\u201d There are other Continental\nrecords of acoustic jars from Strasburg, Angers, Paris, and other\nplaces. L\u2019Abb\u00e9 Cochet discovered numerous specimens in the churches of\nUpper Normandy, together with \u201ccornets\u201d of baked earth in the church of\nSt Blaise, at Arles. Illustrations of some of these are given in\nCochet\u2019s paper in the _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_[1233], and the statement is\nmade that similar \u201ccornets\u201d are found in the interior walls and vaults\nof many churches in Sweden, Denmark, and Russia[1234]. Didron, after\nreferring to specimens from the two first-named countries, and to those\ndiscovered at Arles and Metz, decides against the acoustic\nhypothesis: \u201c_Ce mode [d\u2019acoustique] me semblait aussi pu\u00e9ril\nqu\u2019inefficace_[1235].\u201d And, seeing that the men of the Middle Ages made\nbells and organs so commonly, why, he asks, are not the sounding\n\u201cpoteries\u201d of more frequent occurrence[1236]?\n\nIn England, notable finds of jars are on record, though the number of\nchurches concerned is but a trivial percentage of the whole. At St\nClement\u2019s, Sandwich, the jars were built into the walls of the chancel,\noverlooking the altar[1237]. At Barkway, Hertfordshire, they were\nlikewise embedded in the chancel wall, but on the floor level[1238].\nThey are also found in the thickness of the wall, a few inches below the\nfloor level, as at Fountains Abbey, where they had been placed at the\nbase of the old choir screen. The Fountains vases lay on their sides,\nand both in and around them there was an abundance of charcoal. The\ncharcoal, it is conjectured, may have had no more mysterious origin than\na fire which occurred at the Dissolution[1239]. Jars, supposed to be of\nRomano-British make, were found on the top of the chancel wall at East\nHarling, Norfolk; in each case the mouth of the jar faced the interior\nof the chancel. For a long time a coating of lath and plaster had\nconcealed these curiosities[1240], and one is led to wonder whether\nother jars may not, even now, lie hidden elsewhere. The gables of\nNewington church, Kent, yielded three jars. Other records come from\nFairwell (Staffs.), Denford (Northants.), St Peter\u2019s Mancroft and St\nPeter-per-Mountergate in Norwich, Upton, near Newark, and from Youghal,\nin Ireland[1241]. But the greatest collection of all was uncovered at\nthe village church of Leeds, near Maidstone, in 1878. Altogether, about\nfifty earthenware pots were revealed. They were found on the top of each\nwall of the nave, below the wall plate. The walls and oaken roof\nbelonged to the fifteenth century. The best judges at first declared\nthat the vessels were of Romano-British manufacture, and dated a\nthousand years earlier than the fabric. This would seem to indicate\nthat a series of urns had been discovered in the neighbourhood, and\npressed into service by the Mediaeval masons. Later expert opinion,\nhowever, declares that the jars, though possessing some Celtic\ncharacteristics, are of Mediaeval date. The bodies of the jars were\ncylindrical, and about 8 or 9 inches in diameter, while the mouths\nnarrowed to 3 or 4 inches. The height averaged 10-12 inches. The bottom\nof each jar was convex and perforated. Mr Hills calls attention to some\nperplexing general considerations. The jars are of any form and every\nform, they are old and new, they are placed, as if at hazard, from the\nfloor to the roof. He therefore concludes that the intentions were\nseveral, although he does not himself suggest any other purpose to\nsupplement the acoustic theory[1242]. In such a matter as this,\ndifference of purpose, variety in underlying belief, changeable custom\naccording to locality, confused folk-memory and tradition, need cause\nthe antiquary no surprise. The prime motive having vanished, the custom\nis bereft of its full meaning, and the course of development runs along\ndivergent rather than parallel lines. Two other discoveries which seem\nto favour the acoustic theory may be given--those at Ashburton, in Devon\n(1838), and Luppitt, also in Devon (1880). The Ashburton jars (Fig. 88\nA), though convex at the base, and exhibiting chevron ornament, are\nassigned not to the Late-Celtic period, but to the close of the\nfourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. The jars from\nLuppitt (Fig. 88 B) are comparable to those found at Leeds. They were\napparently made especially for insertion in a wall, as they are\nflattened a little in one portion. They probably belong to the fifteenth\ncentury[1243].\n\nThis question of \u201cacoustic jars\u201d has been dilated upon because it seems\nto involve an indirect derivative of the skull superstition, and one is\ninduced to outline the story, however roughly and tentatively. We start\nwith a period when the horse cult is rife, and when solemnity is the\nnote of the priest and soothsayer. At a later date, a horse, or among\nsome peoples, an\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 88. Acoustic jars.\n\n     A. Skittle-shaped specimen from Ashburton church, Devon. The jar is\n     grey, and highly burnt. _a_, _b_, are yellow bands, on which are\n     incised chevrons.\n\n     B. Small jar (6\u00b4\u00b4 \u00d7 4\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4) from Luppitt, Devonshire. It has some of\n     the characteristics of Celtic pottery, but probably belongs to the\n     fifteenth century.\n\n_Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._ XXXVIII. p. 220.\n]\n\nox, is slain and buried under the foundations of the pagan temple. By\nand by, the skull, representing the most mysterious and sacred part of\nthe animal, is considered to be sufficient by itself. Instead of being\nuniformly hidden under the building, it is built into the wall or placed\nin a specially constructed recess. The depositories are not confined to\none part of the building. At a later date, a purely practical\ninterpretation is assigned to the skulls. Secular architects, or\narchitects not versed in the mystic lore of their heathen fathers,\nbecome prone to substitute an urn or a jar for the skull. The early\nChristians, adapting, it may be, the old pagan site, and actuated either\nby necessity or diplomacy, at times prudently permit the old rite and\ncustom. The two practices run side by side, but the motive is weak, and\nultimately becomes debatable. Then springs up the explanation that\nskulls and jars alike are used to produce sonorous beauty, and on this\nour modern theory is based. Nevertheless, these perversions of the\noriginal purpose have not been everywhere co-eval; we have seen, for\nexample, that the architects of the Coliseum had reached the structural\nstage of the idea, and evidently turned the principle to good account.\n\nFolk-memory weakens according to the degree of civilization and in\nresponse to outside influences. As, on the one hand, the imperfectly\nhollow horse skull is supplanted by jars, vases, and urns; so, on the\nother, an ox-skull becomes a mere ornament on the frieze of a Roman\nDoric building. Again, certain builders, apparently misled by the\nearthenware vessels, and connecting them with traditions or actual\nexperiences of urn-burial, employ a modification of such vessels as pure\nornament. The story has several parts. The mingling of the symbolic and\nthe utilitarian idea is difficult to unravel, hence there is room for\nmuch speculation, and need for some suspension of final judgement.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\n\u201cTHE LABOUR\u2019D OX\u201d\n\n    \u201cTwo such I saw, what time the labour\u2019d ox\n     In his loose traces from the furrow came,\n     And the swink\u2019t hedger at his supper sate.\u201d\n              _Comus_, ll. 291-3.\n\n\nAn easy-going reader, with no taste for agricultural inquiries, might\nadmire the above picturesque lines and then pass on, counting as a\ntrifle what is really a most important feature of early social\nhistory--the use of the ox as a beast of draught. Let us pursue the\nquestion a little, for, although the spectacle described was apparently\ncommonplace to the poet, yet, to us, a ploughing ox is undoubtedly a\nrarity. Some two or three teams in Sussex, perchance a similar number in\nDorset, and, it may be, an odd team in the West Country, seem to\ncomplete the census of working oxen.\n\nBy means of personal investigations made in various counties, and by the\ncollection of scattered particulars given in certain periodicals, I have\nendeavoured to determine at what dates the bullock was discarded as a\ndraught animal. It may be well to give an epitome of the results,\npremising that what is now an exceptional occurrence was, at no remote\nperiod, the general rule, just as it is still the rule in the\nagricultural districts of Germany, Austria, and Southern France, not to\nspeak of such distant lands as Cape Colony and Ceylon.\n\nCommencing with the \u201ccounty of broad acres,\u201d we find that Arthur Young\nspeaks of having seen many oxen in harness between York and Beverley in\nthe year 1768. Waggons were drawn by two oxen and two horses; for\ntillage, oxen alone were deemed more serviceable[1244]. A little later,\nin 1788, Marshall gives a somewhat different testimony. Oxen were still\npreferred for drawing farm carriages and timber waggons along the roads\nin the Vale of Pickering, but not a single ox was left at field\nwork[1245]. Near Whitby, however, bullocks were attached to the plough\nso late as 1826[1246], and for hauling stones from the quarry, in\n1858[1247]. A single team was still engaged in quarry work in\n1895[1248].\n\nComing to the neighbouring county of Lincoln, draught oxen were still\nemployed near Brigg in 1853[1249], and five years later the writer\u2019s\nfather saw a plough-team in regular work at North (or Nun) Ormsby, near\nLouth. The particulars from the Midlands touch more recent times. For\nStratford-on-Avon the last recorded year is 1895[1250]. A friend noticed\na team at work near Oxford, in 1881, and I have a record from Helmdon\n(Northants), for 1902. At Hockliffe, near Luton, in Bedfordshire, oxen\nwere constantly employed by an eccentric farmer who died so recently as\n1909. The feature was, however, admittedly an anachronism: the farmer in\nquestion would not use machinery, and was, in other respects, a follower\nof old-world customs.\n\nThe West Country supplies records for the year 1895; in the Vale of\nPewsey it is asserted that more ox-teams than horse-teams were seen at\nthe plough in that year, though the ox was not used for road-work. In\n1909 I could not find a single team; inquiries showed that the year 1897\nor 1898 must have marked the change over, so that either there must have\nbeen an abrupt reversal of custom, or, more probably, the statement with\nrespect to the year 1895 was incorrect. There, as in Dorset, red and\nwhite Herefords represented the breed most in favour[1251]. An\neye-witness reports a team from East Ilsley (Berks.), for 1906. During\nthe years 1887-8, I occasionally saw oxen ploughing on the Cotswolds,\nand, a few years previously, Devonshire farmers still chose bullocks for\nheavy land.\n\nLabouring oxen were not uncommon in Hampshire and Dorsetshire about\ntwenty years ago. Two oxen were yoked to the plough, while, to increase\nthe speed, a horse was attached as leader. The case of Essex is\npeculiar. One is bound to believe that bullock labour was formerly as\ncommon in that county as elsewhere, nevertheless Arthur Young informs us\nthat the Essex farmers of the eighteenth century ridiculed Lord Clare\u2019s\nintroduction of oxen to his estate at Braintree. It was only when the\nexperiment resulted in a great saving of money as compared with the\ngeneral expenditure on horse-labour that the example was reluctantly\ncopied. Young says that the importation of the oxen from\nGloucestershire, where Lord Clare had purchased them \u201cwith all their\ngeers,\u201d was \u201ca stroke of agriculture most unusual in Essex.\u201d On one\noccasion, a waggon drawn by horses became \u201csett\u201d in the village. The\nhorses were taken off, \u201cand the oxen clapt too (_sic_), who to the\namazement to the beholders, drew it out in triumph[1252].\u201d One cannot\nhelp thinking that the popularity of horse-labour around Braintree was a\nchronological inversion, applicable only to a limited area. At whatever\nperiod introduced, working oxen remained in the Essex districts of\nRomford and Ilford until the year 1830[1253], and probably later. In the\nsister county of Kent, bullocks were worked near Tunbridge Wells until\nthe year 1886[1254].\n\nIt is to the county of Sussex, however, that we must look for the\nlingering exploitation of ox-labour. During the summer of 1908,\nremembering what I had witnessed about twenty years previously, I made\ncareful inquiries about the disuse of working-oxen by Sussex farmers.\nThe result proved that two teams at least were still under the yoke, one\nat Housedean Farm, Falmer, and the other, which I did not actually see,\nat Itford Farm, near Rodmell, a few miles North of Newhaven. The latter\nteam has now been disbanded. In February, 1910, Dr W. Heneage Legge, of\nRingmer, informed me that teams could still be seen daily near Brighton.\nLater, in August of that year, I found a single team retained--for\nsentimental reasons, probably--at Exceat New Barn, near West Dean. The\nFalmer cattle are black, long-horned animals, apparently of Welsh breed.\nThe old Sussex red cattle are no longer employed. The oxen are not shod\nat the present day, though it is but a few years since the custom was\nabandoned. This is a point to which we shall return. At Pyecombe and\nPangdean, bullocks were last worked, and shod, about eight years since.\n\u201cA few years ago,\u201d was the answer given at Saddlescombe, and again at\nSompting. At Steyning, the blacksmith had not shod oxen for twenty\nyears, nor had his brother craftsman of Ditchling treated bullocks for a\ndecade or more. Here the details may stop; it is perhaps well that they\nshould be given, as an aid to the future historian.\n\nBut what of the past? For it is practically certain that from the\nearliest historical times onwards to the eighteenth century the ox was\npre-eminently, nay, almost entirely, the beast which was yoked to cart,\nplough, and harrow. There were, it is true, some exceptions, to be noted\nin a moment. The old illuminated manuscripts show pictures of oxen only,\nand the famous embroidery known as the Bayeux \u201ctapestry\u201d furnishes\nsimilar evidence. The animals there shown as attached to the plough,\nwhether they represent oxen, horses, or asses, are very different from\nthe finely drawn horses exhibited throughout the rest of the\ntapestry[1255]. Until the eighth century, as was stated in Chapter X.,\nthe horse was often used for food, and it was likewise kept for the\nsaddle. Thus we may say that, while the hunter, the warrior, and the\npilgrim claimed the horse for riding, the husbandman in the field was\ncontent to use the ox for draught.\n\nThe language of Domesday Book corroborates the testimony of the early\nmanuscripts. In general, the records of that remarkable survey indicate\nthat a painstaking assessment was taken of farming stock. The terms used\nin the minute inventories are extremely suggestive. The amount of land\nwhich an ox could till is called an \u201coxgang\u201d or \u201cbovata\u201d (Lat. _bos_,\n_bovis_ = an ox + _ata_). A bovata, originally \u201cone ox\u2019s worth,\u201d was\nhalf a \u201cjugum,\u201d \u201ca pair\u2019s worth\u201d (Lat. _jugum_ = a yoke), and a quarter\nof a carucata (post-classical Latin, _car(r)uca_ = a four-wheeled\ncarriage; cf. root _quatuor_, whence the word was later applied to a\nplough, possibly because it was drawn by four oxen, or, by extension,\ntwo yoke of oxen, four abreast)[1256]. Recollections of early Mediaeval\nliterature will emphasize the truth of our proposition. In the \u201cVision\nof William, concerning Piers the Plowman\u201d (c. A.D. 1377), it was\ndoubtless an ox-team which ploughed the \u201chalf-acre.\u201d Again, in the\nwritings of Bartholomew Anglicus (cir. A.D. 1260), there is a\ndescription of the duties of Bubulcus, the ox-herd. \u201cHe feedeth and\nnourisheth oxen, and bringeth them to leas and home again; and bindeth\ntheir feet with a langhaldes [M. E. _langelen_ = to bind together;\n_langel_, _lanzel_ = a rope or hopple] and spanells [= fetters; cf.\nGerm. _Spannseil_ = a tether] and nigheth and cloggeth them while they\nbe in pasture and leas, and yoketh and maketh them draw at the plough:\nand pricketh the slow with a goad, and maketh them draw even. And\npleaseth them with whistling and with song, to make them bear the yoke\nwith the better will for liking of melody of the voice.\u201d The oxen not\nonly \u201cear\u201d (= plough) the ground, but thresh the corn by treading:\nBartholomew also speaks of their use in \u201ctreading the flour[1257].\u201d The\ntrivial round of the ox-herd\u2019s labours may be completed from an Old\nEnglish dialogue of the eleventh century, in which the garthman is made\nto say: \u201cI stand over [the oxen], waking against thieves: and then again\nin the early morning I betake them, well filled and watered, to the\nplowman[1258].\u201d A like story is told in the anonymous \u201cSeneschaucie,\u201d or\n\u201cThe Office of Seneschal\u201d (_temp._ Edw. I.), wherein it is stated that\nox-herds must sleep with their oxen to guard them[1259]. If we pass by\na few centuries, we get, in a passage from Shakespeare, an allusion to\nthe traffic in draught oxen at the great fairs of England. Shallow\ninquires of Silence, \u201cHow a good yoke of bullocks at Stamford\nfair[1260]?\u201d And moving forward again, we have Robert Burns singing\nthus:\n\n    \u201cAnd owsen frae the furrow\u2019d field\n     Return sae dowf [= slow, heavy] and wearie O[1261].\u201d\n\nIn short, through all the centuries down to the middle of the\neighteenth, it might have been affirmed, in the words which Richard\nCarew used of his own county of Cornwall: \u201cFor meate, draught, and\nplowing, Oxen; for carriage and riding, horses[1262].\u201d\n\nBut there must have been exceptions, perhaps even a little more\nnumerous than the foregoing paragraph would seem to imply. Fitzstephen,\nwho, about the year A.D. 1174, wrote a short account\nof the city of London, describes a market at which one could buy\nall kinds of commodities, and he remarks, incidentally, \u201c_Stant ibi\naptae aratris, trahis, et bigis equae_\u201d (There stand the mares, fit\nfor the plough, the sledge, and the cart)[1263]. Letters written in\nA.D. 1222 to Ralph de Nevil, Bishop of Winchester,\ncontain repeated requests for \u201cmares to draw the carts\u201d which were to\nconvey marl to the fields[1264]. The employment of mares for draught\nis directly at variance with their early heathen allocation to the\npriestly body, one instance of which was given on p. 436 _supra_. This\nold usage does not, of course, imply that all mares were reserved\nfor the priests: moreover, traditions respecting such animals were\ndoubtless fading away. But to return to our subject: the evidence\nadduced is sufficient to prove that horses were partly employed in\nagriculture during the Norman and Plantagenet periods. Moreover, Walter\nde Henley, writing not later than A.D. 1250, advised\nthe farmers of his day to plough with two oxen and two horses, \u201cif the\nground is not so stony that the oxen cannot help themselves with their\nfeet\u201d (_si la tere ne seyt si perouse ke buefs ne se pussent eyder des\npes_)[1265]. As already noted, this plan was followed in Yorkshire,\nHampshire, and Dorsetshire until modern times. When all exceptions are\nallowed for, however, the broad fact remains, that the bullock was the\nmain beast of draught during the earlier periods of English history.\nEven in the Yorkist and Lancastrian periods, horses, we are assured,\nwere hardly ever used for field-work[1266]. They carried corn to the\nmill or the market on their backs[1267], and they served the packman on\nhis journeys through the country. In the fields the ox was master.\n\nConcerning the number of oxen which were grouped to form a team, usage\nhas varied. The Domesday terms bearing on the subject have caused much\ncontroversy. Canon Isaac Taylor argued that eight oxen made up the\nteam[1268]. This view is supported by Dr J. H. Round, and, to some\nextent, by Professor Vinogradoff and Professor Seebohm. The last-named\nauthority believes that eight oxen, yoked four abreast, made up the\nfull manorial plough-team at the time of Domesday, as well as in the\ntwelfth and thirteenth centuries. He admits, however, that the villains\nhad apparently smaller ploughs, with about four oxen to the team (Fig.\n89). He also cites records to show that, occasionally, the plough-team\nconsisted of ten or twelve oxen. Mr W. de Gray Birch contends that the\nnumber was four, and that four bullocks were the equivalent of two\nhorses[1269].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n    FIG. 89. Ploughing in the eleventh century. From\n    MS. Anglo-Saxon Calendar, early eleventh century.\n    (Strutt.) It will be observed that the team consists of four\n    animals. Other illuminated manuscripts also tend to support Mr de\n    Gray Birch\u2019s theory.\n]\n\n\nFortunately, there are precise statements extant respecting the\nMediaeval practice. In the Cartulary of Rievaulx Abbey (founded\nA.D. 1132) eight is given as the number of the full team\nor \u201cdraught\u201d: \u201cI[i]dem etiam monachi habebunt in eadem pastura quatuor\ncarrucatas boum, unamquamque de viii bobus[1270].\u201d A team of eight\nwas also known on the high road, as we learn from the rhyming _Life\nof St Cuthbert_ (c. A.D. 1450). We find the following\ndescription of the conveyance of a huge beam to Durham Abbey:\n\n    \u201cIt was of eight oxen draght (= draught),\n     It was in a wayne wraght[1271]\u201d (= worked, put).\n\nThis quota was, however, often exceeded. A great bell, cast in London,\nwas brought to Durham on a truck:\n\n                    \u201cOxen twenty and twa\n    War drawand this bell full thra[1272]\u201d (= vigorously).\n\nBy a curious coincidence, twenty-two was the strength of the ox-teams\nwhich formerly drew timber along the proverbially wretched roads of\nSussex[1273]. Mr R. E. Prothero tells us that\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 90. Sussex oxen: showing the wide space required\nwhen turning the headland, with a team of six.\n\n    \u201cThou art not for the fashion of these times.\u201d\n              (_As You Like It_, Act II. Sc. 3.)\n]\n\nin the eighteenth century from eight to ten went to a plough. A trace of\nthese large teams may be seen, he asserts, in the old crooked ridges\nvisible on grass lands. The enormous length of the team, together with\nthe use of unwieldy ploughs, necessitated the allowance of a vast width\nof head-row on which to turn (Fig. 90), hence there was a marked\ndeflection or curvature of the furrow[1274]. The furrow, in fact, took\nthe form of a flat reversed S[1275]. The Lincolnshire tradition says\nthat only the tops of the ridges were cultivated, and that the oxen were\nattached to each end of a long pole, which stretched across the \u201cland.\u201d\nThus yoked the animals walked along the grass in the furrow. How the\nridges and furrows were originally formed we are not told. Rham says\nthat the old-fashioned plough was drawn by six oxen, and that barely\nhalf an acre was turned in a summer\u2019s\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 91. Ploughing on the Sussex Downs: a team of four.]\n\nday[1276]. Youatt recommended two pair of oxen to a plough; he\nconsidered the ancient method of using four pair unnecessary[1277]. The\nmodern Sussex team commonly, but not always (Fig. 91), consists of six\nor eight oxen. Eight was also the usual number in Northumberland.\nSomething, of course, depended upon the mode of harnessing the animals.\nA case is recorded, in which a country clergyman, departing from the\ncommon practice of attaching bullocks to the plough by means of a yoke,\nadopted Arthur Young\u2019s advice and used collars, with the result that\nfive oxen, harnessed according to the latter mode, would do the work of\neight in yokes (i.e. paired), with equal ease[1278]. The yoke which was\nused in Sussex until quite recent years was a curved wooden beam about 5\nfeet long, 4 inches thick, and 6 inches deep. Near the extremities were\nlight oval hoops made of ash, about 1\u00bd inches in thickness. These hoops\npassed round the necks of the oxen, and then went through the thickness\nof the\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 92. Ox-yoke (Sussex). _Reliquary_, XI. p. 222. _Dimensions_:\n     length 5 ft; thickness 4\u00b4\u00b4; depth 6\u00b4\u00b4. The loops (ox-bows), which\n     are of ash, are about 1\u00bd inches thick.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 93. Ox-yoke (c. A.D. 1800), Gayton-le-Wold, Lincolnshire. Now\n     in the Museum of the Louth Antiq. and Nat. Soc. The material is\n     ash. Length 51\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4; breadth 6\u00b4\u00b4; depth 4\u00bd\u00b4\u00b4. Ropes, or chains,\n     passing through the vertical holes, appear to have served as\n     ox-bows.\n]\n\nyoke[1279]. One of these yokes lay outside the blacksmith\u2019s shop at\nRodmell, when I visited the village in 1910. Through the kindness of Dr\nW. Heneage Legge, I am enabled to give an illustration of a Sussex\nox-yoke (Fig. 92). A Lincolnshire specimen, over a century old, now in\nthe Museum at Louth, is shown for the sake of comparison (Fig. 93). In\nFitzherbert\u2019s time (A.D. 1534) the hoops were known as ox-bows. It would\nappear, from a casual remark made by Rham, that the yoke was sometimes\nfixed across the horns[1280]. We may note, by parenthesis, that the team\nsometimes carried bells; one of these was discovered under the ruins of\nthe tower of Ringmer church (Sussex). The tower fell at some period\nbetween the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it is supposed\nthat oxen had been employed to remove the fallen stones[1281].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 94. Old Sussex plough and rake, in use about 150\nyears ago, at Rodmell, near Lewes. Now in the Castle grounds at Lewes.]\n\nOf the various kinds of plough which have been in use for ox-labour, a\ntreatise might be written. What surprises the student most, is the\npersistent crudeness of these implements down to a very late period. In\nthe grounds of Lewes Castle there is to be seen a specimen of the old\nSussex plough (Fig. 94). This dilapidated relic, which belongs to the\nauthorities of the County Museum hard by, is probably a century and a\nhalf old, and originally came from Northease Farm, near Rodmell. The\nplough is 12 feet long, and its two wheels are each about 2 feet in\ndiameter. The hubs and spokes are of wood, and are clumsily fixed to a\nnarrow iron tire, which is circular in cross-section. This feature may\nbe observed to-day in some of the ploughs of the neighbourhood, and the\nmethod of attachment of the spokes is nearly as primitive in the modern\nimplements. The mouldboard of this cumbrous old plough is a semi-conical\niron-plate, and the coulter--a cutting instrument, according to\ntheory--is a heavy bar of wood with one edge a little narrowed. One may\nbe sure that the Mediaeval plough was of still ruder design. The Saxon\nand Roman ploughs (Fig. 95), drawn by oxen, are of an extremely simple\npattern.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 95.\n\n     A. Bronze, representing Roman ploughman, said to have been found at\n     Piercebridge, Durham. Lord Londesborough\u2019s collection. (Wright.)\n\n     B. Saxon ploughman. From the Psalter of Eadwine, _temp._ Stephen.\n     (Strutt.) In both cases the oxen represented evidently belong to a\n     shorthorn breed.\n]\n\nOpinions have always differed as to the age when a bullock\u2019s services\nare most valuable. A Sussex steward informed me that the age for\ncommencing work was 4 years, and that the ox would continue to be of use\nfor seven or eight years afterwards. Another account gave the starting\nage as 2\u00bd years, and the working period from three to five years. Youatt\ncautiously remarks that the working life varies with the breed[1282].\nThe Yorkshire plan was to \u201cbreak in\u201d the animal at the age of 2 or 3\nyears, and work it till it was rising 6 years; but Marshall, while\nagreeing with the \u201charness age\u201d just given, contends that the beast\nmight be worked until it was from 15 to 20 years old, when it would be\nin its prime[1283]. He adduces this instance: \u201cAn ox which I worked\nseveral years in Surrey, might at 17 or 18 years old, have challenged,\nfor strength, agility, and sagacity, the best bred cart-horse in the\nkingdom.\u201d\n\nIt will prevent confusion if we pause to note that the terms \u201cox\u201d and\n\u201cbullock\u201d are properly applied to castrated males of the species after\nthe age of 4 years; up to that age the animals are known as\n\u201csteers[1284],\u201d or \u201cstirks.\u201d The distinction, however, need not be made\nin the present survey.\n\nWhen the ox was no longer of service in the field, it was fattened, and,\nwherever the food was of a generous kind, the beef, we are assured, was\nnot especially tough. \u201cBesides,\u201d as an old Sussex peasant once remarked\nto the writer, \u201cwe a\u2019nt all on us got bad teeth, zur.\u201d A more decided\nopinion was that of a Newhaven butcher, who averred that he always used\nto consider the beef of ploughing oxen a special dainty for the\nconsumption of himself and friends[1285]. And in general, the\ncountryfolk of old acted on the advice of the Hebrew proverb: \u201cIf the ox\nfall, whet your knife.\u201d Worn-out oxen were doubtless a great boon. In\nMediaeval England, fresh beef was consumed chiefly by the nobles and the\nwealthy corporations, and by them only during a few months of the year.\nMany bullocks were, indeed, killed and salted in November, when\nprovender had become scarce, but these represented grass-fed cattle. It\nis estimated that only a very small proportion of the whole herd was\nfattened for the table[1286]. Sir Anthony, or as he was termed Maister\nFitzherbert, who has already been cited, describes the position of the\nhusbandman very ingenuously: \u201cAnd if any sorance (= injury, sore,\ndisease) come to an oxe, [and he] waxe old, broysed (= bruised) or\nblinde, for ii. s. he may be fedde, and thanne he is mannes meate, and\nas good or better then euer he was. And the horse, whan he dyethe, is\nbut caryin[1287].\u201d Horseflesh, in Fitzherbert\u2019s day, had long been\ndiscarded as human food. (See _supra_, pp. 437-8.)\n\nAmong the reasons which led to the selection of the ox, rather than the\nhorse, for dragging the plough or hauling sledges laden with farm\nproduce, was the comparative cheapness of the keep of the former animal.\nDuring summer, the ox was mainly fed on grass, which was supplied by the\ncommon pasture. Winter found the poor beast living on a scanty diet of\nstraw, with occasional meals of chaff. Therefore the yeoman who had only\na few acres of land, with access to a waste or common, or the squire who\npossessed sufficient pasture to supplement his arable fields, discovered\nthat bullocks formed the more economical team[1288]. Rogers estimates\nthat the cost of keeping a horse between October 18th and May 3rd,\nduring which term it could not graze, was nearly four times that of an\nox[1289]. Again, beast for beast, the bullock was deemed to have\nproportionately a greater capacity for draught, that is, the strength of\nan ox was utilized to better advantage when the animal was put in\ntraces, though for carrying burdens the horse was superior. The\nassumption seems always to have been that two oxen could, in the mean,\ndrag as much as a good cart-horse. Though slow, the ox was surefooted,\nand on the old, undrained fallows it was invaluable, because its hoofs\nspread out as it tramped along. Not indeed that all breeds of this\ncreature are invariably sluggish. The trotting bullocks of India are\nfamiliar to most folk, and Youatt relates that a British ox ran four\nmiles on Lewes racecourse in sixteen minutes[1290]. Walter de Henley\nactually asserts that the ox is as quick at its work as the horse, but\nthe context shows that this statement must be interpreted in a peculiar\nmanner--he is comparing oxen with horses which are \u201cpulled\u201d by sullen,\nprejudiced workpeople. \u201cBesides,\u201d so runs the comment, \u201ca plough of oxen\nwill go as far in a year as a plough of horses, because the malice of\nploughmen (_la malyce des charuers_) will not allow the plough [of\nhorses] to go beyond their pace, no more [distance] than the plough of\noxen (_aler hors del pas nent ke la charue des buefs_)[1291].\u201d\n\nGeneralizations respecting such a subject as ox-labour must obviously,\nhowever, be accepted under reserve. The problem is not really simple.\nArthur Young prepared elaborate tables to show the relative values of\nox-labour and horse-labour, as applied to different soils under varying\nconditions[1292]. The balance of opinion, as expressed by Young\u2019s\ncalculations, is in favour of the ox[1293], but there are some important\nconclusions in a contrary sense. Fitzherbert anticipated Young\u2019s\nverdict, though his assigned reason seems to indicate that he was\nparrying a difficult question. \u201cFor in some places an oxen-ploughe is\nbetter than a horse-plough, and in somme places a horse-plough is\nbetter[1294].\u201d Oxen are preferable, he tells us, where there exist\npastures into which the animals can be put on their return from work.\nHorses are better when the team has to be \u201cteddered\u201d on leas and balks\n(= unploughed, grassy strips), though, in practice, strange to say, they\nwere not usually so tethered. A more cogent plea for the bullock is\nappended to this somewhat weak reason: \u201cAnd oxen wyl plowe in tough\ncley, and upon hylly grounde, where-as horses wyll stande\nst[i]ll[1295].\u201d This explanation carries weight, for it is on a steep\nhill slope that the superiority of the ox-team was always best seen.\nAfter the teachings of Jethro Tull, Lord Coke, and James Smith of\nDeanston, had borne fruit, and farmers had begun to drain their land,\nthe horse came into serious competition with the ox. Even then, however,\na cause which had, all along, operated against the horse, continued for\nsome time to exercise a partial influence. This cause lay in the fact\nthat too little attention had been paid to horse-breeding, but so soon\nas this art began to be practised, and powerful draught horses were, in\nconsequence, developed, the change of system began in earnest. An\nilluminating piece of evidence was afforded when the transition was\ntaking place in Italy. The husbandmen in the neighbourhood of Rome,\ncopying French and English customs, abandoned ox-labour, but they had\nnot learnt how to rear horses strong enough for heavy field-work, and\nmuch cruelty resulted from the change[1296].\n\nAnother reason for the preference given to cattle requires careful\nexamination. Mr W. J. Corbett, relying apparently on Walter de Henley\nand Fitzherbert, states that the ox did not require shoeing[1297], and\nthat thus expense was saved. It may be doubted whether this cause was\never generally active. The custom of shoeing oxen seems to be very\nancient. There is no obvious reason for disbelieving that the iron\nobject found by General Pitt-Rivers at Rushmore, in Cranborne Chase,\nwas, as the discoverer supposed, a Romano-British ox-shoe (Fig. 96 _C_).\nIt was of crescentic shape, widened at one extremity, slightly concave\non the upper side, and measured 3\u2156 \u00d7 1\u215b inches[1298]. There is the\npossibility, of course, that it was part of a horseshoe, but that\nalternative is not so likely. The question of the existence of\nhorseshoes in Roman times has been dealt with in the preceding chapter.\nIt must be noted, on the one hand, that other objects of about the same\nage as the Rushmore example, found in association with Roman remains in\nash-pits at Dorchester and Silchester, and in the Cam valley, have been\nconsidered\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 96. A. Ox-shoe or \u201ccue,\u201d made at Ditchling, Sussex, c. A.D.\n     1898. B. Nail for fixing shoe. (Author\u2019s collection.) C. Ox-shoe\n     discovered by Pitt-Rivers at Rushmore, in Cranborne Chase. D.\n     Ox-shoes in position.\n]\n\nhorseshoes[1299]. (Cf. details given on p. 424 _supra_.) Against this\nmay be set a few scraps of evidence which support the correctness of\nPitt-Rivers\u2019s determination--assuming that the two opinions clash--an\nassumption which must not be made unless one has the opportunity of\ncomparing the various objects. First, we learn from ancient writers like\nPliny that the ancients shod, or at least bandaged, the hoofs of injured\ncamels with woven or plaited hemp[1300]. They were also often shod with\nstrong ox-leather[1301]. (Cf. Information about horseshoes, p. 423\n_supra_.) Roman mules, and therefore, presumably, horses and oxen, were\nshod with iron when they had to cross miry places, or when pomp and\ndisplay required some ornamentation of the team. The shoes were, indeed,\nill-fastened, and were often lost in the stiff clay[1302]. If, in view\nof facts like these, we feel disposed to allow that the Rushmore plate\nwas really an ox-shoe, then there follows a strong presumption that the\ncustom of shoeing bullocks was never altogether given up. That \u201cvis\ninertia\u201d of social habit, which so impressed Palgrave[1303], and the\ncontinuity which arose from that condition, are nowhere more noticeable\nthan in the history of agriculture.\n\nWe turn to re-examine the Mediaeval authors already mentioned. On their\nwritings, partly, one supposes, Thorold Rogers based his statement that\n\u201cOxen were shod, though the shoe is [was] far cheaper than that of the\nhorse[1304].\u201d Unless, however, Rogers is basing his assertion on writers\nother than De Henley and Fitzherbert, whom he frequently quotes, it is\nobvious that he has misread his authorities. De Henley, in explaining\nhis preference for ox-teams, says that \u201cif the horse must be shod\u201d it\nwill cost \u201ceach week more or less a penny in shoeing[1305].\u201d We may\nfairly infer, then, that De Henley does not sanction the shoeing of\nbullocks, and is a little doubtful about horses. Fitzherbert\u2019s\nobjection, again, to horse-labour is that the animal must be \u201cwell\nshodde on all foure feete[1306].\u201d This assertion, standing by itself,\nmight be taken to imply that cattle were shod on two feet only--the fore\nones. All dispute, however, is removed by Fitzherbert himself, a little\nlater; speaking of oxen, he definitely tells us, \u201cAnd they haue no\nshoes, as horses haue[1307].\u201d Neither can I find any allusion to the\nshoeing of oxen in \u201cGrosseteste\u2019s Rules\u201d (_c._ A.D. 1240), nor in the\n\u201cSeneschaucie,\u201d which was probably written about half a century later.\n\nIn spite of this negative evidence, one may be bold enough to suppose\nthat such a careful writer as Thorold Rogers did not go seriously astray\nin this matter, and that he had somewhere met with references to the\ncustom in Mediaeval works. There exists, in fact, some corroborative\ntestimony, because it is asserted by one who speaks from personal\ninvestigation, that in a fifteenth century will, made in the city of\nYork, a certain man is described as an \u201cox-shoer[1308].\u201d This takes us\nback beyond Fitzherbert\u2019s days. Two centuries later than the York\nevidence, in the years 1666 and 1667, there are clear records of\npayments for shoeing oxen in the Northern counties[1309]. Thus there is\na fair case to be put for the prevalence of the custom locally for the\nlast four or five centuries. Evidently not all oxen were shod. Without\ndoubt, too, the practice differed according to the county or district.\nRecalling, then, the conservatism of agricultural methods, there is a\npossibility that the custom has never been altogether in abeyance since\nthe Roman period. The evidence against the former shoeing of cattle\nmight be advanced equally to show that horses were not shod, at least,\nuniversally. De Henley\u2019s \u201cif\u201d indicates that the custom was not without\nits exceptions, just as some modern equestrians like Mr W. S. Blunt are\nexceptional in their opposition to the shoeing. Nor is Mr Blunt\u2019s\ndoctrine without ancient precedent and parallel among modern primitive\nfolk. The Jews of Palestine, in the time of Isaiah, did not shoe their\nhorses, believing that this breach of custom--if it were indeed a\nbreach--would ensure hoofs \u201clike flint[1310].\u201d This was a great\nadvantage in warfare, comparable, in the opinion of the prophet, to the\nstrong man\u2019s possession of sharp arrows and chariot wheels swift as the\nwhirlwind. As to present practice, the Arabs, the Tartars, the Gauchos\nof the Pampas, allow their horses to go barefooted.\n\nWhatever decision we may reach respecting the Mediaeval custom, more\nrecent records, till within the last few years, afford sufficient\ntestimony of the shoeing of cattle which worked on the farm. The animals\nwere also shod when taken long distances to fairs[1311]. The Sussex\ntradition is sound on this point, for old drovers still talk of the\nformer usage. Within the last decade the custom of shoeing has been\nabandoned, at the time when \u201cthe labour\u2019d ox\u201d is itself about to\ndisappear. A Sussex farmer told me (1908) that shoeing is unnecessary,\nsave for bullocks working on the \u201chard road\u201d: if the creature\u2019s feet\nbecome tender, it should simply be allowed to rest for a day or two. A\nsecond authority puts the matter tersely: \u201cOnce begin to shoe, and you\nhave to keep on doing it.\u201d The operation needed some skill. A rope\n(\u201cgirt\u201d or girth) was placed around the neck of the animal, while\nanother cord embraced one fore and one hind leg. Then, by passing the\nropes over a beam--evidently by the aid of a pulley block--the beast was\nthrown on its back. To prevent struggling, a man sat on the bullock\u2019s\nhead and neck. Not unfrequently the long horns would be snapped off by\nthe impact, in such a way that the horn cores and skull were injured. If\nthis were followed by excessive bleeding, the ox had to be slaughtered.\nEach foot was supplied with two shoes, or, as the Sussex folk term them,\n\u201ckews,\u201d or \u201ccues\u201d: \u201cYou can\u2019t call them shoes, zur; they are like a\n_q_,\u201d and the shape of this letter doubtless originated the nickname.\nThe word \u201ccue,\u201d as proved by the _English Dialect Dictionary_, is common\nin the Southern and Western counties. Sometimes only the outer toe of\neach foot was shod, since the exterior edge was believed to get the\ngreatest strain and pressure. The shoes, as we will continue to\ndesignate them, are in the form of a rough crescent, or a comma much\nwidened at the head (Fig. 96 _A_). The nails look like tiny hammers\n(Fig. 96 _B_). One relic of folk-custom is curious. Before being driven\nin, each nail was thrust into \u201ca piece of fat pork,\u201d the belief being\nthat this made the nail enter the hoof more easily; moreover, if the\n\u201cquick\u201d were accidentally pierced, the hurt would be speedily healed.\nOne blacksmith declared that he was glad when the shoeing of oxen was\ngiven up: he did \u201cnot want to shoe any more of the vicious creatures.\u201d\nOn the contrary, the aged blacksmith of Ditchling, now long past work,\naverred that he would rather shoe two bullocks than one horse, although\neach bullock required eight \u201ccues\u201d with five nails in each (40 nails),\nas against four horseshoes with 28 nails[1312]. But perhaps this worthy,\nin his retirement, looked back on his bygone labours through the\npleasant haze of years, and remembered only the happy occasions.\n\nThe Ditchling blacksmith, however, unconsciously had the support of an\nauthority on cattle, Youatt, who, while of opinion that shoeing was a\nnecessary evil, justifiable only because it increased the speed and\nendurance of the bullock, declared that the task was not difficult. He\nalludes, adversely, to a contrivance recommended by Bakewell for aiding\nthe blacksmith. This arrangement, the \u201ctrevis\u201d (O. French, _traversan_ =\na cross-beam), was apparently some kind of modification of the\ncross-beam described by the Sussex blacksmith. In the Vale of Pewsey,\nthe ox was placed in a kind of rectangular cage made by fixing\nhorizontal bars in four uprights. The animal\u2019s leg having been fastened\nto one of the posts, \u201ccueing\u201d was an easy matter--at least, so the\nPewsey blacksmith considered. Still another method was to throw the\nanimal on his back, tie his legs, and \u201chold down his horns with a\npitchfork.\u201d\n\nYouatt declares that the trevis is dangerous both to the ox and to the\nsmith. What the bullock suffers from is fear, not natural indocility.\nTherefore prepare the beast gradually for the ordeal. Often handle him,\nlift his feet, and strike them gently with the hammer. By and by, as he\nfinds that no harm is done, he will most likely submit meekly to the\nprocess of real shoeing. Little skill is required on the part of the\nartisan, but much patience. There is no weakness of particular parts of\nthe hoof, no \u201ccorn,\u201d no tenderness of the frog, no contraction to be\nstudied. One has simply to fit the metal to the sole. The shoe of the\nhind foot, should be thinner, narrower, and lighter than that of the\nfore foot; it should also be less curved and more pointed[1313].\n\nIf we now inquire why the bullock was, little by little, driven from his\nold position, we may find it partly in the two improvements already\nmentioned--the drainage of arable lands, and the evolution of the\ndraught horse. Another reason which has been assigned, was the wild\ncondition of the boundary hedges of fields, which, although now usually\ntrimmed and pleached, had been allowed to straggle wastefully and to\nincrease in height. The consequence was that the horns of the cattle\noften became entangled when the team turned at the headland; where the\nbranches of hedgerow trees hung low, the risk was still greater. The\nnarrow roads and hollow lanes, too, were frequently so overarched with\nbranches and climbing plants that the Craven breed of cattle, whose\nhorns were a yard in length, were in danger of breaking either their\nhorns or their necks[1314]. During great heat, Mr Stephen Blackmore\ninforms me, the oxen would often fall exhausted in the furrow, while the\nhorses laboured on. Always, too, in hot weather, there was anxiety lest\nthe team, being attacked by flies, should become ungovernable, and,\ndragging the plough over ridge and furrow, dash madly for the nearest\nthicket or pond, to the dismay and peril of the ploughman. Such are\nsome of the causes which are supposed to have wrought the revolution,\nbut surely these reasons must have been effective long before the actual\nchange came. Another factor, more operative one would think, was the\nimprovement made in the construction of ploughs, which now became\nlighter and more manageable. Roads, also, received greater attention.\nTrackways of soft clay, responsive to the cloven hoof, were superseded\nby metalled roads and rough causeways of limestone, \u201cin all seasons\nunfriendly to the feet of oxen[1315].\u201d We thus see that it needed a\nstrong set of forces to break the bond of tradition concerning draught\noxen. For some decades, it is true, the horse and the ox continued to be\nallies in farm work, but the partnership was virtually dissolved about\nthe time when the leas were visited by the\n\n                                                  \u201ckittle o\u2019 ste\u00e4m\n    Huzzin\u2019 an\u2019 ma\u00e4zin\u2019 the blessed fe\u00e4lds wi\u2019 the Divil\u2019s o\u00e4n te\u00e4m.\u201d\n\nAnd now the tradition of working oxen has so nearly vanished that,\nexcept in Sussex, it is difficult to glean information on the subject.\nTo begin the search for a cow-shoe is almost like setting out to find\nthe golden fleece. Even more difficult would it be to discover, outside\na museum, a specimen of the framework, with its set of bells, which was\nformerly fixed above the yoke. The ox-waggoner of these unromantic\ntimes, could we find such a worthy, would tell us that the bells were\nemployed for ornament and for their musical sound: his ancestors,\nhowever, would have asserted that the jingling noise kept off witches\nand persons possessing the \u201cevil eye.\u201d\n\nThere is, indeed, a considerable amount of folk-lore respecting the ox,\nbut, before examining this, time will not be misspent if we examine the\npedigree of the animal.\n\nMost authorities now recognize three species of ox (_Bos_) as having\ninhabited our island in Pleistocene and recent geological times. We will\nglance at the three species in order. The European bison (_Bos priscus_)\nis now found nowhere except in Poland, and need detain us only a moment.\nThis animal had\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 97. Skulls of British oxen. A. The Urus (_Bos primigenius_),\n     from British Pleistocene deposit (British Museum, Natural History,\n     South Kensington). B. Upper portion of skull of the urus, showing\n     the long, curving horns, the bases of which form almost a straight\n     line with the upper skull. C. Skull of the Celtic shorthorn (_Bos\n     longifrons_), showing the short, stout, downward-curved horns, and\n     the depression in the skull between their bases. D. Skull of\n     Chartley bull, one of our Park cattle. This type exhibits the\n     straight-topped skull, a feature not possessed by all the breeds of\n     Park cattle. The outline of the horns is comparable to that seen in\n     the domestic longhorn breed, rather than to the \u201cpitch-fork\u201d\n     arrangement in the Chillingham cattle.\n]\n\nhumps on its withers, and since none of our present breeds of cattle\nexhibits this feature, the claimant is deemed an impossible\nancestor[1316]. Next in rank is the gigantic ox, known scientifically as\n_Bos primigenius_, which was characterised by long curving horns, of\nwhich the basal portions lay in a straight line with the top of the\nskull (Fig. 97 _A_). This beast was domesticated in Switzerland in the\nNeolithic Age, though, in Britain, it seems to have been known only as a\nwild animal during that period. It had made its appearance in our island\nin Palaeolithic days, but many writers suppose that it had become\nextinct here before the Roman invasion. Without much hesitation this\nanimal may be considered identical with the urus which Caesar describes\nas inhabiting Continental forests. The urus, he tells us, was a little\nbelow the elephant in size, while its appearance, colour, and shape were\nthose of a bull (_Hi sunt magnitudine paulo infra elephantos, specie et\ncolore et figura tauri_). Its strength, speed and ferocity were\nextraordinary. The Germans captured it by means of pitfalls and killed\nit (_Hos studiose foveis captos interficiunt_)[1317]. It is stated as a\nfact of no little importance that the urus, or, as it was sometimes\ncalled by German writers, the aurochs, survived in Poland and Lithuania\nuntil A.D. 1627[1318]. Since its extinction, the name of aurochs has\nbeen improperly given to the European bison, which, as already stated,\nstill lives on.\n\nThe interest of the late survival of the urus lies in the theory that\nall European breeds of long-horned oxen, and indirectly--through\nintroductions from the Continent--some of our semi-wild cattle, are\ndescended from this species. The famous breeds of Chartley (Fig. 98),\nLyme, and Chillingham Park, are placed in this list. We say\n\u201cindirectly,\u201d because Professor James Wilson asserts that _B.\nprimigenius_ is not found in British deposits latter than the Bronze\nAge, and hence cannot have left direct descendants in our country.\n\nWild bulls are, indeed, mentioned in Fitzstephen\u2019s _Life of Becket_, as\nexisting near London in the latter part of the twelfth century, though\nit is extremely doubtful if these were uri[1319]. They were more\nprobably more akin to our Park cattle. And one reason for believing that\nthese Park cattle are derived from partially domesticated breeds is\ntheir white colour, which, had natural selection been allowed free play,\nwould have tended to bring about their extermination. Moreover, the Park\ncattle occasionally have black calves; one was born in the Zoological\nGardens, London, in 1909. This fact would seem to indicate that the\noriginal colour was black. Professor Wilson\u2019s theory is, that the Park\ncattle are the wild representatives of oxen introduced by the Romans.\nAgain, the present feral descendants of the supposed domesticated\nancestors are not all of one type as regards skull and horns, so that\nthe problem is not simple.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 98. Wild bull, Zoological Gardens, London; the sole survivor\n     of the (mixed) Chartley herd. Characteristics: white body, long,\n     level back, coarse hair, black muzzle. The horns, which are\n     blackish towards the tips, project slightly downwards and then\n     curve upwards again. (Cf. the horns of _B. primigenius_ and _B.\n     longifrons_, Fig. 97 B, C.)\n]\n\nTouching the origin of our domestic long-horned breeds, there are two\nviews extant. The first hypothesis is that our longhorns are traceable\nto the Roman invasion. The Romans had a tame long-horned ox of a size\nintermediate between _B. primigenius_ and _B. longifrons_, the last\nnamed being a smaller breed, to be noticed shortly. This Roman ox was\nperhaps the result of crossing _B. longifrons_ with Italian stock.\nAlternatively, it may have been a domesticated form of _B. primigenius_\nitself, which, not having passed through so many generations as later\nvarieties, retained more of the original features--such as the long\nhorns and straight forehead--its size alone being diminished[1320]. The\nother view taken of our long-horned cattle is that of Professor Boyd\nDawkins, who, arguing from the occurrence of _B. longifrons_ as the only\nspecies discovered at the Roman station of Uriconium, credits the\nScandinavian invaders with the importation of the long-horned\nrace[1321]. Professor Wilson has also strongly argued that the Norsemen\nbrought over our polled cattle. Mr R. Hedger Wallace, in an excellent\ncontribution to this subject, considers that the longhorns may even have\nbeen introduced from Holstein and the Low Countries in Mediaeval\ntimes[1322]. This might be termed a third hypothesis, and, before\naccepting it, the student should carefully read Professor Wilson\u2019s\nlittle volume.\n\nWe pass to the last of our ancient types, the \u201cCeltic shorthorn\u201d (_Bos\nlongifrons_ = _B. brachyceros_), already mentioned as known to the\nRomans. This smaller ox had an abnormally developed forehead, hence its\nname _longifrons_. The short horns and the depressed curve of the upper\nportion of the skull frontal should be compared with the corresponding\nfeatures in the urus (Fig. 97 _C_). The Celtic shorthorn was\ndomesticated in Britain in the Neolithic period, and during the Bronze\nAge it was our characteristic, if not our only ox, and occupied this\n\n[Illustration:\n\n     FIG. 99. Highland cattle, Perthshire. These cattle are mixed\n     descendants of the Celtic shorthorn (_Bos longifrons_), they have a\n     shaggy coat, and the horns, which are set widely apart, have a tuft\n     of hair between their bases. The animals shown in the illustration\n     are of a tawny-brown colour.\n]\n\nposition on the arrival of the Romans. Its remains have been found in\nvast quantities among the ruined lake-dwellings of Croyland[1323], and\nalso in turbaries in various parts of England[1324]. In short, if\nProfessor Wilson be correct, this ox represents our original native\nbreed. The ox described by Nilsson under the name of _B. frontosus_ is\nbelieved to be the same, or a closely allied species[1325]. From the\nblack Celtic shorthorn our black cattle of Wales and the Highlands (Fig.\n99) are probably derived, though inter-breeding has doubtless much\ndiminished the purity of the strain. It is curious to find that _B.\nlongifrons_ is, by some, supposed to have been originally a stunted\nvariety of _B. primigenius_. Actual crossing of the breeds is unproved.\nThe larger animal, it is believed, became locally dwarfed by\nunfavourable environment, and was hence more easily subjugated by\nNeolithic man[1326].\n\nOnce having tamed the ox, early man soon used it for purposes of haulage\nand carrying burdens. The paintings on ancient Egyptian sepulchres,\nwhich go back nearly to the days of polished stone implements, exhibit\nseveral breeds of the ox tribe, both bearing the yoke and drawing the\nplough[1327]. Again, Dr T. Rice Holmes cites authorities to show that an\nox drawing a plough is depicted on rock-carvings in Scandinavia[1328].\nAnd that the animal was used as food there is abundant testimony\nafforded by the nature and condition of the bones unearthed from barrows\nand primitive settlements.\n\nWith the position of the ox in prehistoric times is intimately connected\nits status in folk-lore and history. At once, however, we notice that\nthe ox has not here played such a prominent part as the horse. With\nregard to sacrifice, Jacob Grimm sums up the case by the axiom that\nagricultural nations have leaned more towards bovine, and warlike\npeoples towards equine sacrifices[1329]. We may accept this as a general\ntendency, but perhaps not more. Among the Greeks and Romans, indeed,\nbullocks were the favourite victims[1330]. It will be remembered, too,\nthat the Philistines, when about to send back the Ark of Jehovah to the\nIsraelites, selected for the purpose two milch kine which had never been\nsubjected to the yoke. These kine were offered as a burnt-offering by\nthe jubilant Israelites when the end of the journey was reached[1331].\nIn Sweden, almost down to the time of Grimm (b. 1785, d. 1863), there\nexisted cattle known as \u201cGod\u2019s cows.\u201d Grimm sagaciously hints that the\nterm had its origin when such animals were claimed as priestly\ndues[1332]. One is inclined to trace the expression further, namely, to\nthe days of real sacrifices. Among the old Norse and Alamannic tribes\nthe sacrifice of oxen was a custom which was eradicated with great\ndifficulty. A letter written to St Boniface (died A.D. 755) speaks of\nungodly priests who offered bulls and he-goats to heathen deities (_qui\ntauros et hircos diis paganorum immolabant_)[1333]. Gregory the Great,\nin a letter to the Abbot Mellitus (A.D. 601), uttered a like complaint\nagainst the Angles: \u201c_Boves solent in sacrificio daemonum multos\noccidere_[1334].\u201d The horns of cows intended for sacrifices were\nbedecked with garlands[1335], somewhat in the manner of the Swiss cows\nwhich are adorned with ribbons by their herdsmen. To witness the\ninveteracy of custom concerning the cult of the ox, it is only necessary\nto cross over to Brittany at the period of the great religious\nprocessions. Notably, one should get a glimpse of the display made\nduring the \u201cPardon\u201d of St Corn\u00e9ly at Carnac. At that period cattle are\ndriven many miles to be sprinkled with holy water at a sacred well. Such\nfarmers as can afford the gift, present an ox as an oblation to the\nChurch. As soon as the animal has been blessed, it is led away to be\nsold by auction, the money being delivered to the church authorities.\nUntil about a century ago, at Clynnog in North Wales, cattle were\nsimilarly offered to St Beuno. Apparently, both in Wales and Brittany, a\nChristian saint had supplanted a pagan deity. Indeed, at a Roman villa\nin Carnac, Mr James Miln dug up the votive image of an ox--a suggestive\ndiscovery[1336].\n\nThere is another phase of the ox\u2019s domination--that connected with the\nsoothsayer. The ancient Cimbrians swore oaths over a brazen bull[1337].\nIn Hindoo folk-lore, the bull appears in the ceremonial associated with\nchildbirths, weddings, and funerals[1338]. In ancient Rome, as is\nfamiliar to most readers, the ox figured in oracles. Speaking with a\nman\u2019s voice, the beast gave dire warnings, such as that which bade\nCaesar beware the Ides of March[1339]. White oxen were sacrificed to\nJupiter, and black ones to Pluto. The black ox was therefore deemed\naccursed, a herald of ill-luck. In this superstition lies the\nexplanation of such a proverb as, \u201cThe black ox has trodden on his\nfoot,\u201d allusions to which are found in old writers like Thomas Tusser\nand Heywood the dramatist. Perhaps of more interest to us is Kemble\u2019s\nstatement that there are records of bulls having been used for\ndivination in England[1340] (p. 435 _supra_). In the Bronze and Early\nIron Ages oxen were frequently sacrificed at graves when interments took\nplace, as indicated by the prevalence of bones and teeth in the mounds.\nIt is supposed that the animals formed part of the funeral feast. Ox\nskulls (_B. longifrons_) are recorded from many round barrows of the\nAeneolithic (Copper-Stone) and Bronze period[1341]. But more remarkable\nwas Sir R. Colt Hoare\u2019s discovery, in a barrow near Amesbury (Wilts.),\nof the skeletons of two children, each resting on the head of a cow. The\nanimal appeared to have been of small size. The head of one child lay to\nthe East, that of the other to the West[1342].\n\nThere will perhaps be always some doubt as to which animals were used by\nprehistoric folk as daily food, and which were eaten only on ceremonial\noccasions. It seems probable that the earlier peoples did not commonly\neat beef. Contrariwise, there is good evidence to show that horseflesh\nwas much sought after, and we have seen how strong was the later\ntradition and how difficult it was to destroy it. Pliny relates the case\nof a man who was brought before the Roman people, and condemned to\nexile, for having killed an ox for purposes of food. The grave part of\nthe offence was that the wretch had slain the beast--the partner in\nman\u2019s labours--with as little compunction as he would have killed one of\nhis own peasants[1343]! And Virgil instances the eating of oxen\n(_juvenci_ = young bullocks) at banquets as a sign of degeneracy, and\nas not having existed in the Golden Age[1344]. Other classical writers\ngive utterance to a like misgiving. This tradition of a \u201cGolden Age\u201d was\nprobably an instance of subconscious recollection of the pastoral stage\nof society.\n\nHonour, therefore, was reserved for the ox. Labour did not diminish its\ndignity. But since wealth sprang from labour, whether of man or beast,\nthe Athenians did not deem it amiss to stamp the figure of an ox upon\ntheir coins[1345]. Yet the Athenians, Professor Frazer tells us, were\naccustomed to sacrifice the ox with elaborate ritual as the\nrepresentative of the spirit of vegetation. The sacrifice was known as\n\u201cthe murder of the ox\u201d (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1). Apart, too, from actual sacrifice,\nthere was a mysterious virtue imputed to the animal. Thus, the Egyptian\nreverence for cows, which were regarded as embodiments of Isis, and\nwhich were never killed, has been fully established by Professor Frazer,\nwho attributes the worship to either the pastoral or the agricultural\nstage of Egyptian development. The kings of Northern Europe were\naccustomed to take with them, when set on great enterprises, one or more\nsacred cows, to yield a supply of potent elixir that would ensure\nsuccess[1346]. Bulls drew the chariots of Frankish monarchs[1347]. At\nthis point, the past is revealed in the present, for Defoe records how\nhe witnessed, near Lewes, the strange spectacle of \u201can ancient lady of\nvery good quality\u201d being drawn to church in her own coach by six oxen.\nThis was done, however, not from \u201cFrolick or Humour,\u201d but from\nnecessity, the roads being so deep and miry[1348]. In the same county,\ntoo, it was the custom, down to our own days, for a farmer who had\nemployed oxen on his land to be drawn to his burial by an ox-team[1349].\n\nThe symbolic side of our subject deserves a word or two. The figure of\nan ox was emblematic of St Luke, and in later times, a similar device\nwas representative of St Frideswide, St Leonard, and St Sylvester[1350].\nAs the ox gradually lost its prestige, and the symbolic was replaced by\nthe secular, fables superseded the older reputable beliefs. All are\nfamiliar with the celebrated \u201cDun Cow,\u201d said to have been slain by the\ndoughty Guy of Warwick (cf. p. 199 _supra_). It was about four yards in\nheight, and six in length, with a head proportionately large. As\ndescribed in the old ballad:\n\n    \u201cOn Dunsmore heath I also slewe\n     A monstrous wyld and cruell beast,\n     Calld the Dun Cow of Dunsmore heath,\n     Which many people had opprest.\n     Some of her bones in Warwick yett\n     Still for a monument doe lye[1351].\u201d\n\nThe basis of this legend of Sir Guy, according to good authorities,\nbelongs to a period previous to the Norman Conquest.\n\nIn Chapter IV. we had occasion to refer to the bones of the Dun Cow. In\nrecalling the story, the subject of inn-signs deserves a moment\u2019s\nnotice. The Bull, whether Black, White, or Red, is very popular on\ntavern sign-boards, but it is a little curious that the Ox is not\ncommon, and is, in fact, now becoming rare. The Cow takes the place of\nthe Ox, and is represented as of various colours, Red, White, Brown,\nDun, and Spotted. The Wild Bull is met with, to say nothing of the\nChained Bull and the Bull and Chain. There is reason to believe that the\nOx signs formerly held a more favoured position. In nursery rhymes, the\nanimal was certainly prominent. The cow that jumped over the moon has\nits fellow in the childish jingles of other lands besides ours. There is\nalso a German counterpart of the bull who tolled the bell when pussy was\ndrowned, for in a twelfth century manuscript the bull is made to read\nthe Gospel over the dead body of the wolf[1352]. The tradition that oxen\ntalk in their stalls on Christmas night is old, but is probably\npost-Christian--there being no likely pagan basis for the story.\n\nWe may conclude with a notice of a pleasant custom, once common--the\ngiving of pet names to oxen and cows. Richard Carew (1769) states that\nCornish folk were much addicted to the practice: \u201cEach Oxe hath his\nseverall name, upon which the drivers call aloud, both to direct and\ngive them courage as they are at worke[1353].\u201d With dairy cows the\nnomenclature was quite as diversified. Excluding the \u201cfancy names\u201d of\nthe breeder\u2019s herdbook, we find such appellations as Whytelocke (in a\nwill _c._ A.D. 1546); Fyll Kytt (A.D. 1551); Cherry and Cherrye (in\nwills, A.D. 1546, 1585); Shakespeare (A.D. 1793); Fill Bowl and Fill Pan\n(A.D. 1809)[1354]. Such names as Daisy, Damsel, Grizzle and Straighthorn\nare representative of old Hampshire[1355]. Then there are the names made\nfamiliar to us in literature, for example, \u201cJetty,\u201d \u201cLightfoot,\u201d and\n\u201cWhitefoot,\u201d of Jean Ingelow, \u201cBrockie\u201d and \u201cGowans\u201d of Sir Walter\nScott[1356]. Pet names are still given to milch cows, as Mr Edward\nThomas has observed in his _South Country_. Monotonously, persuasively,\nthe cowboy calls, in turn, to such cows as linger to crop the roadside\nsward: \u201cWo, Cherry! Now, Dolly! Wo, Fancy! Strawberry! Blanche!\u201d and so\non, throughout a pleasant roll-call[1357].\n\nBut now that the ox no longer drags his burden along the dusty\nturnpike, he receives no nickname. He is merely merchandise--the subject\nof transactions between the butcher and the grazier. Not the least\nlamentable feature in his history is the fact that no one remembers, or\ncares to remember, his social services in the past. Knowledge of the ox\nas a toiler of the field has all but departed, and, with oblivion,\nkindliness perchance has diminished. \u201cThou shalt not muzzle the ox when\nhe treadeth out the corn[1358],\u201d said the Mosaic law. Nowadays, one\nhears of Societies whose work, imperatively necessary, consists in\nwatching, with friendly eye, the interests of dumb, driven cattle. It is\na little doubtful whether any hardships connected with the use of\ndraught oxen ever exceeded, or equalled, the cruelty which is\noftentimes, if reports be true, associated with the lives of fatted\nkine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nRETROSPECT\n\n\nWe are now in a position to see whither the lines of our inquiries\nconverge, and to draw a few general conclusions. Since each chapter has\nbeen provided with its own summary, the retrospect will not detain us\nlong.\n\nWe began by reviewing the facts with regard to the existence of\nChristian churches on ancient pagan sites. It was soon discovered that\nthe chief testimony was afforded by tangible relics. These objects\ncomprise, on the one hand, rude stone monuments, ancient burial mounds,\nprehistoric earthworks, and sacred wells, existing in close association\nwith parish churches; and, on the other, of scraps of treasure-trove,\nsuch as bones, urns, coins, and implements, thrown up by the spade. The\nmaterial relics, it is true, did not complete the evidence. A little was\nlearned from place-names, and more, perhaps, from folk-stories\nconcerning the deeds of fairies and witches, giants and demons, who\nbaulked the efforts of the early builders. These traditions, widespread\nand genuinely spontaneous, are--in whatever way we may choose to explain\nand interpret them--valuable records of true folk-memory. Our general\nverdict respecting the sites was that, in many instances, they were\noriginally of pagan selection, although no existing building can be\nproduced which exhibits, as a structure, undoubted continuity from the\ndays of heathendom.\n\nFrom the site we went on to consider the church fabric. It was seen that\nsome of the earliest churches were raised during periods when the\ncommunity thought it wise to plan buildings adapted both for defence and\nworship. The truth of this proposition will, by most students, be\ndeemed to have been satisfactorily proved. The part of the building\nspecially designed for protection was the steeple, which was frequently,\nby turns, conning tower, beacon, treasure-chamber, and fortress.\nTouching this ancient use, folk-tales have the true ring.\n\nAs the centuries passed away, defensive towers became unnecessary, yet\nthe idea survived in slight architectural features, now meaningless,\nunless interpreted by the light of history. The nave, however, continued\nto have its social value for several hundred years. Partly owing to the\nReformation of the sixteenth century, partly in consequence of the\npressure of population and the subsequent provision of more suitable\nbuildings for secular purposes, even the nave was at last forbidden to\nthe trader and the religious dramatist. Only a few trivial vestiges,\nsuch as the affixing of public notices on the church door, remain to\ntell of the old latitude given to customs, almost all traces of which\nhave vanished from the memory of the common folk. We must except from\nthis oblivion the village chatter about Cromwell\u2019s soldiers stabling\ntheir horses in the nave, the gossip about dog-whippers and dicing, and\nthe numerous bits of scandal coming down from the less creditable\nperiods of church history. All of these stories possess a germ of\nreality. With respect, however, to the current explanations of \u201clepers\u2019\nwindows,\u201d squints, \u201cpriests\u2019 chambers,\u201d and deflected chancels, there is\nno direct tradition, these explanations having been obtained from\noutside sources.\n\nAgain, with regard to the orientation of churches, the reasons given by\ncountry folk are obviously hearsay presentations of what has been taught\nby educated persons. We have, it is true, the records of ecclesiological\nwriters to aid us, but these are, unfortunately, rather contradictory.\nPriest and architect seem to have conspired to keep any actual details\nof tradition to themselves, supposing, indeed, that any precise canons\never existed. This select corporation may have handed down the theory\nand the practice, but the rite is now shorn of much ceremonial, and the\ncustom is followed almost blindly. Moreover, modern builders appear to\nbe very careless in their alinements. The staple rudimentary idea of\norientation is clearly pagan, and the broad general tradition of\nsun-alinements must have been well kept during the early centuries of\nchurch-building, whether any definite, exact rules as to seasonal\nalinement were observed or not. If the orientation of modern churches is\nsettled in a somewhat haphazard manner by the builders, and if the\nprimitive idea has become blurred and indefinite, the orientation of\ngraves affords a splendid example of unconscious folk-memory. Not only a\nsexton, but probably any villager chosen at random, would take into\naccount the East-and-West direction in digging a grave, though he might\nnot be able to assign a reason for his method. The primitive purpose has\nlong since been driven aside by the force of events, and even the\nsymbolists have had to introduce secondary explanations.\n\nIn burial customs, with their numerous little superstitious observances,\nthe survival of folk-memory is well displayed. It is needless to repeat\nthe evidence here--how, in recent years, objects have been\nsurreptitiously, and even openly, buried with the dead; how the funeral\nfeast, in an attenuated form, lingers on; how we still scrupulously don\nthe funeral garb, once the sign of deprecation or fear; how graveyard\nteeth are used as charms and remedies. True, the underlying ideas have\nmuch altered; witness, for instance, the modern reasons put forward to\njustify the wearing of mourning; but so far as the practices are\naffected, we are still living, though, of course, unavowedly, in the\nNeolithic period. The superstitions relating to death cannot be expelled\nfrom the uneducated mind, which realizes too well that the event itself\nis inescapable. Hence the prejudice against cremation, stubbornly\ndefying enlightened opinion, and hence the stories of ghosts and\napparitions furtively believed in by many persons who would be ashamed\nto admit such credulity.\n\nThe folk-memory connected with the points of the compass supplied us\nwith some curious little touches of local superstition, and with the\nfamiliar objection to burial on the North side of the churchyard--an\ninherited antipathy coming down from prehistoric times. Next, the\nchurchyard yew presented a complicated problem. During the eighteenth\ncentury there appears to have existed an echo of the days when the\nchurchyard yew was pruned for purposes of archery. In the few instances\nwhere traditions concerning archery are still extant, there is a strong\nsuspicion that folk-memory has been \u201cassisted\u201d by local writers and\nrambling antiquaries. Indeed, the strange silence about the yew in\ngenuine popular legend is so complete as to be amazing. One does not\nrefer to accounts of the employment of the yew on Palm Sunday, and other\nsimilar observances; at most, these are valid only as furnishing\nsecondary motives. The real puzzle remains. Here we have a graveyard\ntree, possessing strong distinctive characters--sombreness, strength,\nlongevity, perpetual verdure--appealing eloquently to human sentiment.\nThe planting of the tree was a custom in the early days of British\nChristianity, and the practice has never become obsolete. Individual\ntrees, when decayed or uprooted, have been replaced by fresh ones. In\nface of the cumulative testimony we cannot believe that the choice of\nthe yew, like that of the elm or ash, was merely casual; yet most of the\ntrustworthy tradition respecting the tree has long since disappeared in\na most extraordinary manner.\n\nRapidly passing on, we recall the chapter relating to the horse-cult.\nNeglecting the minor details, we observe, in the obstinate prejudice\nagainst eating horseflesh, a reversal of prehistoric ideas. Here, at\nleast, the Church made little admitted compromise, though the pagan\nhabit died hard, and backslidings are recorded. Strange to say, few\npersons could give a reason, except that derived from the Jewish law,\nfor the general repugnance. On broad grounds, we should have expected to\nfind some curious, inconsequent explanation, such as that involved in\nthe superstitious fear of killing robins and swallows, or of eating\ncertain kinds of fish. There could scarcely be any rooted distaste for\nhorseflesh, nor natural repulsion to so clean an animal. Yet the\noriginal ecclesiastical ban has lingered long after its actual effective\nforce has been lost. Perhaps a partial explanation is found in the fact\nthat we have always had numerous other domestic animals which have\nfurnished us with flesh food, though the native stores have had to be\nsupplemented by importation.\n\nWhile folk-memory has sub-consciously kept alive the antipathy to\nhorseflesh, the story of the working ox supplies us with an excellent\nillustration of the direct failure of oral tradition. The use of the\nbullock as a beast of draught constituted an economic question simply.\nSo soon as the immediate material advantage was removed, owing to the\ndisuse of ox-labour, all interest in keeping up the tradition was lost.\nConsequently, it is extremely difficult to get sound information\nrespecting a custom so recently abandoned, and not one person in a\nhundred has ever seen an ox-shoe. Had the ox been pre-eminently\nconnected with British and Early Teutonic sacrifices and superstitions,\nas was the horse, we should almost certainly have inherited a number of\nvagrant traditions. As it is, we possess but a few old ballads, legends,\nand nursery rhymes, like that of the Dun Cow of Warwick, or the cow that\njumped over the moon.\n\nThe study of the ox, indeed, helps us to appreciate exactly where the\nstrength and the weakness of folk-memory lie. Roughly speaking, the\nsoundest traditions are concerned either with essential details of\nurgent social economy, or with religion and superstition. In these\nmatters, oral transmission is usually faithful. \u201cThis story shall the\ngood man teach his son.\u201d But let an industrial practice be dropped,\nthrough its being no longer necessary or profitable, and a few decades\nwill wipe out all direct remembrance. The most stupid myths will arise\nto account for this or that visible relic of the industry or custom. So\nlong as the occupation brings material gain, the tradition is\nscrupulously passed on from father to son. Of superstition, or of\nwidely-felt fears, affecting both body and spirit, there is the same\ncareful transmission and the same vivid retention. Scenes of horror also\nremain long in the memory of the people; hence we meet with traditions\nof battles, massacres, raids, burnings. Just in proportion as the\nhistorical facts grow tenuous, the accounts become distorted and\nexaggerated, as, for instance, in the Irish legends about Cromwell.\nThere are minor divisions of each series, such as those which comprise\nthe stories about buried treasure, ghosts and \u201cbarguests,\u201d omens and\namulets, together with superstitions respecting personal\ncharacteristics, times and seasons, health and disease, with many other\nmatters.\n\nViewing broadly the tract occupied by folk-memory, we indeed find\ncertain stable elements. We see the peasantry, diminishing numerically,\nbut still forming a great multitude, slow-moving by nature, and\ntenacious of their heritage of folklore. The dull, mechanical monotony\nof the lives of many of the industrial classes, again, tends to check\nany breaking away from tradition. Our educational system is, alas, still\nso uniform as to put a curb on originality, hence there is a tendency\nfor ideas to keep their traditional set. Opposed to these conservative\nfactors, there is at work a well-known biological principle. As our\nsociety--to use the Spencerian phrase--is being slowly transformed from\na state of homogeneity to one of heterogeneity, as the individual\nbecomes separated and specialized from the mass, the habit of acting\ninstinctively like blind units of the human crowd is slowly lost, while\nrace-memory is weakened, and the primitive faculty of unconsciously\npreserving and transmitting unwritten lore becomes atrophied and almost\nworthless.\n\nEven the wofully scanty records of folk-memory such as those which we\nhave noticed, are destined soon to disappear. Education, in spite of its\ncramped conditions, is destroying many foolish beliefs and baneful\nsuperstitions. But it is doing more than this; for the printed book and\nthe daily newspaper not only obliterate folk-memory, but remove the need\nfor its lawful exercise. The reader no longer relies on oral tradition,\nbut on the printed pages of history and on works of reference. Scarcely\ncan we tell whether an important event took place five years ago, or a\ndozen years ago. The speech and actions of famous men become confused in\npopular tradition--always there is some book wherein the record is kept.\nA credulous antiquary may proclaim that a certain mound is a barrow, and\nthough the \u201cbarrow\u201d was actually raised within the past twenty years,\nfew folk can come forward to gainsay the statement. Or some old shepherd\n\u201cbelieves\u201d that he has used flint celts for bell-clappers, whereas it is\nmore likely that he has merely heard, or read, of such a practice. In\nfact, we are swiftly approaching the time when folk-custom and\nfolk-memory will be so utterly vitiated by books and lectures as to be\nworthless. Caution is especially necessary at the present day. In his\naddress to the British Association in 1910, Mr W. Crooke gave a timely\nwarning respecting the \u201chalf-trained amateur.\u201d Such a person, visiting\nIndia, \u201cmay see a totem in every hedge, or expect to meet a corn-spirit\non every threshing floor.\u201d And, at home, the rash enthusiast may see an\nidol in every stone heap, an Iberian in every dark-haired man, a symbol\nin every line of an ancient building, a prehistoric grave in every stray\nbit of potsherd.\n\nThere is, however, a middle course of action. And, though folk-memory is\nwaning, there is work which can be done, if it be done quickly. There\nare still waifs and strays of custom to be collected and correlated.\nEvery village clergyman has his parish registers, which, though\nunfortunately not reaching back so far as one could wish, may yet give\ninformation on some of the topics which we have studied. The local\nantiquary who will make a precise record of all discoveries which\nconnect the present with the past, will do great service. The muniment\nroom, with its deeds and charters, sometimes yields us timely help. The\nold chest, with its wills, leases, and covenants, may, in a few\nscattered sentences, throw light on some quaint custom. The ballads and\nfolk-songs, which are now being so sedulously collected and studied,\nstill safeguard many curious fancies and superstitions. All these\nsources will gradually yield less and less to the searcher. It is true\nthat there are libraries full of volumes which treat of antiquities,\nfolk-customs, and folk-lore, but the details need to be carefully\nre-arranged, and, in many instances, to be re-vivified by comparison\nwith the living present.\n\n\n\n\nADDENDA\n\n\nPage 9. _Churches on Roman foundations._ The piers of the chancel arch\nof Bosham church, Sussex, rest on enormous square bases, which are\nbelieved to be Roman. The capitals were also probably copied from Roman\nmodels. Mr P. M. Johnston, F.S.A., in _Victoria Hist. of Sussex_, 1907,\nII. p. 362, suggests that the work represents \u201cpossibly the triumphal\narch of Vespasian\u2019s basilica.\u201d Roman relics have been found under the\nfloor of this pre-Conquest church.\n\nSt Michael\u2019s church, St Albans, retains much Roman material in its walls\nand piers.\n\nSince this chapter went to press, I have read Mr Montagu Sharpe\u2019s\n_Parish Churches on Romano-British Sites_, 1909, in which evidence is\nadduced to show that many of our parish churches occupy the sites of\npagan rural chapels (_sacella_) and are closely associated with the\nlines of centuriation as planned by Roman surveyors. The sacellum was a\nsmall unroofed place consecrated to a deity (p. 4), containing an altar,\nand sometimes a shrine (_aedicula_). The sacellum was also used for\nnon-religious purposes, e.g. as a place of refreshment. Mr Sharpe states\nthat the Roman surveyors divided a district into areas or \u201cblocks\u201d by\nmeans of four public ways (_viae vicinales_). In the canton of the\nLondon Civitas a side of such a square measured 1\u215b miles (p. 2). Maps\nare given, one of which shows that 30 parish churches of the Isle of\nWight \u201chad intimate connection with the lines of the Roman Survey\u201d (p.\n3). Such churches are especially found near cross-roads.\n\nMr John Ward\u2019s _The Roman Era in Britain_, 1911, pp. 111-113, deserves\nnotice in this connection, especially with regard to the conflict\nbetween the historical evidence and the \u201ccomparative silence of\narchaeology.\u201d\n\n\nPage 14. _Classification of earthworks._ A portion of the scheme is\nappended, in order to explain the groups of earthworks to which\nreference is made.\n\nA. Promontory fortresses: partly inaccessible, on account of cliffs or\nwater, partly defended by artificial walls or banks.\n\nB. Hill-or Contour-forts: fortresses situated on hill-tops, with\nartificial defences following the natural line of the hill.\n\nC. Rectangular, or other simple enclosures, including forts and towns of\nthe Romano-British kind.\n\nD. Castle mounts: forts consisting of a mount, with an encircling ditch\nor fosse.\n\nE. Castle mounts with baileys: fortified mounts wholly or partly\nartificial, having an attendant court or bailey.\n\n\nPage 118. _Churches as fortresses._ The church of St Michael,\nTorrington, Devon, was employed by the Royalists (1646), both as a\nprison and a powder magazine. Owing to an explosion, probably\naccidental, the church was blown up, and about 200 prisoners were\nkilled.\n\nThe town referred to by Thorold Rogers seems to be Alton.\n\n\nPage 161. _Arms taken to church._ A few of the old oak seats in Clovelly\nchurch, Devon, are notched, and it has been supposed that the purpose\nwas the accommodation of weapons. In one case there is a corresponding\nhole in the floor, rectangular in shape, which may have been intended to\nreceive the butt end of a musket (cf. the stands in City churches for\nholding the sword of the Lord Mayor).\n\nRespecting the rating of the clergy for armour, see _Notes and Queries_,\n11th Ser., IV. p. 468.\n\n\nPage 167. _The Borsholder._ The powers of this official are enumerated\nin William Lambard\u2019s work, _The Duties of Constables, Borsholders,\nTythingmen, and such other lowe Ministers of the peace_ (1583), pp. 15,\n16, 20, etc.\n\n\nPage 201. _Objects in churches._ An enormous pole was formerly suspended\nin a horizontal position in the nave of Bosham church, Sussex. It was\ntraditionally said to be the staff of a Mediaeval giant, Sir Bevis of\nSouthampton, who was accustomed to stride across Bosham Harbour at one\nstep, on his way to Southampton (K. H. MacDermott, _The Story of Bosham\nchurch, Sussex_, 1906, pp. 14-15). For a list of curiosities formerly\npreserved in pagan temples, see J. Beckmann\u2019s _History of Inventions,\nDiscoveries, and Origins_, trans. by W. Johnston, 1846, I. pp. 283-4.\n\n\nPage 344. _Plan of churchyards._ Additional examples of churches which\nhave little space on the North side: West Tarring, Sussex; Northam and\nClovelly, Devon; Hambledon, Surrey. Small South yards: Ferring and\nLyminster, Sussex.\n\n\nPage 346. _Introduction of headstones._ It is asserted that the\nchurchyard of Grasmere, Westmoreland, was devoid of gravestones until\nthe early part of the nineteenth century, and was used as the playground\nof the village school. Wordsworth thus refers to the churchyard in _The\nBrothers_:\n\n    \u201cAn orphan could not find his mother\u2019s grave;\n     Here\u2019s neither head nor footstone, plate of brass,\n     Cross-bones nor skull,--type of our earthly state\n     Nor emblem of our hopes: the dead man\u2019s home\n     Is but a fellow to that pasture-field.\u201d\n\n\nPage 405. _Tennyson and the yew._ Two other lines from the same poem\n(_In Memoriam_, XXXIX. _vv._ 1, 2) deserve notice:\n\n    \u201cDark yew, that graspest at the stones\n     And dippest toward the dreamless head.\u201d\n\nThese lines suggest the Breton superstition that the yew sends out a\nroot into the mouths of the dead.\n\n\nPage 412. _Drawings of the horse._ Sketches of hog-maned horses, bearing\nsigns of halters, have recently been discovered in the Magdalenian caves\nof North Spain.\n\n\nPage 440. _Superstitions respecting the horse._ In Bavaria, it was\nformerly the custom for horses to be taken to church once every year, to\npeep at the altar or the effigy of the local saint. This observance was\nsupposed to ensure good health to the animals during the next\ntwelvemonth. (_Notes and Queries_, 11th Ser., III. p. 266, authority\ncited.) The practice is still followed in Italy.\n\nIn our own country, horses were taken at Easter into the \u201cmiddle\u201d of\nHertfordshire churches to be blessed. (_Notes and Queries_, 11th Ser.,\nIII. p. 318.)\n\n\nPage 460. _Curved ridges due to plough-teams of oxen._ The curvature\nindicative of ancient tillage generally takes the form of a flat\nreversed S; in other words the unwieldy team turned to the left when\napproaching the headland. Mr T. Blashill (_Jour. Brit. Archaeol.\nAssoc._, N.S., II. pp. 218-23) deduces that the old-fashioned heavy\nploughs turned the furrow-slice to the left. This is not, however, a\nnecessary conclusion. A reversed S-curve might be associated with a\nright-handed mould-board. Moreover, Dr W. Fream (_Elements of\nAgriculture_, 1892, p. 45) asserts that \u201cnone of the old ploughs turned\na furrow\u201d; they stirred the earth but did not turn it over. In such a\nconservative occupation as agriculture, one would scarcely expect to\nfind such a revolution as Mr Blashill postulates. He observes that\nmodern ploughs are so made that the furrow-slice is thrown to the right,\nand the team also turns in that direction at the headland. A similar\nfeature is noticeable in old cultivation ridges in many parts of the\nContinent, where the curve is more frequently that of a flat S, not\nreversed. It should be remembered that the old turnwrest plough,\nformerly employed in some parts of England, enabled the ploughman to\nthrow the furrow either way.\n\nThe \u201cline of beauty\u201d traced by old ploughs is alluded to by William\nMason, in his _English Garden_, Bk II., ll. 51-6 (Vol. I. of _Works_,\n1811, p. 237). He is referring to \u201cploughing steers\u201d:\n\n                    \u201cThat peculiar curve,\n    Alike averse to crooked and to straight\n    Where sweet Simplicity resides; which Grace\n    And Beauty call their own; whose lambent flow\n    Charms us at once with symmetry and ease;\n    \u2019Tis Nature\u2019s curve ...\u201d\n\nTo prevent overstatement respecting the connection between ox-teams and\nthe curved furrow, it should be added that formerly there was \u201ca\nprejudice, if not a superstition, in favour of crooked ridges\u201d (W. L.\nRham, _Dict. of the Farm_, 1858, p. 291).\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbbots Bromley (Staffs.), 160, 185\n\nAbbotsbury (Dorset), 128 n.\n\nAbbotsham (Devon), 345\n\nAberdeen, 301\n\nAbinger (Surrey), mound, 62-3;\n  stocks, 165\n\nAchnacree (Argyle), 299\n\nAcoustic jars in churches, 446-9, 451\n\nAcoustic skulls in churches, 444-5, 449-51\n\nAddington (Kent), 46\n\nAddy, Mr S. O., on old Welsh courts, 64;\n  Touting Hills, 71;\n  old St Paul\u2019s, 139;\n  Royal Arms in churches, 144;\n  theory respecting basilicas, 147-50, 151;\n  word \u201cchurch,\u201d 147-9;\n  \u201clord\u2019s house,\u201d 148;\n  ostiarius, 149\n\nAdonis, and Yuletide, 27\n\nAeneas, and chariots, 429\n\nAeneolithic Age, 249, 417, 419, 483\n\nAerolites, in churches, 197;\n  superstition respecting, 198\n\nAestheticism in architecture, 238-41\n\nAge of trees, how determined, 366-8\n\nAgglestone, the (Dorset), 35-6\n\nAinus, burial customs of the, 247\n\nAird Dhubh (mountain), 352\n\nAiry, Rev. W., on orientation of churches, 222, 226, 227, 233\n\nAland Isles, 402\n\nAlciston (Sussex), 344\n\nAldborough (Yorks.), 273\n\nAldbourne (Wilts.), barrow, 314, 315\n\nAldworth (Berks.), 374, 398\n\n\u201cAles\u201d (= feasts), 175-9\n\nAlexander Severus, 422\n\nAlfold (Surrey), stocks, 165;\n  yew, 221 n.\n\nAlfriston (Sussex), clergy house, 176;\n  elm, 176, 384\n\nAlinement of churches (see Orientation)\n\nAllcroft, Mr A. H., on Chisbury camp, 14;\n  Burpham, 16;\n  Mediaeval earthworks, 16, 60;\n  defensive churches, 17;\n  churches near earthworks, 17;\n  Church Barrow, 30;\n  castle-mounds, 55, 67;\n  Cublington earthworks, 60;\n  mound at Walton-on-the-Hill, 67;\n  word \u201cToot,\u201d 71;\n  window-slits, 116\n\nAllen, Grant, on grave-mounds, 260, 264;\n  trees on barrows, 270;\n  objects buried with the dead, 280, 319;\n  barrow burials, 320;\n  _Evolution of the Idea of God_, cited, 400\n\nAllen, Mr J. Romilly, on the Chi-Rho, 5;\n  Irish round towers, 121-2;\n  orientation of graves, 247;\n  evolution of \u201cwheel-cross,\u201d 269-70;\n  coped tombstones, 272;\n  burial customs of early Christians, 272, 275;\n  Charon\u2019s penny, 296;\n  the comb in ritual, 311-12;\n  burial of crozier with bishops, 311-12;\n  chariot-burial, 430\n\nAllington (Kent), 75\n\nAlloa (Clackmannan), 275\n\nAll Souls\u2019 Day, 27;\n  Eve, 446\n\nAlnwick (Northumberland), 163\n\nAlpha Centauri, orientation to, 259\n\nAlphamstone (Essex), 84-6\n\nAltars, at East end of church, 205, 208-24;\n  at West end, 206, 207, 214-17\n\nAltar-tombs, 76, 346\n\nAlton (Hants.), 496\n\nAlvingham (Lincs.), 137\n\nAmber, beads in graves, 300-1;\n  as a charm, 301\n\nAmesbury (Wilts.), churchyard, 344;\n  discoveries at, 483\n\nAmulets, in graves, 298, 300;\n  teeth, used as, 301, 314\n\nAncaster (Lincs.), 12\n\nAncestor-worship, 280\n\n_Anchitherium_, 409\n\nAndrews, Dr C. W., on the horse, 408\n\nAngers (France), 447\n\nAnglo-Saxon remains (see under Saxon)\n\nAnimism, defined, 279;\n  Prof. Tylor on, 279-81\n\nAnketell, Rev. R. H., on Alphamstone discoveries, 85, 86\n\nAnne Boleyn\u2019s Well (Surrey), 96\n\nAnnual rings, in trees, 364, 365, 366-9\n\n_Apostolical Constitutions_, quoted, 211\n\nApplesham Creek (Sussex), 78\n\nApsidal churches, 20, 22, 149, 213\n\nArabs, and magnetic needle, 228;\n  burial customs, 293;\n  cardinal points of, 326;\n  and shoeing horses, 472\n\nArbalest, or cross-bow, 385, 386\n\nArber, Prof. E., his \u201cEnglish Scholar\u2019s Library,\u201d 244\n\n_Archaeologia_, cited, 430\n\n_Archaeologia Cantiana_, cited, 428\n\nArchery, British, 385-94;\n  statutes concerning, 389-90;\n  practised on the village green, 392;\n  traditions, 491\n\nArcturus, orientation to, 259\n\nArkholme (Lancs.), mound, 56, 61\n\nArles (France), Council of, 2;\n  church of St Blaise, 447\n\nArlington (Sussex), 79\n\nArmitage, Mrs E. S., on castle-mounds, 55\n\nArmour, stored in churches, 157-62;\n  parish, 158;\n  town, 158;\n  funeral, 159, 284;\n  at Repton, 159;\n  Darley, 159;\n  Mendlesham, 160;\n  Olaus Magnus, respecting, 161-2;\n  stands for, in churches, 496\n\nArnold-Forster, Miss F., her _Studies in Church Dedications_, 234\n\nArrichinaga (Spain), 29\n\nArrow-heads, 283, 315, 388, 390\n\nArrows, regulation of manufacture, 390\n\nArt, of primitive man, 411-12, 414, 420-1\n\nAryans, early orientation among, 325, 328;\n  supposed Asiatic origin, 333, 382;\n  and horses, 421-2\n\nAscension Day customs, 92\n\nAscham, Roger, on archery, 391\n\nAsh (Kent), 283\n\nAshburnham (Sussex), 201 n.\n\nAshburton (Devon), manorial courts, 137;\n  yew-tree, 391;\n  acoustic jars, 449, 450\n\nAshby, Dr Thomas, explorations at Caerwent, 25\n\nAshby-de-la-Zouch (Leicester), 349\n\nAshford (Middlesex), 250 n.\n\nAshtead (Surrey), Roman camp, 11;\n  cedar and yew in churchyard, 384\n\nAsh-trees, in churchyards, 384\n\nAsh-Wednesday, symbolism of, 317;\n  and yew, 382\n\nAssandun, battle of, 200\n\nAston, as place-name, 339\n\nAstronomy, early, 254, 257;\n  cycles, 256\n\n_As You Like It_, quoted, 460\n\nAthelstan, and horse-breeding, 422\n\n_Athenaeum_, cited, 4, 441\n\nAthenian coins, 484;\n  sacrifices, 484\n\nAtkinson, Canon J. C., on Whitby Abbey, 234, 239;\n  charcoal in graves, 289-90;\n  funeral feasts, 319;\n  \u201caverils,\u201d 320;\n  grave-mounds, 357\n\nAubrey, John, on horseshoe custom, 157;\n  dancing in church, 185;\n  burial in a\n  North-and-South direction, 244;\n  Tandridge yew, 370-1\n\nAugurs, divination by the left hand, 326, 327;\n  by the horse, 434, 435\n\nAugustine, and churches, 26\n\nAugustus, Emperor, his villa at Capri, 198;\n  burial of his horse, 432\n\nAurochs, the, 477\n\nAusten, Canon G., on Whitby Abbey, 234 n., 235\n\nAustralia, burial customs, 247, 313, 322\n\nAustria, 452\n\nAuvergne, churches of, 216\n\nAvebury (Wilts.), earthwork, 13, 30;\n  church, 13;\n  Palm Sunday celebration, 194\n\nAvebury, Lord, on the horse, 416\n\nAveley (Essex), 189\n\n\u201cAverils,\u201d or averil bread, 320\n\nAvisford (Sussex), 314\n\nAxes, made of amber, 299\n\nAylesford (Kent), \u201curn-field,\u201d 261;\n  flat-earth burials, 276;\n  discovery of bucket, 434\n\nAysgarth (Yorks.), 259\n\n\nBaal-worship, 218, 220\n\nBagshot Sands, 35, 40\n\nBailey, or bailey-court, 52, 61\n\nBailiff, chosen in church, 143\n\nBakewell (Derby), churchyard cross, 329\n\nBakewell, Robert, on shoeing oxen, 473\n\nBaldock (Herts.), 159\n\nBale, Bishop, his Protestant plays, 183\n\nBamberg (Bavaria), 27\n\nBampton (Norfolk), 222\n\nBanquets, in churches, 178-80;\n  funeral, 319-21, 419\n\nBaptism, at the church door, 143;\n  St Jerome on, 220;\n  superstition, 331\n\nBarclay, E., on Stonehenge, 219\n\nBards, assemblies of, 33, 98\n\nBardsey (Yorks.), 59\n\nBarfreston (Kent), 239\n\nBaring-Gould, Rev. S., on holy wells of Cornwall, 96;\n  wheels of fortune, 202;\n  deflected chancels, 231;\n  animals suspended from trees, 443\n\nBarkway (Herts.), 448\n\nBarnet (Herts.), 344\n\nBarrington, Daines, on Fortingal yew, 376;\n  on \u201cshelter theory,\u201d 384\n\nBarrows, at Abinger, 62-3;\n  early respect for, 64, 83, 87;\n  Over Worton, 75;\n  Ryton, 76;\n  Brinklow, 76;\n  Speeton, 78;\n  Taplow, 81-2;\n  Ludlow, 82;\n  of Neolithic and Bronze Ages, 99, 249, 417;\n  trees planted on, 270;\n  discussion on word, 270-1;\n  objects found in, 280, 282-3, 285, 300-1, 430, 483;\n  fire-kindlers in, 293, 294;\n  fossils, 302-4, 305;\n  Aldbourne, 314, 315;\n  feasts, 320, 438;\n  North side of, 357;\n  horse in, 416, 417, 419;\n  oxen in, 483\n\nBartholomew Anglicus, quoted, 456\n\nBarwick-in-Elmet (Yorks.), 59\n\nBasildon (Berks.), 373\n\nBasilica, at Southwell, 9;\n  Reculver, 20;\n  Silchester, 23;\n  meaning of word, 146, 151;\n  Roman, 148, 150;\n  British, 148, 213;\n  at Jarrow, 149;\n  Rome, 150, 214-15;\n  orientation of, 213, 214-15;\n  at Bosham, 495\n\nBateman, T., his excavations of barrows, 416\n\nBattlements, 117\n\nBavaria, 497\n\nBaye, Baron J. de, on sacrificial custom, 321\n\nBayeux tapestry, and long-bow, 387;\n  oxen, 455\n\nBayonne (France) Cathedral, 231\n\nBeads, in graves, 300-1, 305, 314\n\nBecket\u2019s shrine, 131\n\nBeckett, Sir E. (Lord Grimthorpe), on orientation, 216;\n  acoustic jars, 447\n\nBeckmann, J., on shoeing horses, 470 n.\n\nBedale (Yorks.), 107\n\nBede, the Venerable, on St Alban, 4;\n  St Martin\u2019s, 20;\n  temple at Godmanham, 32;\n  Wessex, 36;\n  Jarrow, 43;\n  orientation of graves, 244, 247;\n  witchcraft, 397;\n  horse-races, 422;\n  story of Coifi, 436\n\nBeehive huts, 120\n\nBeeston (Norfolk), 353\n\nBelemnites, in barrows, 307\n\nBelfries, in Ireland, 120-2;\n  origin of word, 126-7;\n  horse-skulls found in, 445\n\nBelgium, votive offerings, 203;\n  caves of, 308;\n  burial customs, 311\n\nBelloc, Mr Hilaire, on Bishopstoke church, 45;\n  Pilgrims\u2019 Way, 338, 339\n\nBells, early, 120-2;\n  \u201cthief and reever,\u201d 138;\n  Mediaeval, 448;\n  on oxen, 462-3, 475\n\nBeltane fires, 403\n\nBeltout (Sussex), 71\n\nBenachie (Aberdeen), 48\n\nBenedictine abbeys, 329\n\n\u201cBenefit of adjuration,\u201d 354\n\nBengal, grave-gifts of, 313\n\nBennett, Mr F. J., on sarsens near churches, 40;\n  Ogbourne Maisey mound, 75\n\nBenson, Mr A. C., quoted, 137\n\n\u201cBeowulf,\u201d use of the word \u201cgallows,\u201d 68;\n  funeral mounds, 73;\n  amulets in graves, 300\n\nBerenger, Richard, on horseshoes, 424\n\nBerkeley (Glos.), detached tower, 122;\n  school in church porch, 154\n\nBerkeley, Bishop G., quoted, 333\n\nBerkshire, yews of, 406\n\nBerwick (Sussex), mound, 75-6;\n  dovecot, 188, 189\n\nBerzelius, on analysis of bone, 90\n\nBeverley (Yorks.) Minster, 165;\n  oxen, 452\n\nBewcastle (Cumberland), 87\n\nBible, ideas of orientation in, 217-20;\n  quoted, 318;\n  symbolism of the North, 334-5;\n  references to the horse, 420;\n  white horses, 433;\n  horse hoofs, 472;\n  oxen, 481, 487\n\nBid-ales, 179\n\nBields (= cattle-shelters), 68\n\nBildeston (Suffolk), 155\n\nBinstead (I. of Wight), 49\n\nBirch, Mr W. de Gray, on Domesday ox-team, 458\n\nBirling (Kent), 40\n\nBirmingham, St Bartholomew\u2019s chapel, 211\n\nBishops, burial of, 312\n\nBishopsgate Street (London), 247\n\nBishopstoke (Hants.), 45\n\nBishopstone (Sussex), position of church, 101;\n  sundial, 162;\n  chancel, 230;\n  churchyard, 344\n\nBishops Stortford (Herts.), 418\n\nBisley (Glos.), 95\n\nBison, the European, 475-6\n\nBlack Death, the, 175\n\nBlack, Mr W. G., on yew in witchcraft, 396\n\nBlackmore, Mr Stephen, 80, 474\n\nBlashill, Mr T., on ancient agriculture, 497\n\nBlickling (Norfolk), 266\n\nBlomfield, Prof. R., on orientation, 209\n\nBloomsbury (London), 207\n\n\u201cBlue stones,\u201d 35, 193\n\nBlunt, Mr W. S., on shoeing horses, 471-2\n\nBlyborough (Lincs.), 346\n\nBoars\u2019 tusks in graves, 80, 83, 302, 310, 430\n\nBoat, model of Scandinavian, 108\n\nBoldre (Hants.), 384\n\nBologna (Italy), 216\n\nBolsterstone (Yorks.), 42\n\nBolton (Lancs.), 137\n\nBond, Mr F., on Southwell Cathedral, 9;\n  Westminster Abbey, 9, 134-5;\n  age of church towers, 108;\n  Irish round towers, 121;\n  size of churches, 134-5;\n  entasis of spires, 240\n\nBone-caves, 308, 411, 417\n\nBones, in churches, 198-201;\n  as talismans, 321\n\nBonner, Mr A., on place-names, 32, 43\n\nBonner, Bishop, and miracle plays, 183\n\nBooty, Rev. C. S., on Rudstone menhir, 43\n\nBorromeo, St Charles, on church-building, 241\n\nBosbury (Hereford), 123\n\nBoscawen-\u00fbn (Cornwall), 256\n\n_Bos frontosus_, 480\n\nBosham (Sussex), Roman villa, 9, 495;\n  deflected chancel, 230;\n  pole in, 496\n\n_Bos longifrons_, 476, 478, 479, 480\n\n_Bos primigenius_, 476, 477, 479, 480\n\n_Bos priscus_, 475\n\nBoston (Lincs.), mayor chosen in church, 143;\n  discoveries at, 444\n\nBotontine (= surveyor\u2019s mound), 61\n\nBottesford (Lincs.), 350\n\nBoulder Clay, 16, 36, 85, 110, 406\n\nBoundaries, barrows on, 69;\n  treaties concerning, 338\n\n\u201cBournes\u201d (= intermittent springs), 96\n\nBovata (= oxgang), 456\n\nBow, antiquity of word, 387;\n  kinds of, 387-90\n\nBowman, J. E., experiments on yews, 365\n\nBowstaves, statutes concerning, 390, 391;\n  from the churchyard yew, 394\n\nBrabourne (Kent), 376, 379\n\nBradford-on-Avon (Wilts.), 115, 171, 172\n\nBrading (I. of Wight), 165\n\nBradwell (Essex), 23\n\nBrady, J., on English yew timber, 392\n\nBrahmans, the, and praying towards the East, 217;\n  respect for fossil ammonites, 307\n\nBraintree (Essex), 454\n\nBraitmaier, Miss M., on gable ornaments, 441\n\nBramber (Sussex), 78\n\nBramfield (Suffolk), 123\n\n\u201cBrandgruben,\u201d 276\n\nBrand, John, on tithe-barns, 176;\n  Birmingham church, 211;\n  vulgar rites, 243;\n  curious burial, 245;\n  funeral feasts, 319;\n  burial on North side, 343;\n  Edinburgh burial-ground, 351\n\nBranks (= scolds\u2019 bridles), 163\n\nBranscombe (Devon), stone in churchyard, 41;\n  headstones, 346\n\nBranxton (Northumberland), 354\n\nBratton Hill (Wilts.), 433, 434\n\nBray, W., on church porch at Wotton, 154\n\nBread, stored in churches, 173\n\nBreedon (Leicester), 104\n\nBrenchley (Kent), 52\n\nBrent Pelham (Herts.), stocks, 165;\n  deflected chancel, 230\n\nBrent Tor (Devon), 129\n\nBretasche, or guard-house, 53\n\nBride-ales, 179\n\nBridgenorth (Salop), 394\n\nBridlington (Yorks.), 230, 483 n.\n\nBrigg (Lincs.), 453\n\nBrighston (see Brixton)\n\nBrightlingsea (Essex), 143\n\nBrighton and Hove Archaeological Club, 78\n\nBrighton Museum, 80\n\nBrinklow (Warwick), 76\n\nBristol, St Mary\u2019s Redcliffe, 199\n\nBritain, early settlements, 105-6\n\nBritish Association, the, 403, 418, 494\n\nBrittany, lingering paganism in, 29;\n  crosses and calvaries, 37;\n  church superstition, 103;\n  dolmens, 270;\n  peasantry and thunderbolts, 197;\n  \u201cwheels of fortune,\u201d 202;\n  objects in churches, 203;\n  megaliths, 308;\n  superstitious customs, 446, 496;\n  \u201cPardons,\u201d 482\n\n\u201cBrit-Welsh\u201d caves, 437\n\nBrixton (I. of Wight), 90\n\nBrixworth (Northants.), church, 9, 10;\n  church crypt, 148\n\nBrompton (London), 208\n\nBronze Age, relics, 67, 84, 85, 99, 249, 249 n., 257,\n     274, 290, 311, 418, 419, 433;\n  moundless graves, 261;\n  coffins, 274, 278;\n  horse, 416;\n  rock-carvings, 421;\n  oxen, 477, 479, 483\n\nBrook (I. of Wight), 101\n\nBrookland (Kent), 123\n\nBrown, Rev. A. W., on Pytchley burials, 80\n\nBrown, Prof. G. Baldwin, on Romano-British churches, 5;\n  Reculver, 20;\n  Dover Castle, 20;\n  St Martin\u2019s (Canterbury), 22;\n  Jarrow, 23;\n  Silchester, 24, 30;\n  St Martin\u2019s (Leicester), 30;\n  Earl\u2019s Barton mound, 62;\n  pagan sites, 99;\n  Lincolnshire towers, 108, 110;\n  _Eccles_- in place-names, 147;\n  \u201ccoenacula,\u201d 148;\n  orientation of churches, 213\n\nBrowne, Sir T., quoted, 201, 267;\n  on burial customs, 201, 247;\n  combs in graves, 311;\n  yew on funeral pyres, 382-3\n\nBrownsover (Warwick), 15\n\nBruniquel (Tarn-et-Garonne), 421\n\nBrunne, Robert de, on funeral feasts, 319\n\nBrunswick, arms of, 433\n\nBuckland (Kent), 377\n\nBucklebury (Berks.), 295\n\nBuick, Rev. G. R., discovery at Whitepark Bay, 418\n\nBulgarian funeral custom, 318\n\nBull-baiting, 179\n\nBullen, Rev. R. A., on Constantine church, 41;\n  charcoal in graves, 289\n\nBullock, use of term, 465 (see also Oxen)\n\nBulls, in divination, 435, 483;\n  in sacrifice, 481;\n  in folk-lore, 482, 484, 486\n\nBurghcastle (Suffolk), 11\n\nBurghead (Elgin), 299\n\nBurgh-on-the-Sands (Cumberland), 107\n\nBurgundy, burial custom, 296\n\n\u201cBurh,\u201d meaning of term, 55\n\nBurham (Kent), 4\n\nBurial customs, survivals in, 268-323, 490\n\nBurial feasts, 319-21, 419\n\nBurial-grounds, ancient, near Christian churches, 83-6, 262\n\nBurials, in East-and-West position, 80, 83, 243-9, 352;\n  North-and-South, 244-5, 246;\n  in barrows, 249-51, 357;\n  facing the sun, 249-52;\n  in cemeteries, 262, 263;\n  in churchyards, 262, 353;\n  in church, 262;\n  in upright position, 266;\n  on hills, 266-7;\n  without coffins, 271;\n  in woollen, 278-9;\n  of unbaptized persons, 302, 351;\n  of suicides, 351, 352, 357-9;\n  in open fields, 359\n\nBurials Bill, 1899, 341\n\nBurial Service, the, 315, 318;\n  modified, 341\n\nBurke, Edmund, quoted, 342\n\nBurlingham St Andrew (Norfolk), 348\n\nBurnham-on-Crouch (Essex), 344\n\nBurn, J., his _Parish Registers_, cited, 352\n\nBurns, Robert, quoted, 457\n\nBurnsall (Yorks.), 165;\n  font, 434\n\nBurpham (Sussex), 15, 443 n.\n\nBurrington Camp (Somerset), 258\n\nBurrowes, Stephen, his voyages, 228\n\nBurrows, Mr H. A., on fossil teeth, 308\n\nBury Fields (Bucks.), 61\n\nBury St Edmunds (Suffolk), 139\n\nButler, A. J., on Coptic churches, 221\n\nButler, Bishop, quoted, 346, 360\n\nButts, near churchyard, 353;\n  shooting at, 386;\n  repair of, 391\n\nByzantine architecture, 215\n\n\nCabot, Sebastian, 199\n\nCaddington (Beds.), 41\n\nCaer Capel (Denbigh), 104\n\nCae\u2019r Hen Eglwys (Glamorgan), 31\n\nCaerleon-on-Usk (Monmouth), 422\n\nCaerwent (Monmouth), 25\n\nCaesar, on British camps, 89 n.;\n  on the yew, 362;\n  British chariots, 421, 422;\n  the urus, 477;\n  the Ides of March, 482\n\nCaister (Norfolk), 11\n\nCaistor (Lincs.), Roman camp, 12;\n  springs, 12, 97\n\nCalcined flints, 292\n\nCalendar, alteration of, 226;\n  Julian 254\n\nCaligula, and his horse, 439\n\nCalleva Atrebatum (= Silchester), 23\n\nCalvaries of Brittany, 37\n\nCamberwell (London), 206\n\nCamborne (Cornwall), 37\n\nCambridge, round church, 99;\n  Emmanuel College, 208;\n  prehistoric bowstave, 388\n\nCamden, W., on Essex custom, 443\n\nCamels, shoeing of, 470\n\nCampanile, use of, 121;\n  of old St Paul\u2019s, 148\n\nCam valley, the, 468\n\nCandles, in graves, 295\n\nCanewdon (Essex), bone in church, 199-200;\n  battle, 200;\n  name, 201\n\nCanterbury, churches, 20;\n  Becket\u2019s shrine, 192;\n  alinement of cathedral, 230\n\nCanute, his battle with Edmund Ironsides, 200\n\nCape Colony, 452\n\nCapel Garmon (Denbigh), 104\n\nCapella, orientation to, 221, 259\n\nCapri (Italy), 198\n\nCardinal points, folk-lore of the, 324-59;\n  symbolism, 324-59, 404;\n  Heylyn\u2019s description, 333-4;\n  in place-names, 339-40\n\nCarew, Richard, on Cornish oxen, 457;\n  names of oxen, 486\n\nCarnac (France), Mont St Michel, 129;\n  blessing of oxen, 446;\n  \u201cPardon,\u201d 482;\n  discovery at, 482\n\nCarnarvon, circular churchyards of, 99;\n  burial at, 312\n\nCarshalton (Surrey), 96\n\nCartailhac, M. \u00c9., on the domestication of the horse, 415\n\nCarthaginians, and temple of Juno, 442\n\n\u201cCarucata,\u201d meaning discussed, 456\n\nCastle Acre (Norfolk), 12\n\nCastles, early, 51-5;\n  keeps compared with church towers, 107;\n  mounds, 51-63, 67 (see Moated Mounds)\n\nCataclew stone, 41\n\nCaterham (Surrey), position of church, 101;\n  churchyard, 344\n\nCativolcus, poisoned by yew, 362\n\nCattle, in the church and churchyard, 186-8;\n  and yew leaves, 362, 385;\n  breeds, 453, 455;\n  Park, 476, 477, 478;\n  long-horned and short-horned, 478-9;\n  polled, 479;\n  black, 480, 483\n  (see also Oxen)\n\nCaumont, M. de, on deflection of chancels, 231\n\nCave period, 414, 437;\n  men of, 439-40\n\nCaves, of France, 308, 411, 412;\n  of England, 412;\n  of Spain, 497\n\nCaythorpe (Lincs.), 240\n\nCedars, in churchyards, 384\n\nCelchyth, Council of, 437\n\nCeltic burials, 276, 299;\n  horse cult, 433, 441;\n  pottery, 449, 450\n\nCeltic shorthorn, 476, 479-80\n\nCelts, chariots of the, 421-2\n\nCelts (= stone implements), 79-80, 197, 298, 302\n\nCemeteries, ancient, 83-6, 262, 299, 353, 354\n\nCentaurs, the, 419\n\n_Century Dictionary_, cited, 363\n\n_Cerithium_ (= fossil shell), 308\n\nCerne Abbas (Dorset), 96, 427\n\nCeylon, 309, 452\n\nChadwell St Mary (Essex), 50\n\nChagford (Devon), 175\n\nChained books, in churches, 164\n\nChaldon (Surrey), 101\n\nChalk (Kent), 9\n\nChalk coffin, 351\n\nChambers, Mr E. K., his _Mediaeval Stage_ referred to, 180;\n  evolution of ritual and miracle plays, 181-2, 183\n\nChancels, at East end of church, 205-11;\n  at West end, 206, 207;\n  \u201ctwisted\u201d or deflected, 229-38, 242, 334;\n  and rebuilding of church, 233-4, 235\n\nChapel Carn Brea (Cornwall), 78\n\nCharcoal, in graves, 287, 289-91, 292-3\n\nChariots, burial of, 276, 429, 430, 431;\n  early use, 419, 421;\n  British, 421;\n  the Latin word discussed, 422\n\nCharlemagne, 263\n\nCharms, teeth, 302, 305;\n  yew, 396, 397, 399\n\nCharon\u2019s penny, 296\n\nChart (Kent), 167\n\nChartley (Staffs.), 477, 478\n\nCharvais (France), 248\n\nChatham (Kent), 206, 459 n.\n\nChaucer, his _Wife of Bath_ quoted, 156\n\nChauncy, Sir H., on orientation, 223\n\nChedworth (Glos.), 5\n\nCheltenham (Glos.), 154\n\nCheriton (Hants.), mound, 74;\n  spring, 74, 96\n\nCheriton (Kent), 128\n\nChertsey (Surrey), 344\n\nCheshire, scolds\u2019 bridles in, 163\n\nChesterfield (Derby), 199\n\nChester-le-Street (Durham), 12\n\n\u201cChestnuts\u201d of the horse, 411\n\nChests, church, 168-70, 199, 200\n\nChichester cathedral, 312 n.\n\nChilderic I, tomb of, 424\n\nChillingham Park (Northumberland), cattle of, 476, 477\n\nChilswell Hill (Oxford), 195\n\nChilworth (Surrey), 131, 269\n\nChina, and magnetic needle, 228;\n  burial custom in, 296;\n  and eclipses, 397\n\nChipstead (Surrey), alinement of graves, 230;\n  deflected chancel, 245;\n  yew, 377, 379- 405\n\nChi-Rho monogram, 5, 6, 24\n\nChisbury (Wilts.), 14\n\nChislehurst, mound in churchyard, 76-8, 260;\n  cockpit, 190;\n  tombstones, 344\n\nCholesbury (Bucks.), 15\n\nChollerton (Northumberland), 7\n\nChristchurch (Hants.), 154\n\nChristian cemeteries, early, 80, 247-8, 262, 290\n\nChristianity, early British, 2-3, 23-4, 26, 63, 437, 438, 446;\n  compromises of, 26-9, 399, 437;\n  \u201csocial theory\u201d of, 133;\n  burial customs of, 246, 262, 263, 272, 274, 275, 277, 311-12, 316, 317\n\nChristian Malford (Wilts.), 33\n\nChristison, Dr D., 365, 371, 374\n\nChristison, Sir R., on yew-trees, 365, 371, 372, 374, 375;\n  on Fortingal yew, 375\n\nChristmas, originally a pagan festival, 27;\n  dancing at, 185;\n  evergreens at, 402;\n  tradition respecting oxen, 486\n\n\u201cChrist\u2019s Book,\u201d 168\n\n\u201cChurch,\u201d etymology of the word, 145-7;\n  Greek and Latin equivalents, 146;\n  Teutonic and Celtic equivalents, 146-7\n\nChurch-ales, 175-9\n\nChurch armour, 158\n\nChurch Barrow, Cranborne Chase, 30\n\nChurch Bottom (Cambs.), 30\n\nChurch, chancel, 140, 170-1 (see also Chancels)\n\nChurch chests, 168-70\n\nChurch doors, 143, 156;\n  position of, 328, 348\n\nChurchdown (Glos.), 103, 104\n\nChurches, on pagan sites, 1-100, 444, 488;\n  early Christian, in Britain, 2, 23;\n  of wattle, 3, 23;\n  Roman materials in, 4, 5, 495;\n  on sites of Roman villas, 6-9;\n  in Roman camps, 11-13;\n  near earthworks, 13-18;\n  removed by fairies or demons, 17;\n  near stone-circles, 28, 29 n., 45-8, 86;\n  near sarsens and megaliths, 34-49, 104;\n  near moated mounds, 55-63;\n  near Toot Hills, 60, 69-72;\n  near barrows, 74-83;\n  near early cemeteries, 83-6;\n  near holy wells, 92-7;\n  round, 99;\n  on hills, 101-4;\n  used as beacons, 127-32;\n  naves of, 132, 154, 170-1, 173, 183;\n  daily services in, 135;\n  courts held in, 136-40;\n  notices on doors, 143-4;\n  Royal Arms in, 144;\n  crypts of, 148, 150;\n  schools in porches of, 152-5;\n  armour stored in, 157, 159, 160;\n  dials on walls, 162, 164;\n  chained books in, 164;\n  weather-cocks on, 164;\n  records kept in, 168-70;\n  Court Rolls kept in, 168-70;\n  storage of wills in, 170;\n  of goods, 171-3;\n  markets held in, 173-4;\n  banquets, 178-80;\n  plays held in, 182-3;\n  animals admitted into, 186-7;\n  dovecots in, 188, 189;\n  cock-fighting in, 190;\n  dedications of, 191, 192;\n  aerolites and fossils in, 197-9;\n  eggs in, 202;\n  wheels of fortune, 202;\n  orientation of, 205-42;\n  standing North and South, 206, 207, 208;\n  supposed development from basilica, 215;\n  of Norfolk, 222;\n  of Hants., 222;\n  of Herts., 223;\n  deflected chancels of, 229-41;\n  burial in, 262;\n  hatchments in, 284;\n  position with respect to churchyard, 348-9;\n  \u201cgiant\u2019s staff,\u201d 496\n\nChurch fabric, secular uses, 101-204, 488-9;\n  tower, 107-18, 122-5;\n  nave, 132;\n  doors, 143, 404;\n  porch, 143, 152-60;\n  protection afforded by, 169-70;\n  repair of, 170\n\nChurch fonts, 7, 434\n\nChurch-gift, custom, 156\n\nChurch-house, armour stored in, 159, 160;\n  uses of, 175-6, 178-9;\n  leases respecting, 178\n\nChurch, nave of, 132, 154, 170-1, 173, 183\n\nChurch porch, baptisms and weddings in, 143;\n  schools, 152-5;\n  fireplaces, 154;\n  galleries, 155;\n  business, 155-6;\n  stirrup stones, 157;\n  armour, 157, 159, 160\n\nChurch towers, defensive, 107-18, 122-5, 150;\n  Saxon, 9, 10, 13, 62, 108-11, 117;\n  of Lincolnshire, 108-11;\n  of Gower, 112-13;\n  of Pembroke, 113-15;\n  comparison with castle keeps, 115-18;\n  detached, 122-3;\n  horse-skulls in, 445\n\nChurchwardens, civil functions of, 142, 157;\n  and protection of the church and churchyard, 157;\n  published accounts of, 175, 184, 380, 391, 394;\n  and church-ales, 176;\n  responsibility for churchyard, 187\n\nChurchyards, showing false appearance of fortification, 16, 88-91;\n  raised, 90-1, 372;\n  circular, 97-8;\n  meetings in, 139-40;\n  stocks in, 165;\n  plays performed in, 182, 183;\n  markets in, 191-2;\n  sports in, 196-7;\n  burials in, 261, 262-3;\n  yews, 328, 348;\n  North side disliked, 335;\n  burials on North side of, 341-52;\n  with North side wanting, 344;\n  with South side wanting, 344;\n  position with regard to the church, 348-9;\n  unconsecrated, 343, 352;\n  as playgrounds, 352;\n  butts erected in, or near, 353;\n  unenclosed, 354-6;\n  yews, 360-407;\n  and shelter trees, 383\n\nCicero, cited, 70\n\n_Cidaris_ (= fossil echinoderm), 307\n\nCimbrians, the, and the brazen bull, 482\n\nCinerary urns, 84, 85\n\nCinque Ports, the, 137\n\n\u201cCippi\u201d (= stocks), 167\n\nCirencester (Glos.), 288\n\nCists, at Alloa, 275;\n  in burials, 277\n\nCity churches, and their parishes, 235\n\nCivil War, use of mounds during the, 57;\n  churches used as fortresses during, 118, 496\n\n\u201cClachan,\u201d 49\n\nClapham (Bedford), church tower, 111;\n  re-dedication of church, 233\n\nClapham (Sussex), 356 n.\n\nClare, Lord, and oxen, 454\n\nClark, Mr G. T., on moated mounds, 54, 55;\n  Earl\u2019s Barton mound, 62;\n  Irish round towers, 121\n\nClay-with-Flints, 303\n\nClee (Lincs.), church tower, 110;\n  walnut tree in churchyard, 384\n\nCleethorpes (Lincs.), 110\n\nClerk-ales, 179\n\nClerkenwell (London), spring, 96\n\nCleveland (Yorks.), burial customs, 291, 295\n\nCley Hill (Wilts.), 194\n\nCloictechs (= belfries), 120\n\nCloisters, position of, 329-30\n\nClovelly (Devon), 496\n\nClungunford (Salop), 180\n\nClynnog (N. Wales), 482\n\nCobbett, William, on raised churchyards, 91;\n  size of churches, 133\n\nCobham (Kent), 45\n\nCochet, M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9, on acoustic jars, 447\n\nCockerington (Lincs.), 137\n\nCock-fighting, in churches, 190\n\n\u201cCoenacula\u201d (= upper rooms), 148\n\nCoffins, use of, 271-7;\n  stone, 271-2, 309;\n  wooden, 271, 272;\n  leaden, 271, 273, 274 n.;\n  of tree trunks, 273, 274, 275;\n  objects placed in, 309;\n  filled with shells, 309;\n  of chalk, 351\n\nCoifi, destruction of heathen temple by, 436\n\nCoins, placed in graves, 274, 295-8, 310;\n  early British, 434;\n  Athenian, 481\n\nCoke, Lord, on agriculture, 468\n\nColchester, Museum, 84;\n  Archdeaconry of, 187;\n  leaden coffins at, 272, 273\n\nColdred (Kent), 15\n\nColeshill (Warwick), 353\n\nColiseum, the (Rome), 451\n\n\u201cCollis Credulitatis,\u201d 65\n\nColumbaria, or culver-houses, 188\n\nCombs, in graves, 310-11\n\nCompass, early use of mariner\u2019s, 228;\n  points of, as determined by the Arabs and Eskimos, 326\n\nConciones (= assemblies), 383, 403\n\nCongress of Archaeological Societies, on earthworks, 14\n\nConington, Prof. J., on the Carthaginians, 442\n\nConsistory Courts, 138-9\n\nConstantine (Cornwall), ruined church, 31, 41\n\nConstantine, Emperor, 2, 274\n\nConstantinople, 186\n\nContinuity, of tradition, 3, 86, 106;\n  of sites, 3, 10, 23, 42, 80, 86-7, 95, 99;\n  in burial customs, 279, 313, 317\n\n_Conulus_ (= fossil echinoderm), 303\n\nConway, Mr M. C., on Lord Palmerston\u2019s funeral, 310\n\nConwenz, Prof. H., on \u201cyew\u201d in place-names, 403\n\nCoombe (Sussex), 78\n\nCoote, H. C., on yew superstitions, 399\n\nCopenhagen, siege of, 439\n\nCopenhagen (= Wellington\u2019s horse), 432\n\nCoppes (= stocks), 167\n\nCoptic churches, 220\n\nCorbett, Mr W. I., on shoeing oxen, 468\n\nCorbridge (Northumberland), 107\n\nCordiner, C., on Benachie church, 48\n\nCorfe Castle (Dorset), 52, 53\n\nCorhampton (Hants.), mound, 74;\n  sundial, 162\n\nCorn, burnt on graves, 318\n\nCorn gods, 318, 436, 440 n.\n\nCorn spirit (see under Corn gods)\n\nCornwall, crosses of, 36, 46-7;\n  megaliths, 48, 253, 308;\n  holy wells, 92, 96-7;\n  churches with double dedications, 234;\n  prehistoric monuments, 253, 256;\n  burial custom, 310;\n  teeth superstition, 322;\n  use of oxen in, 457, 486\n\nCoronation Stone, the, 43\n\nCoulsdon (Surrey), 101\n\nCouncils, of Arles, 2;\n  Milan, 212;\n  Celchyth, 437\n\nCountisbury (Devon), 345\n\nCounty Courts, 136\n\nCourt of Arches, 138\n\nCourts, held in churches, 65, 136-8, 140;\n  rolls of, kept in churches, 168\n\nCoventry, St Michael\u2019s church, 230;\n  St Mary\u2019s church, 230\n\nCoverdale, Miles, on symbolism of cardinal points, 337-8\n\nCowries, 296, 308\n\n\u201cCow-souls\u201d (= shells in Lappish graves), 309\n\nCox, Mr J., chipped celt, 80\n\nCox, Dr J. C., on Hathersage earthwork, 16;\n  Abinger mound, 63;\n  church armour, 159, 284;\n  plays in churches, 181, 183;\n  secular drama, 183;\n  horn dancers, 185;\n  deflection in churches, 235, 236\n\nCrag (geological formation), 308\n\nCranborne Chase, barrow, 30;\n  discoveries in, 105, 296;\n  yews, 392, 403;\n  horseshoes, 424, 428\n\nCrawley, Mr A. E., his _Idea of the Soul_, cited, 282\n\nCre\u00e7y (France), 389\n\nCremation, early, 260, 275;\n  disuse of, 275-6, 277;\n  Macrobius on, 276;\n  ceremonies, 290, 316\n\nCressets, on churches, 162\n\nCrinan (Argyle), 299\n\nCro-Magnon (France), 415\n\nCromlech, use of term, 28, 34;\n  near churches, 45, 48, 49;\n  theories concerning, 98, 253-8;\n  as places of assembly, 98;\n  developments from, 270\n  (see also Stone-circles)\n\nCronks (= toot-hills), 71\n\nCrooke, Mr W., on research, 494\n\nCross-bow, antiquity of, 385-9;\n  description, 387;\n  later history, 389-90\n\nCrosses, of Devon and Cornwall, 36;\n  Bewcastle, 87;\n  evolution of, 270;\n  wooden, 312, 347;\n  churchyard, 328, 348;\n  Bakewell, 329;\n  preaching, 353;\n  symbolism, 357, 358\n\nCrossing, Mr W., on crosses of Dartmoor, 36\n\nCross-roads, burials at, 357-9\n\nCrowhurst (Surrey), 377, 378, 404\n\nCrowhurst (Sussex), 377\n\nCrowle (Lincs.), 165\n\nCroyland (Lincs.), 480\n\nCrozier, in graves, 312\n\nCrypts, 148, 150, 216 n.\n\nCrystal balls, in Saxon graves, 299-300\n\nCublington (Bucks.), 59\n\nCudham (Kent), 101\n\nCues, 471, 472-3\n\nCult of the horse, the, 408-51\n\nCultivation, ancient, 460, 497\n\nCulver-houses, 188\n\nCupar-Angus (Perth), 12\n\nCuxton (Kent), 4\n\nCybele, image of, 198\n\nCycles, in astronomy, 256\n\n_Cymbeline_, quoted, 246\n\nCypress, the, in Greece, 383;\n  Rome, 383;\n  in English churchyards, 384;\n  in Southern Europe, 401\n\nCyrus, king of the Persians, 433\n\nCzechs, burial custom of the, 287\n\n\nDale, Mr W., on Mottestone menhir, 45;\n  Twyford stones, 45\n\nDanby-in-Cleveland (Yorks.); charcoal in graves, 289;\n  funeral feasts, 319;\n  burial-mounds, 357\n\nDancing, in churches, 183-5;\n  at Easter, 185;\n  at Christmas, 185\n\nDanes, and white horses, 435;\n  and horseflesh, 439\n\nDanes\u2019 Graves, 71, 261\n\nDaniel, praying towards Jerusalem, 218\n\nDanish invasion, in Yorkshire, 108;\n  in Lincolnshire, 108-11;\n  in Ireland, 122;\n  and Irish round towers, 122;\n  in Essex, 200\n\nDarenth (Kent), 428, 429\n\nDarley (Derby), armour stored in church, 159;\n  yew-tree, 369, 376, 403;\n  British dwellings, 403\n\nDavid, his cavalry and chariots, 420\n\nDawkins, Prof. W. Boyd, on horse remains in caves, 417-18;\n  long-horned cattle, 479\n\nDawns M\u00ean (Cornwall), 256\n\nDay spring, day star, 220\n\nDe Candolle, Augustin de, on age of yews, 364, 365, 366, 368, 369, 371, 375;\n  his _Physiologie v\u00e9g\u00e9tale_, 370;\n  Fortingal yew, 375;\n  Brabourne yew, 376;\n  Fountains yew, 377\n\nDeccan, meaning of the word, 326\n\nDeclination of magnetic needle, 228\n\nDeddington (Oxford), 272 n.\n\nDedication festivals, 191, 192\n\nDedications of churches, to St Michael, 129;\n  lost, 191;\n  connection with alinements, 209, 225-6, 227, 234-5;\n  double, 234-5\n\nDefensive towers, 107-18, 150\n\nDeflected chancels, theories concerning, 232-9;\n  and rebuilding of church, 232-4, 237;\n  and double dedications, 234-5;\n  symbolism of, 235-7;\n  aesthetical explanation, 238-41\n\nDefoe, Daniel, on carriage oxen, 484, 484 n.\n\nDe Groot, J. J. M., on Chinese burial custom, 296\n\nDe Henley (see Walter de Henley)\n\nDeiseal, the, 330\n\nDekker, Thomas, on the yew, 382\n\nDe Montfaucon, Father B., on ancient gem, 318;\n  early horseshoe, 424, 424 n.\n\nDenbighshire, circular churchyards of, 99\n\nDenford (Northants.), 448\n\nDenmark, horse sacrifices in, 435;\n  acoustic jars found in, 447\n\n_Dentalium_ (= marine shell), 308\n\nDenton (Sussex), 345\n\nDerbyshire, church quarrel, 187;\n  teeth superstition, 322\n\nDeritend (Birmingham), 211\n\nDetached towers, 122-3\n\nDevenish (Fermanagh), 118, 119\n\nDevil\u2019s Door, 18, 331, 332, 336;\n  Dykes, 18;\n  Highways, 18;\n  Nightcap, 36\n\nDevon, crosses of, 36;\n  church towers of, 118;\n  tombstones, 275;\n  teeth superstition, 322;\n  skull superstition, 444;\n  oxen, 454\n\n_Dexter_, dexterous, meaning of, 326, 327\n\nDiabolism, 18, 83, 103\n\nDials (see Sundials)\n\nDiana, supposed temple in London, 43;\n  image of, 198\n\nDidron, M. \u00c9., on acoustic jars, 447\n\nDiocletian persecution, the, 274\n\nDionysos, and Yule-tide, 27\n\nDitchling (Sussex), use of oxen, 455;\n  shoeing of oxen, 469, 473\n\nDithmar, Bishop of Mersburg, 435\n\nDivination, 327, 402, 434, 435\n\nDode (Kent), 40\n\nDog, domestication of the, 415\n\nDogs, in churches, 189-90\n\n\u201cDog-souls\u201d (= shells in Lappish graves), 309\n\nDog tongs, 169, 190\n\nDog-whippers, 189, 190\n\nDolmens, 28, 34;\n  developments from, 270\n\nDomesday Book, place-names, 33, 45;\n  and traditions, 375;\n  respecting yews, 375, 377;\n  horseshoes, 426;\n  oxen, 455-6, 458\n\nDominicum, meaning of word, 147\n\nDomville, Silas (see Taylor, Silas)\n\nDonative (= church outside episcopal jurisdiction), 132\n\nDonington (Salop), 95\n\nDonner-stral (= thunder-stone), 198\n\nDoom-rings (= stone-circles), 65\n\nDooms, over church gateways, 336\n\nDoors, church, notices on, 143;\n  baptisms at, 143;\n  marriages at, 143, 156;\n  position of, 348, 349\n\nDoorward, the, 149\n\nDorchester (Dorset), 402;\n  Roman ash-pits, 468\n\nDorset, burials, 264, 288, 307;\n  employment of oxen in, 452, 454, 458\n\nDouglas, J., his _Nenia Britannica_, 288, 289, 307;\n  fossil belemnites, 307\n\nDoulting (Somerset), 95\n\nDovecots, in churches and churchyards, 188\n\nDover Castle, church at, 19, 20;\n  pharos, 19, 20\n\nDown (Kent), 101\n\nDownton (Wilts.), moot-hill, 64;\n  horse-burial, 431\n\nDoyle, Sir A. Conan, quoted, 391\n\nDrax, Col., on fossils found in Dorset barrow, 307\n\nDrontheim (Norway), 433\n\nDroxford (Hants.), 250 n.\n\nDruids, and the Agglestone, 36;\n  circles of, 98;\n  as astronomers, 254, 257;\n  and yew-trees, 400, 401;\n  persistence of, 402\n\nDryburgh (Berwick), 372\n\nDryden, on the yew, 382;\n  translation of Virgil, 442\n\nDuddingston (Midlothian), 157\n\nDuddo (Northumberland), 426\n\nDuff, Sir Mountstuart Grant, on Burgundian burial custom, 296\n\nDufour, M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9 V., translation of Keysler, 435 n., 438;\n  on horseflesh, 438-9\n\nDuggleby Howe (Yorks.), 66\n\n\u201cDug-out\u201d coffins, 275, 278\n\nDuguesclin, Bertrand, burial of, 431\n\nDuloe (Cornwall), 48\n\n\u201cDumb borsholder\u201d (= court mace), 167, 496\n\nDun Cow of Warwick, 199, 485\n\nDungiven (co. Derry), 93\n\nDunsfold (Surrey), 221 n.\n\nDunsley (Yorks.), 289\n\nDunstable Downs (Beds.), 303\n\nDunston pillar (Lincoln), 130\n\nDupont, M., on shells found in caverns, 308\n\nDurandus, on eggs in churches, 202;\n  on word \u201ctemple,\u201d 210-11;\n  orientation of churches, 211, 224, 226;\n  editors of, 231;\n  orientation of graves, 243;\n  charcoal in graves, 291, 292;\n  evergreens at funerals, 291 n., 323;\n  reading of the Gospel, 337;\n  burial out of sanctuary, 353, 353 n.;\n  graveyards, 353\n\nDurham, cathedral, court held in, 138;\n  St Cuthbert\u2019s grave, 311;\n  Abbey, 459\n\nDymond, Mr C. W., on Stanton Drew circle, 46\n\n\nEarle, John, quoted, 268\n\nEarl\u2019s Barton (Northants.), 62\n\nEarly Iron Age, 248, 249, 257, 261, 283, 312, 429, 433, 483\n\nEarth-burial (see Inhumation)\n\n\u201cEarth-to-earth,\u201d discussion of phrase, 315-16\n\n_Earthwork of England_, cited, 14\n\nEarthworks, churches near, 13-18;\n  classification, 14, 15, 16, 495;\n  Mediaeval, 16,  60, 89;\n  fairs held in, 193;\n  sports in, 193-4;\n  superstitions concerning, 195-6;\n  alinement of, 252, 258-9\n\nEasington (Yorks.), 274\n\nEast, prayer towards the, 212, 214, 217;\n  orientation to, 214-24;\n  symbolism respecting, 217, 224;\n  Welsh superstition, 246;\n  as cardinal point, 326, 327;\n  in place-names, 339, 340\n\nEast-and-West burial, 80, 83, 243-9\n  (see also Orientation)\n\nEast Bedfont (Middlesex), 384\n\nEast Blatchington (Sussex), 79\n\nEastbourne (Sussex), 430\n\nEast Cardinham (Cornwall), 37\n\nEast Dean (Sussex), discovery at, 80;\n  church tower, 125\n\nEast Dereham (Norfolk), 97\n\nEaster, feasts, 180, 255;\n  Passion Plays, 180-1;\n  dances, 185;\n  eggs, 202\n\nEast Harling (Norfolk), 448\n\nEast Ilsley (Berks.), 454\n\nEastville (Lincs.), 206\n\nEast Wellow (Hants.), 201\n\nEbchester (Durham), 12\n\nEcclesfield (Yorks.), name, 147;\n  church porch, 155;\n  burial on North side, 342\n\nEccleshall (Staffs.), 147\n\n_Ecclesia_, meaning of word, 146, 148;\n  in place-names, 147\n\nEcclesiastes, cited, 337\n\nEccleston (Cheshire), 82 n.\n\nEccleston (Lancs.), 147\n\n_Echinocorys ovatus_, 303\n\nEchinoderms, fossil, 302-4, 309\n\nEchternach (Luxembourg), 185\n\nEclipses, 397\n\nEddas, the, cited, 328\n\nEdenbridge (Kent), 425, 426\n\nEdgar, injunction of, 187\n\nEdinburgh, graveyard, 351;\n  Bristol Street meeting-house, 445\n\nEdlingham (Northumberland), 107\n\nEdlington (Lincs.), 157\n\nEdmund Ironsides, battle with Canute, 200\n\nEdward the Confessor, 108\n\nEdward VII, funeral of, 432\n\nEfenechtyd (Denbigh), 98\n\nEggs, in churches, 202;\n  Easter, 202\n\nEgypt, churches of, 220;\n  temples of, 221-2, 239, 254;\n  the horse in, 420;\n  horse-head custom, 440;\n  paintings on sepulchres, 481;\n  ox-worship, 484\n\nEisteddfod, its aims, 98;\n  stone-circles erected at, 98, 256\n\nEkkehard, the Younger, grace written by, 438\n\nElkstone (Glos.), 188\n\nElms, experiment on, 366-7;\n  in churchyards, 384, 385\n\nElsdon (Northumberland), 445, 446\n\nElton, Mr C. I., on amber ornaments, 301;\n  hive bees in Ireland, 395\n\nEly cathedral, market in, 192;\n  deflection, 230\n\nEnclosure Act, of 1811, 141\n\nEncrinites, fossil, 308\n\nEnfield Chase, 162\n\n_English Dialect Dictionary_, quoted, 473\n\nEnisheim (Alsace-Lorraine), 198\n\nEntasis, of spires, 239, 240\n\nEocene ancestors of the horse, 408-9\n\nEostre (deity), 195\n\nEpistle, the, read from South side, 337\n\nEpworth (Lincs.), 342\n\nEquinoxes, orientation at, 211, 222, 229, 237, 241, 256, 258\n\n_Equus_, genus, 411;\n  _prejevalskii_, 413, 416;\n  _caballus_, 417\n\nEsgor, Welsh church of, 398\n\nEskimos, and the points of the compass, 326\n\nEssex, Roman remains in church walls, 4;\n  animals in churches and churchyards, 186, 187;\n  oxen, 454\n\nEthelbert, conversion of, 26\n\nEvans, Sir A. J., on cremation and inhumation, 276\n\nEvans, Sir J., on tumulus in Flanders, 283;\n  perforated hammer from Wiltshire, 305;\n  Saxon necklace, 307;\n  Roman cross-bow, 387\n\nEvelyn, John, taught in a church porch, 153;\n  on Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 208;\n  funeral custom, 310;\n  Woldingham church, 355;\n  Brabourne yew, 376;\n  Scottshall yew, 378\n\nEvergreens, at funerals, 291 n., 323;\n  on graves, 400\n\nEversley (Hants.), 345\n\nEvesham (Worcester), 122\n\n_Evolution of the English House_, cited, 71\n\nEvolution of Irish round towers, 120\n\nEwart, Prof. H. Cossar, on the ancestry of the horse, 408;\n  cave horses, 413;\n  wild horses, 418 n.\n\nExcommunicated persons, burial of, 351\n\nExeter, St Mary Major, 9, 206;\n  Synod of, 140, 196, 383\n\nEynesford (Kent), 38, 272\n\nEzekiel, and the sun-worshippers, 218\n\n\n\u201cFacing the sun theory,\u201d 249-52\n\nFairford (Glos.), 288\n\nFairies, 103, 104, 106, 196\n\nFairs, miracle plays performed at, 183;\n  dates of, 191;\n  held in earthworks, 193;\n  and Gorsedds, 193;\n  of the \u201cMay-Year,\u201d 193;\n  near yew-trees, 404\n\nFairwell (Staffs.), 448\n\n\u201cFairy loaf\u201d (= fossil echinoderm), 303\n\nFairy\u2019s Toot (Staffs.), 71\n\nFairy tales, 440\n\nFalmer (Sussex), position of church, 101;\n  churchyard, 344;\n  oxen employed at, 454, 455\n\nFaringdon, or Farington (Hants.), 344\n\nFaversham (Kent), 79\n\n\u201cFeld-cirice\u201d (= field-church), 354\n\nFergusson, J., on Mediaeval municipal buildings, 137;\n  orientation of churches, 213, 215, 216;\n  development of early churches, 215;\n  on St Ouen, 237\n\nFermanagh (Ireland), 361\n\nFerrara (Italy), 216\n\nFerring (Sussex), 496\n\nFestivals, pagan, 27, 195, 255, 435;\n  plural, for one saint, 225-6\n\nFewston (Yorks.), 52\n\nFfynnon Baglan (Carnarvon), 94\n\nFfynnon Beris (Carnarvon), 94\n\n\u201cFig Sunday\u201d (= Palm Sunday), 194\n\nFiji, burial customs, 247\n\nFimber (Yorks.), 78\n\nFinglas (co. Dublin), 395\n\nFinmark, 228\n\nFinns, burial custom, 429\n\nFinntann, and the king of Tara, 402\n\nFire-engines, in churches, 163\n\nFire-kindlers, in barrows, 285-6, 293, 294, 313\n\nFireplaces, in churches, 154, 188\n\nFitzherbert, Sir Anthony, on ox-bows, 462;\n  beef as food, 466;\n  comparison of horse and ox, 466;\n  shoeing horses and oxen, 470, 471\n\nFitzstephen (see William Fitzstephen)\n\nFlanders, tumulus in, 283\n\nFleming, J., on hippo-sandals, 428\n\nFletcher, Mr H. P., on orientation, 209\n\nFlint, implements, in churchyards, 79, 80;\n  in barrows, 283;\n  chips, in graves 285-6, 291-3;\n  in Saxon and British barrows, 285, 305, 315;\n  works, 375\n\nFlintshire, circular churchyards of, 99\n\nFlorence Court yew, 361\n\nFlowers, on graves, 322-3\n\nFluor spar, in graves, 308\n\nFolk-lore, respecting isolated churches, 17, 103-4, 106;\n  thunderbolts, 197, 198;\n  Welsh, 246;\n  concerning the East, 246;\n  Scandinavian, 246;\n  objects in graves, 294-8, 300;\n  funeral coins, 295-7;\n  amber, 300-2;\n  fossils, 302-4, 308;\n  teeth, 321-2;\n  of the cardinal points, 324-59, 404;\n  burial on the North side, 342, 343, 352;\n  yew, 396-9;\n  Sclavonic, 397;\n  of horse, 438, 439;\n  of horse-skulls, 440-1, 442;\n  oxen, 473, 475, 481\n\nFolk-memory, concerning graves, 86, 87, 320;\n  and treasure, 87;\n  and the Danes, 108, 120;\n  Civil War, 118;\n  squints, 149;\n  earthworks, 194;\n  church customs, 203, 489;\n  orientation of graves, 252, 259, 490;\n  burial of coins, 296;\n  determination of one\u2019s position, 326;\n  churchyard yew, 360, 396, 490-1;\n  and horseshoes, 427;\n  horse-burial, 431;\n  horse-skulls, 444;\n  acoustic jars, 451;\n  ploughing oxen, 475, 492;\n  general conclusions, 488-94\n\nFolk-moots, at megaliths, 34, 63;\n  in stone-circles, 34, 66;\n  at mounds, 64;\n  in churches, 66, 148;\n  of Saxons, 167;\n  and sacrifices, 438\n\nFood, offered to weapons, 285\n\nFord (Northumberland), 426, 427\n\nFord (Sussex), 345\n\nFordington (Dorset), 80 n.\n\nForel, Prof. F., 249 n.\n\nFortingal, or -gale (Perth), 375-6, 379, 403\n\nFortuna, goddess, 202\n\nForum, at Silchester, 25\n\nFossils, at Little Coates, 72;\n  in churches, 197, 199;\n  in graves, 302-8\n\nFoulis, Mr W. A., on Inchlonaig, 392 n.\n\nFoundation sacrifices, 83, 444\n\nFountains Abbey (Yorks.), yews of, 377;\n  acoustic jars, 448\n\nFox, Mr G. E., on basilica at Silchester, 24\n\nFox\u2019s skull, on door, 443;\n  paws, 443 n.\n\nFraipoint, M. J., on domestication of the horse, 415\n\nFrampton (Dorset), 5\n\nFrampton (Lincs.), 309\n\nFrance, church porches, 143;\n  orientation, 210;\n  statue-menhirs, 268;\n  caves of, 308;\n  burial customs, 311;\n  sale of horseflesh, 439;\n  oxen, 452\n\nFrancis, Mr J., on Pirton church, 41\n\nFrankfort-on-the-Main, 126\n\nFrankish burials, 283, 285, 290;\n  burial of chariots, 429;\n  oxen, 484\n\nFrazer, Prof. J. G., on burial customs, 251, 319, 358;\n  on animism, 280;\n  _Totemism and Exogamy_, cited, 281, 436;\n  _Golden Bough_, cited, 400;\n  harvest customs, 436;\n  Athenian sacrifices, 484;\n  Egyptian reverence for the ox, 484\n\nFream, Dr W., on ancient ploughs, 497\n\nFreeman, E. A., on church towers of Gower, 113;\n  of South Pembroke, 113, 115;\n  battle near Canewdon, 200;\n  place-name Canewdon, 200-1\n\nFreemasons, orientation practised by, 209;\n  Scotch lodges and orientation of churches, 209;\n  and magnetic needle, 227,  228\n\nFrensham (Surrey), 178\n\nFreya, prayers to, 28\n\nFriedlander, L., on early Christianity and paganism, 28\n\nFrost, Nicholas, bowyer to Henry IV, 393\n\nFulstow (Lincs.), traces of earthwork, 16;\n  pillar cross, 36\n\nFuneral superstitions, 280, 286-7, 292-300;\n  feasts, 319-21, 419;\n  use of yew, 382-3, 399, 403\n\nFuries, and yew torches, 399\n\n\nGable ornaments, 440, 441\n\nGaelic, survival of terms, 49\n\n\u201cGalilee\u201d (= porch), 138\n\nGalleries in church porches, 155\n\nGallows, discussion of word, 68, 69 n.\n\nGallows (or Galley) Hill, 68\n\nGamekeepers\u2019 gibbet, 443\n\nGamla Upsala (Sweden), 28\n\nGardner, Mr W., on castle-mounds, 55\n\nGarvestone (Norfolk), 347\n\nGarway (Hereford), 188\n\nGasquet, Dr F. A., on guilds, 175\n\nGatty, Dr A., on burials at Ecclesfield, 342\n\nGatty, Rev. R. A., and horse remains, 418  n.\n\nGauchos, horses of the, 472\n\nGayton-le-Wold (Lincs.), 462\n\nGeneva, 231\n\nGenoese bowmen, 389\n\n_Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_, cited, 447\n\nGeologists\u2019 Association, London, 41\n\nGermanicus Caesar, 432\n\nGermany, stone-circles, 256;\n  ancient burial customs, 276, 296;\n  folk-lore respecting yew, 397;\n  ancient tribal groves, 433;\n  horse sacrifice, 434;\n  horse-head superstition, 440, 444;\n  gable ornaments, 441;\n  \u201choodening horse,\u201d 441;\n  oxen, 452, 477\n\nGhosts, worship of, 280;\n  fear of, 287, 357-8, 359\n\nGiant\u2019s Grave (Penrith), 50\n\n\u201cGiants\u2019 bones,\u201d in churches, 198, 199\n\nGillebrand, on variation of magnetic needle, 228\n\nGillen, F. J. (and B. Spencer), on Australian custom, 321-2\n\nGilpin, William, on Boldre maple, 384;\n  on bows, 389\n\nGipsy burial, 312\n\nGiraldus de Barri (or Cambrensis), on yews in Ireland, 394, 395\n\nGlacial period, 72, 361\n\nGlastonbury (Somerset), Abbey, 23;\n  Tor, 16, 131;\n  shrine, 192;\n  lake-village, 302\n\nGlinton (Northants.), 240\n\nGloucester cathedral, 170\n\nGloucestershire, tombstones, 275;\n  oxen of, 454\n\nGneist, H. R. von, on parish vestry, 141\n\nGobi Desert, 413\n\n_God-_, prefix in place-names, 31, 32\n\nGodley, hundred in Surrey, 32\n\nGodney (Somerset), 31, 32\n\n\u201cGod\u2019s Acre,\u201d 263, 404\n\n\u201cGod\u2019s Cows,\u201d 481\n\nGods of cultivation, 318\n\nGodstone (Surrey), 31, 32\n\n\u201cGodstones,\u201d in Irish graves, 299\n\nGold, in graves, 310\n\nGolden Age, the, 484\n\nGomme, Sir G. L., on early Christianity, 25;\n  open-air courts, 63, 136, 140, 404;\n  well-worship, 94;\n  St Paul\u2019s Cathedral, 136;\n  courts leet, 140;\n  Irish druidism, 402;\n  Essex custom, 443\n\nGood Friday, sports, 195;\n  dancing, 195\n\nGoodmanham, or Godmundingham (Yorks.), 32, 436\n\nGoodrich (Hereford), name, 32;\n  castle, 58\n\nGooge, Barnabe, his _Popish Kingdome_, quoted, 174\n\nGordon-Cumming, Miss C. F., determination of position\n     among the Highlanders, 327;\n  Hebridean burial custom, 352\n\nGorm, grave of, 28\n\nGorseddau (= assemblies), 98;\n  dates of, 193, 257;\n  connected with stone-circles, 255, 256, 257\n\nGospel, read from North side, 337\n\n\u201cGospel Book,\u201d 168\n\nGothic architecture, 216, 240, 241\n\nGould, Mr I. Chalkley, on castle-mounds, 54;\n  St Weonard\u2019s mound, 56\n\nGower, churches of, 112-16\n\nGowland, Prof. W., on trilithons in Japan, 255\n\nGrantham (Lincs.), 143\n\nGrasmere (Westmoreland), 496\n\nGrave-gifts, 80, 279, 280, 282-315\n\nGrave-mounds, derivation of modern examples, 259-60;\n  round, 264, 265;\n  trees on, 270 (see also Barrows)\n\nGraves, orientation of, 243-67;\n  early, 259;\n  ancient groups, 261-2;\n  objects found in, 279, 282-5;\n  flints, 285-6, 287, 288-9, 291-4;\n  broken pottery, 286-7, 289, 292-3;\n  charcoal, 289-91, 292;\n  coins, 295-8;\n  white pebbles, 299;\n  fossils, 302-8;\n  mirrors, 310;\n  combs, 310-11;\n  chalice and paten, 312;\n  trees on, 400\n\nGravesend (Kent), 187\n\nGravestones (see Headstones)\n\nGray, Mr J., on stone-circles, 254 n.\n\nGray, Thomas, _Elegy_, quoted, 264, 384\n\nGreat Bear, used for direction, 325\n\nGreat Bookham (Surrey), 384\n\nGreat Canfield (Essex), 54, 59\n\nGreat Casterton (Rutland), 12\n\nGreat Coates (Lincs.), 384\n\nGreat Missenden (Bucks.), 267\n\nGreat Salkeld (Cumberland), font, 7;\n  church tower, 107\n\nGreat Wigborough (Essex), 76\n\nGreece, temples of, 152, 222;\n  divination in, 327;\n  funeral custom, 401;\n  horses, 419\n\nGreeks, and sun-worship, 219;\n  temples of, 239;\n  burial customs, 295, 296, 312, 317, 319, 383;\n  wheat at funerals, 318;\n  divination, 327;\n  horse-lore of, 419, 434;\n  at Marathon, 419;\n  sacrifice of ox, 481\n\nGreenland, burial customs, 284\n\nGreenwell, Canon W., on barrow burials, 249;\n  statistics respecting burial alinements, 249, 251;\n  objects in barrows, 282, 307;\n  white stones in graves, 299;\n  fossil ammonite, 307;\n  barrow funerals, 316;\n  burial on North side of mound, 356;\n  on the horse, 416, 417;\n  Arras burials, 430;\n  discovery at Hunmanby, 430\n\nGregory I, Pope, letter to Abbot Mellitus, 26, 482;\n  on burial in churchyards, 353\n\nGregory II, Pope, 437\n\nGregory III, Pope, letter to St Boniface, 437\n\nGresham (Norfolk), 79, 80\n\n\u201cGreywethers\u201d (= sarsen stones), 38\n\nGriffith, Rev. J., on fairs and Gorseddau, 192-3;\n  orientation of Welsh churches, 229;\n  alinement of earthworks, 258-9\n\nGrimm, J., on heathen trees and temples, 26, 32;\n  \u201cdonner-stral,\u201d 198;\n  sun-worship, 219;\n  epigram, 333;\n  sacred horses, 433;\n  horse-heads, 441, 442;\n  sacrifice of the ox, 481;\n  \u201cGod\u2019s cows,\u201d 481\n\nGrimsby (Lincs.), 73\n\nGristhorpe (Yorks.), 272, 273, 274\n\nGrosseteste, Bishop, and markets in churches, 173\n\n\u201cGrosseteste\u2019s Rules,\u201d cited, 471\n\nGubernatis, Prof. A. de, on mythology of the horse, 439\n\n_Guide to the Antiquities of the Early Iron Age_, cited, 248, 430\n\nGuildhall Museum, London, 424\n\nGuildhalls, 138, 175, 176\n\nGuilds, Mediaeval, 138, 181\n\nGumfreston (Pembroke), healing springs, 95;\n  church tower, 113, 114, 115, 116;\n  dovecot, 115, 188\n\nGunwalloe (Cornwall), 14\n\nGuy of Warwick, 485\n\nGwinnell, Mr W. F., on the horse, 418\n\nGyndes, crossed by Cyrus, 433\n\n\nHadad, worship of, 220\n\nHaddon, Prof. A. C., on Irish round towers, 120\n\nHagbourne Hill (Berks.), 261\n\nHagioscopes (see Squints)\n\n_Haliotis_ (= marine shell), 309\n\nHallaton (Leicester), 62\n\nHalling (Kent), 40\n\nHambledon (Hants.), 96\n\nHambledon (Surrey), 221 n., 378, 381,\n496\n\n_Hamlet_, quoted, 246, 284, 286, 288, 289, 347\n\nHammer, of Thor, 27, 198;\n  in graves, 294, 305;\n  perforated, 305\n\nHampshire, holy wells of, 96;\n  orientation of churches, 222, 229;\n  yews, 406;\n  oxen, 454, 458\n\nHanchurch (Staffs.), 104\n\nHanging, punishment by, 68-9\n\nHanover, 362\n\nHansard, G. A., on supply of yew for bows, 393\n\nHardy, Rev. C. R., on bone in Canewdon church, 200, 201\n\nHardy, Mr T., _Far from the Madding Crowd_, cited, 193;\n  burial of coins with the dead, 296\n\nHarlyn Bay (Cornwall), Late-Celtic cemetery, 249, 299, 321, 322;\n  quartz in graves, 299;\n  teeth found in graves, 321\n\nHarnack, Prof. A., on early Christianity, 25\n\nHarptree-under-Mendip (Somerset), 46\n\nHarrison, Mr Benjamin, on Maplescombe church, 38\n\nHarrison, William, on churches used for markets, 174\n\nHartland, Mr E. S., on mourning dress, 287\n\nHarvest customs, 436\n\nHascombe (Surrey), 183\n\nHaslemere (Surrey), 265\n\nHasted, E., on Buckland yew, 377\n\nHastings, Battle of, 57, 387\n\nHatchments, in churches, 284\n\nHatfield Peverel (Essex), 344\n\nHathersage (Derby), earthwork near church, 16;\n  court held in church, 140\n\nHaverfield, Prof. F. J., pavement at Wroxeter, 7;\n  Castle Acre, 12;\n  Whitestaunton villa, 95\n\nHavering-atte-Bower (Essex), 165\n\nHawker, R. S., on symbolism of the cardinal points, 328;\n  his \u201cDaughter of the Rock,\u201d 343\n\nHaydon (Northumberland), 7\n\nHayes (Middlesex), 190\n\nHayes, Rev. J. W., tombstone at Chadwell St Mary, 50;\n  Gorseddau and stone-circles, 98, 255-7;\n  purposes of stone-circles, 255, 257\n\nHeads, of animals, superstitions regarding, 440, 441, 442, 443\n\nHeadstones, evolution of, 269;\n  early examples, 346;\n  distribution in the churchyard, 347-50\n\nHealing springs, 94, 95, 97, 332\n\nHearne, Thomas, his grave, 245;\n  on grave-mounds, 260\n\n_Heart of Midlothian_, cited, 486\n\nHeart-urchin (= fossil echinoderm), 303\n\nHebrew proverb, quoted, 465\n\nHebridean burial custom, 352\n\nHehn, Prof. P., on range of yew-trees, 363\n\nHelmdon (Northants.), 453\n\nHems, Mr H., on position of churches, 348, 349\n\nHenderson, W., on churchyard yew and witches, 396\n\nHengist and Horsa, 441\n\nHenley-on-Thames (Oxford), 265\n\nHenry V, burial of, 432\n\nHensor (Bucks.), 376\n\nHereford, blacksmiths of, 426\n\nHerefordshire, detached church towers, 122-3\n\nHerodotus, cited, 70;\n  on Scythian burial customs, 287-8, 289;\n  horses of the Sagarthians, 414;\n  Danubian tribes, 420;\n  white horses, 433;\n  Egyptian custom, 440\n\nHertfordshire, churches of, 223;\n  harvest custom, 436;\n  horse lore, 497\n\nHesse, 362\n\nHessle (Yorks.), 165\n\nHe\u00fbllan (Wales), 398\n\nHexham (Northumberland), 216 n.\n\nHeygate, Rev. E. W., on place-name, Canewdon, 201\n\nHeylyn, Peter, on the cardinal points, 333\n\nHeywood, Thomas, cited, 483\n\nHicks, Canon E. L., on Christmas, 27\n\nHigh Commission Court, the, 140\n\nHigh Halden (Kent), 347\n\nHighlands, burial feasts, 319;\n  use of terms East and West, in the, 328;\n  yew superstition, 399;\n  ponies of, 413;\n  black cattle, 480\n\nHill of Scone (Perth), 65\n\nHills, Mr G. M., on acoustic jars, 447, 449\n\nHill-top churches, 101-4\n\nHimalayas, the, 382\n\nHindoos, and white stones, 299;\n  and eclipses, 397\n\n_Hipparion_, 409\n\nHippo-sandals, 428, 429\n\nHissey, Mr J. J., on Lincolnshire burial, 244\n\n_History of the Protestant Reformation_, cited, 133\n\nHitchin (Herts.), 7\n\nHive-bees, 395, 395 n.\n\nHoare, Sir R. C., on Chisbury camp, 14;\n  discovery at Amesbury, 483\n\nHobhouse, Bishop, on parish vestry, 142\n\nHobson, Mr W. F., on orientation, 241, 242\n\nHockliffe (Bedford), 453\n\nHolland, use of horse-pattens, 428;\n  horse-skull superstition, 440\n\nHolland, Philemon, translation of Pliny, 294\n\nHolmes, Dr T. Rice, and Sidbury Hill, 255;\n  moundless graves, 261;\n  Scandinavian rock-carvings, 481\n\nHolm oak, in churchyards, 384, 401\n\nHolton-le-Clay (Lincs.), 108\n\nHolybourne (Hants.), 96\n\nHoly wells, 92-7\n\nHomer, cited, 327; on the horse, 419\n\nHonolulu (Sandwich Islands), 208\n\nHonorius, Edict of, 26\n\n\u201cHoodening horse,\u201d the, 441-2\n\nHope (Derby), 153\n\nHope, Mr R. C., on Cornish holy wells, 96\n\nHope, Mr W. St John, on basilica at Silchester, 24;\n  castle-mounds, 55\n\nHorace, cited, 316\n\nHorncastle (Lincs.), 12\n\nHornchurch (Essex), 443\n\nHorn dancers, 185\n\nHornsea (Yorks.), 150, 418 n.\n\nHornsey (Middlesex), 207, 211\n\nHorsa and Hengist, 441\n\nHorse, in the churchyard, 157, 186-7;\n  cult of the, 408-51;\n  ancestry, 408-11;\n  modifications of structure, 411;\n  carvings of, by cave-man, 411-12;\n  possible domestication by cave-man, 414-16;\n  eaten by cave-man, 415, 416;\n  during Neolithic period, 416, 417, 418;\n  in round barrows, 417, 419;\n  at Whitepark Bay, 418;\n  in lake-dwellings, 418 n., 421;\n  reared by nomadic tribes, 419, 421;\n  in the Bible, 420, 472;\n  attached to chariots, 421;\n  how mounted in early times, 421;\n  in warfare, 421;\n  shoeing, 423-9, 470, 471, 472, 473;\n  buried with owner, 429, 431-2;\n  slaughtered at altar, 432;\n  white, 433-4;\n  sacrifices of, 433, 434, 435, 436;\n  in augury, 433, 434;\n  as food, 436-40;\n  as beast of draught, 454, 455, 457, 458, 466-8, 474;\n  yoked with oxen, 458;\n  breeding, 468;\n  superstitions, 497\n\nHorse-chestnut, in churchyards, 384\n\nHorseflesh, eating of, 436-40, 466, 483, 491;\n  Keysler\u2019s view, 436-7, 438;\n  forbidden by Gregory III, 437;\n  dictum of Gregory II, 437;\n  connected with Odin and witches, 438;\n  Dufour on, 438-9;\n  eaten by cave-men, 439-40\n\nHorse-heads, ceremonial eating of, 440\n\nHorse-races, early, 422\n\nHorses, in church porch, 157;\n  in churchyards, 187-8\n\nHorseshoes, in church porch, 157;\n  Roman, 423, 424, 425, 468-70;\n  Saxon, 424, 424 n., 426;\n  in Domesday Book, 426;\n  in Northumberland, 426-7;\n  round, 426, 427-8\n\nHorse-skulls, deemed accursed by the Egyptians, 440;\n  ceremonies attached to, 440;\n  offered to Odin, 440;\n  in magic, 440;\n  as gable ornaments, 440, 441;\n  in mythology, 442;\n  under buildings, 444-5;\n  in acoustics, 445, 446, 449-51;\n  sacrifice, 481\n\nHorsley, East and West (Surrey), 340\n\nHoughton-le-Spring (Durham), 272 n.\n\nHousman, Prof. A. E., his _Shropshire Lad_, quoted, 351\n\nHove (Sussex), 78, 274\n\nHowden (Yorks.), 168\n\nHowitt, Dr A. W., on Australian burial customs, 252\n\nHowlett, Mr E., on burial of candles in graves, 295\n\n_Hudibras_, quoted, 257\n\nHughes, Prof. T. McKenny, on horseshoes, 424\n\nHull, Miss E., on Irish round towers, 119, 121\n\n\u201cHumanist\u201d school, 280\n\nHundsjael (= snail shells), 309\n\nHunmanby (Yorks.), 285, 430\n\nHurstbourne Tarrant (Hants.), 372\n\nHutchinson, Miss T., photograph by, 265\n\nHutchinson, W., on Penrith tomb, 50\n\nHuxley, T. H., on the human skeleton, 90;\n  on the horse, 408\n\nHuysmans, M. J. K., on deflected chancels, 231;\n  on \u201cleaning-head theory,\u201d 236\n\n_Hydriotaphia_, Browne\u2019s, cited, 311\n\n_Hyracotherium_, 409, 410\n\n\nIceland, stone-circles of, 65\n\nIckleton (Cambs.), 30\n\nIford (Sussex), 384\n\nIlford (Essex), 454\n\n\u201cIncense-cups,\u201d 314\n\nInchlonaig, or Inchconakhead (island in Loch Lomond), 392, 392 n.\n\nIndia, Christian churches in, 208;\n  superstition regarding white stones, 299;\n  burial of suicides, 358;\n  horse sacrifice, 434;\n  oxen, 467, 482\n\nIngatestone (Essex), 40\n\nIngelow, Jean, pet names for cows, 486\n\nInhumation, practice of, 263, 264, 275, 277, 316;\n  why introduced, 263\n\nInn-signs, 433, 485\n\nInverary (Argyle), 299\n\nIreland, early Christianity in, 27;\n  churches on pagan sites, 48, 49, 86;\n  holy wells, 93, 94;\n  round towers, 118-22, 123;\n  stone-circles, 256;\n  hammers in graves, 294;\n  \u201cGodstones\u201d in graves, 299;\n  deiseal, 330;\n  burial on \u201cwrong side,\u201d 352;\n  yew-trees of, 394, 395, 403;\n  hive-bees, 395;\n  magicians, 401;\n  epics, 419;\n  skull superstition, 444;\n  horse-skull in church, 445;\n  paganism, 446\n\nIrish yew, the, 361, 406\n\nIron Age, Early, 248, 249, 257, 261, 283, 312, 429, 433\n\nIron pyrites, 285, 286\n\nIrving, Dr A., discoveries at Bishops Stortford, 418\n\nIsis, and ox-worship, 484\n\nIslay (Scotland), 294\n\nIsle of Man, Tynwald, 64;\n  \u201ccronks,\u201d 71;\n  burial without coffins, 271\n\nIsle of Portland, church-gift custom, 155\n\nIsle of Purbeck, discovery of stone coffins, 275\n\nIsle of Sheppey, 192\n\nIsle of Wight, landmark towers, 130;\n  graves, 264;\n  churches, 495\n\nItaly, orientation of churches in, 213, 214;\n  abbeys of, 330;\n  holm oak on graves, 401;\n  use of horse-labour, 468;\n  horse superstition, 497\n\nItchenswell (Hants.), 96\n\n\nJackson, Mr J. R., on Hensor yew, 376\n\nJapan, sun-worship, 255;\n  burial of suicides, 358;\n  yews of, 361\n\nJarrow, early church, 23;\n  Bede\u2019s chair, 43;\n  inscription at, 149\n\nJars, acoustic, 446-9\n\nJeaffreson, J. C., on powers of Mediaeval ecclesiastics, 139\n\nJeans, Rev. G. E., on Mottestone, 45\n\nJerusalem, orientation towards, 208;\n  prayer towards, 218\n\nJesse, Edward, on age of yews, 364\n\nJessopp, Canon A., on Old Hunstanton mound, 69;\n  hill-digging, 82;\n  church treasure, 125-6;\n  miracle plays, 182\n\nJet beads, in graves, 300\n\nJewellery, in graves, 310, 312, 314\n\nJewitt, L., on grave-mounds, 274;\n  horseshoes, 424 n.;\n  chariot-burial, 430\n\nJews, the, and orientation, 216-20;\n  burial custom, 317;\n  symbolism of right and left hand, 326;\n  and shoeing horses, 472;\n  on sacrifice, 481\n\nJob, on sun-worship, 218;\n  and the North, 334;\n  his description of the war-horse, 420\n\nJohnston, Mr P. M., on Burpham church, 16;\n  on orientation, 209;\n  on Bosham church, 495\n\nJoly, Prof. N., on domestication of the horse, 415\n\nJones, Inigo, church built by, 206\n\nJones, Prof. Rupert, on Bede\u2019s chair, 43;\n  burial superstition, 292-3\n\nJonson, Ben, burial of, 266\n\nJosiah, and priests of Baal, 218\n\nJossing-blocks, or stirrup stones, 157\n\nJowett, Prof. B., quoted, 297\n\n\u201cJugum\u201d (of oxen), 456\n\nJulian calendar, 254\n\nJuno, temple of, 442\n\nJupiter, and white oxen, 483\n\nJurby (I. of Man), 71\n\nJustinian, Emperor, on church-building, 353\n\nJutland, horse-skulls on gables, 441\n\n\nKalm, Peter, on raised churchyards, 91;\n  cattle kept in churchyards, 187\n\nKalmucks, and the horse, 419\n\nKarnak (Egypt), 221\n\nKauffmann, Prof. F., on temple of Upsala, 28;\n  pagan temples, 65;\n  ancient modes of thought, 204\n\nKeeps, castle, 52, 107\n\nKells (co. Meath), 119, 120\n\nKemble, J. M., on bulls in divination, 435\n\nKemsing (Kent), 40\n\nKenardington (Kent), 15\n\nKennett, Dr White, on graves, 244\n\nKent, churches of, 4;\n  churchyards, 187;\n  White Horse of, 433, 435;\n  \u201choodening horse,\u201d 441\n\nKerdreuff (Brittany), 202\n\nKerry (Montgomery), 99\n\nKersal Cell (Lancs.), 377\n\nKesserloch (Baden), 415 n.\n\n\u201cKews\u201d (= ox-shoes), 472-3\n\nKeysler, J. G., on inhumation, 263;\n  chariot-burial, 429;\n  horse sacrifices, 435;\n  eating of horseflesh, 436-8\n\n_Kil-_, prefix in place-names, 33\n\nKilfowyr (Carmarthen), 33\n\nKilham (Yorks.), stocks, 165;\n  Danes\u2019 graves, 248-9, 261\n\nKilpeck (Hereford), 52, 63\n\nKilsant (Carmarthen), 33\n\n_King Henry IV_, Second pt, quoted, 457\n\n_King Henry VI_, First pt, quoted, 335;\n  Second pt, 284\n\nKingly Bottom, or Vale (Sussex), 375, 401\n\n\u201cKing\u2019s evil,\u201d 202 n.\n\nKingsley, Charles, on the North wind, 334;\n  and Eversley, 345;\n  Swallowfield yew, 378\n\nKingusie, or Kingussie (Inverness), 65\n\nKipling, Mr Rudyard, quoted, 333\n\nKirby Grindalythe (Yorks.), 354\n\n_Kirk-_, prefix in place-names, 33;\n  etymology of, 145-7\n\nKirkamool (Shetland Isles), 31\n\nKirkcolm (Wigtown), 33\n\nKirkdale (Yorks.), 162\n\nKirk Ella (Yorks.), 33, 165\n\nKirton-in-Lindsey (Lincs.), 346\n\nKitchen-midden, near Constantine church, 42\n\nKitchin, Dean, on Twyford megalith, 45\n\nKnollton (see Knowlton)\n\nKnowles, Mr W. J., on remains of the horse at Whitepark Bay, 418\n\nKnowlton (Dorset), church within earthwork, 13;\n  yews, 401\n\nKyre Park (Worcester), 365\n\n\n_Lady of the Lake_, quoted, 403\n\nLake-dwellings, 249 n., 416, 421, 480\n\nLa Laugerie (France), 415\n\nLaleston (Glamorgan), 31\n\nLa Madelaine cave (France), 412\n\nLamb-ales, 179\n\nLambeth (London), 343\n\nLammas (Norfolk), 230\n\nLammer-beads (= amber-beads), 301\n\nLancashire, funeral custom, 318\n\nLancisi, and the writings of Mercati, 199\n\nLang, Mr A., on burial of suicides, 358\n\nLangdon, Mr A. G., on the study of Cornish crosses, 36\n\nLangham, Archbishop, on Sunday markets, 192\n\nLangsett (Yorks.), 404\n\nLaniscat (Brittany), 202\n\nLankester, Sir E. Ray, on the horse, 408\n\nLapland, heathen customs, 29, 286;\n  graves, 286, 309\n\nLarousse, Pierre, on burial of clergy, 244\n\nLascars, burial custom of, 316\n\nLate-Celtic period, cemetery of, 249, 299, 321, 434;\n  burials, 276, 430;\n  bucket, 434\n\nLa T\u00e8ne, period of culture, 276\n\nLaud, Archbishop, and tribunals held in churches, 140;\n  Easter feasts in churches, 180\n\nLaughton-en-le-Morthen (Yorks.), 59, 192\n\nLavants (= intermittent springs), 96\n\nLavenham (Suffolk), 346\n\nLeach, Mr A. L., on Gumfreston springs, 95\n\nLeake, John, his map referred to, 222, 227\n\n\u201cLeaning-head theory,\u201d 235-6\n\nLeatherhead (Surrey), squint, 151-2;\n  deflection of tower, 235\n\nLedbury (Hereford), 122\n\nLedger stones, 347\n\nLeeds (Kent), church, 4;\n  acoustic jars, 448-9\n\nLega-Weekes, Miss E., on church armour, 158\n\nLegge, Dr W. Heneage, on ox-teams, 455;\n  ox-yoke, 462\n\nLeicester, 30, 283\n\nLeicestershire, church, 236\n\nLeith Hill (Surrey), 266\n\nLe Mans (France), 29 n.\n\nLeo I, Pope, and bowing to the sun, 212\n\n_Lepidotus gigas_ (= fossil fish), 307\n\nLewes (Sussex), St John\u2019s-sub-Castro, 13;\n  Saxon cemetery, 83;\n  Castle, 463;\n  race-course, 467;\n  ox-carriage, 484\n\n_Liber Festivalis_, quoted, 381\n\nLibraries in churches, 155, 163\n\nLichens, 334\n\nLichfield, holy well, 95;\n  alinement of cathedral, 230\n\n_Life of St Cuthbert_, quoted, 459\n\nLighthouse, supposed, at Dover Castle, 19, 20\n\nLinchets, on Shawford Downs, 45\n\nLincoln, cathedral, 126;\n  cathedral watchmen, 126;\n  Heath, 130;\n  St Mary\u2019s Guildhall, 178;\n  execution at, 351\n\nLincolnshire, burial superstition, 18;\n  holy wells, 97;\n  Danish invasion of, 108-11;\n  burials, 248;\n  burial superstition, 292, 295;\n  church doors, 331;\n  unenclosed churchyards, 355;\n  churchyard trees, 406;\n  oxen, 453, 460;\n  ox-yoke, 462\n\nLindisfarne, Priory church, 245\n\nLinton Heath (Cambs.), 402 n.\n\nLithuania, 363, 477\n\nLitlington (Cambs.), 8\n\nLittle Coates (Lincs.), 72\n\nLittle Dunkeld (Perth), 94\n\nLittle Stukeley (Hunts.), 289\n\nLittleton (Middlesex), 344\n\nLittle Washbourne (Glos.), 355\n\nLittr\u00e9, \u00c9., translation of Pliny, 294\n\nLivy, cited, 70, 327\n\n_Llan-_, prefix in place-names, 33\n\nLlanbedr (Vale of Conway), 79\n\nLlanberis (Carnarvon), 94\n\nLlandegla (Denbigh), 94\n\nLlandeilo Llwydarth (Pembroke), 94\n\nLlanelian (Denbigh), holy well, 94;\n  church chest, 168, 169;\n  dog-tongs, 190\n\nLlanfaglan (Carnarvon), 94\n\nLlanfechain (Montgomery), 99\n\nLlangenydd (Glamorgan), 31\n\nLlanllechid (Denbigh), 104\n\nLlanwrythwl (Brecon), 48\n\nLocal Government Act, of 1894, 142\n\nLockyer, Sir J. Norman, on cromlechs, 28, 48;\n  sites of churches, 48;\n  dates of fairs, 192-3;\n  Egyptian temples, 221;\n  \u201cSaint\u2019s Day theory,\u201d 225;\n  alinement of megaliths, 252-4, 255, 258;\n  earthworks, 259\n\nLogan, J., on stone-circles, 65-6\n\nLollards, trial of, in churches, 139\n\nLombardic treaties, 338\n\nLondon, holy wells, 96;\n  ancient burials, 247, 271;\n  burials without coffins, 271;\n  horseshoes, 427;\n  market for oxen, 457;\n  bell-casting, 459;\n  wild bulls near, 477\n\nLondon Clay, 409\n\nLondon Geologists\u2019 Association, 41\n\nLong-bow, antiquity of, 387-9;\n  at Cre\u00e7y and Poitiers, 389;\n  supersedes cross-bow, 389-90\n\nLongman, Mr C. F. (and Col. F. Walrond), on bows, 389\n\nLord\u2019s House, the, 150-1\n\nLoudon, J. C., on Fortingal yew, 376\n\nLouth (Lincs.), 240, 453, 462\n\nLoversall (Yorks.), 346\n\nLovett, Mr E., on Sussex barrow, 302\n\nLowe, Dr J., his _Yew-Trees_ cited, 364;\n  estimate of age of yews, 364, 365-6, 368, 369, 370, 372, 373-4, 375;\n  his rule discussed, 365, 368-70, 373-4;\n  \u201cshelter theory,\u201d 384;\n  \u201cbow theory,\u201d 393;\n  prehistoric respect for the yew, 400\n\nLower Greensand, 269\n\nLower Halstow (Kent), 4\n\nLow side windows, 237, 329\n\nLucarnes (= dormer windows), 117\n\nLucas, Mr Seymour, on Mendlesham armour, 160\n\nLucas, Mr W. J., on Good Friday sports, 195\n\nLudborough (Lincs.), 16\n\nLudlow (Salop), 82, 95\n\nLull, Prof. R. S., 408\n\nLullingstone (Kent), 384\n\nLuppitt (Devon), 449-50\n\nLuxembourg, dancing in churches, 185;\n  burial customs, 311\n\n_Lycidas_, quoted, 397\n\nLydd (Kent), 143\n\nLydden (Kent), 187 n.\n\nLydekker, Mr R., on the horse, 408, 416 n.\n\nLyme Park (Cheshire), 477\n\nLyminge (Kent), 4, 20, 21\n\nLyminster (Sussex), 496\n\nLysons, Daniel, cited, 78\n\n\n_Macbeth_, quoted, 396\n\nMacclesfield (Cheshire), 71\n\nMackarness, F. C., cited, 187\n\nM\u00e2con (France), 420\n\nMacpherson, J., his _Ossian_ quoted, 283-4, 401\n\nMacrobius, on cremation, 276\n\nMagdalenian caves, 411, 412, 497\n\nMagna Charta, referred to, 383\n\nMagnetic needle, early knowledge of, 227-8, 233;\n  where first discovered, 228, 324;\n  variation of, 228, 233\n\nMagnus, Olaus, on armour in churches, 161\n\nMaid Marian, 441\n\nMaidstone (Kent), 459 n.\n\nMaitland, Prof. F. W., on the parish vestry, 142\n\nMalabar, 222 n.\n\nMalay, terms for points of compass, 327\n\nMalden (Beds.), 342\n\nMalden (Surrey), 32, 33\n\nMaldon (Essex), 33\n\nMalkin, B. H., on churchyard sports, 197\n\nMallett, Mr Reddie, and Harlyn Bay discoveries, 299\n\nMalmesbury (Wilts.), 154\n\nManning and Bray, cited, 266 n., 371\n\nManningford Bruce (Wilts.), 344\n\nManorbier (Pembroke), 237 n.\n\nManor Courts, 137\n\nManuscripts, illuminated, 455, 459\n\nMaplederwell (Hants.), 96\n\nMaples, in churchyards, 384\n\nMaplescombe (Kent), 38, 39, 40\n\nMarathon, Battle of, 419\n\nMares, kept for milk, 419, 421;\n  ridden by priests, 436, 457;\n  used for draught, 457, 457 n.\n\nMariner\u2019s compass, 228\n\nMarket Overton (Rutland), 12\n\nMarkets, in churches, 173-4;\n  in churchyards, 191-2;\n  on Sundays, 192\n\nMarket Weighton (Yorks.), 32, 430\n\nMarlborough (Wilts.), 434\n\nMarlborough Downs, 38\n\n_Marprelate Tracts_, the, 244, 244 n.\n\nMarriage, at the church-door, 156\n\nMarsh, Prof. O. C., on the horse, 408\n\nMarshall, W., on use of oxen in Yorkshire, 453, 465;\n  working age of oxen, 465\n\nMartin Hussingtree (Worcester), 348\n\n_Martin Monthes Mind_, quoted, 244\n\nMarylebone (London), 206\n\nMas d\u2019Azil (France), 414, 416\n\nMashonaland, 222 n.\n\nMason, W., poet, quoted, 497\n\nMaxton, Mr W. J., on St Saviour\u2019s, Southwark, 231\n\nMayall, Mr A., on Kersal yew, 377\n\nMay-Day, and well-dressing, 92;\n  customs, 92, 97 n.\n\nMayence, museum, 428\n\nMaylam, Mr P., on the \u201choodening horse,\u201d 441\n\nMaynard, Mr G., on Essex churches, 4;\n  discoveries at Colchester, 274\n\nMayors, chosen in church, 143\n\nMay-year, the, 193, 253\n\nMcIntyre, Mr P., on Gaelic, 49 n.\n\nMecklenburg, horse-skull superstition, 440\n\nMediaeval earthworks, 16, 60, 89;\n  settlements, 16, 89;\n  treasure-diggers, 82-3;\n  churches, 125;\n  villages, 167;\n  burials, 271, 289, 311, 317;\n  symbolism, 324, 337, 407;\n  tombstones, 347;\n  superstition, 446;\n  use of salt meat, 465-6;\n  shoeing of oxen, 470-1\n\nMegaliths, kinds of, 28, 34;\n  new churches, 34, 42-9, 104, 400;\n  destruction of, 42-3;\n  orientation of, 229, 252-8;\n  discoveries at, 308\n\nMelling (Lancs.), 59\n\nMellitus, Abbot, letter to, 482\n\nMells (Somerset), 377, 380\n\nMelsonby (Yorks.), 107\n\nMendlesham (Suffolk), 160\n\nMenhirs, 34-5, 37, 45, 136, 255;\n  at St Mabyn, 42;\n  Rudstone, 43;\n  Mottestone, 45\n\nMentmore (Bucks.), 83\n\nMeopham (Kent), 40\n\nMeppershall (Beds.), 60\n\nMercati, Michele, on fossils, 199\n\nMerovingian burials, 283, 285\n\nMerrington (Northumberland), 107\n\nMerstham (Surrey), 96, 101\n\n_Mesohippus_, 409, 410\n\nMesolithic period, 418\n\nMetz (Germany), 447\n\nMiall, Prof. L. C., on \u201cnegative exceptions,\u201d 350\n\nMickleham (Surrey), 230\n\nMicklethwaite, Mr J. T., on Wakefield parish church, 344\n\n_Micraster_ (= fossil echinoderm), in graves, 302, 303, 304\n\nMiddlesex, yews of, 406\n\nMiddleton, Bishop, and the orientation of churches, 208\n\nMiddleton Stoney (Oxford), 244\n\nMidsummer festivals, 192;\n  fires, 440, 446\n\nMigne, M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9, on church of St Beno\u00eet, 210\n\nMilan (Italy), 212, 216\n\nMildmay, Sir W., on orientation, 208, 210\n\nMiln, Mr James, his discoveries at Carnac, 482\n\nMilton, John, _L\u2019Allegro_, quoted, 326;\n  _Paradise Lost_, quoted, 335;\n  _Comus_, quoted, 452\n\nMilton Lilbourne (Wilts.), 90\n\nMinster (Kent), 79\n\nMiracle plays, development of, 181-3;\n  in church, 182-3;\n  in the churchyard, 182-3;\n  in the market-place, 182\n\nMirrors, placed in coffins, 310\n\nMistletoe, 399\n\nMitcham (Surrey), pre-Saxon cemetery, 247;\n  churchyard, 384\n\nMitchell, Sir A., on discoveries at Alloa, 275\n\nMithraism, 27\n\nMoated mounds, or mounts, 51, 54;\n  St Weonards, 56;\n  Thruxton, 56;\n  Penwortham, 56, 57;\n  Arkholme, 56;\n  Warrington, 56, 57\n\nMoats, 52, 66, 67, 89, 98\n\nMolech, worship of, 220\n\nMonasteries, dissolution of, 289\n\nMoney, Mr W., 373\n\nMongolian horse, 413, 416\n\nMonken Hadley (Middlesex), 162\n\nMontaigne, Michel, on annual rings in trees, 369\n\nMontault, Mgr B. de, on orientation of churches, 213\n\nMontelius, Prof. O., on stone-circles, 28;\n  Thor\u2019s hammer, 198;\n  holy wells, 93;\n  amber axes, 299\n\nMontgomerie, Mr D. H., on Pirton Toot Hill, 61\n\nMontgomery, round churches of, 99\n\nMont St Michel (Brittany), 129\n\nMont St Michel (Normandy), 129\n\nMoot-hills, 51, 63, 67, 70;\n  near churches, 63, 66;\n  meaning of word, 63\n\nMoresby (Cumberland), 12\n\nMorocco, burial of suicides in, 358\n\nMorris dances, in church, 184-5, 195;\n  meaning of word, 184\n\nMortillet, M. G. de, on domestication of the horse, 415\n\nMortimer, Mr J. R., on Duggleby Howe, 66;\n  Willy Howe, 66-7;\n  mound-crosses, 68;\n  Fimber, 78;\n  Kilham graves, 248;\n  statistics of alinements, 249, 250, 251;\n  groups of barrows, 261-2;\n  Easington barrow, 274;\n  objects found in barrows, 282;\n  position of body in the mound, 356;\n  remains of the horse in barrows, 417, 419;\n  chariot-burial, 430\n\nMorwenstow (Cornwall), 343\n\nMosaic Law, 436\n\n\u201cMother Ludlam\u2019s Kettle,\u201d 178\n\n\u201cMotte\u201d and \u201cmota,\u201d 52\n\nMottes (see Moated mounds)\n\nMottistone (I. of Wight), 165;\n  menhir, 45;\n  stocks, 165\n\nMound-crosses, 68\n\nMounting blocks, 157, 188\n\nMuch Wymondley (Herts.), 7\n\nMud, Mude, or Mundal Hill, 67\n\nMules, shoeing of, 423, 423 n., 470\n\nM\u00fcller, Max, and the Aryans, 333\n\nMurderers, burial of, 351, 352, 358-9\n\nMurols (Puy de D\u00f4me), 298\n\nMurray, Sir James, on \u201cbelfry,\u201d 127;\n  \u201cchurch,\u201d 145-6\n\nMuseums, Brighton, 80;\n  Colchester, 84;\n  Vatican (Rome), 199;\n  British, 223, 402;\n  Guildhall (London), 272, 424, 425, 426;\n  Science and Art (Dublin), 402;\n  Natural History, 411;\n  Mayence, 428;\n  Horniman (London), 441;\n  Louth, 462;\n  Lewes (Sussex), 463\n\nMusselburgh (Midlothian), 94\n\nMyfyr Morganwg, Arch-Druid, 258\n\n\n_Names and their Histories_, cited, 32\n\nNanterre (France), 430\n\nNaogeorgus, Thomas, on markets in churches, 174\n\nNarburgh (Nottingham), 266\n\nNativity plays, 181\n\nNave, uses of the, 132, 154, 170-1;\n  as warehouse, 171;\n  used for markets, 173-4;\n  miracle plays in, 182, 183;\n  morris dances in, 184\n\nNeale, J. M., on orientation of churches, 224\n\nNeckham, Alexander, on magnetic needle, 228\n\nNecklaces, in graves, 301, 305, 307, 308\n\n\u201cNegative exceptions,\u201d 242, 350\n\nNeilson, Mr G., on castle-mounds, 55\n\nNeolithic celts, 79-80, 197, 298;\n  burials, 249, 280, 320;\n  yew, 361;\n  bows, 387-8;\n  horses, 416, 417, 418;\n  bone-caves, 417-18;\n  oxen, 477, 479, 481\n\nNero, and shoeing of mules, 423\n\nNetherby (Yorks.), 422\n\nNeville, Rev. H. M., on horseshoes, 426\n\nNewbourne (Suffolk), 343\n\nNewcastle, St Nicholas\u2019 church, 131, 138, 175, 359\n\nNew Forest proverb, 360\n\nNewfoundland, 199\n\nNewhaven (Sussex), 465\n\nNewington (Kent), 448\n\nNewlands Corner (Surrey), 407\n\n_New Oxford Dictionary_, cited, 149, 320\n\nNew Romney (Kent), 143\n\nNine Maidens (stone-row), 256\n\nNordvi, A. G., discoveries in Lapland, 309\n\nNorfolk, hill-digging in, 83;\n  round towers, 123;\n  orientation of churches, 222;\n  burial custom, 311;\n  burial on North side, 343, 347\n\nNorham (Northumberland), court held in church, 136;\n  churchyard, 345\n\nNorman castles, 52-9;\n  churches, 55-6, 57-8, 63, 80, 97, 239;\n  cross-bow, 389\n\nNormandy, objects in churches, 203;\n  churchyard yews, 406;\n  acoustic jars, 447\n\nNorth, side of churches, 239;\n  determination of position by the, 327;\n  symbolism of the, 324-38;\n  Bible references, 334-5;\n  in place-names, 339-40;\n  side of churchyards disliked, 341-53\n\nNortham (Devon), 496\n\nNorthampton, round church, 99;\n  mayor chosen in church, 143;\n  fairs in churchyard, 192\n\nNorth Cockerington (Lincs.), 344\n\nNorth Cotes (Lincs.), 340\n\nNorth Curry (Somerset), 230\n\nNorthfleet (Kent), 128\n\nNorth Mimms (Herts.), 384\n\nNorth Molton (Devon), 41\n\nNortholt (Middlesex), 291\n\nNorth Ormsby (Lincs.), 453\n\nNorthorpe (Lincs.), 165, 189\n\nNorth side of churchyards, burial on, 341-53, 490;\n  headstones, 344-5, 347-8;\n  sports held there, 352-3\n\nNorth Thoresby (Lincs.), 193\n\nNorthumberland, burial custom, 297;\n  horseshoes, 426;\n  ox-team, 461\n\nNorton, as place-name, 339\n\nNorton (Derby), 111\n\nNorton (Worcester), 355\n\nNorway, aerolite tradition, 198;\n  folk-medicine, 298;\n  settlements, 340;\n  rock carvings, 421;\n  and horseflesh, 438;\n  domestic utensils of, 440-1\n\nNorwich, desecration of churches, 174;\n  acoustic jars, 448\n\n_Notes and Queries_, referred to, 158, 342\n\nNotices on church doors, 143\n\nNunney (Somerset), 115\n\nNun Ormsby (see North Ormsby)\n\nNursery rhymes, concerning oxen, 486\n\n\nOak, growth of the, 369\n\nOckham (Surrey), 62\n\nO\u2019Curry, E., on wands of yew, 402\n\nOdin, burial-place of, 28;\n  and horseflesh, 438;\n  horse-heads offered to, 440;\n  and the \u201choodening horse,\u201d 441\n\nOffchurch (Warwick), 369\n\nOfferings to the dead, 280, 282, 295\n\nOgams, or Oghams, 401\n\nOgbourne Maisey (Wilts.), 75\n\nOgbury Downs (Wilts.), 320\n\n\u201cOillets\u201d (= slits in castle walls), 117\n\nOld Hunstanton (Norfolk), 69\n\n_Old Topography of London_, cited, 222-3\n\nOlufsen, O., on burial customs of the Pamirs, 263\n\nOpen-air courts, near megaliths, 34, 63, 64, 70, 136;\n  near barrows and tumuli, 34, 64, 70;\n  in Wales, 64;\n  and churches, 150\n\nOpen-field system, the, 338\n\nOrgans, Mediaeval, 447\n\nOrientation, of graves, 80, 83-4, 205, 243-67, 490;\n  meaning of word, 205, 325;\n  of churches, 205-42, 489;\n  East and West, 205, 207, 208, 211, 219, 337;\n  North and South, 206, 207, 208;\n  of Freemasons\u2019 lodges, 209;\n  origin of idea, 216-24;\n  allusions in Bible, 217-20;\n  Egyptian, 219, 221;\n  symbolism, 223-4;\n  theories concerning, 224-37;\n  of long barrows, 252;\n  of earthworks, 258-9;\n  by natural features, 325;\n  by the sun, 325;\n  of skeletons, 483\n\nOrigen, and earth\u2019s centre, 335\n\nOrlyg\u00fcs, 35\n\nOrnaments in graves, 302-10\n\nOssian, poems of, quoted, 283, 401, 402, 419\n\nOssuaries, 270\n\nOstiarius (= doorkeeper), 149, 154\n\nOstrich eggs, in churches, 202\n\nOthona (Essex), 23\n\nOttery St Mary (Devon), 118\n\nOver Worton (Oxford), 75\n\nOvid, on grave-gifts, 313\n\nOwen, Rev. E., on circular churchyards, 98\n\nOwston (Lincs.), 59\n\nOx-bells, 475\n\n\u201cOx-bows,\u201d use of, 461, 462\n\nOxen, in agriculture, 423;\n  blessing of, at Carnac, 446;\n  as beast of labour, 452-75, 491;\n  in various countries, 452;\n  breeds, 453, 455;\n  early use in ploughing, 455-60;\n  Domesday Book, 455, 456;\n  terms referring to, 455, 456;\n  Bartholomew Anglicus on, 456;\n  formerly yoked with horses at plough, 458;\n  number in a team, 458-61;\n  yokes, 461-2;\n  value of services, 465, 466, 467, 471;\n  limitation in use of word, 465;\n  value of flesh, 465-6;\n  how fed in winter, 466;\n  labour value, 466, 467;\n  trotting, 467;\n  comparison with horses, 467, 470-1;\n  discussion on shoeing, 468-74;\n  why displaced by the horse, 474-5;\n  ancestral forms, 475-81;\n  folk-lore, 475, 481-6;\n  sacrifice of, 481-2, 483, 484;\n  white and black, 483, 485;\n  sacrificed at graves, 483;\n  as food, 483;\n  drawing carriages, 484 n.;\n  symbolism of, 485;\n  on tavern signs, 485;\n  pet names, 486\n\nOxford, port-moot, 140;\n  Movement, 206;\n  St Aldate\u2019s church, 232\n\nOxfordshire, oxen in, 453\n\nOxgang (= bovata), 456\n\nOx-herd, in literature, 456;\n  duties of, 456\n\n\u201cOx-kews,\u201d or \u201ccues,\u201d 469, 472, 473\n\nOx-shoes, 428, 468, 470, 472, 473, 475\n\nOx-skull, found by Carthaginians, 442;\n  in ornament, 451;\n  prehistoric, 475, 476\n\nOystermouth (Glamorgan), church tower, 112;\n  burial on North side, 348\n\n\nPaddington (London), 206\n\nPaddlesworth, near Lyminge (Kent), 40\n\nPaddlesworth, near Snodland (Kent), 40, 339\n\nPaganism, hidden forces of, 88, 312\n\nPagan sites, churches on, 1-100, 488\n\nPalaeolithic Age, references to the, 305, 308, 414, 416, 437, 439;\n  \u201cfloor,\u201d 308;\n  oxen, 477\n\n_Palaeotherium_, 409\n\nPalestine, 217, 472\n\nPalgrave, Sir F., on persistence of custom, 470\n\nPalmerston, Lord, funeral of, 310\n\nPalm Sunday, singing on, 155;\n  sports, 194, 195;\n  Bulgarian feast, 318;\n  yew displayed, 380, 381, 382, 402, 491;\n  fairs, 404\n\nPamirs, burial customs in the, 263, 318\n\nPangdean (Sussex), 455\n\nPantheon, conversion into a church, 30\n\n_Paradise Lost_, quoted, 335\n\nParchments, inscribed, buried with the dead, 312\n\nParey Ambrose (= Par\u00e9 Ambroise), cited, 197\n\nParis, dancing in churches of, 185;\n  churches of, 210;\n  laws regarding horseflesh, 438;\n  acoustic jars, 447\n\nParish boundaries, 34, 69;\n  registers, 50, 359, 372, 373;\n  vestry, 141-3;\n  armour, 158\n\nPark cattle, 477, 478, 479\n\nParker, J. H., on Westminster Abbey, 232;\n  deflected chancels, 237\n\nParsonage-houses, 175, 177\n\nParthenon, columns of the, 239\n\nParvise, erroneous use of word, 155, 167\n\nPasque eggs, 502\n\nPassion plays, 180\n\nPatagonia, burial custom, 432\n\nPateley Bridge (Yorks.), 258\n\nPatrick, Bishop of the Hebrides, 35\n\nPatron saints, of churches, 129, 191, 224-6\n\n\u201cPaul\u2019s Walk\u201d (St Paul\u2019s Cathedral), 139\n\nPayne, Mr G., discoveries at Darenth, 428\n\nPearson, Prof., on burial custom, 318\n\nPebbles, in graves, 286, 288, 299\n\nPeckham (London), 206\n\nPele, or peel towers, 107\n\nPembridge (Hereford), 123\n\nPembrokeshire, holy wells, 94-5;\n  churches, 113;\n  squints, 151\n\nPennant Melangel (Montgomery), 199\n\nPennant, T., his _Tour in Scotland_, cited, 49, 50;\n  Welsh burial custom, 331;\n  Fortingal yew, 376\n\nPennington, Canon A. R., on burial superstition, 351\n\nPenny, Charon\u2019s, 296\n\nPenrith (Cumberland), 50, 231\n\nPenwortham (Lancs.), 56, 57\n\nPenzance (Cornwall), 37\n\nPepys, Samuel, quoted, 400 n.\n\nP\u00e9rone, or P\u00e9ronne (Picardy), 378\n\nPersians, white horses of, 433;\n  horse sacrifices, 434\n\nPersistence, of architectural types, 111, 117, 120, 122;\n  of custom, 203, 204, 259, 313, 445-6\n\nPeruvians, burial customs, 247\n\nPessinus (Galatia), 198\n\nPet names, of oxen, 486\n\nPetrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders, on Addington megaliths, 46\n\nPews, in churches, 173, 188\n\nPewsey (Wilts.), feather preserved in church, 201;\n  oxen, 453, 473\n\nPhilip II, of Macedon, 434\n\nPhillimore, Sir R., his _Ecclesiastical Law_, cited, 213;\n  use of coffins, 271\n\nPhilology, its aid in archaeology, 145, 270\n\nPiddinghoe (Sussex), 124, 125\n\nPiercebridge (Durham), 464\n\n\u201cPierres de foudre\u201d (= stone celts), 197\n\n\u201cPierres de tonnerre\u201d (= stone celts), 197\n\n_Piers the Plowman_ (see _Vision of William_)\n\nPiette, M. \u00c9., excavations by, 414\n\nPilgrims\u2019 Way, 131;\n  churches near, 338-9;\n  follows the Southern slope, 338;\n  yews, 374, 375\n\nPillory, the, 167\n\nPine trees, on barrows, 401\n\nPins, in graves, 295, 310\n\nPirton (Herts.), church, 41;\n  Toot Hill, 60, 64, 70\n\nPisa (Italy), 216\n\nPit-burial, 261, 271\n\nPitt-Rivers, Gen. A. L., on Church Barrow, 30;\n  his work in Cranborne Chase, 105;\n  Saxon burials, 250;\n  \u201cdug-out\u201d coffins, 275;\n  objects found in barrows, 282;\n  Winkelbury Hill barrow, 285, 406 n.;\n  broken pottery in graves, 288,  293;\n  charcoal in graves, 290;\n  coins in graves, 296;\n  fossils found at Rotherly and Woodcuts, 302;\n  burning corn on graves, 318;\n  ears of corn in grave, 318;\n  primitive bows, 388;\n  yews in Cranborne Chase, 392;\n  horseshoes discovered by, 424, 425;\n  hippo-sandals, 428;\n  ox-shoe, 468, 469, 470\n\nPlace-names, and early Christian settlements, 31, 32, 33, 147;\n  and the cardinal points, 339-40;\n  and the yew, 403\n\nPlays, in churches, 180-3;\n  in churchyards, 181, 182, 183;\n  evolution of, 181\n\nPleurs (France), 248\n\nPliny, his _Natural History_, cited, 286;\n  objects placed in tombs, 294, 310;\n  mirrors, 310;\n  yew poison, 362, 363;\n  burial of horse, 432;\n  shoeing camels, 470;\n  slaughter of oxen, 483\n\nPloughing, Domesday terms relating to, 456;\n  by horses and oxen, 458;\n  composition of team, 458-61\n\nPloughs, early, 463, 464, 497;\n  specimen at Lewes Castle, 463;\n  modern, 475\n\nPlumpton (Sussex), position of church, 101;\n  sycamore in churchyard, 384\n\nPluto, and black oxen, 483\n\nPoint Croix (Brittany), 202\n\nPoitiers (France), 231, 285, 389\n\nPoland, European bison in, 475, 477\n\nPole Star, 325\n\nPollard, Mr A. W., on miracle plays, 183\n\nPonies, Highland, 413\n\nPontypridd (Wales), 258\n\nPoppaea, wife of Nero, 423\n\nPorches, church, baptisms and weddings in, 143;\n  business, 143, 155-6;\n  schools, 152-5;\n  fireplaces in, 154;\n  chambers, 155;\n  stirrup stones at, 157;\n  as stables, 157;\n  armour, 157, 159, 160\n\nPorchester (Hants.), 13\n\n_Porosphaera globularis_ (= fossil sponge), 305, 306, 307\n\nPortree (I. of Skye), 352\n\nPost Office Guide, cited, 339\n\n\u201cPot-boilers\u201d (= calcined flints), 288, 292\n\nPott, A. F., and the Aryans, 333\n\nPottery in graves, 287, 288-90, 292\n\nPowderham (Devon), 118\n\nPrayer, towards the East, 212, 214, 217, 218;\n  towards the sun, 212, 218;\n  towards Jerusalem, 218\n\nPrayer Book, first, of Edward I, cited, 156;\n  rubric of, 315, 316\n\nPreaching crosses, 353\n\nPrehistoric Society of East Anglia, 79\n\nPrestbury (Glos.), 165\n\nPreuilly-sur-Claise (Touraine), 236\n\n_Prideaux\u2019s Churchwarden\u2019s Guide_, quoted, 187\n\nPriests, attached to holy wells, 94;\n  as notaries, 168;\n  burial of, 311;\n  mares used by, for riding, 436, 457\n\nPriest\u2019s chamber, in church porches, 160\n\n_Proceedings of Cambridge Antiquarian Society_, quoted, 424\n\nProthero, Mr R. E., on size of ox-team, 459-60\n\nProvence, birthplace of Durandus, 210;\n  holm-oak on graves, 401\n\nProverbs, quoted, 360, 483\n\nPryce, Mr T. Davies, on castle-mounds, 55\n\nPsalter of Eadwine, 464\n\nPugin, A. W. N., on deflected chancels, 236-7\n\nPunish (Kent), 40\n\nPuttenham (Surrey), 339\n\nPuxton (Somerset), 141\n\nPyecombe (Sussex), position of church, 101;\n  oxen, 455\n\nPyramids, orientation of, 221 n.\n\nPytchley (Northants.), 80, 83, 90\n\n\nQuakers\u2019 Cemetery, Penzance, 37;\n  in Edinburgh, 351\n\nQuarter-ales, 178\n\nQuartz, pieces of, in graves, 299, 309\n\nQuinsext Synod, 186\n\n\nRadnorshire, sports in churchyards, 197\n\nRainham (Essex), 168, 169\n\nRalph de Nevil, letters of, 457\n\nRamage, Mr C. T., on Fortingal yew, 376\n\nRamsay, Sir A. C., on \u201cgreywethers,\u201d 38\n\nRamsay, Prof. W. M., on image of Diana, 198\n\nRamsgate (Kent), 301\n\nRankin, Mr J., on Branxton churchyard, 355\n\nRaphoe (Donegal), 119\n\n\u201cRaths\u201d (= mounds), 66, 71\n\nRawlinson, Canon G., on Scythians, 288 n.;\n  on capture of wild horses, 414\n\nRead, Dr C. H., on urn-burials, 250 n.\n\nReader, Mr F. W., on discoveries at Bramber, 78;\n  place-name, Canewdon, 201\n\nReading, morris dances at, 184;\n  Anglo-Saxon graves, 431\n\nReculver (Kent), 4, 20\n\nRedbourn (Lincs.), 59\n\nRed Indians, and horse sacrifice, 436\n\nReformation, the, 144, 174, 197, 238, 317, 489\n\nRegulbium (= Reculver), 20\n\nReims, or Rheims, 231, 337\n\nRepton (Derby), crypt, 148;\n  armour in church porch, 159\n\nResurrection, the, influence of doctrine, 263, 318;\n  and teeth superstition, 322;\n  symbolized by yew, 398\n\nReusens, E. H. J., on orientation, 224\n\nReversion of custom, 275, 277, 278-9\n\nReymerstone (Norfolk), 347\n\nRhaetia, horse-head superstition, 440\n\nRham, W. L., on the ox-team, 460;\n  ox-yoke, 462;\n  on ancient cultivation, 497\n\nRh\u0177s, Sir J., on \u201ccronks,\u201d 71;\n  holy springs in Wales, 94, 332;\n  Irish magicians, 401\n\nRibchester (Lancs.), 23\n\nRiccal (Yorks.), 173\n\nRidgeway, Prof. W., on early horses, 416-17, 420;\n  Kalmucks, 419;\n  Herodotus, 419;\n  Irish epics, 419;\n  shoeing of horses, 424\n\nRievaulx Abbey (Yorks.), orientation, 208;\n  cartulary, 459\n\nRight and left, determination of position by, 326-8\n\nRingmer (Sussex), 455, 462\n\nRings, in graves, 310\n\nRings, of trees, 364, 365, 366-9\n\nRipon cathedral, 138, 216 n.\n\nRitual of Brixen, 317\n\nRivenhall (Essex), 11\n\nRobert de Brunne, cited, 319\n\nRobin Hood, guilds, 160;\n  and Maid Marian, 441, 442 n.\n\nRobin Hood\u2019s Cave (Derby), 412\n\nRochdale (Lancs.), 104\n\nRochester (Kent), 187\n\nRock, Dr Daniel, on Saxon churches, 211;\n  orientation of churches, 211, 213;\n  churches in Rome, 214;\n  \u201cleaning-head theory,\u201d 236;\n  use of coffins, 277;\n  combs in ritual, 311;\n  St Cuthbert\u2019s tomb, 312;\n  yews, 398;\n  Saxon churches, 404\n\nRock-basins, 36\n\nRock-carvings, 421, 481\n\nRock-shelters, 411\n\nRodmell (Sussex), horse-chestnut in churchyard, 384;\n  mulberries, 394;\n  oxen, 455;\n  ancient plough, 463;\n  ox-yoke, 462\n\nRogate (Hants.), 91\n\nRogers, J. E. Thorold, on use of church as garrison, 118, 496;\n  size of churches, 134;\n  cost of keeping horses and oxen, 466;\n  shoeing oxen, 470, 471\n\nRoman Catholic churches, orientation of, 207, 208\n\nRomanesque churches, 216\n\nRomano-British churches, 3, 9, 150, 495;\n  shrines at Silchester, 24;\n  graves, 288, 296, 357;\n  ears of corn in graves, 318;\n  villages, 403;\n  horseshoes, 424, 428;\n  jars, 448;\n  ox-shoes, 468\n\nRoman villas, 5, 6, 8, 9, 95, 428;\n  cemeteries, 7, 248;\n  pavements, 7, 8, 9;\n  altar, 7;\n  camps, 11, 12, 13, 87, 97;\n  miscellaneous remains, 69, 81, 83, 468;\n  schools, 154;\n  coffins, 271-3, 274;\n  coins, 273;\n  grave-gifts, 283, 294, 296;\n  funeral customs, 294, 318, 319, 323, 383, 401;\n  augurs, 326, 327;\n  urn, 399;\n  horseshoes, 423, 424, 425;\n  chariot-races, 440 n.;\n  acoustic jars, 447;\n  theatres, 447;\n  ploughs, 464;\n  oxen, 478-9, 480, 481\n\nRome, orientation of churches, 207, 212, 214, 215, 216;\n  liturgical custom, 215, 312, 316, 337;\n  oxen near, 468;\n  oracles, 482\n\nRomford (Essex), 454\n\nRood-screens, removal of, 233, 238\n\nRoos (Yorks.), 107, 108\n\nRoseneath (Dumbarton), 372\n\nRotherly (Wilts.), 302, 403\n\nRottingdean (Sussex), churchyard, 90;\n  foxes\u2019 heads on door, 443\n\nRouen, 237\n\nRound, Dr J. H., on castle-mounds, 55, 57, 59;\n  Domesday Book, 375 n.;\n  ox-team, 458, 458 n.\n\nRound towers, of Ireland, 118-22;\n  description, 118-20;\n  stages of development, 119, 120;\n  theories concerning, 120-2\n\nRoundway Down (Wilts.), 402 n.\n\nRoyal Arms, in churches, 144\n\nRoyston (Yorks.), 131\n\nRoyston, Rev. P., on Rudstone menhir, 43\n\nRubrics, of Missal, 213;\n of Prayer Book, 316\n\nRudstone (Yorks.), menhir, 43, 44;\n  meaning of name, 43;\n  barrow, 417\n\nRugby (Warwick), 111\n\nRuined churches, 13, 31, 38, 42\n\nRunic inscription, on sundial, 162;\n  and archery, 387\n\n_Rural Rides_, Cobbett\u2019s, quoted, 91, 133\n\nRushmere (Suffolk), 124\n\nRushmore (Wilts.), 468, 469, 470\n\nRussia, white horses of, 433;\n  acoustic jars, 447\n\nRylston (Yorks.), 278\n\nRyton (Durham), 76\n\n\nSaben, Rev. P., on Alphamstone discoveries, 84\n\nSacellum, 12, 495\n\nSacred trees, 28, 400;\n  springs, 92-7;\n  heads, 440, 442, 443\n\nSacrificial animals, 321\n\nSaddlescombe (Sussex), 455\n\nSaeters (= settlements), 340\n\nSagarthians, horses of the, 414\n\nSage, planted on graves, 400\n\nSt Agnes\u2019 Well (Somerset), 95\n\nSt Alban, martyr, 4\n\nSt Albans cathedral, Roman remains, 4;\n  watching loft, 126\n\nSt Alban\u2019s Head (Dorset), 127, 128\n\nSt Aldhelm\u2019s Chapel (Dorset), 127, 128\n\nSt Aldhelm\u2019s Well (Somerset), 95\n\nSt Anne\u2019s Hill (Sussex), 15\n\nSt Audrey\u2019s Fair, 192\n\nSt Augustine (= Aurelius Augustinus), 328\n\nSt Augustine, or Austin, his mission, 26;\n  holy well, 96\n\nSt Basil, on turning to the East, 212;\n  building towards the East, 224\n\nSt Beno\u00eet (Paris), church of, 210\n\nSt Bertrand-de-Comminges (Haute-Garonne), 201\n\nSt Beuno, sacrifice of oxen to, 482\n\nSt Boniface, letter to, 437;\n  forbids sacrifices of oxen, 482\n\nSt Budeaux (Devon), 118\n\nSt Catherine\u2019s (Westminster), 223\n\nSt Chad\u2019s Well (Lichfield), 95\n\nSt Christopher\u2019s \u201cribbe bone,\u201d 200\n\nSt Chrysostom, 262\n\nSt Clement\u2019s Well (London), 96\n\nSt Columb Major (Cornwall), 256\n\nSt Columba, 119\n\nSt Corn\u00e9ly, \u201cPardon\u201d of, 482\n\nSt Cubert (Cornwall), 37\n\nSt Cuthbert, 262;\n  burial of, 311, 312\n\n\u201cSt Cuthbert\u2019s beads\u201d (= portions of fossil encrinites), 308\n\nSt Decumen\u2019s Well (Somerset), 95\n\nSt Denis (France), 431\n\nSt Dennis (Cornwall), 15\n\nSt Dominic of Ossory, 395\n\nSt Edmund the King (London), church, 207\n\nSt Elian\u2019s Well (Denbigh), 94\n\nSt Eloi, offerings to, 301\n\nSte Marie du Castel (Guernsey), 34\n\nSt Ethelwold, Bishop, 211\n\nSt Felix, 242\n\nSt Florence, Vale of, 113\n\nSt Frideswide, and the ox, 485\n\nSt Fursey, or Furseus, founds church at Burghcastle, 11\n\nSt Gall, burial of, 434-5;\n  monks of, 437-8\n\nSt George\u2019s Cathedral (London), 207\n\n\u201cSt George\u2019s Wardens,\u201d 175\n\nSt Giles-in-the-Fields (London), church, 336\n\nSt Giles\u2019s Well (London), 96\n\nSt Hilda\u2019s Day, 234\n\nSt Isidore, 210\n\nSt Jerome, on baptism, 220\n\nSt John, 226\n\nSt John Lateran (Rome), church, 214\n\nSt John\u2019s Point (co. Down), 86\n\nSt Joseph\u2019s Chapel (Glastonbury), 23\n\nSt Lawrence, churches dedicated to, 15, 16\n\nSt Leonard, 485\n\nSt Luke, ox symbolical of, 485\n\nSt Mabyn church (Cornwall), 42, 48\n\nSt Margaret\u2019s church (Westminster), 223\n\nSt Mark\u2019s Eve, 29\n\nSt Martha\u2019s Hill (Surrey), church, 131-2;\n  Good Friday sports, 195;\n  earth-rings, 195;\n  tombstones, 269\n\nSt Martin, 226\n\nSt Martin\u2019s church (Canterbury), 20\n\nSt Martin\u2019s Hill, or Martinsell (Wilts.), 194, 381-2\n\nSt Mary-le-Bow (London), 138\n\nSt Mary Major (Exeter), 9, 206\n\nSt Mary the Virgin, 226\n\nSt Michael, churches dedicated to, 129\n\nSt Michael\u2019s (St Albans), 495\n\nSt Michael\u2019s Mount (Cornwall), 129, 130\n\nSt Michel, 129\n\nSt Molaise, priory of, 119\n\nSt Monacella, 199\n\nSt Nicholas, 226\n\nSt Ouen (Rouen), deflected choir, 237;\n  Fergusson\u2019s opinion concerning, 237\n\nSt Pancras church (Canterbury), 22\n\nSt Patrick, and holy wells, 93\n\nSt Paulinus, missionary, 9, 32\n\nSt Paulinus, of Nola, 241\n\nSt Paul\u2019s, Covent Garden (London), 206\n\nSt Paul\u2019s Cathedral (London), probable pagan site, 83, 444;\n  folk-moots held in, 136, 148;\n  legal business transacted in, 139, 173;\n  chest, 169;\n  markets, 173;\n  and Wren, 242;\n  ceremony connected with stag\u2019s head, 443;\n  discoveries at, 444\n\nSt Paul\u2019s Cray (Kent), church, 4;\n  flints found at, 292\n\nSt Peter, 226\n\nSt Peter\u2019s (Rome), altar, 207;\n  steps of, 212;\n  orientation, 214\n\nSt Peter\u2019s Chapel, Bradwell (Essex), 23\n\nSt Peter\u2019s Day, 234\n\nSt Peter\u2019s, Vatican, 232\n\nSt Savin, 236\n\nSt Saviour\u2019s Cathedral (Southwark), 8, 231\n\nSt Sepulchre\u2019s church (London), 154\n\nSt Stephen\u2019s, Coleman Street (London), 336\n\nSt Swithin\u2019s (Lincoln), 7\n\nSt Sylvester, 485\n\nSt Tecla\u2019s Spring (Denbigh), 94\n\nSt Teilo\u2019s Well (Pembroke), 94\n\nSt Thomas of Canterbury, 131\n\nSt Ulrick\u2019s Day, 174\n\nSt Weonards (Hereford), 56, 57\n\nSt Willibrord, 185\n\n\u201cSaint\u2019s Day theory,\u201d 224-7, 233, 235, 242\n\nSaints\u2019 Days, fairs held on, 191\n\nSalisbury, gaol, 139;\n  horse-burial at, 432\n\nSalt, on graves, 313\n\nSaltfleetby All Saints (Lincs.), 342\n\nSalton (Yorks.), 196\n\nSamoa, burial customs, 247\n\nSamoyads, heathenism among modern, 29\n\nSanctuary, churches and churchyards, 170, 354;\n  burial out of, 353, 359\n\nSanctus bell, 151\n\nSanderstead (Surrey), 372\n\nSandwich (Kent), mayor chosen in church, 143;\n  St Clement\u2019s church, 448\n\nSandwich Kirk (Shetland Isles), 31\n\nSan Paolo fuori le Mura (Rome), 214\n\nSta Maria Maggiore (Rome), 214\n\nSarsens, 38, 40, 41, 50\n\nSarum Manual, 315\n\nSaxon churches, 9, 10, 13, 62, 108-11, 117, 211;\n  modes of punishment, 68;\n  barrow at Taplow, 81-2;\n  church towers in Lincolnshire, 108-11;\n  use of church porch, 155;\n  burials, 247, 250, 260, 261, 277, 283, 285, 308, 314, 431;\n  crystal balls in graves, 299;\n  amber beads in tumuli, 300-1, 307;\n  necklaces, 301, 307;\n  combs, 311;\n  sacrificial animals, 321;\n  superstition respecting enclosed\nspaces, 354;\n  archery, 387, 388;\n  horses, 422;\n  ploughs, 464\n\nSaxony, open-air tribunals in, 68;\n  arms of, 433;\n  horse-head superstition, 440\n\nScandinavia, folk-lore, 246;\n  ancient burials, 262;\n  chariot-burials, 276, 429, 431;\n  amber axes, 299;\n  cattle, 479;\n  rock-carvings, 421, 481\n\nScarborough (Yorks.), 239\n\nScartho (Lincs.), 108, 109-10\n\nScheffer, Jean, his travels in Lapland, 29\n\nSchools, in churches and church porches, 152-5\n\nSchrader, Dr O., Roman methods of divination, 326;\n  on the yew, 363;\n  the Kalmucks, 419;\n  Celtic chariots, 421-2\n\nScissors in coffins, 212\n\nSclavonic folk-lore, 397;\n  horse sacrifices, 434, 441\n\nScolds\u2019 bridles, 163\n\nScot-ales, 179\n\nScotland, churches on pagan sites, 48, 94;\n  holy wells, 94;\n  sports in churchyards, 196;\n  tombstones, 314;\n  cardinal points, 327;\n  burial of suicides, 358;\n  yew superstition, 399;\n  superstition respecting fox\u2019s skull, 443;\n  paganism, 446\n\nScott, Dr D. H., his experiment on the elm, 366-7\n\nScott, Mr G. G., on churches of Rome, 214\n\nScott, Col. S., discovery by, 444\n\nScott, Sir W., quoted, 403, 486\n\nScottish Presbyterian Church, 445\n\nScottshall (Kent), 378\n\nScrapers, flint, 294, 305\n\nScythians, ceremonial purification, 287-8, 289;\n  chariot-burials, 429\n\nSeaford (Sussex), 330\n\nSeale (Surrey), 80 n.\n\n_-Seats_, _-sets_, in place-names, 340\n\nSea-urchins (see Echinoderms)\n\nSecondary burials, 263\n\nSecular uses of the church fabric, 101-204\n\nSeebohm, Prof. F., on continuity of village sites, 7;\n  moated mounds, 60;\n  Domesday ox-team, 458\n\nSelborne (Hants.), churchyard, 343, 348, 354;\n  yew, 378\n\nSelby Abbey (Yorks.), 154\n\n_Seneschaucie_, cited, 456, 471\n\nSequoia, annual rings, 367\n\nSerpulae, fossil, 305\n\nServia, burial of suicides in, 358\n\nSeville (Spain), 185\n\nSeyffert, O., and Greek augurs, 327\n\nSeymour Place (London), 206\n\nShalford (Surrey), 165, 166\n\nSharpe, Mr Montagu, on Romano-British sites, 495\n\nShawford Downs (Hants.), 45\n\nShells, found at Little Coates, 72;\n  in cave deposits, 308;\n  in graves, 308, 309;\n  in stone coffins, 309\n\n\u201cShepherd\u2019s Crown,\u201d or \u201cHelmet\u201d (= fossil echinoderm), 303\n\nSheriffs\u2019 Courts, 137\n\nShetland Isles, 31\n\nShetland pony, 420\n\nShore, Mr T. W., on mounds near churches, 74;\n  Tooting church, 89;\n  holy wells of Hampshire, 96;\n  orientation of Hampshire churches, 222;\n  _Winter-_ in place-names, 341\n\nShropshire, Easter feasts in, 180;\n  teeth superstition, 322;\n  harvest customs, 436\n\nSibertswold (Kent), 277\n\nSidbury Hill (Wilts.), 255\n\nSilbury Hill (Wilts.), 67, 194\n\nSilchester, 13, 23, 30;\n  basilica, 23-4, 212;\n  shrines, 24;\n  Roman horse-races, 422;\n  ash-pits, 468\n\nSilkworms, in Sussex, 394\n\nSinister, meaning of, 326\n\nSir Howel-y-Furyall, armour of, 285\n\nSirius, temples oriented to, 221\n\nSite-occupancy, continuous or repeated, 3, 10, 23, 42, 80, 86-7, 95\n\nSkeat, Prof. W. W., on place-names, 31, 32, 33;\n  \u201cbelfry,\u201d 127;\n  \u201cchurch,\u201d 145;\n  Malay terms for points of compass, 327;\n  \u201cyew,\u201d 363\n\nSkelton (Yorks.), 162\n\n\u201cSkew chancels,\u201d 230, 232\n\nSkinner\u2019s Well (London), 96\n\n\u201cSkopia\u201d (= watch-tower), 70\n\nSkulls, superstitions regarding, 440-1, 442, 444, 449-51;\n  placed under buildings, 444-5\n\nSlaves, manumission of, 168\n\nSmith, Dr Angus, on white pebbles in graves, 299\n\nSmith, Mr C. Roach, on Kentish churches, 4, 9;\n  crystal balls in graves, 300;\n  hippo-sandals, 428\n\nSmith, James, of Deanston, on agriculture, 468\n\nSmith, Mr Reginald A., on term \u201cSaxon,\u201d 19;\n  castle-mounds, 55;\n  Earl\u2019s Barton, 62;\n  Taplow, 82;\n  Saxon burials, 247\n\nSmith, Mr Worthington G., his discoveries on Dunstable Downs, 302, 303;\n  on fossils in barrows, 303\n\n\u201cSocial theory of Christianity,\u201d 133, 203\n\nSolon, cited, 247\n\nSolstices, orientation at the, 211, 227, 229, 256, 259\n\nSolutr\u00e9 (France), 145\n\nSolutrean caves, 411, 416\n\n_Somer-_, _Summer-_, in place-names, 340\n\nSomerset, holy wells, 95;\n  landmark towers, 130;\n  church-ales, 180;\n  teeth superstition, 322\n\nSompting (Sussex), 356 n., 455\n\nSouth, folk-lore regarding the, 328-32;\n  favoured in churchyards, 328, 342, 343, 345, 348, 351;\n  symbolism of, 328-30;\n  in place-names, 339, 340\n\nSouth Africa, 316\n\nSouthey, Robert, quoted, 335, 432\n\nSouthfleet (Kent), 4\n\nSouthgate (Middlesex), 340 n.\n\nSouth Harting (Sussex), discovery of celts, 80;\n  parish stocks, 165\n\nSouth Hayling (Hants.), 377\n\nSouth Moreton (Berks.), 15\n\nSouth Tawton (Devon), 175\n\nSouthwark (London), 8, 231, 352\n\nSouthwell cathedral, 9\n\nSpain, Royal Arms in churches, 144;\n  councils held in churches, 148;\n  eggs suspended in churches, 202;\n  burial custom, 318;\n  horses imported from, 422;\n  caves of, 497\n\nSpearhead, of yew, 389\n\n\u201cSpecula\u201d (= toot-hill), 61, 70\n\nSpeeton (Yorks.), 78\n\nSpencer, B. (and F. J. Gillen), on Australian custom, 321-2\n\nSpencer, Herbert, on ancestor-worship, 280;\n  on development of society, 493\n\nSpica, orientation to, 221\n\nSpindle-whorls, 302, 307\n\nSpires, entasis in, 240\n\nSplint bones of horse, 411\n\nSports, held in churches, 184, 185-6;\n  in churchyards, 186, 196-7, 352;\n  in earthworks, 194-5\n\nSpringthorpe (Lincs.), 342\n\nSquarey, Mr E. P., on Downton Moot, 64\n\nSquints, in churches, 148-9, 151, 329\n\nStag\u2019s head ceremony, 443\n\nStamford Fair, 457\n\nStandish (Glos.), 14\n\nStanley, Dean, on St Martin\u2019s, Canterbury, 20\n\nStanley, Thomas, on the yew, 382\n\nStanton Drew (Somerset), 46, 47\n\nStarnberger See (Bavaria), 418 n.\n\nStars, temples oriented to, 221\n\nStatius, on the yew, 399\n\nStatue-menhirs, 268\n\nStatutes, of Winchester, 192;\n  respecting burial in woollen, 278-9;\n  \u201cNe rector prosternat,\u201d 383;\n  concerning archery, 389-90;\n  against eating horseflesh, 438-9\n\nStebbing, Miss A., on Alphamstone urns, 84, 85\n\nSteers (= young oxen), 465\n\nStennis (Orkney Isles), 99\n\nStevens, Dr J., on Taplow barrow, 82\n\nSteyning (Sussex), 455\n\nStillingfleet, Rev. E. W., and barrows of Arras, 430\n\nStirks, or steers (= oxen), 465\n\nStirrup-stones, 157\n\nStocks, kept near churches, 164-7;\n  antiquity of, 167\n\nStoke-by-Nayland (Essex), 11\n\nStoke D\u2019Abernon (Surrey), dial, 162;\n  fireplace, 188\n\nStoke Newington (London), 308\n\nStokes, Miss M., on round towers, 120, 121\n\nStoke St Milborough (Salop), holy well, 95;\n  games in churchyard, 197\n\nStone-circles, near churches, 28, 29 n., 34, 66, 86;\n  connected with heathen worship, 24, 45, 66, 98;\n  and open-air courts, 34, 136;\n  Stanton Drew, 46, 47;\n  Duloe, 48;\n  churches on sites of, 45-9;\n  as dials, 253-8;\n  number of pillars in, 256;\n  gaps in, 256\n\nStonehenge, 48, 99, 219, 255;\n  Sir J. N. Lockyer on, 48, 253;\n  trilithons of, 219, 256;\n  barrows near, 261\n\nStone-rings (see Stone-circles)\n\nStowell, Lord, on use of coffins, 271\n\nStrabo, and omens, 434\n\nStrasburg (Germany), 447\n\nStratford-on-Avon, church, 230;\n  oxen near, 453\n\nStrathfieldsaye (Hants.), 432\n\nStrathfillan (parish in Argyle and Perth), 94\n\nStreatham (Surrey), 207\n\nStreatham Common (Surrey), 207\n\nStreatley (Berks.), 349\n\nStreet, or Streat (Sussex), 101, 344\n\nStrigils, in graves, 294\n\nStrike-a-lights, 285, 293\n\nStrutt, J. G., on yew at P\u00e9rone, 378-9;\n  Boldre maple, 384;\n  yews at Inchlonaig, 392\n\nStubbs (or Stubbes), Philip, on church-ales, 178;\n  dancing in church, 185\n\nStudland (Dorset), 35\n\nStuttgart (Germany), 231\n\nSuffolk, round church towers of, 123;\n  burial custom, 330;\n  burial on North side, 343\n\n\u201cSugar-loaf\u201d (= fossil echinoderm), 303\n\nSugolia (Hungary), 197\n\nSuicides, burial of, on North side, 341, 351, 352;\n  unburnt, 357;\n  at crossroads, 357-9;\n  in open fields, 359\n\nSummer-houses, 340\n\nSun, worship of, 202, 213, 218, 219, 255, 439;\n  bowing to the, 212;\n  praying towards, 218, 219;\n  burials facing, 249-52;\n  as determining orientation, 325\n\nSundials, attached to churches, 162, 163;\n  stone-circles used as, 255, 256-7\n\nSunken Kirk (Cambs.), 30\n\nSunninghill (Berks.), 432\n\n\u201cSun of Righteousness,\u201d 220, 244\n\nSuperstition, and sites of churches, 17, 18;\n  connected with church objects, 29;\n  and burial-places, 87;\n  building of churches, 103-4, 106;\n  and Christian burials, 286-7, 292-3, 294-7;\n  fossils, 303-4;\n  shells, 309;\n  teeth, 321-2;\n  funerals, 331;\n  baptisms and weddings, 332;\n  North side of churchyard, 341-3, 350-2;\n  yews in churchyards, 396;\n  yews at Christmas, 402;\n  horse-skulls, 440-1, 442, 444-5;\n  oxen, 442, 444, 451\n\nSurrey, position of churches, 101;\n  yew trees, 404-5;\n  oxen, 465\n\nSurvivals, in burial customs, 268-323;\n  trees on graves, 270;\n  horse-burial, 431-2\n\nSussex, church towers, 124-5;\n  grave-mounds, 264;\n  barrow, 302;\n  gable ornaments, 441;\n  oxen in, 452, 454-5, 465, 472, 475;\n  size of ox-team, 459, 461;\n  ox-yoke, 461, 462;\n  shoeing of oxen, 472-3\n\nSutton, as place-name, 339\n\nSwallowfield (Berks.), 378\n\nSwanage (Dorset), 111\n\nSwanscombe (Kent), 62, 349\n\nSweating sickness, 16\n\nSweden, burial customs of, 310;\n  rock-carvings, 421;\n  acoustic jars, 447;\n  sacred cows, 481\n\nSwerford (Oxford), 62\n\nSweyn, nephew of Canute, 200\n\nSwift, Jonathan, quoted, 230\n\nSwindon (Glos.), 111\n\nSwine (Yorks.), 352\n\nSwinhope (Lincs.), 351\n\nSwitzerland, lake-dwellings, 249 n., 416, 421;\n  discovery of bows, 388;\n  horse in, 417;\n  oxen of, 477;\n  decoration of cows, 482\n\nSycamore, in churchyards, 384\n\nSykes, Sir Tatton, excavation of Duggleby Howe, 66\n\nSymbolism, weathercock, 164;\n  of East and West, 217;\n  of sun, 219 n;\n  deflected chancels, 235-6, 240, 242;\n  in churches, 235-8;\n  of the Cross, 236;\n  graves, 264;\n  grave-gifts, 291, 295, 299, 318;\n  ashes, 316, 317;\n  evergreens, 323;\n  cardinal points, 324, 332;\n  of priest\u2019s position in church, 337;\n  yew, 398, 400-1, 407;\n  of the ox, 485\n\nSyme, J. T. B., on Welsh yews, 398\n\nSympathetic magic, 295, 322\n\nSyncretism, 25\n\nSynods, Exeter, 140, 196, 383;\n  Winchester, 140;\n  Westminster, 170;\n  Quinsext or Trullan, 186\n\n\nTabernacle, of Moses, 217, 223\n\nTacitus, use of _covinus_, 422;\n  on white horses, 433;\n  horse-skulls, 440\n\nTait, Prof. J., on \u201cToot Hill,\u201d 70\n\nTandridge (Surrey), 370-1\n\nTankersley Park (Yorks.), 377\n\nTaplow (Bucks.), 81, 86, 283\n\nTara, the king of, 402\n\nTartars, horses of the, 419, 472;\n  chariot-burial, 429\n\nTatsfield (Surrey), 331\n\nTaunton (Somerset), 232\n\nTavern signs, 433, 485\n\nTaxine, 362\n\n\u201cTaxus,\u201d word discussed, 362\n\nTaylor, Isaac, on place-names, 31, 32;\n  on determination of position, 325-6;\n  cardinal points, 339-40;\n  Domesday ox-team, 458\n\nTaylor, Silas, on orientation of churches, 225, 227\n\nTeeth, fossil, in barrows, 307;\n  abundance of, in graves, 321;\n  superstitions regarding, 321-2;\n  of horse, in barrows, 430\n\nTeisterbant, meaning of name, 326\n\nTelscombe (Sussex), 90\n\nTemple, meaning of word, 210;\n  of Herod, 217;\n  of Solomon, 217\n\nTemple Downs (Wilts.), 30\n\nTemples, pagan, 28, 30-1\n\nTenby (Pembroke), 151\n\nTenison, Archbishop, and Lambeth burial-ground, 343\n\nTennyson, quoted, 405, 475, 496\n\nTertullian, reference to Christians, 2;\n  on sun-worship, 219\n\nTeutonic invasion, 3;\n  settlement, 105-6;\n  use of word \u201cchurch,\u201d 146-7;\n  sun-worship, 219;\n  mythology, 334, 440;\n  horse cult, 433-4, 436, 441\n\nTewkesbury (Glos.), 140\n\nTexel, meaning of name, 326\n\nThaxted (Essex), 133\n\nThegn-right, 73\n\nTheodosius, Edict of, 26\n\nThings (= popular assemblies), 65\n\nThomas, Mr Edward, quoted, 486\n\nThor, feasts to, 27, 28;\n  hammer of, 27, 198\n\nThracians, and white stones, 299\n\nThrapstone (Northants.), 346\n\nThruxton Tump (Hereford), 56\n\nThugs, and prayer towards the East, 217\n\nThunderbolts, 197\n\nThursley (Surrey), 384\n\nThuxton (Norfolk), 347\n\nTidenham (Glos.), 8\n\nTideswell (Derby), 153\n\nTimbs, John, on Wrexham yews, 374\n\nTisbury (Wilts.), 377\n\nTissington (Derby), earthwork, 16;\n  well-worship, 92\n\nTithe-barns, use of, 159, 160, 171-2, 182;\n  Brand on, 176\n\nTiverton (Devon), church used as fortress, 118;\n  burial of gipsy at, 312\n\nTlingits, or Tlinkits (tribe), 251\n\nToll-holz (charm), 397\n\nTombs, simple, 268-9\n\nTombstones, vaulted, 260;\n  flat, 270, 347;\n  box-shaped, 275;\n  table, 275;\n  vertical, 347\n  (see also Headstones)\n\nToot-hills, 7, 51, 60-1, 70-3;\n  at Pirton, 60-1, 70;\n  meaning of term, 70-1;\n  at Macclesfield, 71;\n  Little Coates, 72\n\nTooting (Surrey), 89\n\nTorrington (Devon), 496\n\nTotemism, 281\n\n_Totemism and Exogamy_, cited, 281, 436\n\nTothill, Tothill Fields, etc., 71\n\nTours (France), 231\n\nToussaint, M., on horse bones, 415\n\nTouting Hills, 71\n\nTowcester (Northants.), 59, 62\n\nTower of London, 285\n\nTowers, church, used as fortresses, 107-18, 150;\n  portcullis in, 107;\n  Irish round, 118-22;\n  detached, 122-3;\n  circular, 123-4\n\nTown armour, 158\n\nTown halls, 138\n\nTown meeting, 141\n\nTownstall (Devon), 118\n\nToys, in graves, 312\n\nTozer, Mr Basil, on horseshoes, 423, 424\n\nTradition, concerning churches, 30-1, 103-4, 106;\n  yews, 392, 396, 404;\n  horse-skulls, 445-6;\n  ploughing oxen, 487, 492 (see also Folk-memory)\n\nTrees, on barrows, 270, 400;\n  on graves, 270, 400;\n  in churchyards, 383-5, 401\n\nTree-trunks, for coffins, 274, 278\n\nTree-worship, 28, 400\n\nTregaron (Cardigan), 48\n\nTrepanning, 321\n\nTrephine, and yew trees, 365\n\nTrevis (= beam used in shoeing oxen), 473\n\nTrial by ordeal, 136, 354\n\nTrilithons, 255\n\nTrottescliffe (Kent), 40\n\nTrullan Synod, 186\n\nTull, Jethro, on agriculture, 468\n\nTumulus, meaning of word, 51\n  (see also Barrow)\n\nTunbridge Wells (Kent), 454\n\nTuranians, burial customs, 284\n\nTurlagh, burial at, 352\n\nTurner, Robert, on yew superstition, 395-6\n\nTurner, Sir W., on Australian burial custom, 313\n\nTurris, or bretasche, 53\n\nTusser, Thomas, quoted, 483\n\nTutt Hill (Suffolk), 71\n\nTweeddale, churchyards of, 343\n\nTweedside superstitions, 301\n\n_Twelfth Night_, quoted, 154, 382\n\nTwyford (Hants.), megalith, 45;\n  yew, 378\n\nTyack, Rev. G. S., on holy wells, 97;\n  church-ales, 180\n\nTylor, Prof. E. B., on value of details, 2;\n  orientation of churches, 213, 216-7, 219;\n  comparative burial customs, 251-2, 312;\n  animism, 279-81;\n  burial of coins, 296;\n  on grave-gifts, 279-82;\n  East and West, 332\n\nTyndall, John, his grave at Haslemere, 264\n\nTynemouth (Northumberland), 230\n\nTynwald Hill (I. of Man), 64\n\n\nUffington (Berks.), 433-4\n\nUganda, 358\n\nUlm (Germany), 126\n\nUnbaptized children, burial of, 351, 353 n.\n\nUpper Beeding (Sussex), 344\n\nUpsala, heathen temple at, 28;\n  tumulus, 276 n.\n\nUpton (Notts.), 448\n\nUriconium, discoveries at, 479\n\nUrn-field, at Aylesford, 261, 276\n\nUrns, cinerary, 277, 292, 399;\n  burial in, 261, 451;\n  containing flint chips, 285\n\nUrus, the, 477\n\nUsher of school, his origin, 149, 154\n\nUtterby (Lincs.), 351\n\nUttoxeter (Staffs.), 71\n\n\nVaigatch, 228\n\nVale of Pewsey (Wilts.), 453, 473\n\nVale of Pickering (Yorks.), 453\n\nVaranger Fiord (Norway), 309\n\nVariation of magnetic needle, 228\n\nVatican, museum of, 199;\n  St Peter\u2019s church, 232\n\nVedic hymn, quoted, 283;\n  literature, 439\n\nVeile, or Vejle (Denmark), 28\n\nVenta Silurum (= Caerwent), 25\n\nVerona (Italy), 216\n\nVerulam, Roman station, 4\n\nVessels, models of, in churches, 203\n\nVestry, Easter, 141;\n  \u201copen,\u201d 141;\n  the word and the institution, 142;\n  origin of, 142-3;\n  \u201cclose,\u201d 142;\n  records of, 271\n\nVictoria, burial of, 432\n\n_Victoria Histories_:\n  London, 9;\n  Cumberland, 50;\n  Kent, 52;\n  Cornwall, 310\n\nViking burials, 262, 294, 431\n\nVillage, stockaded, 16;\n  plays, 181-3;\n  fairs, 191, 193\n\nVillas, Roman, 5, 6, 8, 9, 95\n\nVindomora, Roman station, 12\n\nVinogradoff, Prof. P., on gallows, 69 n.;\n  on cost of iron weapons, 158;\n  Domesday ox-team, 458\n\nVirgil, and word _dexter_, 327;\n  chariot-burial, 429;\n  on white horses, 433;\n  story of the Carthaginians, 442;\n  the Golden Age, 483\n\nVishnu, mythology of, 307, 442\n\n_Vision of William_, cited, 456, 457 n.\n\nVitruvius, on acoustic vessels, 447\n\nVogt, M. Carl, on domestication of the horse, 414\n\nVon Hefele, C. J., on Trullan Synod, 186\n\nVotive offerings, 203, 293\n\nVulgate, the, and use of the word \u201cspecula,\u201d 71\n\n\nWaith (Lincs.), 108\n\nWakefield (Yorks.), 344\n\nWalcott, M. E. C., on orientation of churches, 212\n\nWales, churches of, near stone-circles, 48;\n  well-worship, 92, 94-5;\n  circular churchyards, 97, 99;\n  legends regarding churches, 104;\n  sports in churchyards, 197;\n  folk-lore, 246;\n  bards, 257, 398;\n  burial customs, 331;\n  well superstition, 332;\n  bone-caves, 417;\n  mummers, 442;\n  black cattle, 480;\n  pagan deities, 482\n\nWallace, Mr R. Hedger, on long-horned cattle, 479\n\nWalnut trees, in churchyards, 384\n\nWalrond, Col. F., on bows, 389\n\nWalsall (Staffs.), 104\n\nWalsingham (Norfolk), 192\n\nWalter de Henley, on ploughing, 458, 467, 468;\n  speed of oxen, 467;\n  shoeing oxen, 468, 470-1\n\nWaltham Abbey (Essex), 165\n\nWalthamstow (Essex), 416\n\nWalton (Norfolk), 122\n\nWalton-on-the-Hill (Lancs.), 165\n\nWalton-on-the-Hill (Surrey), 67\n\nWalton-on-Thames (Surrey), 163\n\nWandsworth (London), 260\n\nWard, Mr John, on Roman sites, 495\n\nWareham (Dorset), 274\n\nWarlingham (Surrey), 291\n\nWarmsworth (Yorks.), 123\n\nWarne, Charles, on Knowlton earthworks, 401\n\nWarner, R., on tradition concerning the yew, 392\n\nWarnford (Hants.), 162\n\nWarrington (Lancs.), 56-7\n\nWarry, Mrs C. King, on \u201cchurch-gift,\u201d 155\n\nWatchet (Somerset), 95\n\nWatching-lofts, 126\n\nWatcombe (Berks.), 377\n\nWateringbury (Kent), 167\n\nWatson, Mr G., on deflected chancel, 231\n\nWatson, Mr William, quoted, 407\n\nWeapons, in churches, 158-62;\n  in graves, 282-4, 293;\n  offered to, 285\n\nWeathercocks, on churches, 164\n\nWeatherston, Mr J., on horseshoes, 426\n\nWebb, Mr E. A., on Chislehurst grave, 77\n\nWebb, Mr and Mrs S., on meetings held in churches, 140-2\n\n\u201cWeeping chancels,\u201d 228;\n  theories concerning, 233-8\n\nWehner, H., on orientation, 227\n\nWelbourn (Lincs.), 240\n\nWell (Lincs.), 206, 207\n\nWellesbourne (Warwick), 272\n\nWellington (Somerset), 347\n\nWellington, Duke of, burial of his horse, 432\n\nWell-worship, 92-7, 442, 482\n\nWelsh courts, old, 64;\n  poem quoted, 301;\n  bards, 398;\n  laws, 398\n\nWendish settlements, 341;\n  burials, 429\n\nWendover (Bucks.), 104\n\nWenlock Priory (Salop), 95\n\nWessex, superstitions, 296-7\n\nWest, prayer towards, 217, 333;\n  symbolism of the, 217, 332-3;\n  in place-names, 339-40\n\nWest Beckham (Norfolk), 222\n\nWest Dean (Sussex), 177, 344, 455\n\nWestermarck, Prof. E., on primitive religion, 281;\n  burial of suicides, 358, 359 n.\n\nWest Malling, 230\n\nWest Mersea (Essex), 7\n\nWestmeston (Sussex), 384, 443\n\nWestminster Abbey, Roman remains, 9;\n  size of, 134;\n  orientation of, 223;\n  deflected choir, 232;\n  Ben Jonson\u2019s grave in, 266;\n  burial of Lord Palmerston in, 310\n\nWestminster Gate House, 139\n\nWeston, as place-name, 339\n\nWeston-in-Gordano (Somerset), 155\n\nWeston-under-Redcastle (Salop), 165\n\nWest Tarring (Sussex), 496\n\nWest Wycombe (Bucks.), 15\n\nWexford (Ireland), 271\n\nWeybridge (Surrey), 344\n\nWharfedale (Yorks.), 444\n\nWhatley (Somerset), Roman villa, 9;\n  sarsens near church, 41;\n  squint, 151;\n  burial on North side, 345\n\nWheat, at funerals, 318\n\nWheels, of fortune, 202-3;\n  chariot, in barrows, 430\n\nWhitby (Yorks.), parish church, 127, 234;\n  oxen employed near, 453\n\nWhitby Abbey, used as a beacon, 127;\n  alinement of, 230, 239;\n  double dedication, 233-5;\n  Pugin\u2019s opinion concerning, 236;\n  oxen, 453\n\nWhitchurch (Oxford), 344\n\nWhite, Gilbert, burial on North side, 343, 348;\n  connection with Faringdon, 344;\n  Selborne churchyard, 354;\n  yew, 378;\n  \u201cshelter theory,\u201d 383\n\nWhite, H. Kirke, quoted, 335\n\nWhite horses, 433-4;\n  carvings of, 433-4\n\nWhitemoorstone Down (Devon), 256\n\nWhitepark Bay (Antrim), 418, 418 n.\n\nWhite pebbles, in graves, 299\n\nWhitestaunton (Somerset), 95, 97\n\nWhitsun-ales, 177\n\nWhittlebury (Northants.), 84\n\nWickes (Essex), 123\n\nWickham, East and West (Kent), 340\n\nWiddicombe (Devon), 345\n\nWidford (Glos.), 7\n\nWiggonholt (Sussex), 418\n\nWilliam the Conqueror, at Hastings, 57;\n  and punishment by hanging, 68\n\nWilliam Fitzstephen, on horse-races, 422;\n  London market, 457;\n  his _Life of Becket_, 477\n\nWilliam of Malmesbury, on Glastonbury, 23;\n  racehorses, 422\n\nWills, stored in churches, 170\n\nWilly Howe (Yorks.), 66-7\n\nWilson, Prof. J., on British oxen, 477;\n  Park cattle, 478;\n  polled cattle, 479;\n  Celtic shorthorn, 480\n\nWilson, Sir D., on Gaelic, 49\n\nWiltshire, barrows of, 249, 250, 288, 305;\n  prehistoric monuments, 253;\n  burial custom, 313;\n  superstition, 334;\n  oxen, 453, 473;\n  discovery in barrow, 483\n\nWinchester, cathedral, 9, 10;\n  Synod of, 140;\n  Statute of, 192\n\n_Windr-_, in place-names, 341\n\nWingham (Kent), 8\n\nWinkelbury (Wilts.), Saxon burials at, 250, 285;\n  yew grove, 403\n\n_Winter-_, in place-names, 341\n\nWinterbourne, place-name, 341\n\nWinterton (Lincs.), 342\n\nWisdom of Solomon, quoted, 217-18\n\nWitches, legends concerning, 103-4, 106, 438;\n  horseshoe charm, 157;\n  amber charms against, 301;\n  and churchyard yew, 396;\n  Bede\u2019s injunction, 397;\n  kept away by fox\u2019s skull, 443\n\nWodin (see under Odin)\n\nWoldingham (Surrey), 355, 356\n\nWolstan, monk of Winchester, 211\n\nWolves, teeth of, 301-2, 310\n\nWoodbury Hill (Dorset), 193\n\nWoodchester (Glos.), 8\n\nWoodcuts (Dorset), 302, 403, 424\n\nWoodcuts Common, 30\n\nWood-Martin, Mr W. G., on cromlechs in churchyards, 49, 86;\n  holy wells, 93;\n  Irish graves, 299;\n  the deiseal, 330\n\nWoodnesborough (Kent), 74\n\nWoodward, Dr H., on fossil teeth, 307\n\nWoodyates (Dorset), 275;\n  horseshoes found at, 424\n\nWookey (Somerset), 382\n\nWool, stored in churches, 173;\n  in coffins, 313\n\nWoollen, burial in, 271, 278-9\n\nWoolwich and Reading Beds, 40\n\n_Words and Places_, cited, 32\n\nWordsworth, W., quoted, 135, 209-10, 240-1, 355, 496\n\nWorth (Sussex), 332\n\nWorth Matravers (Dorset), 275\n\nWotjo (Australian station), 252\n\nWotton (Surrey), church porch, 153;\n  curious burial, 245\n\nWrabness (Essex), 123\n\nWrexham (Denbigh), 374\n\nWright, Mr A. G., on Alphamstone discoveries, 84, 85\n\nWright, Thomas, on Addington church, 45;\n  St Weonards mound, 56;\n  Roman inscriptions, 69;\n  grave-mounds, 83, 260;\n  yew found in cinerary urn, 399\n\nWroxeter (Salop), 7, 10\n\nWyatt, Mr J., on fossils used as beads, 307\n\nWyclif\u2019s Bible, 71\n\nWylie, W. M., on Fairford graves, 288-9\n\nWyre Piddle (Worcester), 78-9\n\n\nXenophon, cited, 70\n\n\nYarnborough, or Yarnbury Camp (Wilts.), 193\n\nYateley (Hants.), 344\n\nYesso (Japan), 247\n\nYew, at St Weonards, 56;\n  Taplow, 81;\n  the churchyard, 160, 328, 348, 353, 360-407, 490-1;\n  botanical description, 360-1;\n  Irish variety, 361, 406;\n  indigenous tree, 361;\n  whether poisonous, 361-2, 385, 395;\n  origin of word, 362-3;\n  De Candolle on, 364-6, 368;\n  methods of estimating age, 364-74;\n  theory of annual rings, 366-8;\n  on Pilgrims\u2019 Way, 374-5;\n  Fortingal, 375-6, 379, 403;\n  Brabourne, 376;\n  Hensor, 376;\n  Darley Dale, 376;\n  Kersal, 377;\n  Fountains Abbey, 377;\n  Watcombe, 377;\n  miscellaneous specimens, 377-8;\n  why planted in churchyards, 380-98, 407;\n  use on Palm Sunday, 380-2;\n  \u201cYew Cross,\u201d 382;\n  symbolism theory, 382-3;\n  protection theory, 383-4;\n  why enclosed, 385;\n  bow theory, 385-94;\n  foreign yew formerly imported, 390-2;\n  in Irish folk-lore, 395, 401-2;\n  in witchcraft, 396-7;\n  in symbolism, 398, 400-1;\n  in magic, 399, 401-2;\n  vessels and implements made of, 402;\n  fossil condition, 403;\n  and open-air courts, 404;\n  position in churchyards, 404-6;\n  conclusions respecting, 406-7\n\nYggdrasil, magic tree of the Eddas, 328, 334\n\nYoke, used for oxen, 461-2;\n  description of, 462\n\nYork Fabric Rolls, quoted, 173\n\nYork, Minster Yard, 165;\n  cathedral, 170;\n  St Michael\u2019s-le-Belfry, 191;\n  alinement of cathedral, 230, 232;\n  St Mary\u2019s, 230;\n  ancient will referred to, 471\n\nYorkshire, holy wells of, 92, 97;\n  councils in churches and churchyards, 140;\n  dancing in churches, 185;\n  barrows, 249, 261-2, 276, 307, 417;\n  teeth superstition, 322;\n  churchyard trees, 406;\n  use of ox in, 452-3, 458, 465\n\nYouatt, W., on horseshoes, 427;\n  on horse-sandals, 428;\n  ox-team, 461, 465;\n  ox-races, 467;\n  shoeing oxen, 473;\n  on the trevis, 474\n\nYouens, Mr E. C., and horseshoe, 425-6\n\nYoughal (Cork), 448\n\nYoung, Arthur, on use of ox in Yorkshire, 452;\n  Essex farmers, 454;\n  ox-collars, 461;\n  ox-labour, 467\n\n\u201cYoung Men\u2019s Wardens,\u201d 175\n\nYspytty Kenwyn (Cardigan), 48\n\nYule-tide, 27\n\n\nZaborowski, M., on drawings of cave-horse, 414\n\nZodiac, and Gorsedd circles, 256\n\nZoological Gardens (London), 413, 478\n\nZoomorphic stones, ornament, 434\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] E. B. Tylor, in the preface to the second edition of _Primitive\nCulture_, 1873.\n\n[2] T. Hodgkin, _Hist. of Eng._ (Vol. I. of _Polit.\nHist. of Eng._, ed. W. Hunt and R. L. Poole), p. 76; E. Conybeare,\n_Roman Britain_, 1903, p. 258.\n\n[3] R. Camber-Williams, in _Social England_, ed. H. D. Traill, 1894,\nI. p. 37, and F. T. Richards, same volume, p. 29.\n\n[4] T. Hodgkin, _op. cit._ p. 76; Conybeare, _op. cit._ p. 259. Cf. W.\nE. Addis, _Christianity and the Roman Empire_, 1893, p. 48.\n\n[5] Conybeare, _op. cit._ p. 259; O. M. Dalton, _Guide to the Early\nChristian and Byzantine Antiquities_ (Brit. Mus.), 1903, p. 3, and many\nother writers.\n\n[6] See Conybeare, _op. cit._ p. 267, and his authorities.\n\n[7] O. M. Dalton, _op. cit._ p. 2.\n\n[8] Bede, _Eccles. Hist._, L. i. c. 7; _Vict. Hist. of Herts._, 1908,\nII. p. 483; F. Bond, _English Cathedrals_, 1899, pp.\n208-9.\n\n[9] C. Roach Smith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, 1861, v. p. 199, and art. in\n_Archaeologia_, XXIX. pp. 217-26. Some of the examples,\nalong with others, are considered by J. R. Allen, _Monumental Hist. of\nthe Early Brit. Church_, 1899, pp. 12-19, 20-31.\n\n[10] _Proc. Geol. Assoc._ XXIII. p. 464.\n\n[11] G. Maynard, in _Memorials of Old Essex_, ed. A. Clifton Kelway,\n1908, p. 32. The list was compiled from R. Miller Christy\u2019s _Durrant\u2019s\nGuide to Essex_, 1887, _passim_.\n\n[12] _Athenaeum_, 1889, p. 314. Examples from other districts will be\nfound recorded in the _Victoria Histories_ for the respective counties.\n\n[13] G. Baldwin Brown, _The Arts in Early England_, 1903,\nI. p. 270.\n\n[14] O. M. Dalton, _op. cit._ pp. 3-4.\n\n[15] J. Romilly Allen, _op. cit._ pp. 29-31, 40-1.\n\n[16] J. C. Cox and A. Harvey, _Eng. Church Furniture_, 1907, p. 167.\nCf. F. J. Haverfield and M. V. Taylor in _Vict. Hist. of Salop._, 1908,\nI. pp. 228, 238. The church at West Mersea has a double dedication (St\nPeter and St Paul); this fact is believed by some to indicate an early\nfoundation.\n\n[17] J. C. Cox and A. Harvey, _loc. cit._\n\n[18] Murray, _Handbook for Oxfordshire_, 1894, pp. 195-6; A. H.\nAllcroft, _Earthwork of England_, 1908, p. 345 n.\n\n[19] F. Seebohm, _Eng. Vill. Community_, 1896, p. 431 (map given).\n\n[20] Seebohm, _loc. cit._\n\n[21] _Vict. Hist. of Herts._, 1908, II. p. 119.\n\n[22] Seebohm, _op. cit._ p. 433.\n\n[23] _Ibid._ p. 436. Cf. Murray, _Handbook for Gloucestershire_, 1895,\np. 10.\n\n[24] F. Bond, _Eng. Cathedrals_, p. 235. The Westminster discovery is\nrecorded by Mr Bond in _Westminster Abbey_, 1909, p. 3.\n\n[25] _Collectanea Antiqua_, 1861, v. p. 199.\n\n[26] A. H. Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 346 n. For other Sussex examples,\nsee _Vict. Hist. of Sussex_, 1907, II. p. 333.\n\n[27] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., x. p. 11. Cf. G. Baldwin Brown,\n_op. cit._ II. p. 336.\n\n[28] Murray, _Handbook for Devon_, 1895, p. 22.\n\n[29] The discoveries now include a tessellated pavement, pottery, and a\nRoman lamp (_Antiquary_, 1911, N.S., VII. p. 162).\n\n[30] W. Johnson, _Folk-Memory_, 1908, p. 88, et seqq.\n\n[31] Conybeare, _op. cit._ pp. 265-6.\n\n[32] _Essex Naturalist_, 1890, IV. p. 155.\n\n[33] W. Harrod, _Norfolk Archaeology_, 1859, V. pp.\n146-160 (plates and illustrations given); A. Suckling, _Hist. and\nAntiq. of Suffolk_, 1846, I. pp. 323-324; G. Baldwin\nBrown, _op. cit._ I. p. 270; M. Stokes, _Three Months in\nthe Forests of France_, 1895, pp. xxxii, 158-62; A. H. Allcroft, _op.\ncit._ p. 344 n.\n\n[34] C. Roach Smith, _Collect. Antiq._, V. p. 200.\n\n[35] F. J. Haverfield, in _Vict. Hist. of Norfolk_, 1901,\nI. p. 290. The whole series of Prof. Haverfield\u2019s\ncontributions to the _Victoria Histories_ will repay study. See also\nhis valuable paper, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, 1905, p. 33\n(reprinted from the _Proc. Brit. Academy_, II.).\n\n[36] Haverfield, in _Vict. Hist. of Norfolk_, I. pp.\n314-5.\n\n[37] _Vict. Hist. of Rutland_, 1908, I. p. 37; _Notes\nand Queries_, 3rd Ser., V. p. 173.\n\n[38] _Vict. Hist. of Rutland_, 1908, I. p. 89; _Notes\nand Queries_, _loc. cit._\n\n[39] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd Ser., V. p. 173.\n\n[40] _Ibid._ 3rd Ser., VI. p. 37.\n\n[41] _Naturalist_, XI. 1886, p. 27.\n\n[42] _Vict. Hist. of Durham_, I. pp. 221, 350.\n\n[43] _Ibid._ I. p. 350.\n\n[44] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd Ser., IX. p. 332.\n\n[45] W. Roy, _Milit. Antiquities_, 1793, p. 133.\n\n[46] Murray, _Handbook for Sussex_, 5th edition, 1893, p. 46.\n\n[47] Haverfield, in _Vict. Hist. of Hants._, I. p. 329.\n\n[48] Allcroft, _op. cit._ pp. 564, 566; C. Warne, _Ancient Dorset_,\n1872, pp. 101-105; _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. Soc._ XVII.\n1896, pp. 138, 140; _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., IX.\np. 77.\n\n[49] Murray, _Handbook for Gloucestershire_, 1895, p. 11.\n\n[50] J. B. Cornish, in _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, I. p.\n458.\n\n[51] _Ibid._ I. p. 462.\n\n[52] _Vict. Hist. of Sussex_, 1905, I. p. 479. (Most of\nthe earthworks, cited from the _Vict. Histories_, are illustrated, in\nthose volumes, by plans.)\n\n[53] _Vict. Hist. of Berks._, I. p. 266.\n\n[54] _Vict. Hist. of Kent_, 1908, _I._ p. 394.\n\n[55] _Ibid._ I. p. 397.\n\n[56] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 134 n.; G. Clinch, in _Vict. Hist. of\nBucks._, 1908, II. pp. 22-24.\n\n[57] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 134 n.; _Vict. Hist. of Bucks._,\nII. p. 26.\n\n[58] J. C. Cox, in _Vict. Hist. of Derbyshire_, 1905, I.\np. 372.\n\n[59] _Ibid._ I. p. 374.\n\n[60] Allcroft, _op. cit._ pp. 548-9.\n\n[61] _Ibid._ p. 344 n.\n\n[62] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 70-1.\n\n[63] Seebohm, _op. cit._ p. 436.\n\n[64] Dalton, _op. cit._ p. 3; G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._\nII. pp. 3, 122; H. M. Scarth, _Rom. Brit._, n.d., p. 213\nn.; M. H. Bloxam, _Gothic Eccles. Architecture_, 1849, pp. 41-2.\n\n[65] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 279,\nII. pp. 118-9, 340; Dalton, _op. cit._ p. 3. Cf.\n_Collectanea Antiqua_, V. p. 167.\n\n[66] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. pp. 270-3,\nII. p. 341; Dalton, _op. cit._ p. 3.\n\n[67] A. P. Stanley, _Hist. Memorials of Canterbury_, 1875, p. 37.\n\n[68] Bede, _Eccles. Hist._, L. i. cc. 26, 33.\n\n[69] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ II. pp. 119, 294, 337;\nBloxam, _op. cit._ p. 33; Dalton, _op. cit._ p. 3.\n\n[70] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ II. pp. 122, 294, 337.\n\n[71] _Vict. Hist. of Lancashire_, II. pp. 6, 553.\n\n[72] B. Williams, in _Social Eng._ I. 1894, p. 36;\nConybeare, _op. cit._ p. 265.\n\n[73] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ II. p. 339.\n\n[74] _Ibid._ II. pp. 260-3, 294.\n\n[75] See discussion in _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser.,\nII. pp. 101, 158, 277, 429; III. pp. 11,\n110, 275, 322, 374. Cf. _Archaeologia_, LIII. pp. 564-8.\n\n[76] F. J. Haverfield, in _Vict. Hist. of Hants._, I. p.\n284.\n\n[77] G. E. Fox and W. St John Hope, in _Vict. Hist. of Hants._,\nI. p. 364. See also _Archaeologia_, LIII.\npp. 564-8; G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. pp. 145-6,\nII. p. 11; F. Bond, _Gothic Archit. in England_, pp.\n195, 215, 223; O. M. Dalton, _op. cit._ p. 3.\n\n[78] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ II. pp. 125, 293.\n\n[79] _Ibid._ I. p. 271.\n\n[80] G. E. Fox and W. St John Hope, in _Vict. Hist. of Hants._,\nI. p. 364.\n\n[81] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._\n\n[82] A. Harnack, _Expansion of Christianity in the First Three\nCenturies_, tr. J. Moffatt, 1905, I. pp. 391-97; O. M.\nDalton, _op. cit._ p. 28. Cf. W. E. Addis, _Christianity and the Roman\nEmpire_, 1893, pp. 17, 18, 185-90.\n\n[83] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Folk-Lore as an Historical Science_, 1908, p.\n321.\n\n[84] G. S. Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, 1899, p. 11;\nConybeare, _op. cit._ p. 266.\n\n[85] Bede, _Eccles. Hist._, L. i. c. 30.\n\n[86] Bede, _op. cit._ L. i. c. 26. See also A. J.\nGiles\u2019s edition, 1887, p. 29.\n\n[87] J. Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, tr. from the 4th edition by J.\nG. Stallybrass, 1882, I. pp. 43, 86-7 (and generally,\nchaps, iv. and vi.), IV. p. 1313. [I quote Stallybrass\u2019s\ntranslation throughout. It should be noted that the volumes are\nvariously dated: I. 1882; II. and\nIII. 1883; IV. 1888 (W. J.).] Cf. B.\nThorpe, _Northern Mythology_, 1851, I. pp. 268-9.\n\n[88] J. M. Robertson, _Christianity and Mythology_, 1900, p. 36 et\npassim; Canon E. L. Hicks, in _The Roman Fort at Manchester_, ed. F. A.\nBruton, 1909, pp. 44-5; Sir J. Norman Lockyer, _Stonehenge_, 1906, pp.\n178-88.\n\n[89] _Jour. Amer. Folk-Lore_, XXII., 1909, pp. 144 et\nseqq.\n\n[90] _Folk-Lore as an Hist. Science_, p. 329.\n\n[91] Thorpe, _op. cit._ I. pp. 268-9. Cf. J. B. Bury,\n_Life of St Patrick_, 1905, pp. 107-8; W. G. Wood-Martin, _Traces of\nthe Elder Faiths of Ireland_, 1902, I. pp. 140-1; M.\nStokes, _Early Christian Architect. in Ireland_, 1878, pp. 92, 96;\n_Antiquary_, 1910, n.s. VI. pp. 184-8.\n\n[92] _Jour. Amer. Folk-Lore_, ut supra. Cf. E. Dale, _National Life and\nCharacter in the Mirror of Eng. Literature_, 1907, pp. 61-75.\n\n[93] W. Henderson, _Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties_, 1879, p.\n3. See also L. Friedlander, _Roman Life and Manners under the Early\nEmpire_, tr. J. H. Freese, 1900, III. pp. 120-22,\n210-14, for the struggle between Christianity and Paganism in Rome.\n\n[94] F. Kauffmann, _Northern Mythology_, tr. M. S. Smith, 1903, p. 8.\nCf. O. Montelius, _Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times_, tr. F. H.\nWoods, 1888, p. 200.\n\n[95] _Reliquary_, XIV. 1908, pp. 273-4.\n\n[96] Thorpe, _op. cit._ II. pp. 221-5.\n\n[97] C. F. Gordon-Cumming, _In the Hebrides_, 1883, p. 240. Cf.\nC. Warne, _Ancient Dorset_, p. 104, where it is asserted that the\ncathedral of Le Mans is built on the site of a stone-circle.\n\n[98] Johannes Schefferus, _Lapponia, id est, Regionis Lapponum_, 1673,\npassim. An English edition by T. Newborough appeared in 1704.\n\n[99] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 271.\n\n[100] A. L. Pitt-Rivers, _Excav. in Cranborne Chase_, I.\n1887, pp. 23-5.\n\n[101] A. H. Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 592.\n\n[102] Pitt-Rivers, _op. cit._ I. pp. 23-25. Cf.\n_Archaeol. Jour._ VI. pp. 17-18, 19-24.\n\n[103] A. H. Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 593 n. Cf. Haverfield, in _Vict.\nHist. of Northampton_, I. p. 193, and, for Welsh\nevidence, _Cambrian Journal_, 1858, 2nd Ser., I. pp.\n204-5; Sir R. Colt Hoare, _Anc. Hist. of North Wilts._, 1819, p. 42.\n\n[104] _Antiquary_, n.s. I. 1905, pp. 133-8.\n\n[105] R. Ashington Bullen, _Harlyn Bay_, 1902, pp. 69-70.\n\n[106] I. Taylor, _Names and their Histories_, 1896, p. 390. Cf. 1898\nedition, p. 136, also his _Words and Places_, ed. A. Smythe Palmer,\n1909, p. 237. For _kil_, see _New Oxford Dict._, s.v. For _llan_, see\n_Words and Places_, 1909, p. 328; _Cambrian Jour._, 1857, 1st Ser.,\nIV. p. 101; 1858, 2nd Ser., I. p. 204;\n_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 1850, 2nd Ser., I. p. 17.\n\n[107] _Folk-Memory_, 1908, p. 139 et seqq.\n\n[108] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Prim. Folk-Moots_, pp. 108-9, 129-30, 192,\n227-33; H. N. Hutchinson, _Prehist. Man and Beast_, 1896, p. 258; R.\nW. Eyton, _A Key to Domesday_, 1878, p. 143. Cf. T. Cato Worsfold,\n_The French Stonehenge_, n.d. p. 40. Some curious information, to be\nread critically, will be found in W. Charleton\u2019s _Chorea Gigantum, or\nStone-Heng restored to the Danes_, 1663, pp. 42-50.\n\n[109] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 144-5, 336.\n\n[110] The stone is fully described by C. Warne, _Anc. Dorset_, 1872,\npp. 137-9.\n\n[111] Bede, _Eccles. Hist._ L. iii. c. 7.\n\n[112] A. G. Langdon, _Old Cornish Crosses_, 1896, passim; W. Crossing,\n_Anc. Stone Crosses of Dartmoor_, 1887, passim.\n\n[113] See F. W. Harmer, in _Geology in the Field_, ed. H. W. Monckton\nand R. S. Herries, 1901, Pt i. pp. 110-113.\n\n[114] _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, I. pp. 407, 415, etc.\n\n[115] _Ibid._\n\n[116] Z. de Rouzic, _Les Monuments M\u00e9galithiques_, 1901, pp. 29-30, 34;\nT. Cato Worsfold, _The French Stonehenge_, n.d., pp. 15-16; G. Allen,\n_Evol. of the Idea of God_, 1903, p. 147.\n\n[117] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 133-6, and authorities quoted. This view is\nalso taken by J. Romilly Allen in _Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian\nTimes_, 1905, p. 186. Cf. A. G. Langdon, _op. cit._ pp. 4-7; W.\nHenderson, _Folk-Lore of Northern Counties_, 1879, p. 3, notices\nseveral Scottish examples.\n\n[118] _Antiquary_, n.s. VI. 1910, pp. 21-26,\nillustration given.\n\n[119] A description of the ruins will be found in _Harlyn Bay_,\npp. 69-70; _Vict. Hist. of Kent_, 1908, I. p. 320;\n_South-Eastern Naturalist_, 1904, p. 32. For discussion of the word\n\u201csarsen\u201d see _Folk-Memory_, pp. 260-2.\n\n[120] _South-Eastern Naturalist_, _loc. cit._ See also A. E. Salter, in\n_Trans. Herts. Nat. Hist. Soc._ 1911, XIV. pp. 135-142.\n\n[121] _Proc. Geol. Assoc._, 1906, XIX. p. 317.\n\n[122] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., VIII. p. 365. Cf.\n8th Ser., VII. p. 485; VIII. p. 431; and\nPliny, _Nat. Hist._, L. xxvi. c. 29; L.\nxxix. c. 13.\n\n[123] _Antiquary_, N.S. II., 1906, p. 120.\n\n[124] _Harlyn Bay_, pp. 69-71.\n\n[125] _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, 1906, I. p. 379.\n\n[126] _Vict. Hist. of Yorkshire_, 1907, I. p. 369; _Lore\nand Legend of the Eng. Church_, pp. 24-5; P. Royston, _Rudstone, a\nsketch of its History and Antiquities_, 1873, pp. 43-83.\n\n[127] _Harlyn Bay_, p. 70.\n\n[128] _S.-E. Naturalist_, 1909, p. 28, and Plate xx.\n\n[129] G. E. Jeans (editor), Murray\u2019s _Handbook for Isle of Wight_, 5th\nedition, 1898, p. 51.\n\n[130] G. E. Jeans, _loc. cit._\n\n[131] _S.-E. Naturalist_, 1909, p. 28; _Antiquary_, N.S., 1906,\nII. p. 80.\n\n[132] H. Belloc, _The Old Road_, 1904, p. 64.\n\n[133] _S.-E. Naturalist_, 1904, p. 32.\n\n[134] Murray, _Handbook for Kent_, 5th edition, 1892, pp. 207-8;\n_Archaeologia Cantiana_, 1880, XIII. pp. 14, 16 (and\nplate); _Vict. Hist. of Kent_, 1908, I. p. 319; F. J.\nBennett, _Ightham, the Story of a Kentish Village_, 1907, pp. 47-8.\n\n[135] W. Boyd Dawkins, in _Vict. Hist. of Somerset_, 1906,\nI. p. 191; C. W. Dymond, _Guide to Stanton Drew_, 1896,\np. 11 et seqq.; Sir J. Norman Lockyer, _Stonehenge and other British\nMonuments_, 1906, pp. 166-77.\n\n[136] _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, I. p. 399.\n\n[137] Sir J. Norman Lockyer, _op. cit._ p. 219.\n\n[138] _Ibid._, _op. cit._ pp. 217-20.\n\n[139] _Cambrian Jour._, 1858, 2nd Ser., I. p. 205.\n\n[140] C. Cordiner, _Antiquities and Scenery of the North of Scotland_,\n1780, p. 34; W. G. Wood-Martin, _Pagan Ireland_, 1895, p. 590.\n\n[141] Sir D. Wilson, _Archaeology and Prehist. Annals of Scotland_,\n1851, p. 10. See also T. Pennant, _Tour in Scotland_, 3rd edition,\n1774, I. p. 274: chapter by Rev. Mr Shaw; C. Cordiner,\n_op. cit._ p. 34. Mr P. McIntyre informs me that, in conversation,\n_clachan_ is employed, and, in that case, the question should be\nwritten, _Am beil thu dol d\u2019an clachan?_ The phrase is also given, with\nslight variations, by Lockyer, _op. cit._ pp. 219-20, and by H. N.\nHutchinson, _op. cit._ p. 258 (Chap. XI., generally, of\nthis book is worthy of study).\n\n[142] G. E. Jeans, _op. cit._ p. 4. Cf. J. W. Hill, _Historical\nDirectory of the I. of Wight_, 2nd edition, 1879, p. 130.\n\n[143] W. G. Collingwood, in _Vict. Hist. of Cumberland_, 1901,\nI. p. 265. See also _Archaeologia_, 1773,\nII. pp. 48-53, where the tomb is said to be\neither British or Danish; _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, N.S.\nXIV., 1908, p. 205.\n\n[144] A. H. Allcroft, _Earthwork of England_, p. 403 n.\n\n[145] J. H. Round, in _Quarterly Review_, CLXXIX.,\n1894, pp. 27-57; E. S. Armitage, in _Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot._\nXXXIV., 1900, pp. 260-88: also a good summary by this\nwriter in _Introd. to Eng. Antiquities_, 1903, pp. 119-124.\n\n[146] G. T. Clark, _Mediaeval Military Architecture_, 1884, 2\nvols., passim; I. Chalkley Gould, in _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser.,\nVI. p. 134. Cf. Paper by this writer in _Jour. Brit.\nArchaeol. Assoc._, 1907, N.S., XIII. pp. 51-64.\n\n[147] E. S. Armitage, _Introd. to Eng. Antiq._, p. 120; _New Oxford\nDict._ under \u201cBorough.\u201d\n\n[148] W. Gardner, in _Vict. Hist. of Warwick_, 1904, I.\npp. 352-3; R. A. Smith, in _Vict. Hist. of Northampton_, 1902,\nI. p. 256; T. Davies Pryce, in _Jour. Brit. Archaeol.\nAssoc._, N.S., XII. 1906, pp. 231-68.\n\n[149] J. H. Round, in _Quarterly Review_, _loc. cit._, and in\n_Commune of London_, 1899, pp. 52-4: also in _Archaeologia_,\nLVIII. pp. 312-40; E. S. Armitage, _loc. cit._; W. H.\nSt John Hope, in _Archaeol. Jour._ LXX. pp. 72-90; G.\nNeilson, _Scottish Review_, LIV. 1898, pp. 209-38; A. H.\nAllcroft, _op. cit._, Chap. xiii.\n\n[150] I. C. Gould, in _Vict. Hist. of Herefordshire_, 1908,\nI. p. 230.\n\n[151] _Archaeol. Cambrensis_, 3rd Ser., I. 1855, pp.\n168-174; _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., VI. p. 77.\n\n[152] _Vict. Hist. of Herefordshire_, I. p. 231.\n\n[153] _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., VI. p. 77.\n\n[154] _Vict. Hist. of Lancashire_, 1908, II. pp. 533-6.\n\n[155] _Ibid._ II. pp. 521-2.\n\n[156] _Ibid._ II. pp. 539-43.\n\n[157] _Archaeologia_, LVIII. p. 333.\n\n[158] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 452.\n\n[159] D. H. Montgomerie, in _Vict. Hist. of Herts._, 1908,\nII. pp. 117-8. In this connection see E. L. Cutts,\n_Parish Priests and their People in the Middle Ages in England_, 1898,\nChap. xxvii. The manor-house long continued to have its chapel or\noratory. See N. J. Hone, _The Manor and Manorial Records_, 1906, pp.\n32-7. The private chaplain was a well-known personage in Addison\u2019s time.\n\n[160] _Archaeologia_, LVIII. p. 333.\n\n[161] G. Baldwin Brown, _Arts in Early England_, II. p.\n340. Cf. I. p. 274.\n\n[162] _Vict. Hist. of Lancashire_, II. pp. 529-30.\n\n[163] _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., VI. p. 11.\n\n[164] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 548 n.\n\n[165] F. Seebohm, _Village Community_, p. 434. Cf. A. R. Goddard, in\n_Vict. Hist. of Bedford_, 1904, I. pp. 296-7.\n\n[166] Seebohm, _loc. cit._\n\n[167] _Vict. Hist. of Hertford_, II. pp. 117-8.\n\n[168] R. A. Smith, in _Vict. Hist. of Northampton_, I.\np. 256. Cf. II. p. 408.\n\n[169] R. A. Smith, _op. cit._ I. p. 256; _Proc. Soc.\nAntiq._, VII. p. 316-21.\n\n[170] _Vict. Hist. of Northampton_, II. p. 405.\n\n[171] _Ibid._ I. p. 256.\n\n[172] _Vict. Hist. of Kent_, 1908, I. p. 407.\n\n[173] _Ibid._ I. pp. 208, 363.\n\n[174] _Surrey Archaeol. Coll._, XII. p. 162.\n\n[175] _Surrey Archaeol. Coll._, XII. pp. 155, 162;\n_Vict. Hist. of Surrey_, I. p. 250; J. C. Cox, _Rambles\nin Surrey_, 1910, pp. 126-7.\n\n[176] _Vict. Hist. of Hereford_, I. p. 240; _Notes and\nQueries_, 9th Ser., VI. p. 171.\n\n[177] _New Oxford Dict._ under \u201cMoot.\u201d\n\n[178] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Prim. Folk-Moots_, 1880, Chap. ii. Cf. Seebohm,\n_op. cit._ p. 434.\n\n[179] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 542.\n\n[180] Sir G. L. Gomme, _op. cit._ pp. 62, 105, 106, 112, 215, etc.; R.\nW. Eyton, _A Key to Domesday_, 1878, p. 143.\n\n[181] Addy, _Evol. of the Eng. House_, 1898, pp. 197-8.\n\n[182] _Archaeologia_, XXII. p. 200 Cf. S. O. Addy, _op.\ncit._ p. 178 (and authorities given).\n\n[183] _Archaeologia_, _loc. cit._ Cf. _Archaeol. Jour._,\nI. p. 154.\n\n[184] _Ibid._\n\n[185] F. Kauffmann, _Northern Mythology_, pp. 22-3. Cf. P. H. Mallet,\n_Northern Antiquities_, tr. Bishop Percy, 1847, p. 291 (Iceland\nevidence).\n\n[186] See instances given in _Jour. Brit. Arch. Assoc._, N.S.\nXIV., 1908, p. 208.\n\n[187] _Trans. E. Riding Antiq. Soc._, 1895, III. pp.\n13-14; J. R. Mortimer. _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, 1905, pp. 23-4, 26-7.\n\n[188] _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, p. 23 n.\n\n[189] _Ibid._ p. 295. Moot-hills are also referred to on pp. lxxxv,\n25-26, 261, 264, 294.\n\n[190] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 523.\n\n[191] _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, pp. 36, 388, 390.\n\n[192] _Ibid._ pp. 388-94.\n\n[193] _Ibid._ p. 388.\n\n[194] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Prim. Folk-Moots_, 1880, p. 86.\n\n[195] _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, p. 396.\n\n[196] _New Oxford Dict._, under \u201cGallows\u201d and \u201cGallows-tree.\u201d Cf. _The\nAnglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf_, ed. B. Thorpe, 1889, p. 257; Sir E. F.\nDu Cane, _The Punishment and Prevention of Crime_, 1885, pp. 10-11;\nSir J. Fitzstephen Stephen, _Hist. of the Criminal Law of England_,\n1883, I. pp. 59, 458. Cf. P. Vinogradoff, _Villainage in\nEngland_, 1892, p. 170, with regard to the expression _terra ad furcam\net flagellum_. This expression is declared to have no connection with\nthe lord\u2019s power to punish by gallows and whip, but to refer to base\nholdings, occupied by tenants who work with pitchfork and flail. See\nalso letters from Prof. W. W. Skeat and others in _Notes and Queries_,\n11th Ser., I. p. 458; _Ency. Brit._, 11th edition, under\n\u201cGallows.\u201d\n\n[197] _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, 1884, L. p. 70;\n_Folk-Memory_, p. 166; T. Wright, _Hist. of Ludlow_, pp. 13-14, also\nhis _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon_, 1861, p. 326.\n\n[198] _Nineteenth Century_, 1887, p. 57.\n\n[199] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 540. In this connection see W. Greenwell,\n_British Barrows_, 1877, p. 28 n.\n\n[200] _New Oxford Dict._ under \u201cToot\u201d; Skeat, _Etymol. Dict._ under\n\u201cTout\u201d; J. Tait, in _Class. Assoc, of Eng. and Wales_; _Ann. Rept._,\nSupplementary Vol. II., 1909, pp. 1-3; _Home Counties\nMagazine_, IX. p. 315, X. pp. 75-7.\n\n[201] Allcroft, _op. cit._ p. 421 n.\n\n[202] Sir J. Rh\u0177s, _Celtic Folklore, Welsh and Manx_, 1891,\nI. p. 311. See also J. G. Kohl, _Ireland_, 1843, pp.\n17-18.\n\n[203] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 153. Cf. _Jour. Brit. Archaeol.\nAssoc._, 1873, XXIX. pp. 264-5, describing a \u201cToot\nHill,\u201d which proved to be a barrow; cf. _Vict. Hist, of Stafford_,\n1908, I. p. 377. Further evidence is given in _Jour.\nBrit. Archaeol. Assoc._, 1906, N.S. XII. pp. 249-54.\n\n[204] _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, 1890, XX. p. 9.\n\n[205] F. J. Bennett, Sketch _Hist. of Marlborough in Neolithic Times_,\n1891, p. 11.\n\n[206] _Vict. Hist. of Oxford_, 1907, II. 346.\n\n[207] _Vict. Hist. of Durham_, 1905, I. pp. 208, 363.\n\n[208] _Vict. Hist. of Warwick_, 1904, I. pp. 353. 360-1.\n\n[209] Cf. E. A. Webb, G. W. Miller, and J. Beckwith, _History of\nChislehurst_, 1899, pp. 49, 52, 261.\n\n[210] _Antiquary_, 2nd Ser., II. pp. 120, 160.\n\n[211] _Ibid._\n\n[212] _Ibid._ Cf. _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, I. p. 360.\n\n[213] _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, I. pp. 369-70.\n\n[214] _Repts. Associated Architect. Societies_, 1888,\nXIX. pp. 427-8; G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._\nI. p. 263.\n\n[215] _Nature Notes_ (Selborne Soc.), 1907, XVIII. p.\n223.\n\n[216] A. and C. Black, _Guide to N. Wales_, 1900, p. 45.\n\n[217] _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, 1857, XIII. p.\n313; R. A. Smith, in _Vict. Hist. of Kent_, I. p. 385.\n\n[218] _Archaeologia_, 1787, VIII. p. 449; _Vict. Hist.\nof Kent_, I. p. 385.\n\n[219] Two stone axes have recently been discovered in Seale churchyard,\nSurrey (_S.-E. Naturalist_, 1910, p. xxxvii).\n\n[220] _Archaeol. Jour._, 1846, III. pp. 105-15; D.\nRock, _Church of Our Fathers_, ed. G. W. Hart and W. H. Frere, 1903,\nII. pp. 262.\n\n[221] R. A. Smith, in _Vict. Hist. of Buckingham_, 1905,\nI. p. 199.\n\n[222] J. Stevens, in _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, 1884,\nXI. p. 62.\n\n[223] R. A. Smith, _op. cit._ I. p. 200.\n\n[224] _Ibid._; J. Stevens, _op. cit._ p. 63.\n\n[225] J. Stevens, _op. cit._ p. 63.\n\n[226] R. A. Smith, _op. cit._ I. p. 200.\n\n[227] In addition to the references given, these may be noted: _Proc.\nSoc. Antiq._ X. pp. 19-20; _Jour. Brit. Archaeol.\nAssoc._, XXXIX. pp. 431-33, XL. pp.\n61-71; _Antiquary_, 2nd Ser., II. p. 80; P. H.\nDitchfield, _Our English Villages_, 1889, p. 23.\n\n[228] T. Wright, _Hist. of Ludlow_, 1852, pp. 13-14. The mound near\nEccleston church, Cheshire, seems to be a barrow (W. Shone, _Prehist.\nMan in Cheshire_, 1911, pp. 55-6).\n\n[229] _Nineteenth Century_, 1887, pp. 40-59.\n\n[230] R. A. Smith, _Vict. Hist. of Hertfordshire_, 1902,\nI. p. 257.\n\n[231] _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, N.S. III. p. 205.\nThe whole question is thoroughly discussed by R. A. Smith in _Vict.\nHist. of London_, 1909, I. pp. 124-5.\n\n[232] J. De Baye, _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, trans. T. R.\nHarbottle, 1893, p. 125.\n\n[233] _Vict. Hist. of Buckinghamshire_, I. p. 198; De\nBaye, _loc. cit._; J. Y. Akerman, _Remains of Saxon Pagandom_, 1853, p.\nxx.\n\n[234] _Vict. Hist. of Bucks_, _loc. cit._; _Archaeologia_,\nXXXV. pp. 379-82.\n\n[235] _Vict. Hist. of Northampton_, I. p. 215. The\nNorman church of Fordington, Dorchester (Dorset), was also built over a\nRoman cemetery.\n\n[236] W. G. Wood-Martin, _Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland_, 1902,\nII. p. 313. Cf. _Pagan Ireland_, p. 590 et seqq.\n\n[237] _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, 1908, N.S. XIV.\npp. 206-8. The cross is illustrated and discussed in _Vict. Hist. of\nCumberland_, 1901, I. pp. 254-7; J. Nicolson and R.\nBurn, _Hist. and Antiquities of Westmorland and Cumberland_, 1777,\nII. pp. 478-9; W. Hutchinson, _Hist. of Cumberland_,\n1794, I. p. 80 et seqq.\n\n[238] T. W. Shore, _Archaeol. Remains of Streatham, Balham and\nTooting_, 1903, p. 20. In connection with entrenched woodlands, notice\nCaesar, _De Bell. Gall._, V.C. 21, \u2018_Oppidum autem\nBritanni vocant, cum silvas impeditas vallo atque fossa munierunt_\u2019\n(when the Britons have fortified a tangled woodland with rampart and\nditch, they call it a town).\n\n[239] T. H. Huxley, _Elem. Physiology_, 1885, p. 365.\n\n[240] Chambers\u2019s _Encyclopaedia_, Art. \u201cBone.\u201d\n\n[241] P. Kalm, _Acct. of his visits to England_ (1748), trans. J.\nLucas, 1892, p. 42; W. Cobbett, _Rural Rides_, ed. Pitt Cobbett,\n1886, II. p. 15. Cf. _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser.,\nII. p. 126.\n\n[242] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., III. pp. 456-8,\nIV. p. 72.\n\n[243] W. G. Wood-Martin, _op. cit._ II. p. 47, and\ngenerally pp. 46-115; also his _Pagan Ireland_, pp. 157-164, and\nespecially p. 160; J. Bonwick, _Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions_,\n1894, pp. 240-1; W. Henderson, _Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties_,\npp. 2-3.\n\n[244] O. Montelius, _Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times_, tr. F.\nH. Woods, 1888, p. 200 n.\n\n[245] G. S. Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, 1899, p. 15.\n\n[246] _Ibid._\n\n[247] Sir J. Rh\u0177s, _Celtic Folk-Lore_, 1901, I. pp.\n363-4, 396-7.\n\n[248] _Ibid._ pp. 397-400.\n\n[249] A. L. Leach, _Guide to Tenby_, 1898, p. 66.\n\n[250] G. S. Tyack, _op. cit._ p. 15.\n\n[251] _Ibid._\n\n[252] _Ibid._\n\n[253] _Ibid._\n\n[254] F. J. Haverfield, in _Vict. Hist. of Somerset_, 1906,\nI. p. 334.\n\n[255] S. Baring-Gould, _A Book of the West_, 1899, II.\npp. 39-40; R. C. Hope, _The Legendary Lore of the Holy Wells of\nEngland_, 1893, pp. 9-38.\n\n[256] J. Sydenham, _Antient Colossal Figure at Cerne, Dorsetshire_,\n1842, p. 9.\n\n[257] _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, 1890, XX. pp. 9, 15.\n\n[258] J. Stow, _Survey of London_, ed. H. Morley, 1890, pp. 46-7;\nStow\u2019s authority is Fitzstephen. See also H. B. Woodward, _Geol. of the\nLondon District_ (Mem. Geol. Surv.), 1909, p. 120.\n\n[259] G. S. Tyack, _loc. cit._\n\n[260] In addition to the works already cited, these are useful: Sir\nG. L. Gomme, _Ethnology in Folk-Lore_, 1880, ch. iv. and table on p.\n105; also his _Folk-Lore as an Historical Science_, 1908, pp. 163-4,\n323, 326; W. S. Walsh, _Curiosities of Popular Customs_, 1898, pp.\n987-90; _Folk-Lore_, _passim_, especially Vols. III. and\nIV.; Sir J. Rh\u0177s, _Celtic Folk-Lore_, I.\npp. 332-5, 354-400. May-day customs are treated at some length\nby J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, 1890, I. pp.\n72-86. R. C. Hope, _op. cit._, gives extensive lists for the English\ncounties. Some curious facts will be found in J. Aubrey\u2019s _Remaines\nof Gentilisme and Judaisme_, 1686-7, pp. iii, 34, 58 etc. Sir Norman\nLockyer, _Stonehenge_, 1906, ch. xxi.; T. S. Knowlson, _Origins of Pop.\nSuperstitions and Customs_, 1910, pp. 193-205.\n\n[261] Rev. E. Owen, in _Antiquities and Curiosities of the Church_, ed.\nW. Andrews, 1897, pp. 229-35.\n\n[262] _Ibid._, p. 230. Cf. Gomme, _Prim. Folk-Moots_, 1880, pp. 98-103.\n\n[263] W. Borlase, _Observations on the Antiquities of Cornwall_, 1769,\np. 117; J. Toland, _Hist. of the Druids_, 1726, p. 108; _Archaeologia\nCambrensis_, 2nd Ser., 1850, I. p. 5.\n\n[264] _Cambrian Journal_, 1856, II. p. 97; _Archaeologia\nCambrensis_, 2nd Ser., 1850, I. p. 11; Allcroft, _op.\ncit._ pp. 594-5.\n\n[265] E. Owen, _loc. cit._; G. S. Tyack, _op. cit._ pp. 12-13.\n\n[266] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 269.\n\n[267] _Ibid._\n\n[268] _Neolithic Man in N.E. Surrey_, pp. 108-9.\n\n[269] D. MacRitchie, _The Testimony of Tradition_, 1890, pp. 85-6, cf.\npp. 70-1.\n\n[270] _Lore and Legend of the English Church_, p. 20.\n\n[271] _Ibid._ pp. 21, 23. Cf. E. Clodd, _Tom Tit Tot_, 1898, pp. 47-9.\n\n[272] _Lore and Legend_, &c. pp. 20, 23-4. Cf. A. Beckett, _The Spirit\nof the Downs_, 1909, pp. 261-2; _Folk-Lore_, 1909, XX.\np. 315.\n\n[273] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 280-4, 343.\n\n[274] Murray, _Handbook to the Lakes_, 1889, p. 103. _Notes and\nQueries_, 3rd Ser., XI. p. 60.\n\n[275] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd Ser., X. p. 49. _Lore and\nLegend of the English Church_, p. 49.\n\n[276] J. H. Parker, _Glossary of Architecture_, 1850, under\n_Pile-Tower_.\n\n[277] S. O. Addy, _Evolution of the Eng. House_, 1898, p. 169. A. H.\nAllcroft, _op. cit._ p. 529 n.\n\n[278] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 172.\n\n[279] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd Ser., XI. p. 160.\n\n[280] T. Sheppard, _Hull Museum Publications_, No. 4, 1901, pp. 1-5.\n\n[281] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ II. pp. 339, 341, 342.\n\n[282] F. Bond, _Gothic Architecture in England_, p. 590.\n\n[283] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. pp. 166-7, 305-6.\n\n[284] _Ibid._, II. p. 56.\n\n[285] Murray, _Handbook for Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and\nHuntingdonshire_, 1895, p. 147.\n\n[286] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 169.\n\n[287] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd Ser., X. p. 473.\n\n[288] E. A. Freeman, in _Archaeol. Cambr._, 1850, N. S.\nI. p. 44. G. T. Clark, _Mediaeval Milit. Archit._, pp.\n114, 117.\n\n[289] E. A. Freeman, _loc. cit._, pp. 45-6.\n\n[290] Quoted by A. L. Leach, _Guide to Tenby_, 1898, p. 69.\n\n[291] Quoted by A. L. Leach, _loc. cit._ A good description of the\nchurch, from an artist\u2019s point of view, is given by S. C. and A. M.\nHall, in _Tenby_, 1860, pp. 86-93.\n\n[292] _Archaeol. Cambr._, N. S. II. p. 168. Cf. p. 172.\n\n[293] A. H. Allcroft, _Earthwork of England_, p. 529 n.\n\n[294] G. S. Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 50.\n\n[295] J. E. Thorold Rogers, _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, 1889, p.\n66.\n\n[296] Eleanor Hull, _Early Christian Ireland_, 1905, p. 206.\n\n[297] _Ibid._, pp. 206-7.\n\n[298] _Ibid._, p. 108.\n\n[299] _Ibid._, pp. 108-9, 200.\n\n[300] A. C. Haddon, _Evolution in Art_, 1895, p. 90.\n\n[301] E. Hull, _op. cit._ pp. 208, 213-4. Cf. p. 247.\n\n[302] E. Hull, _op. cit._, _passim_, and esp. Chap. XX.\nM. Stokes, _Early Christian Architecture in Ireland_, 1878, Chaps.\nV. and VI., and pp. 137-141. S. O. Addy,\n_op. cit._ pp. 173-5.\n\n[303] G. T. Clark, Letters reprinted in _Early Christian Architecture\nin Ireland_, pp. 137 et seqq.\n\n[304] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times_,\n1905, pp. 195-6. For detached towers, see _Notes and Queries_, 7th\nSer., IX. pp. 169-70, 277; X. pp. 18, 356\nand references there given.\n\n[305] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 173.\n\n[306] A. Jessopp, _Before the Great Pillage_, 1901, pp. 59-60. See also\nS. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 172. _Eccles. Curiosities_, ed. W. Andrews,\n1899, pp. 153-60.\n\n[307] F. Bond, _English Cathedrals_, 1899, p. 217.\n\n[308] _New Oxford Dict._, and Skeat\u2019s _Etymol. Dict._ under _Belfry_.\n\n[309] St Catherine\u2019s Chapel, Abbotsbury Hill, Dorset, is even a better\nexample of the beacon-chantry (Perpendicular).\n\n[310] Murray, _Handbook for Kent and Sussex_, 1863, p. 17.\n\n[311] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 170.\n\n[312] _Antiquary_, 1896, XXXII. p. 350.\n\n[313] F. Arnold-Forster, _Studies in Church Dedications_, 1899,\nII. p. 510.\n\n[314] _Ibid._ II. p. 510 n. Cf. _Surrey Archaeol. Coll._\nXV. pp. 158-9; XVI. p. 248. J. C. Cox,\n_Rambles in Surrey_, 1910, p. 213.\n\n[315] F. Bond, _Westminster Abbey_, 1909, p. 33.\n\n[316] _Ibid._ p. 28. Cf. Mandell Creighton, _Hist. Essays and Reviews_,\ned. L. Creighton, 1903, p. 276.\n\n[317] _Ibid._ p. 30.\n\n[318] J. E. Thorold Rogers, _op. cit._ p. 66.\n\n[319] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., XII. pp. 167, 269,\n412.\n\n[320] F. A. Inderwick, _The King\u2019s Peace_, 1895, p. 20.\n\n[321] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Prim. Folk-Moots_, 1880, p. 59.\n\n[322] F. A. Inderwick, _op. cit._ p. 12. The various courts are briefly\ndescribed on pp. 12-17. See also P. Vinogradoff, _Villainage in\nEngland_, 1892, pp. 354-96.\n\n[323] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 181.\n\n[324] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., XII. p. 32.\n\n[325] S. and B. Webb, _English Local Government_, Book\nI.: _The Manor and the Borough_, 1908, I.\np. 113 n.\n\n[326] S. and B. Webb, _op. cit._ I. p. 375.\n\n[327] T. Longley, before the Louth Antiq. and Nat. Hist. Soc., April\n21, 1908.\n\n[328] J. Fergusson, _Hist. of Architecture_, 3rd edition, 1873,\nII. p. 413.\n\n[329] J. C. Jeaffreson, _A Book about the Clergy_, 2nd edition, 1870,\nI. p. 339.\n\n[330] _Antiquary_, 1896, XXXII. p. 350.\n\n[331] J. C. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ I. pp. 339-40.\nSee especially, for an account of the Worcester Consistory Court,\n_Reliquary_, 1892, N. S. VI. pp. 230-234.\n\n[332] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 182.\n\n[333] J. C. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ I. p. 340.\n\n[334] _Ibid._ I. p. 342.\n\n[335] W. J. Loftie, _In and Out of London_, N. D., pp. 101-2.\n\n[336] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 177.\n\n[337] F. A. Inderwick, _op. cit._ p. 13.\n\n[338] _Fabric Rolls of York Minster_ (Surtees Soc. XXXV.\n1859), p. 256.\n\n[339] J. C. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ I. p. 341.\n\n[340] _Prim. Folk-Moots_, pp. 53, 59, 115.\n\n[341] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 181.\n\n[342] S. and B. Webb, _op. cit._ I. p. 113, cf. pp. 13,\n34.\n\n[343] _Ibid._ I. p. 131.\n\n[344] S. and B. Webb, _Eng. Local Govt._, Book 1.: _The Parish and the\nCounty_, 1906, pp. 37-40.\n\n[345] _The Parish and the County_, I. pp. 37, 38 n.\n\n[346] _Ibid._ I. pp. 37, 39.\n\n[347] F. W. Maitland, in _Law Quarterly Review_, 1893,\nIX. p. 227.\n\n[348] _The Parish and the County_, I. pp. 43 et seqq.\n\n[349] _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., XII. p. 148.\n\n[350] _Archaeologia Cantiana_, XIII. pp. 141-2.\n\n[351] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 183.\n\n[352] J. C. Cox and A. Harvey, _Eng. Church Furniture_, 1907, pp. 350,\n353. _Notes and Queries_, 11th Ser., II. pp. 428-9,\n513-4.\n\n[353] _New Oxford Dict._, Skeat\u2019s _Etymol. Dict._, under \u201cChurch.\u201d Cf.\n_Century Dict._, which is in substantial agreement.\n\n[354] _New Oxford Dict._, _loc. cit._\n\n[355] G. Baldwin Brown, _The Arts in Early England_, 1903,\nI. pp. 251-2.\n\n[356] S. O. Addy, _Evol. of the Eng. House_, p. 187.\n\n[357] _Ibid._ pp. 182-3, 187.\n\n[358] _Ibid._ pp. 173, 187. Cf. Sir G. L. Gomme, _Prim. Folk-Moots_, p.\n157.\n\n[359] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ pp. 191-6.\n\n[360] _Ibid._ p. 186. Cf. G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._\nI. p. 324 n., II. p. 303.\n\n[361] J. H. Parker, _Glossary of Architect._, 1850, under \u201cSquint.\u201d\nCf. R. Sturgis, _Dict. of Architect. and Building_, 1901, under\n\u201cHagioscope\u201d and \u201cSquint\u201d: B. and B. F. Fletcher, _Hist. of\nArchitect._, 1905, p. 692.\n\n[362] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ pp. 183-4.\n\n[363] _The Inventories and Account Rolls ... of Jarrow and\nMonk-Wearmouth_ (Surtees Society, Vol. XXIX.), p. xxvi.\n\n[364] _New Oxford Dict._ under \u201cBasilica.\u201d\n\n[365] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 298.\n\n[366] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ pp. 185-6. J. Evelyn, _Diary_ (ed. W.\nBray, 1818), \u201cChandos Classics\u201d edition, N.D. p. 19;\ncf. p. ix. Dr J. C. Cox, in his _Rambles in Surrey_, 1910, p. 118,\nconsiders that the porch must have had an upper room in Evelyn\u2019s\nday. G. S. Tyack, in _Eccles. Curiosities_, ed. W. Andrews, 1889,\np. 27. _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., XI. pp. 366,\n394, 472; XII. pp. 37, 277, 334. _Twelfth Night_, Act\nIII. Sc. 2.\n\n[367] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 185.\n\n[368] J. H. Parker, _op. cit._ under \u201cParvise.\u201d _Antiquary_, 1899,\nXXXV. p. 179.\n\n[369] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 370.\n\n[370] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., X. p. 396;\nXI. pp. 9-10, 136.\n\n[371] _New Oxford Dict._ under \u201cParvis.\u201d See also discussion in _Notes\nand Queries_, 5th Ser., XI. pp. 49, 91, 149, 197.\n\n[372] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. pp. 370-1.\nS. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 180. _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser.,\nII. pp. 168, 238, 413.\n\n[373] C. King Warry, _Old Portland Traditions_, 1908, pp. 50-1. Cf.\n_Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., VIII. pp. 81, 134, 248,\n432.\n\n[374] Chaucer, _Wife of Bath\u2019s_ \u2018_Prologue_,\u2019 l. 6 (W. W. Skeat\u2019s\nedition, 1894, p. 320).\n\n[375] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 371. G.\nS. Tyack, in _Eccles. Curiosities_, pp. 25-6. J. Brand, _Popular\nAntiquities_, ed. Sir H. Ellis, 1849, II. pp. 133-5. F.\nA. Gasquet, _Parish Life in Mediaeval England_, 1906, pp. 209-10.\n\n[376] _Prideaux\u2019s Churchwarden\u2019s Guide_, ed. F. C. Mackarness, 1895, p.\n321.\n\n[377] _Antiquary_, 1899, XXXV. p. 178.\n\n[378] _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., XI. pp. 422-4. See\nalso 12th Ser., II. pp. 130-1.\n\n[379] P. Vinogradoff, _Eng. Society in the Eleventh Century_, 1908, p.\n30.\n\n[380] J. C. Cox, in _Curious Church Customs_, ed. W. Andrews, pp.\n179-80.\n\n[381] _Ibid._ p. 180.\n\n[382] _Antiquary_, 1910, N. S., VI. p. 122. It has been\nstated that every parish church in the Isle of Wight formerly possessed\nits gun. Brading gun, now preserved at Nunwell, is the only specimen\nleft. (_Notes and Queries_, 11th Ser., II. p. 176.)\n\n[383] _Notes and Queries_, 11th Ser., I. p. 346,\nII. p. 16. An attempt has been made to connect the\nRobin Hood Dancers with a survival of the solar myth, and to show that\ncertain place-names, said to be compounded from _Robin Hood_, designate\npagan sites (_Notes and Queries_, 11th Ser., I. pp.\n493-4). _Folk-Lore_, 1910, XXI. p. 248 n.\n\n[384] Olaus Magnus, _Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus_, 1555, l.\nxvi. c. 21.\n\n[385] _Ibid._ l. xvi. c. 20.\n\n[386] _Reliquary_, 1892, N. S., VI. pp. 65-67. Cf.\nDissertation by Olaus Magnus, _op. cit._ l. I. cc.\n32, 33. Several Saxon dial-stones are described in _Surrey Archaeol.\nColl._, XV. pp. 74-77; XXI. pp. 86-88.\nSee also J. C. Cox, _Rambles in Surrey_, 1910, p. 190. G. Baldwin\nBrown, _op. cit._ II. p. 131.\n\n[387] _Antiquary_, 1899, XXXV. p. 360.\n\n[388] _Bygone Hertfordshire_, ed. W. Andrews, 1898, p. 153.\n\n[389] _Trans. East Riding Antiq. Soc._, 1895, III. pp.\n48-9.\n\n[390] G. S. Tyack, _op. cit._ p. 74.\n\n[391] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., XII. p. 297.\n\n[392] _Ibid._ XII. p. 486.\n\n[393] _Ibid._ IX. p. 479.\n\n[394] G. S. Tyack, _op. cit._ p. 74.\n\n[395] J. Nicholson, in _Curious Church Customs_, p. 157.\n\n[396] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., IX. p. 479.\n\n[397] _Ibid._ 7th Ser., I. p. 491.\n\n[398] B. P. Row and W. Stanley Martin, _Kent\u2019s Capital_, 2nd edition,\n1899, pp. 52-3. Murray, _Handbook for Kent_, 3rd edition, 1892, pp.\n62-3.\n\n[399] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. pp. 371-2.\n\n[400] P. Vinogradoff, _Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Century_, p. 468-9.\n\n[401] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VIII. p. 305. For\nfurther evidence, see _Extracts from the Court Rolls of the Manor of\nWimbledon_ (Surrey), 1866, pp. 297, 386.\n\n[402] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 180. An extensive list of church chests\nis given in _Eng. Church Furniture_, by J. C. Cox and A. Harvey, 1907,\npp. 291-307.\n\n[403] _Eccles. Curiosities_, ed. W. Andrews, 1899, pp. 161-182.\n\n[404] J. C. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ II. p. 2.\n\n[405] J. E. Thorold Rogers, _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, 1899, p.\n66.\n\n[406] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 180.\n\n[407] Quoted by Addy, _op. cit._ p. 179 and note.\n\n[408] J. C. Cox, in _Curious Church Customs_, p. 1.\n\n[409] J. C. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ pp. 344-5. Cf. Barnabe Googe,\n_Popish Kingdome_, 1570, translated from the Latin of Naogeorgus, Bk\nIV. ll. 789-92.\n\n[410] _Fabric Rolls of York Minster_ (Surtees Soc. XXXV.\n1859), p. 271.\n\n[411] W. Harrison, _Elizabethan England_, ed. Lothrop Withington,\nN.D., p. 65. The first edition of Harrison\u2019s work was\npublished in 1577.\n\n[412] W. Harrison, _op. cit._ p. xxiii.\n\n[413] E. Lega-Weekes, in _Notes and Queries_, 1910, 11th Ser.,\nI. p. 346. Concerning Guilds, see E. L. Cutts, _Parish\nPriests and their People in the Middle Ages of England_, 1898, pp.\n473-85.\n\n[414] A. Jessopp, _Before the Great Pillage_, 1901, pp. 29-31.\nParsonage houses are described by E. L. Cutts, _op. cit._ pp. 149-163.\n\n[415] P. Stubbes, _Anatomie of Abuses in England_, 1583, ed. F. J.\nFurnivall, 1877-9, pp. 150-2. J. Brand, _Pop. Antiquities_, ed. Sir H.\nEllis, 1843, I. pp. 276-284.\n\n[416] F. A. Gasquet, _Par. Life in Mediaeval England_, pp. 233-7. J.\nC. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ I. pp. 354-5. J. Brand, _op.\ncit._ I. p. 282. _Athenaeum_, 17 Sept. 1910, p. 333.\n\n[417] J. C. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ I. pp. 351-7.\n_Curious Church Customs_, pp. 151-2. _Lore and Legend of the Eng.\nChurch_, pp. 71-74.\n\n[418] _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 73.\n\n[419] _Ibid._ pp. 117-8.\n\n[420] A. W. Pollard, _Eng. Miracle Plays, Moralities, and Interludes_,\n4th edition, 1904, pp. xiv, xvii. Mr Pollard reproduces many of the old\nplays, e.g. \u201cCastell of Perseverance,\u201d \u201cEveryman,\u201d etc. K. L. Bates,\n_The Eng. Religious Drama_, 1893, pp. 8-10. J. J. Jusserand, _Literary\nHist. of the Eng. People_, 1909, III. chap. i. J. C.\nCox, in _Curious Church Customs_, pp. 16-18.\n\n[421] J. C. Cox, in _Curious Church Customs_, p. 17.\n\n[422] E. Dale, _National Life and Char. in the Mirror of Eng.\nLiterature_, 1907, pp. 249-50.\n\n[423] E. K. Chambers, _The Mediaeval Stage_, 1903, II.\np. vi (of preface), and \u201cBook 3\u201d of this volume especially.\n\n[424] E. K. Chambers, _op. cit._ II. pp. 3 et seqq.\n\n[425] _Ibid._ II. p. 79.\n\n[426] _Before the Pillage_, pp. 49-50.\n\n[427] E. K. Chambers, _op. cit._ II. p. 79; K. L. Bates,\n_op. cit._ pp. 11-17.\n\n[428] _Ibid._ II. pp. 134-5. K. L. Bates, _op. cit._ pp.\n33-34.\n\n[429] _Ibid._ II. p. 134.\n\n[430] _Ibid._ II. p. 134.\n\n[431] S. O. Addy, _op. cit._ p. 181.\n\n[432] _Curious Church Customs_, p. 17.\n\n[433] J. C. Jeaffreson, _op. cit._ I. pp. 346-7. A. W.\nPollard, _op. cit._ p. lvii. See account of Bale\u2019s life in _Dict. Nat.\nBiog._\n\n[434] _Curious Church Customs_, pp. 10-12. The question of\nmorris-dancers is discussed at length by J. Brand, _Pop. Antiquities_,\nI. pp. 247-252, etc.\n\n[435] _New Oxford Dict._, under \u201cMorris.\u201d\n\n[436] J. M. Robertson, _Christianity and Paganism_, 1900, ch.\nxiv. (numerous authorities given). E. K. Chambers, _op. cit._\nI. pp. 161-2.\n\n[437] E. K. Chambers, _op. cit._ I. p. 163.\n\n[438] J. Aubrey, _Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme_ (1686-7), ed. J.\nBritten, 1881, p. 5; cf. p. 213. Cf. P. Stubbes, _Anatomie of Abuses_,\npp. 146-8.\n\n[439] _Curious Church Customs_, pp. 13-14. Cf. T. S. Knowlson, _Origins\nof Pop. Superstitions and Customs_, 1910, pp. 205-7.\n\n[440] C. J. Von Hefele, _Hist. of the Councils of the Church_, 1896,\nV. pp. 234-5.\n\n[441] E. Stone, _God\u2019s Acre: or Histor. Notices relating to\nChurchyards_, 1858, pp. 99-100.\n\n[442] D. Wilkins, _Leges Anglo-Saxonicae_, 1781, p. 24. Cf. E. L.\nCutts, _op. cit._ p. 69.\n\n[443] E. Stone, _op. cit._ pp. 98-9. For detailed instances of laxity\nin Essex, see J. C. Cox and J. H. Round, _Vict. Hist. of Essex_,\n1907, II. pp. 41 et seqq. Cf. P. Kalm, _Account of\nhis Visit to England_ (1748), trans. J. Lucas, 1892, p. 42. In\nA.D. 1603, the vicar of Lydden, Kent, built a stable in\nthe churchyard (_Home Counties Magazine_, 1911, XIII. p.\n15).\n\n[444] W. H. Beckett, _The Eng. Reformation of the Sixteenth Century_,\n1890, p. 34.\n\n[445] _Prideaux\u2019s Churchwarden\u2019s Guide_, ed. F. C. Mackarness, 1895, p.\n321.\n\n[446] _Antiquary_, 1899, XXXV. p. 361. Cf. _Notes and\nQueries_, 11th Ser., II. pp. 49-50. Cf. pp. 95-6.\n\n[447] _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, pp. 109-110. For a\nbibliography of this subject, see _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser.,\nXII. pp. 342-3. Hawks were also taken to church in the\ndays when hawking was popular.\n\n[448] _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, pp. 114, 115.\n\n[449] W. Jerrold, _Highways and Byways of Middlesex_, 1909, p. 213.\n\n[450] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 362.\n\n[451] _Fabric Rolls of York Minster_, p. 248. See also E. L. Cutts,\n_op. cit._ pp. 205, 316-7.\n\n[452] _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 116.\n\n[453] J. Nicholson, in _Curious Church Customs_, pp. 149-50.\n\n[454] _Statutes of the Realm_, 1810, I. p. 98.\n\n[455] G. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 274.\n\n[456] Sir J. N. Lockyer, _Stonehenge_, 2nd edition, 1909, pp. 447-8.\n\n[457] _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., VIII. p. 250.\n\n[458] _Ibid._ pp. 296-7. Sir G. L. Gomme, _Folklore as an Histor.\nScience_, 1908, p. 45\n\n[459] M. F. Davies, _Life in an Eng. Village_, 1909, p. 196.\n\n[460] _Folk-Lore_, 1909, XX. p. 81; _Notes and Queries_,\n2nd Ser., V. p. 247.\n\n[461] T. F. Thiselton Dyer, _Brit. Pop. Customs_, 1876, pp. 156-7.\n\n[462] _Folk-Memory_, p. 336.\n\n[463] Alice B. Gomme, _Dict. of Brit. Folk-Lore_, 1898,\nII. p. 528.\n\n[464] _Fabric Rolls of York Minster_, p. 255.\n\n[465] _Ibid._ p. 270.\n\n[466] B. H. Malkin, _Scenery, Antiquities, and Biography of S. Wales_,\n1820, pp. 69-70.\n\n[467] _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 69.\n\n[468] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 100, 125.\n\n[469] A. Parey, _Chirurgical Works_, 1649. The incident is cited in\n_Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VI. p. 325, but I have\nbeen unable to trace the original passage in T. Johnson\u2019s translation\nof the _Workes_, 1649. (W. J.)\n\n[470] _Folk-Lore_, XXI. 1910, pp. 60-78. Cf. Grimm,\n_Teut. Myth._, IV. p. 1344.\n\n[471] Acts xix. 35.\n\n[472] Sir W. M. Ramsay, in _Dict. of the Bible_, ed. J. Hastings, 1898,\nunder \u201cDiana of the Ephesians.\u201d\n\n[473] R. W. Rees, in _Eccles. Curiosities_, pp. 230-2.\n\n[474] _Ibid._ p. 234. A good summary of the early opinions regarding\nfossils is given by K. A. von Zittel, _History of Geology and\nPalaeontology_, trans. M. M. Ogilvie-Gordon, 1901, pp. 10 et seqq. See\nalso G. F. Richardson, _Introduction to Geology_, ed. T. Wright, 1851,\nch. ii.\n\n[475] E. A. Freeman, _Hist. of the Norman Conquest of England_, 3rd\nedition, 1877, I. p. 390. See also _Home Counties\nMagazine_, 1910, XII. p. 184.\n\n[476] E. Stokes and J. H. Round, in _Vict. Hist. of Essex_,\nII. p. 209, and note.\n\n[477] The stained shirt and other relics of Charles I. were formerly\nkept in the parish church of Ashburnham, Sussex, and were resorted to\nfor the cure of the \u201cking\u2019s evil\u201d so recently as A.D.\n1860.\n\n[478] _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., VI. p. 206.\n\n[479] W. Durandus, _Rationale Divinorum Officiorum_, ed. J. M. Neale\nand B. Webb, 1843, pp. 79-80.\n\n[480] G. Allen, _Evolution of the Idea of God_, R. P. A. reprint, 1903,\np. 149.\n\n[481] S. Baring-Gould, _A Book of Brittany_, 1901, pp. 198-9; F. M.\nGostling, _The Bretons at Home_, 1909, pp. 159-60.\n\n[482] F. Kauffmann, _Northern Mythology_, p. 10.\n\n[483] See _Century Dict._ and _New Oxford Dict._, s.v.\n\n[484] G. S. Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, 1899, p. 31.\n\n[485] Murray, _Handbook to Devon_, 11th edition, 1895, p. 22.\n\n[486] _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., VII. p. 503.\n\n[487] _Ibid._ VIII. p. 431. (Numerous examples given.)\n\n[488] _Ibid._ V. pp. 104-5.\n\n[489] C. A. Ward, in _Antiquary_, XIX. 1889, p. 237; M.\nE. C. Walcott, _Sacred Archaeology_, 1868, p. 238, art. \u201cEast\u201d; _Notes\nand Queries_, 5th Ser., III. p. 37.\n\n[490] _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., V. pp. 104-5; M. H.\nBloxam, _Gothic Eccles. Architecture_, 9th edition, 1849, p. 314.\n\n[491] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., II. p. 352.\n\n[492] _Ibid._ 4th Ser., X. pp. 413, 476.\n\n[493] _Ibid._\n\n[494] K. R. H. Mackenzie, _Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia_, 1877, art.\n\u201cOrientation,\u201d p. 537; \u201cGrand Orient,\u201d p. 291.\n\n[495] W. A. Laurie, _Hist. of Free Masonry and the Grand Lodge of\nScotland_, 1859, p. 414.\n\n[496] Wordsworth, \u201cOn seeing the Foundation preparing for the erection\nof Rydal Chapel, Westmoreland\u201d (1823), vv. 3, 4.\n\n[497] M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9 Migne, _Dictionnaire d\u2019 Arch\u00e9ologie Sacr\u00e9e_ (in series,\n\u201cNouvelle Encyclop\u00e9die Th\u00e9ologique\u201d), 1851, t. II. p.\n475.\n\n[498] C. A. Ward, in _Antiquary_, XIX. p. 233 n.\n\n[499] Migne, _loc. cit._\n\n[500] Gulielmus Durandus, _Rationale Divinorum Officiorum_, l.\nI., tr. J. M. Neale and B. Webb, 1843, p. 216.\n\n[501] D. Rock, _The Church of our Fathers_, ed. G. W. Hart and W. H.\nFrere, 1903, I. pp. 172-6.\n\n[502] J. Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, ed. Sir H. Ellis, 1841,\nII. p. 324.\n\n[503] _Apost. Constit._ II. 57, \u201cAc primo quidem aedes\nfit oblonga, ad Orientem versa, ex utraque parte Pastophoria versum\nOrientem habens, et quae navi sit similis\u201d; W. Smith and S. Cheetham,\n_Dict. of Christian Antiquities_, 1880, art. \u201cOrientation.\u201d The date of\nthe \u201cConstitutions\u201d is discussed by the Rev. de Lacy O\u2019Leary, in _The\nApostolical Constitutions and Cognate Documents_, 1906, p. 69.\n\n[504] Rock, _op. cit._ I. p. 173.\n\n[505] C. A. Ward, _Antiquary_, XIX. p. 237 (authority\ngiven).\n\n[506] Bloxam, _op. cit._ p. 314 n.; Migne, _op. cit._ p. 475; John,\nBishop of Bristol, _Eccles. Hist. of Second and Third Centuries_, 2nd\nedition, N.D., pp. 62, 202.\n\n[507] J. D. Mansi, continuation of _Sacrorum Conciliorum, nova ...\nCollectio_ (by P. Labbe and G. Cossart), 1902, t. XXXIV.\np. 198.\n\n[508] I. McBurney and S. Neil, _Cyclo. Univ. Hist._, 1855, p. 101,\ngive the date of the first Christian churches as A.D.\n224. Cf. Dr J. H. Blunt and Sir W. G. F. Phillimore, _Book of Church\nLaw_, 5th edition, 1888, pp. 309-10, and 309 n. (authorities given); A.\nLamson, _The Church of the First Three Centuries_, ed. H. Ierson, 1875,\np. 405 n.\n\n[509] M. E. C. Walcott, _Church and Conventual Arrangement_, 1861, pp.\n61-2.\n\n[510] J. Fergusson, _Illustrated Handbook of Architecture_, 2nd\nedition, 1859, p. 516 n.; cf. G. Baldwin Brown, _The Arts in Early\nEngland_, II. p. 22.\n\n[511] E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, 1891, II. pp.\n426-7.\n\n[512] Rock, _op. cit._ I. p. 173.\n\n[513] Mgr X. Barbier de Montault, _Trait\u00e9 pratique de la Construction\n... des \u00c9glises_, 1878, t. I. p. 18. Cf. E. H. J.\nReusens, _\u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne_, 2nd edition, 1885, t.\nI. p. 348, t. II. pp. 13-14.\n\n[514] F. T. Elworthy, _The Evil Eye_, 1895, p. 68.\n\n[515] J. Fergusson, _Hist. of Architecture_, ed. R. Phen\u00e9 Spiers,\n1893, I. pp. 514-5 n. A list is given showing the exact\norientation of each church.\n\n[516] Durandus, _op. cit._ p. 44; _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser.,\nVII. pp. 469-70.\n\n[517] Rock, _op. cit._ I. pp. 172-6.\n\n[518] R. Phen\u00e9 Spiers, in his edition of Fergusson\u2019s _Hist. of\nArchitecture_, 1893, I. p. 506 n.\n\n[519] Spiers, _loc. cit._ (authorities given). Concerning the origin of\nthe Christian basilica, see O. M. Dalton, _Guide to Early Christian and\nByzantine Antiq._ (Brit. Mus.), 1903, pp. 32-5.\n\n[520] Spiers, _loc. cit._; B. Fletcher and B. F. Fletcher, _Hist. of\nArchitecture_, 5th edition, 1905, pp. 136, 179-80.\n\n[521] R. Sturgis, _Dict. of Archit. and Building_, 1902,\nIII. p. 34 (Art. \u201cOrientation\u201d); Reusens, _op. cit._ t.\nI. p. 147.\n\n[522] Sir E. Beckett, _A Book on Building_, 2nd edition, 1880, p. 85.\n\n[523] Fergusson, _Illustrated Handbook of Architecture_, p. 516 n. The\nprobable Western \u201corientation\u201d of the crypts of the early minsters of\nRipon and Hexham has been thought to be due to Italian influence (F.\nBond, _Gothic Architecture in England_, 1905, p. 155 n.).\n\n[524] W. Smith, _Concise Dict. Bible_, 1900, Art. \u201cTemple.\u201d\n\n[525] For example, Psalm lxxxviii. 13; cxix. 147; Wisdom of Solomon,\nxvi. 28; Zech. xiv. 4. See also the remarks in _The Evil Eye_, pp.\n65-6. Walcott, _Sacred Archaeol._, art. \u201cOrientation,\u201d has much curious\nlore.\n\n[526] Ezek. viii. 16. The influence of the sun on architecture and\nmysticism is dealt with by W. R. Lethaby, _Architecture, Mysticism, and\nMyth_, 1892, pp. 174-200.\n\n[527] II. Kings xxiii. 5, 11. Cf. Smith, _Concise Dict. Bible_, art.\n\u201cSun.\u201d\n\n[528] Dan. vi. 10.\n\n[529] Jonah ii. 4.\n\n[530] I. Kings viii. 43-5.\n\n[531] _Antiquary_, XIX. pp. 235-6.\n\n[532] Job xxxi. 26-8.\n\n[533] _Prim. Culture_, II. p. 296.\n\n[534] Grimm, _Teut. Myth._ II. p. 704. Cf. Westermarck,\n_Origin and Devel. of the Moral Ideas_ II. pp. 120-2.\n\n[535] E. Barclay, _Stonehenge_, 1895, p. 97. With the instances given,\nwe may compare the symbols used by the Greek and Roman churches in\npronouncing the benediction: the Greek symbol, C, formed by curving the\nthumb and the third finger inwards; the Latin, the extension of the\nthumb and two fingers to represent the Trinity. Cf. _Evil Eye_, ch.\nVII.\n\n[536] Smith, _Concise Dict. Bible_, art. \u201cSun.\u201d Cf. _Evil Eye_, p. 65.\n\n[537] Mal. iv. 2; Luke i. 78; 2 Pet. i. 19; Rev. ii. 28.\n\n[538] See, _e.g._ Brand, _Pop. Antiq._ II. p. 318.\n\n[539] J. M. Neale, _Hist. of Holy Eastern Church_ (General\nIntroduction), 1850, I. p. 222.\n\n[540] A. J. Butler, _Anc. Coptic Churches of Egypt_, 1884,\nI. p. 10.\n\n[541] E. J. Simcox, _Prim. Civilisations_, 1897, II. p.\n438.\n\n[542] Consult Sir J. Norman Lockyer\u2019s _Dawn of Astronomy_ (1894),\nespecially chs. vii., viii., ix., xxx., xxxviii.; also _Stonehenge_,\npp. 1-5. The views expressed, however, have been much canvassed (e.g.\n_Edinburgh Review_, CLXXX. 1894, pp. 418-432); S.\nLaing, _Human Origins_, 1892, pp. 136-149; E. J. Simcox, _op. cit._\nII. pp. 438-440; W. M. Flinders Petrie, _Pyramids and\nTemples of Gizeh_, 1885, pp. 125-7 (for orientation of Pyramids). In\nEngland there is a tendency, in certain districts, for early churches\nto be ranged in a North-to-South line, and roughly at equal distances\n(F. J. Bennett, in _South-Eastern Naturalist_, 1904, pp. 29-36).\nAgain, the churchyard yews of the Surrey villages, Alfold, Dunsfold\nand Hambledon, stand \u201calmost in a mathematically straight line,\u201d the\nDunsfold tree being almost exactly midway (E. Parker, _Highways and\nByways of Surrey_, 1908, p. 165). In all these cases the positions,\nwhere not determined by geographical and geological considerations,\nare, I think, accidental.\n\n[543] Lockyer, _Dawn of Astron._, ch. xxxviii. For the orientation\nof Chaldaean ziggurats, or temple-observatories, see Laing,\n_Human Origins_, pp. 149-52. For Malabar, see Simcox, _op. cit._\nII. p. 440. The oriented buildings of Mashonaland are\nprobably co-eval with some of the Old Testament practices. See J. T.\nBent, _Ruined Cities of Mashonaland_, 1892, pp. 120-149, 358-361. But\nDr R. MacIver, in _Mediaeval Rhodesia_, 1906, argues for a Mediaeval\ndate.\n\n[544] _Handbook of Eng. Ecclesiology_ (Eccles. Soc.), 1847, pp. 39-41.\n\n[545] Quoted in _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., V. pp.\n500-1. Mr Airy\u2019s paper, _On Festival Orientation_, was read before the\nBeds. Archit. and Archaeol. Soc., 11th Nov. 1856. (I have not been able\nto examine a copy of the original paper; it is missing from the volume\nbelonging to the British Museum. W. J.)\n\n[546] _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, XX. 1890, p. 17.\n\n[547] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VII. p. 166.\n\n[548] Sir H. Chauncy, _Histor. Antiquities of Hertfordshire_, 1700, pp.\n43-4.\n\n[549] Walcott, _Sacred Archaeol._, p. 238.\n\n[550] P. Larousse, _Grand Dictionnaire Universel_, 1874, art.\n\u201cOrientation.\u201d\n\n[551] Barbier de Montault, _op. cit._ t. I. p. 19. (See\nchap. iv. generally.) Walcott, _Sacred Archaeol._, art. \u201cOrientation.\u201d\n\n[552] E. H. J. Reusens, _\u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne_, second\nedition, 1885, t. I. p. 146. Cf. Migne, _op. cit._ t.\nII. p. 475.\n\n[553] Neale, _op. cit._, Pt. I. p. 222.\n\n[554] Brand, _Pop. Antiq._, II. pp. 6-7; _Notes and\nQueries_, 8th Ser., IV. p. 133. The passage is based on\na manuscript by Aubrey, written in 1678, entitled _Customs and Manners\nof the English_. During the Commonwealth, Domville ransacked the\nCathedral libraries of Hereford and Worcester with great zeal, and was\nguilty of filching at least one document (_Dict. of Nat. Biog._, under\n\u201cDomville, Silas\u201d). Hence he may have got his information from early\nsources.\n\n[555] _Dawn of Astron._, p. 96.\n\n[556] _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., V. pp. 500-1.\n\n[557] W. Airy, _op. cit._\n\n[558] _Geograph. Journal_, XXVII. 1906, p. 409.\n\n[559] _Ency. Brit._, 10th edition, art. \u201cCompass.\u201d In the 11th edition,\nthe European case is put more strongly.\n\n[560] _Nature_, XIV. 1876, pp. 147-8. But the account\ngiven in the _Ency. Brit._, _loc. cit._, should be also read. It is\ncontended that Mediaeval writers were accustomed to speak of a new\ncontrivance as if it were already in common use.\n\n[561] F. H. Butler, in _Ency. Brit._, art. \u201cCompass.\u201d The name is spelt\n\u201cBorough\u201d in the _Dict. Nat. Biog._, where a life of the explorer is\ngiven.\n\n[562] _Ency. Brit._, _loc. cit._\n\n[563] _Nature_, XIII. 1876, pp. 523-4; _Ency. Brit._,\n_loc. cit._ Cf. Prof. Ganot, _Physics_, tr. E. Atkinson, 12th edition,\n1886, p. 631, where the figures are slightly different.\n\n[564] J. Griffith, in _Nature_, LXXIX. 1908, p. 37.\n\n[565] The references to these churches are very widely scattered,\nbut many examples have been personally tested. See, among other\nreferences, Walcott, _Church and Conventual Arrangement_, pp. 61-2;\n_Handbook of Eng. Ecclesiology_ (Eccles. Soc.), pp. 40-41; _Notes\nand Queries_, 2nd Ser., Vols. X., XI. _passim_,\n5th Ser., IV. p. 354, 7th Ser., I.\nand VII., 9th Ser., II.; _Bygone\nHertfordshire_, ed. W. Andrews, 1898, p. 154; Rev. A. W. Lawson, _Hist.\nof W. Malling Church_, 1904, p. 2, &c.\n\n[566] J. K. Huysmans, _La Cath\u00e9drale_, 13th edition, 1898, p. 158.\n\n[567] Walcott, _Church and Conventual Arrangement_, p. 62.\n\n[568] S. Baring-Gould, _A Book of Brittany_, 1901, p. 193.\n\n[569] J. M. Neale and B. Webb, in the \u201cIntroductory Essay\u201d to Durandus,\n_op. cit._ p. lxxxvii.\n\n[570] G. Watson, in _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., II.\np. 58.\n\n[571] _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., II. p. 150.\n\n[572] _Ibid._ 9th Ser., II. p. 393.\n\n[573] _Ibid._ 2nd Ser., X. p. 312.\n\n[574] _Ibid._ 9th Ser., II. p. 58.\n\n[575] _Ibid._ 9th Ser., II. p. 172.\n\n[576] _Ibid._ 7th Ser., VII. p. 333.\n\n[577] _Ibid._ 2nd Ser., XI. p. 34, 7th Ser.,\nVII. p. 470.\n\n[578] J. C. Atkinson, _Memorials of Old Whitby_, 1894, pp. 147-51.\n\n[579] The Rev. Canon G. Austen, Rector of Whitby, in a letter to the\nauthor, 5th April, 1909, states that two feast days seem to have been\ncommemorated in honour of St Hilda, one on 25th August, the supposed\ndate of the translation of the relics from Glastonbury, and the other\non 17th November. A fair was held by proclamation on the former date.\n\n[580] On the question of re-dedications see F. Arnold-Forster,\n_Studies in Church Dedications_, 1899, I. p. xi,\nII. pp. 396, 507, 509, 513.\n\n[581] J. C. Cox, _Rambles in Surrey_, 1910, pp. 167-8.\n\n[582] Neale and Webb, _op. cit._ p. lxxxvii.\n\n[583] _La Cath\u00e9drale_, pp. 108-9.\n\n[584] _Ibid._ p. 108.\n\n[585] _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., X. p. 357. Cf. J.\nC. Cox, _Rambles in Surrey_, 1910, pp. 167-68.\n\n[586] _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., XI. p. 34.\n\n[587] _Church and Conventual Arrangement_, p. 62.\n\n[588] _Illus. Handbook of Architecture_, II. p. 691.\nThe nave and chancel of Manorbier church, South Pembrokeshire, vary to\nthe extent of 16\u00b0 (_Reliquary_, XV. 1909, p. 197), but\nwhether the difference is due to re-building is not known.\n\n[589] F. Bond, _Screens and Galleries in Eng. Churches_, 1908, pp.\n87-94; J. T. Page, in _Curious Church Customs_, ed. W. Andrews, 1898,\npp. 168-170.\n\n[590] T. Ely, _Manual of Archaeology_, 1890, p. 17.\n\n[591] _Ibid._ p. 132.\n\n[592] _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., II. p. 256.\nBarfreston church has been thus described, \u201cQuite a gem as a specimen\nof highly-enriched Norman work\u201d (Sir S. R. Glynne, _Notes on the\nChurches of Kent_, 1877, p. 42).\n\n[593] Bond, _Gothic Arch. in England_, p. 632 and note.\n\n[594] Murray, _Handbook for Lincs._, 2nd edition, 1903, p. 23.\n\n[595] _Gothic Arch. in England_, p. 632.\n\n[596] _Church and Conventual Arrangement_, p. 136.\n\n[597] St Charles Borromeo, _Instructions on Eccles. Building_, ed. G.\nJ. Wigley, 1857, p. 22. Cf. Latin edition of M. L\u2019Abb\u00e9 Van Drival,\n1855, p. 35. St Charles\u2019s actual words are: \u201cTuncque id saltem curetur,\nut ne ad septentrionem, sed ad meridiem versus si fieri potest, plane\nspectet.\u201d\n\n[598] The circumstances connected with the building of this church\nare described by H. D. M. Spence (Dean of Gloucester) in _Early\nChristianity and Paganism_, 1902, pp. 485-8. The passage quoted occurs\nin the \u201cEpistulae\u201d of St Paulinus de Nola, Ep. XXXII.\n(_ad Severum_), \u00a7 13. One edition inserts \u201cid est, tumulum\u201d after\n\u201cmemoriam,\u201d and Gulielmus de Hartel\u2019s edition, 1894, gives \u201cperspectus\u201d\nas an alternative to \u201cprospectus.\u201d\n\n[599] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VII. p. 334.\n\n[600] Durandus, _Rationale Divinorum Officiorum_, L.\nvii. ch. 37.\n\n[601] _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 80.\n\n[602] _Zech._ xiv. 4.\n\n[603] Larousse, _Grand Dict. Universel_, Art. \u201cOrientation.\u201d\n\n[604] _Martin Months Minde_, orig. edition, 1589 (the tract is not\npaginated). Cf. E. Arber, _Introd. sketch to the Martin Marprelate\ncontroversy_, 1880. (Eng. Scholar\u2019s Lib., No. 8.) The nickname of the\nimaginary schismatic is obviously taken from the \u201cMonth\u2019s Mind\u201d--a\ncommemorative service which was held on a day one month from the date\nof the death of the person. The authorship and genesis of the tracts\nare discussed in W. Pierce\u2019s _Hist. Introduction to the Marprelate\ntracts_, 1908. For _Martin Months Minde_, see pp. 229, 328 of that work.\n\n[605] J. J. Hissey, _Over Fen and Wold_, 1898, p. 399.\n\n[606] _Pop. Antiquities_, II. p. 295.\n\n[607] _Ibid._ p. 295.\n\n[608] Mr P. M. Johnston gives these dates: nave, _c._\nA.D. 1175; chancel, _c._ A.D. 1200-20.\n\n[609] _Hamlet_, Act V. Sc. 1.\n\n[610] _Cymbeline_, Act IV. Sc. 2.\n\n[611] E. Howlett, in _Curious Church Customs_, ed. W. Andrews, 1898, p.\n136.\n\n[612] W. A. Craigie, _Scandinavian Folk-Lore_, 1896, p. 301.\n\n[613] E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, II. pp. 422-3.\n\n[614] Sir T. Browne, _Hydriotaphia_, c. iii.; \u201cWorks,\u201d ed. S. Wilkin,\n1884, III. p. 30.\n\n[615] _Pop. Antiquities_, II. p. 318.\n\n[616] _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._ XLI. p. 53; cf. J.\nRomilly Allen, _Monumental Hist. of the Early Brit. Church_, 1889, p.\n65 (concerning early Christian graves). R. A. Smith, in _Vict. Hist.\nHerts._, I. 1902, p. 258. Cf. the same writer in _Surrey\nArchaeol. Coll._, XXI. pp. 26-32.\n\n[617] T. Wright, _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon_, 2nd edition,\n1861, p. 318. Cf. R. A. Smith, in _Vict. Hist. of London_,\nI. 1909, pp. 12 et seqq.\n\n[618] R. A. Smith, _Guide to Early Iron Age_, 1905, p. 60.\n\n[619] _Ibid._ p. 64.\n\n[620] _Ibid._ p. 112.\n\n[621] _Ibid._ p. 112. On the contrary, \u201cLake-Dwelling cemeteries,\u201d\nin Switzerland, examined by Professor F. Forel, 1905-9, and ascribed\nto the Bronze Age, showed no orientation of the skeletons. (_Man_,\nIX. 1909, No. 92.)\n\n[622] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, 1905, pp.\nxxxvii-xxxviii.\n\n[623] W. Greenwell, _British Barrows_, 1877, p. 26; R. A. Smith, _Vict.\nHist. Herts._, I. 1902, p. 258.\n\n[624] See, for example, _Naturalist_, 1909, p. 274.\n\n[625] T. Rice Holmes, _Anc. Brit. and the Invas. of Julius Caesar_,\n1907, p. 188. Dr Holmes has thoroughly sifted the evidence, and his\ngeneralizations deserve to be carefully read. See also C. H. Read,\n_Guide to the Bronze Age_, Brit. Mus. 1904, p. 55. On p. 46, Dr\nRead describes urn-burials, without existing mounds, near Ashford,\nMiddlesex. The urns were arranged in straight lines, East to West, or\nin crescents facing East. For Saxon graves, see _Excav. in Cranborne\nChase_, II. pp. 260-1. In the Jutish cemetery at\nDroxford, Hants, the skeletons lay towards all points of the compass.\n(J. Vaughan, _Lighter Studies of a Country Rector_, 1909, p. 138.)\n\n[626] J. G. Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, 1910, III.\npp. 274-5; _Prim. Culture_, II. pp. 422-3.\n\n[627] A. W. Howitt, _The Native Tribes of Australia_, 1904, pp. 453-5.\n\n[628] _Guide to Bronze Age_, p. 16; T. Rice Holmes, _op. cit._ p. 103.\n\n[629] Sir J. Norman Lockyer, _Stonehenge, and other British Monuments_,\n1906, pp. 320 et seqq. This inquiry was to some extent anticipated by\nProf. W. M. Flinders Petrie, _Stonehenge_, 1880, pp. 18-20 (discussion\non the alinement of that monument to the Midsummer sunrise). The\nquestion of earthwork orientation is also referred to by A. H.\nAllcroft, _Earthwork of England_, 1908, pp. 337, 564, 589, &c.\n\n[630] See Sir J. N. Lockyer\u2019s contributions to _Nature_,\nLXXIX., LXXX. passim.\n\n[631] Sir J. N. Lockyer\u2019s theories have been adversely criticized by\nT. Rice Holmes, _Ancient Britain_, pp. 472-82; by C. W. Dymond, in\n_Antiquary_, N.S., IV. pp. 447-9; _Edinburgh Review_,\nCLXXX. 1894, pp. 418-432; A. R. Hinks in _Nineteenth\nCentury_, LIII. 1903, pp. 1002-9. Among papers upholding\nthe theory, see J. Griffith, in _Nature_, LXXIX.\npp. 36-7; LXXX. pp. 69-72; J. Gray, in _Nature_,\nLXXIX. pp. 236-8. Mr Gray thinks that our stone\ncircles were raised by a race which came from Asia during the Bronze\nAge--probably that of Akkadian type. See also A. L. Lewis, in _Jour.\nRoyal Anthrop. Inst._, XXIX. 1909, pp. 517-29, dealing\nwith Irish Cromlechs; E. Plunket, in _Nineteenth Century_, 1911, pp.\n1036-53.\n\n[632] Sir J. N. Lockyer, article in _Times_, 30th July, 1906.\n\n[633] C. W. Dymond, in _Antiquary_, N.S., IV. pp. 447-9.\n\n[634] T. Rice Holmes, _op. cit._ p. 473.\n\n[635] J. Griffith, in _Nature_, LXXX. p. 71.\n\n[636] G. Allen, _Evol. of Idea of God_, p. 41; cf. T. Wright, _The\nCelt, the Roman, and the Saxon_, 2nd ed., 1861, p. 406. A similar view\nis taken by G. Baldwin Brown, in _The Arts in Early England_, 1903,\nI. pp. 266-7. See also T. Hearne, _Coll. of Curious\nDiscourses_, 1775, I. p. 225.\n\n[637] T. Rice Holmes, _op. cit._ pp. 178-9.\n\n[638] _Guide to Early Iron Age_, p. 103.\n\n[639] Sir A. J. Evans in _Archaeologia_, LII. pp.\n315-88; _Guide to Early Iron Age_, pp. 114-16.\n\n[640] J. de Baye, _Indus. Arts of Anglo-Saxons_, p. 123.\n\n[641] B. C. A. Windle, _Life in Early Britain_, 1897, pp. 112-13.\n\n[642] _Guide to Early Iron Age_, pp. 111-12; J. R. Mortimer, in _Trans.\nE. Riding Antiq. Soc._, III. 1895, pp. 53-62.\n\n[643] T. Rice Holmes, _op. cit._ p. 178.\n\n[644] J. Douglas, _Nenia Britannica_, 1793, p. 126.\n\n[645] Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 78; G. Baldwin\nBrown, _The Arts in Early England_, I. pp. 257-8.\n\n[646] Douglas, _op. cit._ p. 126; Tyack, _op. cit._ p. 78; _The Arts in\nEarly England_, 1903, I. pp. 266-7.\n\n[647] J. J. A. Worsaae, _Pre-History of the North_, tr. H. F. M.\nSimpson, 1886, p. 192.\n\n[648] J. de Baye, _op. cit._ p. 119 n.; _The Arts in Early England_,\nI. p. 263 n.; J. C. Keysler, _Antiq. Selectae_, 1720,\npp. 108-9.\n\n[649] Keysler, _loc. cit._\n\n[650] O. Olufsen, _Through the unknown Pamirs_, 1904, p. 151.\n\n[651] Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, 1905, pp. xix, xx, lxxviii,\n&c.\n\n[652] G. Allen, _op. cit._ p. 31.\n\n[653] E. Howlett, in _Curious Church Customs_, ed. W. Andrews, 1898,\np. 134. See also list of references given in _Notes and Queries_, 7th\nSer., VIII. pp. 158, 491.\n\n[654] E. Howlett, _op. cit._ pp. 133-4. Authority cited. For general\nexamples, consult _Notes and Queries_, references _supra_.\n\n[655] E. Howlett, _loc. cit._\n\n[656] O. Manning and W. Bray, _Hist. and Antiquities of Surrey_, 1809,\nII. p. 146. This example is valuable as illustrating the\ngrowth of myth. A legend of the district, dating perhaps nearly as far\nback as the time of Manning and Bray, states that Mr Hull was \u201cburied\non horseback, upside down,\u201d because he believed that, at the last\nday, the world would be \u201cturned topsy-turvy.\u201d (See Murray, _Handbook\nfor Surrey_, 5th edition, 1898, p. 114; Black, _Guide to Surrey_, 5th\nedition, 1898, p. 126.)\n\n[657] J. Earle, _Microcosmographie_, 1628, p. 31.\n\n[658] W. Johnson, _Folk-Memory_, 1908, pp. 134-5; S. Baring-Gould, _A\nBook of Dartmoor_, 1900, pp. 64-6. The \u201cstatue-menhirs\u201d are described\nin _La Revue pr\u00e9historique_, 5e Ann\u00e9e, 1910, pp. 129-37.\n\n[659] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times_,\n1905, p. 186.\n\n[660] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 132, 134, 136; S. Baring-Gould, _loc. cit._\n\n[661] E. Clodd, _Story of Primitive Man_, 1898, p. 136; _Evol. of Idea\nof God_, p. 41.\n\n[662] _Evol. of Idea of God_, pp. 50-1.\n\n[663] _Ibid._ p. 55. (See ch. VII. generally.)\n\n[664] _Ibid._ p. 55. For information on Tree-worship and Tree-spirits\ngenerally see J. G. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, 1890, pp. 56-108.\n\n[665] _New Oxford Dict._ and _Cent. Dict._ under \u201cBury,\u201d \u201cBarrow,\u201d\n\u201cBergh.\u201d\n\n[666] Sir R. Phillimore, _Eccles. Law of the Church of England_, 1873,\nI. p. 857; E. Howlett, in _Curious Church Customs_,\npp. 134-5; _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 84; M. H. Bloxam,\n_Monumental Architecture_, 1834, p. 54.\n\n[667] J. Romilly Allen, _op. cit._ p. 182. A description of stone\ncoffin lids is given by G. Clinch, in _Old Eng. Churches_, 1903, pp.\n180-3. Very small coffin lids of stone, probably memorials of children,\nand assigned to the late 13th or early 14th century, have been recorded\nfrom Deddington, Oxford, and from Houghton-le-Spring, Durham. (_Gent.\nMag._, N.S., XVIII. 1865, pp. 327, 488-9.)\n\n[668] G. Maynard, in _Memorials of Old Essex_, ed. A. Clifton Kelway,\n1908, p. 37. For Roman coffins of clay and lead, see _The Celt, the\nRoman, and the Saxon_, 2nd edition, 1861, pp. 313-5. The 4th edition,\n1885, pp. 370-5, contains a fuller account of wooden coffins.\n\n[669] _Guide to Bronze Age_, p. 54.\n\n[670] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Impts of Gt Britain_, 2nd edition,\n1897, p. 185; W. Greenwell, _British Barrows_, 1877, p. 376 n., gives a\nsummary of discoveries of this kind.\n\n[671] Sir J. Evans, _op. cit._ p. 398; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019\nResearches_, p. xxvii and note.\n\n[672] Sir J. Evans, _op. cit._ p. 398.\n\n[673] L. Jewitt, _Grave Mounds and their Contents_, 1870, pp. 143-7.\nCf. Gen. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, II. pp. 3,\n32, 40; III. pp. 15, 17, 321, etc.\n\n[674] Sir A. Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, 1889, pp. 242-3.\n\n[675] _Folk-Memory_, p. 134.\n\n[676] J. Romilly Allen, _Monumental Hist. of the Early Brit. Church_,\n1889, p. 65.\n\n[677] _Archaeologia_, XXXVII. p. 456-7.\n\n[678] _De Macrobii Saturnaliorum fontibus_, L. vii. ch.\n7.\n\n[679] _Folk-Lore_, XII. 1901, pp. 361-2; 468-9.\n\n[680] Sir A. J. Evans, in _Archaeologia_, LII. pp. 386-7.\n\n[681] _Ibid._ p. 386. The exploration of \u201cKing Bjorn\u2019s Tumulus,\u201d near\nUpsala, afforded still another phase of transition. The mound, which\nbelonged to the 4th period of the Northern Bronze Age, contained\nan oak stem, hollowed to serve as a coffin, but intended, as the\nrelics proved, to hold the cremated remains of the deceased person.\n(_Reliquary_, XV. 1909, p. 148.) Cf. _Vict. Hist. of\nKent_, I. pp. 434-5.\n\n[682] _Mon. Hist. of the Early Brit. Church_, p. 65. Cf. D. Rock,\n_Church of our Fathers_, 1903, II. pp. 252-3.\n\n[683] _Curious Church Customs_, p. 132; _Mon. Architecture_, p. 76.\n\n[684] _Guide to Bronze Age_, p. 43.\n\n[685] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 3rd edition, 1891, I. pp. 424, 425.\n\n[686] Tylor, _op. cit._ I. p. 424. Cf. Lord Avebury, _Marriage,\nTotemism, and Religion_, 1911, passim.\n\n[687] _Ibid._ p. 487.\n\n[688] Cf. Tylor, _op. cit._ I. p. 485 with _Evol. of\nIdea of God_, pp. 30-31. See also J. J. A. Worsaae, _Pre-history of the\nNorth_, H. F. M. Simpson, 1886, p. 37.\n\n[689] _Evol. of Idea of God_, p. 156.\n\n[690] _Ibid._ p. 6. On the general question, reference should be made\nto Chapter iv. of the same work, and to H. Spencer, _Principles of\nSociology_, III. ch. i. et passim. Cf. J. G. Frazer,\n_The Golden Bough_, 1890, 2 vols., passim; _Totemism and Exogamy_,\nI. p. 204; II. pp. 148 n., 327;\nIV. p. 32 etc.; Lord Avebury, _Origin of Civilisation_,\n6th edition, 1902, chaps. vi., vii., viii.; E. Westermarck, _Origin\nand Development of the Moral Ideas_, 1908, II. ch.\nxlvii.; A. Lang, _Origins of Religion_, R.P.A. edition, 1908, ch. xii.;\nG. Tyrrell, _The Faith of the Millions_, 1901, pp. 215-76; L. Hopf,\n_The Human Species_, authorized English edition, 1909, pp. 308-313;\nE. Metchnikoff, _Nature of Man_, tr. P. Chalmers Mitchell, 1906, ch.\nvii. See also _Athenaeum_, 5 June 1909, pp. 665-6. For a criticism from\nthe mythological standpoint, see J. M. Robertson, _Christianity and\nMythology_, 1900, pp. 40-51, 71-8; A. E. Crawley, _Origin and Function\nof Religion_ (_Sociological Papers_: Sociol. Soc.), 1907, pp. 243-277.\nThe report of a valuable discussion is appended. S. Reinach, _Orpheus,\nHistoire G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Religions_, 1909, ch. i.; W. Crooke, in _Nature_,\nLXXXIV. pp. 414-5.\n\n[691] Tylor, _op. cit._ I. pp. 483-4.\n\n[692] _Ibid._ p. 501.\n\n[693] W. Greenwell, _British Barrows_, p. 51.\n\n[694] _Anc. Stone Impts._, p. 144.\n\n[695] _Ibid._\n\n[696] _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._ XL. 1884, p. 63.\n\n[697] _Anc. Stone Impts_, pp. 282-3, 397.\n\n[698] _Ibid._ pp. 144-5.\n\n[699] J. Macpherson, _Ossian_, 1773, I. p. 290.\n\n[700] Metchnikoff, _op. cit._ p. 130.\n\n[701] _Hamlet_, Act IV. Sc. 5.\n\n[702] 2 _K. Henry VI._, Act IV. Sc. 10.\n\n[703] J. C. Cox, in _Curious Church Customs_, pp. 174-181.\n\n[704] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., XII. p. 474; see\nalso same volume, pp. 29, 112, 193, 517.\n\n[705] E. A. Kilner, _Four Welsh Counties_, 1891, p. 129.\n\n[706] _Anc. Stone Impts_, pp. 282-3, 397. For records of flint and\npyrites, see e.g. _Anc. Stone Impts_, pp. 16, 313-4; _Vict. Hist. of\nBedfordshire_, 1904, I. p. 169.\n\n[707] Gen. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_,\nII. 1888, pp. 34, 42, 252, 258.\n\n[708] Pitt-Rivers, _op. cit._ p. 4.\n\n[709] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, L. xxxvi. cc. 17, 28.\n\n[710] _Hamlet_, Act V. Sc. 1.\n\n[711] S. Baring-Gould, _The Deserts of Southern France_, 1894,\nI. p. 207. See also a valuable essay in J. G. Frazer\u2019s\n_Psyche\u2019s Task, ... the Growth of Superstition_, 1909, pp. 52-81.\n\n[712] S. Baring-Gould, _op. cit._ p. 207. Cf. methods described by Leo\nFrobenius, _Childhood of Man_, ed. A. H. Keane, 1909, pp. 158-63; E. B.\nTylor, _Anthropology_, 2nd edition 1889, p. 237. Cf. E. S. Hartland, at\nBrit. Assoc. Meeting, 1910 (_Nature_, LXXXV. p. 24).\n\n[713] Herodotus, l. IV. (Melpomene), c. 73. Cf.\nTranslation in Isaac Taylor\u2019s edition, 1829, p. 297.\n\n[714] Canon G. Rawlinson, _Hist. of Herodotus_, 4th edition, 1880,\nIII. pp. 63-4. Rawlinson argues (III. pp.\n198-200) that the Scythians were not Slavs, Celts, or Teutons, but a\ndistinct race, and (III. pp. 201-8) that Scythia did not\nextend so far West as to touch the present Germany.\n\n[715] J. Douglas, _Nenia Britannica_, 1793, p. 10. Cf. Pitt-Rivers,\n_Excav. in Cranborne Chase_, II. pp. 29, 33;\nIV. pp. 148-157, 164-5.\n\n[716] W. M. Wylie, _Fairford Graves_, 1852, pp. 24-5. Pitt-Rivers\nrecords the finding of worn pebbles in a barrow: _Excav. in Cranborne\nChase_, II. p. 33.\n\n[717] J. Y. Akerman, _Remains of Saxon Pagandom_, 1853, pp. xvi,\nxvii; Baron J. de Baye, _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, tr. J. B.\nHarbottle, 1893, pp. 119-20, makes the same statement.\n\n[718] R. A. Bullen, _Harlyn Bay_, 1902, p. 24.\n\n[719] J. C. Atkinson, _Forty Years in a Moorland Parish_, 2nd edition,\n1891, pp. 213-5, 220.\n\n[720] Atkinson, _op. cit._ p. 432.\n\n[721] _Guide to Bronze Age_, pp. 60-61.\n\n[722] Atkinson, _op. cit._ p. 220. Cf. Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019\nResearches_, p. xl; Pitt-Rivers, _Excav. in Cranborne Chase_,\nII. pp. 33-36, 45.\n\n[723] Greenwell, _British Barrows_, p. 29.\n\n[724] _Archaeologia_, XXXV. pp. 301-3.\n\n[725] Durandus, _Rationale Divinorum Officiorum_, l.\nVII. c. 37. In the same way Durandus states that ivy\nand laurel were used because they were typical of eternal life. These\nplausible explanations have received acute comment in _Archaeologia_,\nXXXV. pp. 301-3.\n\n[726] _Forty Years in a Moorland Parish_, p. 157.\n\n[727] _Prim. Culture_, I. p. 483 n. (Long list of\nauthorities given.)\n\n[728] Quoted by R. A. Bullen, _Harlyn Bay_, p. 23 n.\n\n[729] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 190-3.\n\n[730] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, l. XXXVI. c. 27. The practice\nwas common in the Late-Celtic period. (See _Archaeologia_, 1909,\nLXI. pp. 329-346.)\n\n[731] P. Holland, edition of Pliny\u2019s _Nat. Hist._, 1601,\nII. p. 587.\n\n[732] \u00c9. Littr\u00e9, translation of Pliny\u2019s _Nat. Hist._, 1850, t.\nII. p. 521.\n\n[733] _Anc. Stone Impts_, p. 422.\n\n[734] Prof. G. Stephens, cited by Atkinson, _Forty Years in a Moorland\nParish_, pp. 213-5.\n\n[735] S. Baring-Gould, _Curious Myths of the Middle Ages_, new edition,\n1888, pp. 560-1.\n\n[736] _Folk-Lore_, X. p. 253. The Lincolnshire example\nis given in Vol. IX. p. 187. The burial of pins is\nrecorded in _Antiquities and Curiosities of the Church_, ed. W.\nAndrews, 1897, p. 248.\n\n[737] E. Howlett, in _Curious Church Customs_, pp. 42-3.\n\n[738] B. Thorpe, _Northern Mythology_, 1851, I. p. 291.\n\n[739] _Prim. Culture_, I. p. 494. J. J. M. De Groot,\n_Religious Systems of China_, 1892, pp. 278-9.\n\n[740] _Forty Years in a Moorland Parish_, pp. 213-5.\n\n[741] J. Romilly Allen, _Mon. Hist. of Early Brit. Church_, 1889, p. 34.\n\n[742] Sir M. G. Duff, _Notes from a Diary_, 1904, I. p.\n253. Cf. P. G. Hamerton, _Round my House_, 1876, p. 254.\n\n[743] T. Hardy, _The Mayor of Casterbridge_, 1895, pp. 143-4. Cf.\nH. M. Neville, _A Corner in the North_, 1909, p. 102; _Folk-Lore_,\nXX. pp. 209-10.\n\n[744] _Folk-Lore_, IV. 1893, p. 14; R. Munro,\n_Prehistoric Scotland_, 1899, p. 284.\n\n[745] _Harlyn Bay_, p. 36.\n\n[746] Sir J. Rh\u0177s, _Celtic Folklore, Welsh and Manx_, 1891,\nI. pp. 344-5 (authority given).\n\n[747] W. G. Wood-Martin, _Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland_, 1902,\nI. p. 329; _Pagan Ireland_, pp. 110-14.\n\n[748] _Folk-Lore_, IV. 1893, pp. 13-14.\n\n[749] Rev. ii. 17.\n\n[750] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, l. VII. c. 40.\n\n[751] _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, pp. 79-83; C. Roach Smith,\nIntroduction to Bryan Fausett\u2019s _Inventorium Sepulchrale_, 1856, p.\nxxvii.\n\n[752] Quoted by C. I. Elton, _Origins of Eng. Hist._, 2nd edition,\n1890, p. 63.\n\n[753] Elton, _loc. cit._ Cf. C. Roach Smith, Introd. to _Invent.\nSepul._ pp. xxvi-xxvii.\n\n[754] _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, pp. 78-9. Cf. Pliny, _Nat.\nHist._, l. XXXVII. c. 3.\n\n[755] W. Henderson, _Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties_, 1879, p. 145.\n\n[756] _Origins of Eng. Hist._ pp. 144-5. Cf. J. J. A. Worsaae, _Indus.\nArts of Denmark_, 1882, pp. 199-200; Elworthy, _Evil Eye_, p. 203. The\ngeneral use of stones, teeth, etc. as Anglo-Saxon charms is discussed\nin the _Jour. Amer. Folk-Lore_, XXII. 1909, pp. 134,\n135-6.\n\n[757] E. Lovett, Lecture at Horniman Museum, London, 27 March, 1909.\n\n[758] Gen. A. L. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, 1887\netc. II. pp. 68, 78, 79-86, 93, 94, 98, 102, 103, 106\netc. Cf. _Folk-Memory_, pp. 147-9, and illustration facing p. 296;\n_Athenaeum_, 15 July, 1911, p. 80.\n\n[759] Worthington G. Smith, _Man the Primeval Savage_, 1894, pp.\n334-9; also his article in _Vict. Hist. of Bedfordshire_, 1904,\nI. p. 169.\n\n[760] _Anc. Stone Impts_, p. 227.\n\n[761] _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 273-4.\n\n[762] _Anc. Stone Impts._, p. 469.\n\n[763] _Nenia Britannica_, p. 158.\n\n[764] _Anc. Stone Impts._, p. 467.\n\n[765] J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, 1905, pp. 157-8.\n\n[766] _Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 398. In this connection, see H. A.\nBurrows, in _Proc. Geol. Assoc._, IV. 1876, pp. 165-166.\n\n[767] _Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 273.\n\n[768] _Anc. Stone Impts._, p. 470.\n\n[769] _Essex Naturalist_, XIV. 1905, p. 24.\n\n[770] _Origins of Eng. Hist_., pp. 144-5.\n\n[771] _Guide to Bronze Age_, p. 62.\n\n[772] _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Field Club_,\nXVII. 1896, p. 75.\n\n[773] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VIII. p. 112.\n\n[774] _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon_, p. 425.\n\n[775] _Origins of Eng. Hist._, pp. 144-5.\n\n[776] _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, VI., 1877, p. 323.\n\n[777] G. von D\u00fcben, _Om Lappland och Lapparne_, 1873, p. 251. Much\ncurious lore on kindred topics will be found in Jean Scheffer\u2019s\n_Lapponia_, 1673 (there is a useful English edition, published by Thos.\nNewborough, 1704).\n\n[778] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VIII. p. 112.\n\n[779] _Ibid._ VII. p. 507.\n\n[780] Possibly collected by masons for making mortar, during\nalterations (W. J.).\n\n[781] _Curious Church Customs_, p. 141. Cf. _Guide to Bronze Age_, pp.\n109, 126, for Siberian and Indian examples.\n\n[782] M. D. Conway, _Autobiography and Experiences_, 1904,\nII. p. 77. The incident is not mentioned in Evelyn\nAshley\u2019s _Life of Lord Palmerston_, 1879, nor in the Marquis of Lorne\u2019s\n_Viscount Palmerston_, 1892. Cf. Cornish Customs, as described in\n_Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, 1906, I. p. 367.\n\n[783] _Guide to Bronze Age_, p. 139.\n\n[784] _Guide to Early Iron Age_, pp. 127, 129, 140.\n\n[785] _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, p. 88; _The Celt, the Roman,\nand the Saxon_, p. 425.\n\n[786] Sir T. Browne, _Hydriotaphia_. See \u201cWorks,\u201d ed. S. Wilkin, 1884,\nIII. p. 13.\n\n[787] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., II. p. 230.\n\n[788] _Ibid._ p. 269.\n\n[789] D. Rock, _Church of Our Fathers_, 1903, II. p. 101.\n\n[790] J. R. Allen, _Mon. History of the Early Brit. Church_, pp. 34, 65.\n\n[791] J. R. Allen, _op. cit._ pp. 34, 243; _Surrey Archaeol. Coll._\nIII. p. 394; XI. p. 12. There is a good\ncollection of such objects in the Cathedral library at Chichester.\n\n[792] _Prim. Culture_, I. pp. 494-5.\n\n[793] _Nature_, LVII., 1898, pp. 257-8.\n\n[794] _Prim. Culture_, I. pp. 492-4.\n\n[795] See e.g. _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon_, p. 425.\n\n[796] _Ibid._ pp. 327-8.\n\n[797] _Guide to Bronze Age_, pp. 60-3.\n\n[798] _Hydriotaphia_, ch. v. (Browne\u2019s \u201cWorks,\u201d ed. S. Wilkin,\nIII. p. 40).\n\n[799] _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., I. p. 388; 4th\nSer., VIII. p. 169. Cf. Gen. iii. 19, xviii. 27; Job\nxxxiv. 15; Eccles. iii. 20, xii. 7 etc.\n\n[800] Horace, _Carm._ l. I. xxviii. 35 (_licebit injecto\nter pulvere curras_). Cf. Evan Daniel, _The Prayer Book_, 12th edition,\nn.d. p. 411.\n\n[801] _British Barrows_, p. 5.\n\n[802] _Notes and Queries_, 4th Ser., VIII. p. 107.\n\n[803] E. Daniel, _op. cit._ p. 410; J. H. Blunt, _Annotated\nBook of Common Prayer_, 1903 (new impression, 1899), p. 481 n.\nSee also authorities given in _Notes and Queries_, 4th Ser.,\nVIII. pp. 107, 169.\n\n[804] _Church of Our Fathers_, II. pp. 397-8; _Notes and\nQueries_, 4th Ser., VIII..p. 169.\n\n[805] _Catholic Encyclopedia_, ed. C. G. Herbermann and others, 1908,\nIII. p. 75.\n\n[806] W. E. Addis and T. Arnold, _Catholic Dict._, 1893, p. 393; J. H.\nBlunt, _loc. cit._\n\n[807] _Notes and Queries_, 4th Ser., VIII. p. 107.\n\n[808] _Ibid._\n\n[809] J. H. Blunt, _loc. cit._ Cf. _Church of Our Fathers_,\nII. p. 388.\n\n[810] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VI. pp. 267, 356.\n\n[811] I Cor. xv. 36-8; St John xii. 24.\n\n[812] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VI. p. 356.\n\n[813] _Excav. in Cranborne Chase_, II., 1887, p. 196.\n\n[814] _Ibid._\n\n[815] O. Olufsen, _Through the Unknown Pamirs_, 1904, p. 151.\n\n[816] E. Metchnikoff, _Nature of Man_, tr. P. Chalmers Mitchell, 1906,\npp. 140-1.\n\n[817] Brand, _Pop. Antiquities_, II. pp. 237-45.\n\n[818] _Ibid._, II. p. 240. Pagan feasts at interments\nwere forbidden to Christians in Saxon times (_Indus. Arts of the\nAnglo-Saxons_, p. 120 n.).\n\n[819] _Forty Years in a Moorland Parish_, pp. 226-7.\n\n[820] _Ibid._ pp. 226-7. Cf. J. W. Clark and T. McKenny Hughes, _Life\nand Letters of Adam Sedgwick_, 1890, I. p. 27.\n\n[821] Grant Allen, _Falling in Love: Essays_, new edition, 1891, p.\n296-7. Cf. Imaginative description given by R. S. Lineham, _The Street\nof Human Habitations_, 1894, pp. 43-8.\n\n[822] _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, pp. 120-1. Cf. _The Celt, the\nRoman, and the Saxon_, p. 408.\n\n[823] _Harlyn Bay_, p. 35.\n\n[824] _Evol. of the Idea of God_, pp. 26, 31, 32, 33.\n\n[825] B. Spencer and F. J. Gillen, _The Northern Tribes of Central\nAustralia_, 1904, pp. 588, et seqq., p. 593, and ch. xxi. generally.\n\n[826] _Harlyn Bay_, p. 35. Cf. _Antiquities and Curiosities of the\nChurch_, ed. W. Andrews, 1897, p. 249.\n\n[827] _Lore and Legend of the English Church_, p. 63. The sanctity\nattached to objects connected with the church and churchyard is\ndiscussed in Gomme\u2019s _Folk-Lore as an Histor. Science_, pp. 197-9.\n\n[828] _Evil Eye_, p. 437.\n\n[829] _Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties_, p. 145. Cf. _The Golden\nBough_, I. pp. 193-207. The Incas preserve such relics\nand place them in the tomb. (_Folk-Lore_, VI. p. 301.)\n\n[830] _Folk-Lore_, V. p. 343; VI. p. 301.\n\n[831] _Rationale Divinorum Officiorum_, l. VII. c. 37.\n\n[832] _Prim. Culture_, I. p. 495; _Nature of Man_, pp.\n140-1.\n\n[833] See e.g. _Folk-Lore_, XII. 1901, p. 211.\n\n[834] Isaac Taylor, in _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser. IV.\np. 335.\n\n[835] Taylor, _loc. cit._ Cf. O. Schrader, _Prehist. Antiquities_,\ntrans. F. B. Jevons, 1890, p. 254. Certain passages in the Bible, e.g.\nGen. xiii. 9, may be studied in this connection.\n\n[836] Sir J. Rh\u0177s, _Celtic Philology_, 2nd edition, 1879, p. 10;\n_Folk-Lore_, XII. p. 211; I. Taylor, _loc. cit._\n\n[837] Rh\u0177s, _loc. cit._\n\n[838] _Folk-Lore_, XII. p. 210.\n\n[839] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser. V. p. 332.\n\n[840] Schrader, _op. cit._ p. 256. O. Seyffert, _Dict. Class.\nAntiquities_, ed. H. Nettleship and J. E. Sandys, 1899, p. 86. Cf.\nLiddell and Scott, _Greek Lexicon_, under \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[841] _Folk-Lore_, XII. p. 211.\n\n[842] _Ibid._ pp. 210-11.\n\n[843] C. F. Gordon-Cumming, _In the Hebrides_, 1883, p. 247.\n\n[844] R. S. Hawker, in _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser. V.\npp. 253-4. Cf. W. R. Lethaby, _Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth_,\n1892, ch. viii. pp. 174-200.\n\n[845] _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser. IV. pp. 261-2.\n\n[846] W. Andrews, ed. _Curious Church Customs_, p. 137.\n\n[847] _Ibid._\n\n[848] Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 96.\n\n[849] _Prim. Culture_, II. p. 48.\n\n[850] _Ibid._ II. p. 61.\n\n[851] J. Deniker, _Races of Man_, 1900, p. 317.\n\n[852] R. Kipling, _The Ballad of East and West_.\n\n[853] Peter Heylyn, _Cosmographie_, 1652, p. 22.\n\n[854] M. D. Conway, _Demonology and Devil-Lore_, 1879,\nI. pp. 83 et seqq.; II. p. 115.\n\n[855] R. Jefferies, _Wild Life in a Southern Country_, 1889, p. 33.\n\n[856] Grimm, _Teut. Myth._ II. pp. 493, 802;\nIII. p. 1001; IV. p. 1605.\n\n[857] _Teut. Myth._ II. p. 802. F. Kauffmann, _Northern\nMythology_, tr. M. Steele Smith, pp. 95-6.\n\n[858] Job xxvi. 6, 7; Isa. xiv. 12, 13; Jer. iv. 6; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12,\netc.\n\n[859] _King Henry VI_, Pt I. Act v. Sc. 3.\n\n[860] _Par. Lost_, V. l. 726. (Cf. ll. 689, 755-6.)\n\n[861] Milton, _Sonnet_ xv. l. 7.\n\n[862] H. Kirke White, _Christiad_, V. viii. (cf.\nV. xi.).\n\n[863] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser. VI. p. 235.\n\n[864] E. S. Armitage, _Introd. to Eng. Antiquities_, 1903, p. 116.\n\n[865] _Antiquary_, XIX. p. 234.\n\n[866] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., IX. p. 53.\n\n[867] Durandus, _Rationale Divinorum Officiorum_, L. 4,\nc. 23.\n\n[868] Discussion in _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., VI.\npp. 428, 512-3. Numerous authorities cited.\n\n[869] Eccles. xi. 3; Miles Coverdale, _Remains_, ed. G. Pearson (Parker\nSociety), 1846, p. 258.\n\n[870] F. Seebohm, _English Village Community_, 1896, p. 23.\n\n[871] Grimm, _Teut. Myth._, II. p. 34.\n\n[872] H. Belloc, _The Old Road_, 1904, pp. 60-1; cf. F. C.\nElliston-Erwood, _The Pilgrims\u2019 Road_, 1910, p. 84.\n\n[873] I. Taylor, in _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., IV.\np. 335.\n\n[874] \u201cThere is no Northgate, Eastgate, or Westgate in Middlesex: what\nthen is Southgate?\u201d (Leigh Hunt, _Autobiography_, new edition, 1885, p.\n25.)\n\n[875] S. O. Addy, _Evolution of the English House_, 1898, pp. 34-5.\n\n[876] T. W. Shore, _Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race_, 1906, pp. 226,\n229, 304.\n\n[877] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VIII. p. 204.\n\n[878] _Lore and Legend of the English Church_, p. 80. Cf. Brand, _Pop.\nAntiquities_, II. p. 293; other instances given.\n\n[879] E. Stone, _God\u2019s Acre_, 1858, p. 390.\n\n[880] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VIII. p. 276.\n\n[881] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., V. p. 126.\n\n[882] Letter from R. S. Hawker, in _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser.,\nVI. p. 235.\n\n[883] T. F. Thiselton-Dyer, _Domestic Folk-Lore_, 1881, p. 62.\n\n[884] Brand, _op. cit._ II. p. 293. (Particulars given.)\n\n[885] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VIII. p. 276.\n\n[886] Brand, _op. cit._ II. p. 292 et seqq. See also\n_God\u2019s Acre_, pp. 390-1.\n\n[887] G. White, _Selborne_, ed. J. E. Harting, 1880, p. 418.\n\n[888] G. Masters, _Lambeth Parish Church_, 1904, p. 75.\n\n[889] J. T. Micklethwaite, in _The Builder_, LVI.\n(1889), p. 184.\n\n[890] M. H. Bloxam, _Monumental Architecture_, 1834, p. 262.\n\n[891] _Ibid._\n\n[892] _Reliquary_, XV., 1909, p. 22.\n\n[893] _Durham Arch. Trans._, V. p. 103. (Quoted in\n_Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., IX. p. 56.) See also\n_Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., VIII. pp. 452-3. _Proc.\nSoc. Antiq._, VII. p. 299.\n\n[894] _Hamlet_, Act iv. Sc. 5.\n\n[895] Further references on the general subject will be found in _Notes\nand Queries_, 6th Ser., I. pp. 105, 466; 8th Ser.,\nXI. p. 428; XII. pp. 17, 91, 175, 357.\nT. Hearne, _Collection of Curious Discourses_, 1771, I.\np. 226. J. Savage, in _Memorabilia_, 1820, pp. 316-8. Note also the\nhorizontal stones with inlaid brasses, dating from the 13th century\n(H. W. Macklin, _Monumental Brasses_, 1898, pp. 48, 51). _Proc. Soc.\nAntiq._, XX. p. 220.\n\n[896] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VIII. p. 496.\n\n[897] _Ibid._\n\n[898] _Ibid._, 1st Ser., VIII. p. 207.\n\n[899] _Ibid._, 1st Ser., VI. pp. 112-113.\n\n[900] _Ibid._, 9th Ser., VII. p. 113.\n\n[901] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., V. p. 332.\n\n[902] L. C. Miall, _Round the Year_, 1896, pp. 79-80 (cf. p. 229).\n\n[903] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., VI. p. 132.\n\n[904] _Ibid._\n\n[905] Brand, _op. cit._ II. p. 297. _Notes and Queries_,\n1st Ser., II. p. 55; V. p. 126.\n\n[906] Brand, _op. cit._ II. p. 297.\n\n[907] T. Thompson, _History of the Church and Priory of Swine_, 1824,\np. 145.\n\n[908] Brand, _Pop. Antiquities_, II. p. 294.\n\n[909] C. F. Gordon-Cumming, _In the Hebrides_, 1883, p. 185.\n\n[910] J. Burn, _History of Parish Registers in England_, 1829, p. 96 n.\n\n[911] T. F. Thiselton-Dyer, _Old English Social Life_, 1898, p. 148.\n\n[912] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., II. p. 55. Cf. A.\nJessopp, _Before the Great Pillage_, 1901, p. 28 n.\n\n[913] Quoted by H. Hems, in _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser.,\nVII. p. 113. I cannot find the exact words attributed\nto Durandus, though they are in harmony with his remarks in the\n_Rationale_, lib. V., c. 14, 15, concerning unbaptized\nand still-born children, as well as those persons who die in mortal sin.\n\n[914] G. Baldwin Brown, _The Arts in Early England_, 1903,\nI. p. 374.\n\n[915] Durandus, _Rat. Div. Officiorum_, lib. V., c. 12.\nSir R. Phillimore, _Eccles. Law_, 1873, II. p. 1761. E.\nS. Armitage, _op. cit._ p. 116. The subject is discussed by G. Baldwin\nBrown, _op. cit._ I. pp. 254-6.\n\n[916] S. Baring-Gould, _A Book of the West_, 1899, II.\npp. 38-40.\n\n[917] Phillimore, _op. cit._ II. 842-3, 1758, 1780.\nG. Baldwin Brown, _op. cit._ I. p. 362. E. L. Cutts,\n_Parish Priests and their People in the Middle Ages of England_, p. 53.\n\n[918] I. Taylor, in _Notes and Queries_, 9th Ser., VII.\npp. 112-3.\n\n[919] G. White, _Selborne_, p. 418.\n\n[920] Wordsworth, _A Parsonage in Oxfordshire_, ll. 1-2.\n\n[921] J. Evelyn, _Diary_, ed. W. Bray, n.d. (Chandos Classics), p. 397.\n\n[922] The churches of Sompting and Clapham, Sussex, at the foot of the\nDowns, seem to have been originally unenclosed.\n\n[923] W. Greenwell, _British Barrows_, 1877, pp. 12-13; cf. T. Rice\nHolmes, _Ancient Britain_, p. 188.\n\n[924] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, pp. xxvi-xxvii.\nJ. C. Atkinson, letters in _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser.,\nVIII. p. 335.\n\n[925] T. Wright, _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon_, 2nd edition\n1861, p. 329.\n\n[926] W. Andrews, _Curious Church Customs_, p. 144.\n\n[927] E. Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas_,\n1908, II. pp. 255-6.\n\n[928] A. Lang, in _Folk-Lore_, 1909, XX. pp. 88-9.\n\n[929] Westermarck, _op. cit._ II. Chap. xxv. which is\nfull of curious lore concerning suicide. Cf. J. G. Frazer, _Totemism\nand Exogamy_, 1910, II. p. 508; III. p.\n152.\n\n[930] Westermarck, _op. cit._ II. p. 256 n.\n\n[931] A. Lang, _loc. cit._\n\n[932] Westermarck, _op. cit._ II. p. 255.\n\n[933] H. T. Stephen, _Commentaries on the Laws of England_, ed. J.\nStephen, 1868, IV. p. 152, et seqq. Sir R. Phillimore,\n_op. cit._ II. p. 860.\n\n[934] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., V. p. 189. The\nburials of which particulars are given occurred at the church of St\nNicholas, Newcastle. An invaluable bibliography of \u201cSuicide\u201d is given\nin _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., IX. pp. 489-91.\nWestermarck, _op. cit._, also gives voluminous references.\n\n[935] J. T. B. Syme and J. E. Sowerby, _English Botany_, 3rd edition,\n1868, VIII. pp. 276-7. _Ency. Brit._, 9th edition, under\n\u201cYew.\u201d A good description is given by W. Dallimore, _Holly, Yew, and\nBox_, 1908, pp. 153-8. For an account of the timber, see G. S. Boulger,\n_Wood_, 2nd edition, 1908, p. 371, and plate.\n\n[936] Sir J. D. Hooker, _Student\u2019s Flora_, 3rd edition, 1884, pp.\n380-1. J. Lowe, _Yew-Trees of Great Britain and Ireland_, 1897, p. 20.\n\n[937] G. S. Boulger, _Familiar Trees_, n.d., 2nd Ser., p. 58.\n\n[938] Sir J. Evans, _Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain_, 2nd\nedition, 1897, p. 575. Sir A. C. Ramsay, _Geology and Geography of\nGreat Britain_, 3rd edition, 1878, p. 358.\n\n[939] _Science Gossip_, XXII. pp. 116, 150, 191,\n262; XXIII. p. 21; xxiv. pp. 44, 93, 142. G. White,\n_Nat. Hist. of Selborne_, Harting\u2019s edition, 1880, pp. 420-1. J.\nCarroll, in _Country Side_, III. p. 252. _Jour. Board\nAgric._ X. (1903), pp. 235-6. _Trans. Chem. Soc._\nLXXXI. (1902), p. 874. Lowe, _Yew-Trees_, pp. 147 et\nseqq. E. Step, _Wayside and Woodland Trees_, 1904, p. 76, asserts that\nthe \u201ckernels\u201d are not poisonous.\n\n[940] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, lib. XVI., c. 20.\n\n[941] Liddell and Scott, _Greek-English Lexicon_, 8th edition, 1883,\ns.v.\n\n[942] Caesar, _De Bello Gall._, lib. VI., c. 20.\n\n[943] Liddell and Scott, _Greek-English Lexicon_, W. Smith, _Latin\nDict._, 19th edition, s.v.\n\n[944] _Cent. Dict._, under \u201cYew.\u201d\n\n[945] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Series, IV. p. 532.\n\n[946] _Cent. Dict._, _loc. cit._\n\n[947] W. W. Skeat, _Etymol. Dict._, under \u201cYew.\u201d\n\n[948] O. Schrader, _Prehist. Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_, trans.\nJ. B. Jevons, 1890, pp. 226, 274-5. See also V. Hehn, _Wanderings of\nPlants and Animals_, ed. J. S. Stallybrass, 1885, pp. 407-8.\n\n[949] A. de Candolle, quoted by Lowe, _op. cit._, p. 46. The exact\nsource is not given, but one may infer, from the context, that the rule\nis given in _Notice sur la Long\u00e9vit\u00e9 des Arbes_, 1831. I have not seen\nthis work, as it is not in the British Museum.\n\n[950] Quoted by Lowe, _Yew-Trees_, pp. 45-6.\n\n[951] _Science Gossip_, XXIV. (1888), p. 167. De\nCandolle\u2019s equation of the measurements of the largest yew at Fountains\nAbbey is consistent only on the basis of 12 lines to the inch\n(_Physiologie V\u00e9g\u00e9tale_, t. II. p. 1001).\n\n[952] G. A. Hansard, _Book of Archery_, 1840, p. 328.\n\n[953] Sir R. Christison, _Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin._, XIX.\np. 11. Cited by Lowe: this volume is not in the British Museum.\n\n[954] Lowe, _Yew-Trees_, p. 57.\n\n[955] A. J. Harrison, in _Naturalists\u2019 Journal_, 1905, p. 200. See also\nH. Marshall Ward, _Timber, and some of its Diseases_, 1889, pp. 44-7.\nS. H. Vines, _Students\u2019 Text-Book of Botany_, 1896, pp. 197-9.\n\n[956] _Yew-Trees_, pp. 42-3, and especially Chap. III.\n\n[957] _Yew-Trees_, p. 43.\n\n[958] _Ibid._, p. 45.\n\n[959] _Yew-Trees_, pp. 45-6. Cf. De Candolle\u2019s own precautions,\n_Physiologie V\u00e9g\u00e9tale_, t. II. pp. 977, 983-4.\n\n[960] _Yew-Trees_, p. 64.\n\n[961] _Life of Sir R. Christison_ (edited by his sons), 1886,\nII. p. 254.\n\n[962] _Life of Sir R. Christison_, _loc. cit._\n\n[963] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., X. p. 431.\n\n[964] _Antiquary_, XX. 1889, pp. 219-20.\n\n[965] J. Timbs, _Things not generally known_, new edition, p. 96.\n\n[966] _Yew-Trees_, pp. 64-5.\n\n[967] _Antiquary_, XX. pp. 219-20.\n\n[968] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 353-7.\n\n[969] Dr J. Horace Round, in a letter to the author, Nov. 9, 1906.\n\n[970] _Life of Sir R. Christison_, II. p. 264.\n_Physiologie V\u00e9g\u00e9tale_, t. II. p. 1002.\n\n[971] _Philosoph. Trans._ 1770, LIX. p. 37.\n\n[972] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., V. p. 376.\nNaturalists\u2019 Jour. 1896, p. 99.\n\n[973] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., V. p. 477.\n\n[974] J. C. Loudon, _Arboretum Britannicum_, IV. p. 2079.\n\n[975] Murray, _Handbook for Kent_, 5th edition, 1892, p. 37.\n\n[976] _Physiologie V\u00e9g\u00e9tale_, t. II. p. 1002.\n\n[977] _Handbook for Kent_, l.c., Black\u2019s _Kent_, p. 143.\n\n[978] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., V. p. 376.\n\n[979] _Things not generally known_, pp. 96-7.\n\n[980] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., XI. p. 334.\n\n[981] Murray, _Handbook for Yorkshire_, 1874, p. 289; cf. 3rd edition,\n1882.\n\n[982] _Physiologie V\u00e9g\u00e9tale_, t. II. p. 1001.\n\n[983] _Antiquary_, XX. pp. 219-20.\n\n[984] _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., XI. p. 162.\n\n[985] _Science Gossip_, XXIV. p. 24.\n\n[986] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., V. p. 376.\n\n[987] Murray, _Handbook for Surrey_, 5th edition, 1898, p. 67.\n\n[988] Murray, _Handbook for Sussex_, 5th edition, 1893, p. 16.\n\n[989] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., V. p. 154.\n\n[990] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., XII. p. 495.\n\n[991] G. White, _Selborne_, Harting\u2019s edition, 1880, p. 420. See also\nE. A. Martin, _Bibliography of Gilbert White_, 1897, p. 219.\n\n[992] J. G. Strutt, _Sylva Britannica_, 1822, p. 1.\n\n[993] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., VIII. pp. 346,\n447. _Handbook to English Ecclesiology_ (_Ecclesiol. Soc._), 1847,\np. 190. Brand, _Pop. Antiq._, II. pp. 255-266 (whole\nquestion discussed). H. Friend, _Flowers and Flower Lore_, 1892,\nII. pp. 586-9.\n\n[994] Boulger, _Familiar Trees_, II. p. 60.\n\n[995] F. H. Stratmann, _Middle-English Dict._, ed. H. Bradley, 1891, p.\n194.\n\n[996] W. Caxton, _Liber Festivalis_, 1483, _Dominica in ramis\npalmarum_, sig. g (no pagination).\n\n[997] _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., V. pp. 391-2.\n\n[998] _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., V. p. 447.\n\n[999] J. Brady, _Clavis Calendaria_, 1812, I. pp. 276-80.\n\n[1000] _Yew-Trees_, p. 98, cf. _Folk-Lore_, XIII. p. 201.\n\n[1001] _Fam. Trees_, p. 61.\n\n[1002] _Twelfth Night_, Act ii. Sc. 4.\n\n[1003] Concerning the use of the yew at funerals, see Brand, _Pop.\nAntiq._, II. p. 312; Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the\nEng. Church_, p. 56; _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., IV.\np. 532. The purely literary references might be greatly extended;\nconsult, e.g., Lowe, _Yew-Trees_, _passim_, also T. N. Brushfield, in\n_Antiquities and Curiosities of the Church_, ed. W. Andrews, 1897, pp.\n256-78.\n\n[1004] Sir T. Browne, _Hydriotaphia_, ed. S. Wilkins, 1884,\nIII. p. 25.\n\n[1005] Sir R. Phillimore, _Eccles. Law_, 2nd edition, 1895, p. 1407.\nBrand, _Pop. Antiq._, II. p. 256. G. White, _Selborne_,\np. 421. _Statutes of the Realm_, 1810, I. p. 221. The\ndate of the Act said to be uncertain.\n\n[1006] _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, p. 54. C. G. Prideaux,\n_Prac. Guide to the Duties of Churchwardens_, ed. F. C. Mackarness,\n1895, p. 331. H. W. Cripps, _Laws relating to the Church and Clergy_,\n1886, pp. 433-4.\n\n[1007] _Yew-Trees_, p. 101. The error was apparently due to a\nmisunderstanding of the reference in Brand\u2019s _Popular Antiquities_,\n1849, II. p. 256 n.\n\n[1008] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., XII. p. 113.\n\n[1009] G. White, _Selborne_, pp. 421-2.\n\n[1010] Daines Barrington, _Observations on the more ancient Statutes_,\n1785, p. 191. See also J. Vaughan, _Lighter Studies of a Country\nRector_, 1909, ch. xii. pp. 121-8.\n\n[1011] Cedars and cypresses are common in Sussex churchyards.\n\n[1012] _Yew-Trees_, pp. 131-2.\n\n[1013] _Yew-Trees_, pp. 112-113. C. J. Longman and H. Walrond,\n_Archery_ (Badminton Library), 1894, p. 28.\n\n[1014] _Archery_, p. 28. G. A. Hansard, _Book of Archery_, 1840, pp.\n226-7.\n\n[1015] _Archery_, p. 103. _Ency. Brit._, 11th edition, under _Archery_.\nJ. Strutt, _Sports and Pastimes of the People of England_ (1801), Bk\nII. chap. i., gives several facts to prove that the\nSaxons were acquainted with the bow and arrow. For a more guarded view,\nsee Baron J. de Baye, _Industrial Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, trans. T.\nB. Harbottle, 1893, pp. 30-1.\n\n[1016] _New Oxford Dict._, under \u201cBow\u201d and \u201cArrow.\u201d\n\n[1017] _Ency. Brit._, l.c.\n\n[1018] Sir J. Evans, _Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain_, 2nd\nedition, 1897, p. 411.\n\n[1019] _Archery_, p. 16.\n\n[1020] _Archery_, pp. 10-11. For a full account of the construction\nand distribution of the different kinds of bows, see H. Balfour, in\n_Jour. Anthrop. Inst._ XIX. 1889, pp. 220-254. See also\nGen. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Evolution of Culture_, ed. J. L. Myres, 1906,\npp. 45-184. A useful, concise account of the bow is contained in Dr H.\nS. Harrison\u2019s _Handbook to the Weapons of War and the Chase_ (Horniman\nMuseum), 1908, pp. 39-43.\n\n[1021] _Yew-Trees_, p. 110. Sir John Evans possessed a flint flake,\nhafted in yew wood, which was found at Nussdorf, in Switzerland (see\n_Anc. Stone Impts._, p. 292).\n\n[1022] _Archery_, p. 115.\n\n[1023] _Ibid._ p. 115.\n\n[1024] _Archery_, pp. 109-10. _Yew-Trees_, pp. 131-2. Daines\nBarrington, in _Archaeologia_, 1785, VII. pp. 46-48.\n\n[1025] Chambers\u2019s _Cyclopaedia_, Art. \u201cArchery.\u201d\n\n[1026] _Archery_, p. 141.\n\n[1027] The authorities for the facts given in this paragraph are very\nnumerous. Most important is _Archery_ (Badminton Series), especially\nchs. vii. and ix. The bibliography given on pp. 472-499 is exhaustive,\nand a concise list of the statutes is presented on pp. 500-1. See also\nF. Grose, _Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons_, 1786, pp. 37-8.\n_Ency. Brit._, Art. _Archery_; J. Strutt, _Sports and Pastimes of the\nPeople of England_ (1801), ed. J. C. Cox, 1903, Book ii.\n\n[1028] Sir A. C. Doyle, _The Song of the Bowmen_.\n\n[1029] R. Ascham, _Toxophilus_, 1545, Arber\u2019s reprint, p. 113.\n\n[1030] _Archery_, p. 144.\n\n[1031] J. Brady, _Clavis Calendaria_, 1812, I. p. 257.\n\n[1032] R. Warner, _Collections for a History of Hampshire_, 1795,\nI. p. 104.\n\n[1033] _Yew-Trees_, p. 103. Hansard, _Book of Archery_, p. 330. I\ncannot find any such legislation mentioned in _Statutes of the Realm_.\nThe statement seems to be copied from Strutt (W. J.).\n\n[1034] J. G. Strutt, _Sylva Britannica_, 1826, p. 28. Mr W. Adamson\nFoulis informs me that the island referred to must be Inchlonaig (= Yew\nIsland).\n\n[1035] _Yew-Trees_, p. 103. Cf. J. G. Strutt, _Sylva Brit._, 1826, p.\n4, where the same statement is made.\n\n[1036] _Yew-Trees_, p. 155.\n\n[1037] _Book of Archery_, p. 330. Cf. T. S. Knowlson, _Origins of\nPop. Superstitions and Customs_, 1910, pp. 222-5. (General question\ndiscussed.)\n\n[1038] R. Warner, _Collections for a History of Hampshire_, 1795,\nI. p. 105 n.\n\n[1039] _Book of Archery_, p. 332.\n\n[1040] _Ibid._ p. 329.\n\n[1041] _Pop. Antiquities_, II. p. 263.\n\n[1042] Giraldus Cambrensis, _Topog. Hiberniae_, dist.\nIII. c. 10, p. 739 in Camden\u2019s edition, 1602. Cf. D.\nRock, _Church of our Fathers_, ed. G. W. Hart and H. Frere, 1903,\nII. pp. 262-3.\n\n[1043] Cf. Translation by T. Forester, in T. Wright\u2019s edition of\n_Topog. Hiber._, 1887, p. 125; also J. F. Dimock\u2019s edition of\nGiraldus\u2019s works, 1867, V. pp. 135, 280.\n\n[1044] _Topog. Hiber._ dist. II. c. 54. Camden\u2019s\nedition, p. 734; Wright\u2019s edition, p. 109.\n\n[1045] Elton, _Origins_, p. 221 n. Some species of rhododendrons and\nazaleas are said to be productive of poisonous honey. (F. R. Cheshire,\n_Bees and Bee-keeping_, 1886, p. 291.) Laurel and ivy, though probably\nagreeable to bees, are similarly sources of bad honey. (A. Neighbour,\n_The Apiary_, 1878, pp. 297-8.)\n\n[1046] R. Turner, _Botanologia_, 1664, pp. 362-3.\n\n[1047] Tyack, _Lore and Legend_, p. 77.\n\n[1048] W. Henderson, _Folk-Lore of Northern Counties_, 1879, p. 226.\n\n[1049] W. G. Black, in _Antiquary_, VI. 1882, pp. 12-15.\nAmong the Anglo-Saxons, it was customary to consecrate charms by\nbringing them in contact with the church. See _Jour. Amer. Folk-Lore_,\nXXII. 1909, p. 153.\n\n[1050] _Macbeth_, Act. iv. Sc. I.\n\n[1051] _Cent. Dict._, s.v.\n\n[1052] Milton, _Lycidas_, ll. 100-1.\n\n[1053] M. D. Conway, _Demonology and Devil-lore_, 1879,\nI. pp. 44-45.\n\n[1054] W. G. Black, _l.c._\n\n[1055] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., XII. p. 191;\n_Folk-Lore_, XIII. p. 96.\n\n[1056] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., VIII. p. 244.\n\n[1057] Rock, _Church of Our Fathers_, II. pp. 262-3.\n\n[1058] J. T. B. Syme and J. E. Sowerby, _Eng. Bot._,\nVIII. p. 281.\n\n[1059] W. H. Ablett, _Eng. Trees_, 1880, p. 154.\n\n[1060] _Notes and Queries_, 6th Ser., II. pp. 184-5.\n\n[1061] C. H. Coote, _The Romans of Britain_, 1878, p. 427.\n\n[1062] Statius, _Theba\u00efd_, VIII. vv. 9, 10.\n\n[1063] Cf. Coote, p. 427.\n\n[1064] _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser., XII. p. 8.\n\n[1065] T. Wright, _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon_, 1861, p. 328.\n\n[1066] _Yew-Trees_, p. 101.\n\n[1067] Brand, _Pop. Antiquities_, II. p. 312; Hansard,\n_Archery_, p. 331. Pepys mentions a churchyard near Southampton\nwhere the graves were \u201csowed with sage\u201d (_Diary_, ed. Richard, Lord\nBraybrooke, 1887, p. 98).\n\n[1068] G. Allen, _Evolution of the Idea of God_ (R. P. A. edition,\n1903), p. 55.\n\n[1069] _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_, LI. p. 10.\n\n[1070] J. Macpherson, _Poems of Ossian_, 8th edition, I.\np. 240, quoted by Lowe and others. (I cannot discover the passage. W.\nJ.)\n\n[1071] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., IX. p. 77; _Proc.\nDorset Nat. Hist. Soc._, XVII. 1896, pp. 135, 138-140.\nThe earthworks are described by A. H. Allcroft, _Earthwork of England_,\n1908, pp. 564, 566.\n\n[1072] Sir J. Rh\u0177s, _Celtic Folklore_, 1891, II. p. 424.\n\n[1073] E. O\u2019Curry, _Manners and Customs of the Irish_, 1873,\nII. pp. 193-4. Cf. J. B. Bury, _Life of St Patrick_,\n1905, p. 76.\n\n[1074] Gomme, _Ethnology in Folklore_, p. 60.\n\n[1075] R. Forby, _Vocab. of East Anglia_, 1830, I. p.\n413.\n\n[1076] _Manners and Customs of the Irish_, l.c. Buckets made of yew\nhave been discovered in Anglo-Saxon graves at Linton Heath (Cambs.) and\nRoundway Down (Wilts.). _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, p. 102. Cf.\n_Folk-Lore_, XIII. p. 96.\n\n[1077] _Naturalists\u2019 Journal_, 1895, p. 99.\n\n[1078] _Nat. Jour._, l.c.; J. G. Strutt, _Sylva Britannica_, 1826, p.\n28. Strutt gives a fine illustration of the Fortingal yew.\n\n[1079] Murray, _Handbook for Derbyshire_, 3rd edition, 1892, p. 30.\n\n[1080] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Primitive Folk-Moots_, 1880, p. 133.\n\n[1081] Murray, _Handbook for Surrey_, 5th edition, 1898, p. 67.\n\n[1082] _Church of Our Fathers_, p. 178.\n\n[1083] I have not yet observed a yew growing on a British burial\nmound, but Gen. A. Pitt-Rivers, in describing a British barrow which\nhe opened on Winkelbury Hill, seems to supply an instance. He states\nthat he found no relics within the mound, and that this absence\nwas probably due to a dead yew, locally called a \u201cscrag,\u201d which he\nremoved. Gen. Pitt-Rivers calls the yew an \u201cinsertion,\u201d but was the\ntree \u201cinserted\u201d alive or dead? A dead yew would scarcely work much\nhavoc. He continues--and the addition is noteworthy--\u201cI afterwards\nlearnt that the people of the neighbourhood attached some interest to\nit, and it has since been replaced by Sir Thomas Grove.\u201d (_Excav. in\nCranborne Chase_, II. 1888, p. 258.) Cf. _Folk-Lore_,\nXIII. p. 96; Prof. H. Conwenz, in _Brit. Assoc. Report_,\n1901, p. 839.\n\n[1084] W. Watson, _The Father of the Forest_, V.\nI.\n\n[1085] J. Cossar Ewart, in _Ency. of Agriculture_, ed. by C. E. Green\nand C. Young, 1908, II. p. 427. W. Watts, _Geology\nfor Beginners_, 2nd edition, 1907, p. 300. H. A. Nicholson, _Manual\nof Palaeontology_, 1889, II. pp. 1360-3, claims\n_Phenacodus_, a fossil animal from the lowest Eocene of North America,\nas representing the five-toed ancestor of the horse. On the general\nquestion of ancestry, see p. 411 n. _infra_. An acute criticism of the\nmodern theory is offered in J. Gerard\u2019s _The Old Riddle and the Newest\nAnswer_, 5th edition, 1908, pp. 93-106.\n\n[1086] J. Cossar Ewart, _op. cit._ II. p. 426.\n\n[1087] W. Watts, _op. cit._ p. 300.\n\n[1088] _Ibid._ p. 300.\n\n[1089] R. Lydekker, _Guide to the Specimens of the Horse Family_ (Brit.\nMus.), 1907, p. 5.\n\n[1090] Lydekker, _loc. cit._ Ewart, _op. cit._ II. p.\n428.\n\n[1091] _Guide ... Horse Family_, pp. 8-9.\n\n[1092] The following authorities may also be consulted: W. Ridgeway,\n_The Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred Horse_, 1905, pp. 1-12.\nE. Ray Lankester, _Extinct Animals_, 1905, pp. 134-42. C. W. Saleeby,\n_Organic Evolution_, 1905, pp. 56-64. R. Lydekker, in _Knowledge_,\nXXV. 1902, pp. 100-2, and N.S. III.\n1906, pp. 472-4. _Guide to Fossil Mammals and Birds_ (Nat. Hist.\nMus., South Kensington), 8th edition, 1904, pp. 22-6. R. S. Lull,\n\u201cEvolution of the Horse Family,\u201d in _Amer. Jour. Science_, 4th\nSer., XXIII. pp. 161-82. _Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc._\nLXV. 1909, pp. cxix-cxx, where there is an allusion to\ngaps in the pedigree.\n\n[1093] C. H. Read, _Guide to the Stone Age_, 1902, pp. 48, 49. Many\nrepresentations of horses and horse-heads have been detected among the\ncoloured drawings (ochre and black) on the walls of two Palaeolithic\ncaves at Combarelles and Font-de-Gaune, explored in 1901. (See\nRidgeway, _op. cit._ p. 85.)\n\n[1094] B. C. A. Windle, _Life in Early Britain_, 1897, pp. 28, 29.\n_Cavernes du P\u00e9rigord_, by MM. E. Larty and H. Christy, 1864, should be\nspecially consulted.\n\n[1095] _Guide to Stone Age_, p. 65. W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in\nBritain_, 1880, p. 184.\n\n[1096] Ewart, in _Ency. of Agric._ II. p. 434. Ridgeway,\n_op. cit._ p. 82, claims two distinct species, \u201cat least,\u201d of\nPalaeolithic horses.\n\n[1097] Ewart, _Trans. Highland and Agric. Soc. of Scotland_, 5th Ser.,\nXVI. 1904, pp. 230-68. A. C. Haddon, _Nat. Home-Reading\nUnion Mag._ (Gen. Course), XV. p. 114.\n\n[1098] T. Rice Holmes, _Anc. Brit. and the Invas. of Jul. Caes._, 1907,\np. 56 n.\n\n[1099] Herodotus, _History_, l. vii., c. 15.\n\n[1100] G. Rawlinson, translation of _Hist. of Herodotus_, 4th edition,\n1880, IV. p. 72 n. Ridgeway, _op. cit._ pp. 23, 117,\n130, 192, gives particulars of the use of the lasso by other peoples.\n\n[1101] A. Doigneau, _Nos Anc\u00eatres Primitifs_, 1905, pp. 129-30.\n\n[1102] _Ibid._ pp. 129-30.\n\n[1103] _Guide to Stone Age_, pp. 39-40. S. Baring-Gould, _Deserts of\nSouthern France_, 1894, I. p. 151. Ridgeway, _op. cit._\npp. 83-4.\n\n[1104] Baring-Gould, _loc. cit._ The exploration of the Kesserloch\ncavern, at Thaingen, Baden, showed that the horse had been used for\nfood in the Magdalenian period. See _Nature_, LXXIX.\n1909, p. 343.\n\n[1105] N. Joly, _Man before Metals_, 4th edition, 1887, p. 265 and note.\n\n[1106] Ewart, _Trans. Highland and Agric. Soc. of Scotland_, 5th Ser.,\nXVI. pp. 237-42. For a contrary English view, see\nRidgeway, _op. cit._ pp. 89-91.\n\n[1107] B. Tozer, _The Horse in History_, 1908, p. 4.\n\n[1108] _Guide to Horse Family_, p. 14. Mr R. Lydekker, in a letter\nto the author, dated Jan. 6, 1909, stated that little is known\nof the Walthamstow skull exhibited in the Zoological Department\n(S. Kensington). There are other horse skulls from Pleistocene\nriver-gravels to be seen, however, in the Geological Department. Most\nof our bone-caves (e.g. Kent\u2019s Cavern, near Torquay) have yielded horse\nremains; and many specimens have been obtained from brick-earths and\nraised beaches. J. Cossar Ewart, _Trans. Highland and Agric. Soc. of\nScotland_, 5th Ser., XVI. 1904, p. 233.\n\n[1109] Lord Avebury, _Pre-historic Times_, 6th edition, 1900, pp. 160-1.\n\n[1110] Ridgeway, _op. cit._ pp. 91-2.\n\n[1111] W. Greenwell, _British Barrows_, 1877, p. 750.\n\n[1112] _Ibid._ p. 136.\n\n[1113] _Ibid._ p. 220.\n\n[1114] _Ibid._ p. 262 n.\n\n[1115] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, 1905, pp. 25, 26, 37,\n41 etc.\n\n[1116] _British Barrows_, pp. 122, 127-9, 482, 543, 549. Dr W. Wright,\nin _Jour. of Anatomy_, N.S. XIX. 1905, esp. pp. 441-2.\n\n[1117] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, 1874, p. 166. Rev. R. A. Gatty\nhas recorded the discovery of bones of a young horse in Neolithic\npit-dwellings near Hornsea, Yorkshire (_Chambers\u2019s Journal_, 6th Ser.,\nFeb. 1909, p. 109). For the Whitepark Bay discoveries, see _Jour. Roy.\nHist. and Archaeol. Assoc. of Ireland_, 4th Ser., VII.\npp. 122-3, 123 n. Professor J. Cossar Ewart thinks that \u201cit is\nextremely probable that in Neolithic, as in Pleistocene times, Britain\npossessed several species of wild horses.\u201d (_Trans. Highland and\nAgric. Soc. of Scotland_, 5th Ser., XVI. p. 242.) W. F.\nGwinnell, in _S.E. Naturalist_, 1907, p. L. F. Keller,\n_Lake Dwellings of Switzerland_, 2nd edition, 1878, I.\npp. 592, 595, records, with reserve, the discovery of iron horseshoes\nat the Early Iron lake settlement at Starnberger See, Bavaria.\n\n[1118] _Nature_, LXXXI. p. 223; LXXXV. p.\n22. _Naturalist_, 1911, p. 174.\n\n[1119] _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, p. 198.\n\n[1120] Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p. 478. Cf. O. Schrader, _Prehist.\nAntiquities of the Aryan Peoples_, 1900, p. 263.\n\n[1121] W. E. Gladstone, _Homer_ (Macmillan, 1889), pp. 137-8. Homer\u2019s\nreferences to chariots are discussed by A. Lang, in _Anthropology and\nthe Classics_, ed. R. R. Marett, 1908, pp. 55-6. Cf. _Athenaeum_, May\n7th, 1910, pp. 557-8.\n\n[1122] Herodotus, _Hist._ l. V. c. 9. Cf. Rawlinson\u2019s\ntranslation, III. p. 215, and Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p.\n94. For a discussion concerning Herodotus as an observer and speculator\non ancient customs see J. L. Myers, in _Anthropology and the Classics_,\ned. R. R. Marett, 1908, pp. 121-68.\n\n[1123] Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p. 94. V. Hehn, _Wanderings of Plants and\nAnimals_, ed. J. S. Stallybrass, 1885, pp. 35-68, has some valuable\ninformation on this phase of the subject.\n\n[1124] Rawlinson, _op. cit._ II. pp. 352-3.\n\n[1125] Job xxxix. 19-25.\n\n[1126] 2 Sam. viii. 4.\n\n[1127] _Guide to Bronze Age_, p. 104.\n\n[1128] _Ibid._ pp. 140-1.\n\n[1129] _Spectator_, Sept. 19, 1908, p. 407. See also, especially,\nRidgeway, _op. cit._ Chap. V. (\u201cThe Development of\nEquitation\u201d).\n\n[1130] Caesar, _De Bell. Gall._, l. IV. cc. 24, 33;\nl. V. cc. 8, 11, 12, 13, 15. Cf. E. Conybeare, _Roman\nBritain_, 1903, pp. 93, 99.\n\n[1131] _De Bell. Gall._, l. V. c. 16. On the question\nof early chariots see Ridgeway, _op. cit._ pp. 215, 217, 481-2. Tozer,\n_op. cit._ pp. 20-1, 24-6.\n\n[1132] Schrader, _Prehist. Antiquities_, p. 263.\n\n[1133] C. T. Lewis and C. Short, _Lat. Dict._, under the words cited.\n\n[1134] P. H. Newman, in _Social England_, ed. Traill, 1894,\nI. p. 225.\n\n[1135] _The Horse in History_, pp. 75-6.\n\n[1136] _Chambers\u2019s Encyclopaedia_, 1906, Art. \u201cHorse.\u201d\n\n[1137] Gulielmus Malmsburiensis, _Gesta Regum Anglorum_, l.\nII. c. 135.\n\n[1138] See edition of Fitzstephen\u2019s work, edited by \u201cAn Antiquary\u201d (S.\nPegge), 1772, pp. 37-8, 67-8. Cf. H. Morley\u2019s translation, prefixed to\nthe edition of Stow\u2019s _Survey of London_, 1890, pp. 26-7.\n\n[1139] _Chambers\u2019s Encyclopaedia_, _loc. cit._\n\n[1140] Tozer, _op. cit._ pp. 207, 236. For the question of\nhorse-breeding generally, see Ridgeway, _op. cit._, especially pp.\n358-60.\n\n[1141] Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p. 502. Tozer, _op. cit._ pp. 42, 83.\n\n[1142] Tozer, _op. cit._ p. 73. The iron shoes of mules were detachable\n(Catullus, _Carm._, XVII. ll. 25-6).\n\n[1143] Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p. 502. J. Beckmann, _History of\nInventions, Discoveries, and Origins_, tr. W. Johnston, 4th\nedition, 1846, I. p. 444. See Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ l.\nXXXIII. c. 49.\n\n[1144] Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p. 502.\n\n[1145] _Ibid._ p. 503. Cf. Syer Cumming, in _Jour. Brit. Archaeol.\nAssoc._, VI. p. 411.\n\n[1146] R. Berenger, _Hist. and Art of Horsemanship_, 1771, p. 322. [I\nhave not seen the original drawing by Father B. De Montfaucon, but\nhave read his remarks on horseshoes, in _L\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 expliqu\u00e9e_, tr.\nD. Humphreys, 1722, IV. pp. 50-1.] J. Beckmann, _op.\ncit._ I. pp. 451-2, gives several reasons against the\ngenuineness of the Childeric shoe.\n\n[1147] Tozer, _op. cit._ p. 83. Gen. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations\nin Cranborne Chase_, I. pp. 83-4, 97, 247;\nII. p. 139; III. pp. 84, 138, 141. The\nhippo-sandal is discussed in I. pp. 77-9. C. Roach\nSmith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, III. pp. 128-9; also his\n_Illustrations of Roman London_, 1859, pp. 145-6. F. Keller, _Lake\nDwellings of Switzerland_, I. pp. 592, 595. G. Payne,\nin _Archaeologia Cantiana_, 1897, XXII. p. 73. Cf. W.\nYouatt, _The Horse_, 1888, pp. 440-1. For the Northumberland horseshoe\nsee H. M. Neville, _A Corner in the North_, 1909, pp. 110-11. For the\nmerits of shoeing horses see _Encyclopaedia of Agriculture_, ed. C.\nE. Green and D. Young, 1908, Art. \u201cHorse shoeing.\u201d A somewhat popular\naccount of the horse\u2019s foot is given in Sir Charles Bell\u2019s _The Hand_,\n8th edition, 1885, pp. 61-64.\n\n[1148] Ridgeway, _op. cit._ p. 503. Mr L. Jewitt, _Grave-Mounds\nand their Contents_, 1870, asserts (p. 201) that horseshoes are\noccasionally met with in burials of the Roman-British period and (p.\n264) that they have been recorded from Anglo-Saxon graves in Berkshire.\nThe conclusions reached by Prof. T. McKenny Hughes, in _Proc. Camb.\nAntiq. Soc._, X. 1904, pp. 249-58, should be consulted;\nthey vary somewhat from those given in the text. On the general\nquestion, see _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, VI. pp.\n406-18; _Antiquary_, 1911, N.S., VII. p. 275.\n\n[1149] This form was also formerly used around Cerne Abbas, Dorsetshire.\n\n[1150] See list of references, p. 424 _supra_.\n\n[1151] J. G. Keysler, _Antiquitates Selectae Septentrionales et\nCelticae_, 1720, pp. 115, 168-9, 518.\n\n[1152] Virgil, _Aeneid_, l. VI. ll. 885-7.\n\n[1153] J. R. Allen, _Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times_, 1904,\npp. 64-5, 94-5, R. A. Smith, _Guide to Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Mus.),\n1905, pp. 50, 73, 90 etc. L. Jewitt, _op. cit._ pp. 201, 264-5. J.\nR. Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, pp. 358, 359. Ridgeway, _op.\ncit._, deals fully with the subject. The _Naturalist_, 1905, pp.\n264-5, also gives a list of chariot-burials. _Archaeologia_, 1906,\nLX. pp. 281 et seqq., pp. 311-2. R. Munro, _Prehistoric\nScotland_, 1899, pp. 247-50.\n\n[1154] _British Barrows_, pp. 454, 455.\n\n[1155] _Ibid._ p. 456.\n\n[1156] B. C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehistoric Age in England_,\n1904, p. 287.\n\n[1157] J. J. A. Worsaae, _Pre-history of the North_, tr. H. F. M.\nSimpson, 1886, p. 192; also (by the same writer), _Industrial Arts of\nDenmark_, 1882, pp. 190-2.\n\n[1158] Baron J. de Baye, _Indus. Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, p. 18.\nProf. \u00c9. Metchnikoff, who cites the case of Duguesclin, gives an\nadditional instance from Treves, A.D. 1781. See _Nature\nof Man_, tr. P. Chambers Mitchell, 1906, p. 141. See also _Prim.\nCulture_, I. p. 474.\n\n[1159] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., XII. p. 158. See,\nespecially, E. P. Squarey, _The \u201cMoot\u201d and its Traditions_, 1906, pp.\n34-5.\n\n[1160] R. Southey, _Letters of Espriella_, 1st edition, 1807,\nI. pp. 52-3.\n\n[1161] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., VI. p. 73.\n\n[1162] G. Rawlinson, in his edition of Herodotus, 1880,\nIII. p. 63 n.\n\n[1163] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, l. VIII. c. 64.\n\n[1164] E. Howlett, in _Curious Church Customs_, ed. W. Andrews, 1898,\np. 129.\n\n[1165] G. S. Tyack, _Lore and Legend of the Eng. Church_, 1899, p. 245.\nM. H. Bloxam, _Monumental Architecture of Great Britain_, 1834, pp. 96,\n102.\n\n[1166] Tacitus, _De Moribus Germaniae_, c. 10.\n\n[1167] J. Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, trans. J. G. Stallybrass, 1883,\nII. p. 655.\n\n[1168] Herodotus, _Hist._, l. I. c. 189; l.\nVII. c. 55. Grimm, _op. cit._ IV. p.\n1483, concerning sacred horses alluded to by Plutarch.\n\n[1169] Herodotus, _Hist._, l. IV. c. 52.\n\n[1170] Rev. vi. 2, and xix. 11.\n\n[1171] See the authorities cited by J. Timbs, _Curiosities of Science_,\n6th edition, 1862, p. 191.\n\n[1172] See the details collected in _Folk-Memory_, 1908, pp. 323, 325.\n\n[1173] _Folk-Memory_, pp. 323-6; _Archaeologia_, XXI.\n289-98; _Vict. Hist. of Berks._, 1906, pp. 188-92.\n\n[1174] _Guide to Early Iron Age_, p. 29.\n\n[1175] _Ibid._ pp. 115-6.\n\n[1176] J. Stevens, in _Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._, XL.\n1884, pp. 64-6.\n\n[1177] Concerning the development of the interlacing ornament from\nanimal forms, and the further question of the supposed Scandinavian\norigin of some of these animal figures, see J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic\nArt in Pagan and Christian Times_, 1904, pp. 249-50.\n\n[1178] Grimm, _Teut. Myth._, I. p. 49.\n\n[1179] _Ibid._ II. p. 664.\n\n[1180] J. M. Kemble, _The Saxons in England_, 1876, II.\np. 429.\n\n[1181] Keysler, _op. cit._ p. 326. Dufour\u2019s French translation gives\nthe number of each kind of victim as 89, but this is evidently an error.\n\n[1182] Kemble, _op. cit._ II. p. 429.\n\n[1183] Bede, _Eccles. Hist._, l. II. c. 13.\n\n[1184] _Ibid._\n\n[1185] Grimm, _Teut. Myth._, II. p. 665.\n\n[1186] Grant Allen, _Evolution of the Idea of God_, R.P.A. edition,\n1903, p. 122. J. G. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 1890, II.\npp. 24-5; Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, 1910, III. p.\n391. Cf. _Folk-Lore_, XI. pp. 257-8.\n\n[1187] Keysler, _op. cit._ pp. 322-48.\n\n[1188] _Ibid._ pp. 322-3.\n\n[1189] _Ibid._ p. 348.\n\n[1190] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, 1874, p. 132.\n\n[1191] Keysler, _op. cit._ p. 339.\n\n[1192] _Ibid._ p. 340.\n\n[1193] W. Boyd Dawkins, _op. cit._ p. 132.\n\n[1194] _Ibid._ pp. 132, 133.\n\n[1195] Grimm, _Teut. Myth._, III. p. 1049;\nIV. pp. 1302, 1304, 1619.\n\n[1196] Grimm, _op. cit._ IV. p. 1050.\n\n[1197] _Ibid._ p. 1619.\n\n[1198] L\u2019Abb\u00e9 V. Dufour, _Une Question Historique_, 1868, translated\nfrom Keysler\u2019s _Antiquitates_, p. 65.\n\n[1199] Dufour, _op. cit._ p. 66.\n\n[1200] _Ibid._ p. 67.\n\n[1201] _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., X. 1908, p. 245.\n\n[1202] A. de Gubernatis, _Zoological Mythology_, 1872,\nI. pp. 283-357.\n\n[1203] Doigneau, _Nos Anc\u00eatres Primitifs_, p. 127. Dr J. G. Frazer,\n_Golden Bough_, II. pp. 64-5, refers to the Roman\ncustom, at the October chariot-race, of cutting off the tail of the\nright-hand horse of the victorious team, and states that this was done\nto ensure a good crop: the horse represented the corn spirit.\n\n[1204] Herodotus, _Hist._, l. II. c. 39. For\nsuperstitions respecting the sanctity of the human head, see _Golden\nBough_, I. pp. 187-93.\n\n[1205] _Teut. Myth._, IV. p. 1483.\n\n[1206] _Ibid._ II. p. 661.\n\n[1207] _Zool. Myth._, I. p. 303.\n\n[1208] _Teut. Myth._, II. p. 661.\n\n[1209] _Ibid._ p. 660.\n\n[1210] _Ibid._ p. 660.\n\n[1211] M. Braitmaier, in _Folk-Lore_, XI. pp. 322-3, and\nplates II-VI.\n\n[1212] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd Ser., VII. p. 10.\n\n[1213] _Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., XI. pp. 71-2, 395.\n\n[1214] P. Maylam, _\u201cThe Hooden Horse,\u201d an East Kent Christmas Custom_,\n1909, pp. 72-91, 110-20. _Athenaeum_, Feb. 19, 1910, p. 214. In\n_Folk-Lore_, XXI. 1910, pp. 248-9, it is argued that the\n\u201choodening horse\u201d dates, at least, earlier than the Robin Hood period.\nCf. W. Henderson, _Folk-Lore of the N. Counties_, 2nd edition, 1879,\npp. 70-1.\n\n[1215] _Daily Chronicle_, Jan. 2, 1908. Much horse lore of a\nsimilar kind may be found in the volumes of _Folk-Lore_, especially\nXI. and XIII.\n\n[1216] Virgil, _Aeneid_, lib. I. ll. 144 et seqq.\n\n[1217] J. Conington, in a note in _Works of Virgil_, ed. G. Long, 1884,\nII. p. 52 n.\n\n[1218] _Zool. Myth._, I. p. 333.\n\n[1219] At Burpham, Sussex, the paws of a fox were nailed on the door of\nthe blacksmith\u2019s shop \u201cfor luck\u201d (1911).\n\n[1220] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Ethnology in Folk-Lore_, 1892, pp. 35-6.\n(Many instances cited.) Mr Baring-Gould\u2019s experience is related in\n_Folk-Lore_, IV. p. 6.\n\n[1221] _Notes and Queries_, 1st Ser., V. p. 274.\n\n[1222] _Jour. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc._, N.S. III. 1897,\npp. 89-103, 192-206.\n\n[1223] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., VIII. p. 248.\n\n[1224] _Ibid._ Additional instances are given in _Folk-Lore_,\nXII. 1901, pp. 348-9.\n\n[1225] _Notes and Queries_, 4th Ser., III. p. 564.\n\n[1226] Sir G. L. Gomme, _Folk-Lore Relics in Early Village Life_, 1883,\npp. 34-7. (Other examples given.)\n\n[1227] _Notes and Queries_, 4th Ser., IV. p. 66.\n\n[1228] _Ibid._ 4th Ser., III. p. 500.\n\n[1229] _Ibid._ 6th Ser., I. p. 424.\n\n[1230] Grant Allen, _Evol. of the Idea of God_, p. 122.\n\n[1231] Sir E. Beckett, _Book on Building_, 2nd edition, 1880, p. 281.\n\n[1232] G. M. Hills, in _Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._, XXXV.\np. 97.\n\n[1233] L\u2019Abb\u00e9 Cochet, in _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_, N.S.,\nXV. pp. 540-3.\n\n[1234] For confirmatory evidence, see E. E. Viollet-le-Duc,\n_Dictionnaire raisonn\u00e9 de l\u2019Architecture fran\u00e7aise du xie au xvie\nsi\u00e8cle_, 1865, s.v. \u201cPot\u201d (t. VI. pp. 471-2).\n\n[1235] \u00c9. Didron, _Annales arch\u00e9ologiques_, 1862, t.\nXXI. p. 297.\n\n[1236] Didron, _loc. cit._\n\n[1237] _Notes and Queries_, 6th Ser., III. p. 168.\n\n[1238] _Bygone Hertfordshire_, ed. W. Andrews, 1898, p. 157.\n\n[1239] _Papers read at the Royal Institute of British Architects_,\n1853-4, pp. 133-4.\n\n[1240] _Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._, 1873, XXIX. p. 306;\n1879, XXXV. p. 95.\n\n[1241] _Notes and Queries_, 6th Ser., III. pp. 412-3.\n_Rept. Norfolk and Norwich Archaeol. Soc._ 1861, p. iii.\n\n[1242] _Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._, XXXV. pp. 95 et seqq.;\ncf. XXXVIII. pp. 218-21; see also XVI.\npp. 359-63. There is an interesting article on \u201cAcoustic jars,\u201d by\nG. C. Yates, in _Antiquities and Curiosities of the Church_, ed. W.\nAndrews, 1897, pp. 34-43.\n\n[1243] _Jour. Archaeol. Assoc._, 1882, XXXVIII. pp.\n218-21.\n\n[1244] Quoted from the 1770 edition of A. Young\u2019s _Six Months\u2019 Tour\nthrough the North of England_, I. pp. 162-3, in _Notes\nand Queries_, 7th Ser., II. p. 266.\n\n[1245] W. Marshall, _Rural Econ. of Yorkshire_, 1788, I.\np. 261.\n\n[1246] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., II. p. 266.\n\n[1247] _Ibid._, 7th Ser., II. p. 354.\n\n[1248] _Ibid._, 8th Ser., VII. p. 470.\n\n[1249] _Ibid._, 7th Ser., II. p. 318.\n\n[1250] _Ibid._, 8th Ser., VII. p. 396.\n\n[1251] _Ibid._, 8th Ser., VII. p. 469.\n\n[1252] A. Young, _Six Weeks\u2019 Tour through the Southern Counties_, 1769,\npp. 73-4.\n\n[1253] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., II. pp. 372-3.\n\n[1254] _Ibid._, 7th Ser., II. p. 317. A good description\nof Sussex oxen is given by W. H. Hudson, in _Nature in Downland_, 1900,\nChap. III.\n\n[1255] W. de Gray Birch, _Domesday Book_, 1887, p. 222; P. H. Newman,\nin _Social England_, ed. H. D. Traill, 1894, I. p. 214.\n\n[1256] Another probable mode was to employ four yoke of two each.\n\n[1257] Bartholomew Anglicus, _Mediaeval Lore_, ed. R. Steele, 1905, p.\n143. For \u201clanghaldes,\u201d see _Cent. Dict._; for \u201cspanells,\u201d _Eng. Dial.\nDict._ and Funk\u2019s _Standard Dict._ (1906), s.v.\n\n[1258] _Social England_, ed. H. D. Traill, 1894, I. p.\n128.\n\n[1259] _Seneschaucie_, reprinted with Walter de Henley\u2019s _Le Dite de\nHosebondrie_, tr. E. Lamond, 1890, p. 113.\n\n[1260] _King Henry IV._, 2nd Pt, Act iii. Sc. 2.\n\n[1261] R. Burns, _My ain Kind Dearie O_, v. 2.\n\n[1262] R. Carew, _Survey of Cornwall_, 1769, p. 23.\n\n[1263] Fitzstephen\u2019s _Descrip. of the City of London_, ed. by \u201cAn\nAntiquary\u201d [S. Pegge], 1772, pp. 39, 70. Cf. Translation by H. Morley,\nin his edition of Stow\u2019s _Survey of London_, 1890, p. 27. See also P.\nVinogradoff, _Eng. Society in the Eleventh Century_, 1908, p. 154.\n\n[1264] _Notes and Queries_, 2nd Ser., II. p. 195. Cf.\n_Piers the Plowman_, VI. 289-90: \u201cand a cart-mare to\ndrawe a-fielde my donge.\u201d\n\n[1265] _Le Dite de Hosebondrie_, p. 11.\n\n[1266] W. J. Corbett, in _Social England_, II. p.\n545. Note, however, that towards the end of the sixteenth century\n(A.D. 1577) William Harrison, in Holinshed\u2019s\n_Chronicle_, speaks of \u201cour cart or plough horses (for we use them\nindifferently),\u201d Bk. III. c. 1 (edition 1807, 1. p. 370).\n\n[1267] W. L. Rham, _Dict. of the Farm_, new edition, 1858, p. 202.\n\n[1268] On this theory, a bovate represents one-eighth of a carucate.\n\n[1269] Birch, _Domesday Book_, pp. 225-6. For contrary view, see J. H.\nRound, _Feudal England_, 1909, pp. 35-36. Dr Round argues that not only\nwas the _caruca_ a plough team of eight oxen, but that the number was\nfixed. Also P. Vinogradoff, _Villainage in England_, 1892, pp. 252-3.\nThe number of oxen was perhaps partly dependent upon the practice\nof co-aration, or co-operative ploughing. See G. Slater, in _Geogr.\nJour._, 1907, XXIX. p. 39. P. Vinogradoff, _Eng. Society\nin the Eleventh Century_, 1908, pp. 154, 164-5. See also F. Seebohm,\n_Eng. Vill. Community_, 1896, pp. 62-5, 74, 85, 123.\n\n[1270] Publications of Surtees Society, No. 83, p. 65.\n\n[1271] _Ibid._, No. 87 (_Life of St Cuthbert in Eng. Verse_), p. 170.\n\n[1272] _Ibid._, p. 176.\n\n[1273] G. Roberts, _Social Hist. of the People of the Southern Counties\nof England_, 1856, p. 487. Cf. D. Defoe, _Tour thro\u2019 the whole Island\nof Great Britain_, 1724, I. pp. 59-60. Timber taken\nby road from Sussex to Maidstone, and thence by river to Chatham,\nsometimes required three years for the journey.\n\n[1274] R. E. Prothero, in _Social England_, V. p. 455.\nCf. N. J. Hone, _The Manor and Manorial Records_, 1906, pp. 41-3. See\nAddenda, p. 497 _infra_.\n\n[1275] Birch, _Domesday Book_, p. 225.\n\n[1276] Rham, _Dict. Farm_, p. 202.\n\n[1277] W. Youatt, _Cattle, their Breeds, Management, and Diseases_, new\nedition, 1876, p. 42.\n\n[1278] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Ser., VII. p. 470.\n\n[1279] _Reliquary_, 1905, XI. p. 223.\n\n[1280] Rham, _Dict. Farm_, p. 385.\n\n[1281] _Reliquary_, XI. p. 223.\n\n[1282] Youatt, _Cattle_, p. 42.\n\n[1283] Marshall, _Rural Econ. Yorks._, I. pp. 266-7.\n\n[1284] Rham, _Dict. Farm_, p. 250.\n\n[1285] Cf. _Country Life_, 1911, XXX. pp. 719-20.\n\n[1286] J. E. Thorold Rogers, _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, 1889,\np. 77. Rham, _Dict. Farm_, p. 203.\n\n[1287] A. Fitzherbert, _Boke of Husbandry_ (1534), ed. Skeat, 1882, p.\n16. Concerning the academic question whether the _Boke of Husbandry_\nis the work of Anthony or of John Fitzherbert, see the _Dict. of Nat.\nBiog._, under \u201cFitzherbert, Sir Anthony\u201d--decision in favour of Sir\nAnthony.\n\n[1288] Rham, _Dict. Farm_, p. 385. Rogers, _Six Centuries_, p. 76. N.\nJ. Hone, _The Manor and Manorial Records_, 1906, p. 81.\n\n[1289] Rogers, _Six Centuries_, p. 76.\n\n[1290] Youatt, _Cattle_, p. 42.\n\n[1291] _Le Dite de Hosebondrie_, pp. 10-13.\n\n[1292] A. Young, _Six Months Tour, N. of England_, 1771,\nIV. pp. 116-137.\n\n[1293] _Ibid._, p. 144.\n\n[1294] _Boke of Husbandry_, p. 15.\n\n[1295] _Ibid._, p. 15.\n\n[1296] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., II. p. 317.\n\n[1297] W. J. Corbett, in _Social England_, II. p. 545.\n\n[1298] Gen. A. L. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, 1887,\netc., I. p. 84. Figure given on Plate XXVII.\n\n[1299] E. Conybeare, _Rom. Brit._ 1903, p. 177 n. (authorities given).\nW. Ridgeway, _The Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred Horse_,\n1905, p. 504. Cf. T. McKenny Hughes, in _Proc. Camb. Antiq. Soc._,\nX. 1904, pp. 256-7.\n\n[1300] J. Beckmann, _Hist. of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins_,\ntr. W. Johnston, 4th edition, 1846, I. p. 443. Cf.\nPliny, _Nat. Hist._, l. XI. c. 105.\n\n[1301] Beckmann, _l.c._ This writer, and the authorities whom\nhe quotes, deserve careful study. On the whole, Beckmann sums\nup somewhat against the theory that horses were usually shod in\nclassical times. This conclusion is in practical agreement with that\nof Professor Hughes, _loc. cit._ See Aristotle, _Hist. Animal._ l.\nII. c. 2, \u00a7 6.\n\n[1302] Catullus, _Carm._ xvii. ll. 25-6. Cf. Beckmann,\nI. p. 445.\n\n[1303] P. Vinogradoff, _Villainage in England_, 1892, p. 15.\n\n[1304] Rogers, _Six Centuries_, p. 76.\n\n[1305] _Le Dite de Hosebondrie_, p. 13.\n\n[1306] _Boke of Husbandry_, p. 16.\n\n[1307] _Ibid._, p. 16.\n\n[1308] Pub. Surtees Soc., No. 65, p. 250 n.\n\n[1309] _Ibid._, No. 65, p. 250 n.\n\n[1310] Isa. v. 28. Cf. Smith, _Dict. of the Bible_, Art. \u201cHorse.\u201d\n\n[1311] T. McKenny Hughes, in _Proc. Camb. Antiq. Soc._,\nX. 1904, pp. 256-7. J. J. Hissey, _Over Fen and Wold_,\n1898, p. 127.\n\n[1312] The number of nails required for an ox-shoe varied locally. See,\ne.g., the illustration in Youatt\u2019s _Cattle_, p. 569, where three nails\nonly are shown.\n\n[1313] Youatt, _Cattle_, pp. 569-70. On the general question, see also\nT. McKenny Hughes, _loc. cit._\n\n[1314] Marshall, _Rural Econ. Yorks._, II. p. 182.\nArthur Beckett, in _The Spirit of the Downs_, 1909, pp. 285-290, has\na good description of a South Down ploughing match, in which oxen\ncompeted.\n\n[1315] _Rural Econ. Yorks._, I. pp. 262-3. Cf. H. M.\nNeville, _A Corner in the North_, 1909, pp. 247-50.\n\n[1316] H. E. Forrest, in _Naturalist_, 1908, p. 330.\n\n[1317] Caesar, _De Bell. Gall._, l. VI. c. 28. The value\nof this passage is seriously questioned by Professor J. Wilson, in\n_Evolution of British Cattle_, 1909, Ch. I.\n\n[1318] _Naturalist_, 1908, p. 330. Chambers\u2019s _Cyclopaedia_, Art.\n\u201cCattle.\u201d Lord Avebury, _Pre-hist. Times_, 6th edition, 1900, p. 286,\nsays that the urus survived in Germany until the sixteenth century.\n\n[1319] Lord Avebury, _l.c._\n\n[1320] _Naturalist_, 1908, p. 361.\n\n[1321] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, 1880, p. 261.\n\n[1322] R. Hedger Wallace, \u201cWhite Cattle,\u201d in _Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc.\nGlasgow_, v., N.S. Pt 2 (1897-8), pp. 220-273. Mr Wallace gives\ntwenty-one pages of bibliography. This excellent paper may be referred\nto on many points. J. Wilson, _Evol. of Brit. Cattle_, especially pp.\n22-3, 38-40, 61-9, and the whole of Chap. iii. See also R. Lydekker,\nin _Knowledge_, XXV. pp. 101-2; H. Woodward, _Guide\nto Fossil Mammals and Birds_ (S. Kensington), 8th edition, 1904,\npp. 43-4. An article on Park Cattle appeared in _Nature Notes_,\nIX. 1898, pp. 46-9.\n\n[1323] Chambers\u2019s _Cyclopaedia_, Art. \u201cCattle.\u201d Cf. J. Wilson, _Evol.\nof Brit. Cattle_, p. 17. (The view taken is in harmony with that of\nProfessor T. McKenny Hughes.)\n\n[1324] H. A. Nicholson, _Manual of Palaeontology_, 3rd edition, 1889,\nII. p. 1352.\n\n[1325] _Ibid._, 3rd edition, 1889, II. p. 1352.\n\n[1326] H. A. Nicholson, _Manual of Palaeontology_, 3rd edition, 1889,\nII. p. 1352. _Naturalist_ 1908, p. 332.\n\n[1327] N. Joly, _Man before Metals_, 4th edition, 1887, p. 268.\n\n[1328] T. Rice Holmes, _Anc. Brit. and the Invas. of Jul. Caesar_,\n1907, p. 152 n.\n\n[1329] J. Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, tr. J. S. Stallybrass, 1883,\nIV. p. 1302.\n\n[1330] _Ibid._, l.c.\n\n[1331] 1 Sam. vi. _vv._ 7 et seqq.\n\n[1332] _Teut. Myth._, IV. p. 1302.\n\n[1333] _Ibid._, I. p. 49.\n\n[1334] Bede, _Ecclesiastical Hist._, l. I. c. 30.\n\n[1335] _Teut. Myth._, II. p. 665.\n\n[1336] S. Baring-Gould, _A Book of Brittany_, 1901, pp. 231-3.\n\n[1337] _Teut. Myth._, II. p. 664.\n\n[1338] A. de Gubernatis, _Zoological Mythology_, 1872,\nI. p. 258. The whole of Chap. 1, Section 5, will repay\nattention.\n\n[1339] _Zool. Myth._, I. p. 247.\n\n[1340] J. M. Kemble, _The Saxons in England_, 1876, II.\np. 429.\n\n[1341] Greenwell, _British Barrows_, pp. 168, 230. References are also\ngiven to Bateman\u2019s discoveries of ox skulls in Derbyshire barrows.\nJ. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years\u2019 Researches_, pp. 9, 10, 18, 22, etc. A\nbarrow near Bridlington yielded a dagger-knife of bronze, with two\nplates of ox-horn, of which the hilt had been composed (Evans, _Anc.\nStone Impts_, p. 265).\n\n[1342] R. Colt Hoare, _Anc. Hist. of South Wilts_, 1812,\nI. p. 199.\n\n[1343] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, l. VIII. c. 70.\n\n[1344] Virgil, _Georg._, l. II. line 537. Pliny, _Nat.\nHist._, l. VIII. c. 70. For parallel practices see\nWestermarck, _Origin and Devel. of the Moral Ideas_, II.\npp. 330-1, 493, 494.\n\n[1345] W. Smith, _Dict. Greek and Roman Antiq._, Art. \u201cNummus.\u201d For\nthe Athenian sacrifice of the ox, see J. G. Frazer, _Golden Bough_,\nII. pp. 38, 39, 41; and for the sacred cattle of Egypt,\nsee II. pp. 59-61.\n\n[1346] Grimm, _Teut. Myth._, II. p. 665.\n\n[1347] _Ibid._, II. p. 664.\n\n[1348] D. Defoe, _A Tour thro\u2019 the whole Island of Great Britain_,\n1724, I. p. 60. It will be well to note the reference,\nsince the passage is incorrectly ascribed to other writers. G. Roberts,\n_Soc. Hist. of the S. Counties of England_, 1856, p. 487, cites Fuller\nas the author; and Lord Avebury, _Scenery of England_, 1902, pp.\n440-7, attributes the statement to Arthur Young. About the close of\nthe seventeenth century, carriage-teams of oxen were popular among\nRoman Catholics, who were prevented by the Penal Laws from possessing a\nhorse (Tozer, _The Horse in History_, p. 264). Such a carriage-team was\nused by Lord Sheffield so late as the close of the eighteenth century\n(_Notes and Queries_, 10th Ser., XI. p. 136). See also\nL. V. Lucas, _Highways and Byways in Sussex_, 3rd edition, 1907, p.\n286, where another instance is recorded from Sussex.\n\n[1349] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., II. p. 317.\n\n[1350] E. C. Brewer, _Dict. of Phrase and Fable_, under \u201cOx.\u201d\n\n[1351] T. Percy, _Reliques of Anc. Eng. Poetry_, ed. H. B. Wheatley,\n1891, III. p. 112.\n\n[1352] _Zoological Mythology_, I. p. 258.\n\n[1353] _Survey of Cornwall_, p. 24.\n\n[1354] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., XI. p. 62.\nR. Southey, _Commonplace Book_, ed. J. W. Warter, 1876, Ser.\nIV. p. 388.\n\n[1355] _Notes and Queries_, 7th Ser., XI. p. 236.\n\n[1356] J. Ingelow, _High Tide on the Coast of Lincolnshire_, vv. 5, 23.\nSir W. Scott, _Heart of Midlothian_, chs. xxxix., xlv. See also _Notes\nand Queries_, 11th Ser., IV. p. 466.\n\n[1357] E. Thomas, _The South Country_, 1909, p. 129.\n\n[1358] Deut. xxv. 4.","title":"Byways in British Archaeology","tradition":"folklore-oral-tradition","translated_text":null,"word_count":190545}