and Castle and the Orb and Cross in a shaped shield, with this inscription, in cusped letters, round its edge:

THE MOST HERE OF IS DVNE BY PETER PETERSON.

It has generally been assumed that the history of this cup is explained by the following entry in the Assembly Book, under date September 21st, 1574:

"This day by the hole concent of this howse, at the "humble suit request and desyer of Peter Peterson of the same cittie, goldsmith, the same Peter Peterson is 'dispensyed with and discharged from beryng the "office of Shrevaltie and all other offices within the 'cittie, only the office of Chamblyne excepted: for the "whc. dispensaon the same Peter Peterson have agreed "to geve one standing cupp gylte of the weight of xv. oz. and xlli in money, to be payed in forme follow"ing, viz., xx" between this and the purification of o "Lady next; x at Michelmas next after that, and 'the other x that tyme twelvemonths.1

It has very generally been assumed that the cup now in the possession of the Corporation, is the cup referred to in this entry; but, unfortunately for this theory, the existing cup weighs 31oz. 2dwts., or just double the weight of what I may call the ransom cup, and the two can only be connected by crediting Peterson with great generosity.

The fact remains, however, that we have a cup of Norwich make with the Orb and Cross in a shaped shield, the inscription on which declares it to be, in part at least, the work of Peterson it would seem therefore but reasonable to attribute our cups to him also. The discovery and publication of Peterson's will has, however, imported a considerable element of doubt into the matter.3

This will bequeaths specifically a large amount of plate, and much of what is so bequeathed is identified as having the

1History and Description of the Insignia and Plate belonging to the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Norwich; Norwich, 1890, 17. In the same collection is another piece, known as the Reade salt, date about 1568, and stamped with the Lion and Castle and the Orb and Cross; but the latter is in a lozenge, and not in a shaped shield, as in our cups. See infra, p. 448. 2 Corporation Plate and Insignia of office of the Cities and Towns of England and Wales. Ll. Jewitt & W. H. St. John Hope, London, 1895; ii, 189. Nor can the existing cup be the one bequeathed by Peterson to the Corporation (though in this case the weights more nearly correspond), for this latter is specified in the will as of London tuch..'

3 Nor. Arch., xi, 259. A paper by C. R. Manning, F.S. A. The will is in the Norwich Archdeaconry; 1603. fo. 190.

"sonne

66

on it. It has therefore been suggested that the "" sonne and not the orb and cross was Peterson's mark. A good deal, however, turns on the exact way in which the sonne" is spoken of in connection with these pieces, and I therefore propose to quote from the will some of the actual passages. Many spoons are spoken of as having "knoppes of the sonne": others have "the knoppe of the sonne, and are graven and guylt on the back side with the sonne." Again we find a tankard of silver graven upon it with the sonne in the cover," a "porringer graven with the sonne," a "cup with a cover, of London tuch wch cover hath the sonne mentioned in the top thereof with the goldsmith's arms graven upon it"; a "silver pot graven upon the covers wth the sonne, the Lion and Castle of Norwich tuch, of my own making" in addition to the silver so bequeathed, mention is also made of a " garnish of pewter marked with the sonne," and a "half garnish marked in the same way. In none of these instances, however, is the sun spoken of as being a maker's mark. On the contrary it may well be argued that it was more in the nature of a badge or crest. It will be noticed for instance

:

1. That the sun is always spoken of as "graven" while a maker's mark would be punched. I do not wish to lay too much stress on this point, as it may well be that the word "graven" may have been used indifferently for both processes; but still I am inclined to think that even at that date the word implied cutting rather than punching.

2. The sun was, in the instances I have quoted above, admittedly used otherwise than a maker's mark; the spoons, for example, have it for a 'knoppe' or seal end, in the manner of apostle spoons.

3. In the case of cups having covers, the sun is expressly stated to begraven on the cover,' whereas we should expect the maker's mark to be punched both on the cup and cover, as being separate pieces.

4. In one case we are distinctly told of a cover which 'hath the sonne mentioned in the top thereof wth the goldsmith's arms graven on it'; the inference being, that the sun and the arms were both treated in the same way, the arms being evidently graven and not punched.

5. A cup, of London 'tuch' (and therefore not likely to be Peterson's work), has the sun graven upon it.

6. The pewter, and we have no evidence that Peterson was a pewterer, also has the sun on it.

7.

Lastly-and this is important as proving what seems

clear from the other cases, namely, that the sun was at any rate used otherwise than as maker's mark—a bequest of coals is directed to be distributed by means of leaden tokens stamped with the sun.

So far as all this goes, it might fairly, I think, be argued that the sun was used by Peterson merely as a badge; and that the absence of any mention in his will of the orb and cross does not exclude the possibility of his having used this as his craft-mark. Hence, if the question could be left here, it might be assumed, on the evidence of the Corporation cup, and notwithstanding the silence of the will, that our cups were from his workshop. We have however one further piece of evidence, which not only cuts away the argument based on the Corporation cup, but also supports the surmise arising from the will, that the sun and not the orb and cross, was Peterson's mark. In the Churchwardens' Accounts for the parish of St. Margaret, Norwich, is an entry under date 1567 pd to Peter 'Peterson ye goldesmyth for making ye comunyon cuppe'and for makinge ye cover.'1 This cup still exists, bearing the date 1568, and for maker's mark, a full human face surrounded by rays, known heraldically as a head affrontée, and often used as the conventional representation of the sun. Here, then, we have a piece of plate identified as Peterson's work, bearing the mark which his will has told us he certainly used for some purposes, and, moreover, of about the same date as the Dutch cups.

We are thus I think brought to the conclusion that it is by no means certain that these cups were of Peterson's make; there is, indeed, a very strong presumption that they were not; though it has not been found possible, so far, to attribute the orb and cross to any other maker. Mr. Cripps in the last edition of his work suggests, on the authority of an instance occurring at Haddiscoe in Norfolk, that the mark may have belonged to John and Robert Stone; but the illustration of this mark which he gives3 shows it in a shield with a pointed base. The mark is a common one in the county, some twenty instances of it being given in the Norfolk Archæology; but all these again are in a lozenge, and, like the Haddiscoe mark, are not in that respect identical with our mark, which is in a shaped shield.

Here then, so far as direct evidence is concerned, the question must be left; nor should I have pursued it further,

1 Norf. Arch. x. 92, 392. 2 Op. cit. 88.

The cup also has a further mark, viz. a trefoil slipped.
Norf. Arch. x. 65.

3

Op. cit. 92.

4

had it not been that my enquiries into it have made me acquainted with certain other cups, three of which I am able to exhibit to-night. It is true that these examples do not help us to any conclusion; but their close resemblance to our beakers, and the fact that some of them are from the same district. is sufficient excuse for devoting a few moments to their consideration.

The first I would bring to your notice is the beaker belonging to the parish of Ellon in Aberdeen. This cup is illustrated in Burn's Old Scottish Communion Plate, and a glance at the figure will show that both in shape and ornament it almost exactly reproduces the Norwich cups. In fact, so close is the similarity of the chasing that I am only able to detect two points of difference; the Ellon beaker has a single line as the branch of the foliage, instead of a double one, and there are added also, at the point at which the fillets interlace, two unattached leaves, wanting in the Norwich examples. The Ellon beaker was purchased, as an inscription tells us, at Aberdeen in 1634, from Alexander Hays, a silversmith of that city. It is stamped with three marks:

:

1. The town mark of Amsterdam.

2.

3.

A maker's mark, so badly struck as to be indecipherable.

The letter B, which would seem to be the date letter for the year 1614 in the Amsterdam cycle.2

Next let us turn to what I shall call the Yarmouth cup (plate 2), which, by the courtesy of Mr. Samuel, of Norwich, I am able to exhibit. Here again we have a beaker, in form the exact counterpart of the Dutch cups, though it is slightly heavier. The chasing is also curiously similar, though both in design and execution it is lacking in the artistic delicacy of the older cup. A comparison of the reproductions (given in plates 1 and 2) fails to shows this, as the heavier work of the Yarmouth cup comes out more clearly in the photograph; it will however be noticed that the lines are far coarser, and far less truly drawn, while the pattern is so

1 Edinburgh. 1892, p. 425. This cup seems to have become the parent of several others made after the same pattern in Scotland during the 17th century; see especially those of Fintray and Monymusk, both of which are figured in Burns (p. 294).

2 Der Goldschmiede Merkzeichen, Dr. M. Rosenberg, Frankfurt am Main; 1890: 431.

3 This beaker is 6ğin. high; 4in. across the top; base 3ğin. diameter. Weight 11oz. 18dwts.

carelessly worked that in several instances the junctions of the lines are not true. Of its history, unfortunately, I know nothing, except that it is said to be one of a set formerly belonging to some congregation at Yarmouth, and recently sold there. It bears the following marks (plate 5), very clearly struck:

1. Lion and Castle of Norwich.1

2.

3.

4.

Double seeded rose, crowned.

O. in a shaped shield.

A monogram formed of the letters T-S intertwined. In addition to these marks there is pricked on the base, I-H, 1638. The first of these marks is obviously that of Norwich; and the second is sometimes found in conjunction with it on Norwich plate of this date.2 O is the date letter of the year 1637 in the Norwich cycle, which agrees with the date we find pricked on the base. The monogram may be claimed for Timothy Skottowe, a known silversmith at Norwich at this period, though, so far, 1634 has been the latest date of any known work of his.3

Next let us turn to the smaller beaker, figured in plate 3. This also is from Norwich, where I acquired it from Mr. Samuel. In form as in character it at once reminds us of the cups we have been considering, though the detail is somewhat different; the workmanship is very inferior. being of the Yarmouth rather than of the Ellon or Dutch cup type. Its interest lies not so much in its resemblance to the other cups, as in the marks it bears, which are these (plate 6, fig 2) :—

3. A monogram formed of the letters T-S, intertwined. It is obvious that the monogram is identical with the one on the Yarmouth cup, and may equally be claimed for Timothy Skottowe; and if this be so, we may assume that the T is the Norwich date letter for 1642, though we do not find what we should expect, namely the Norwich town-mark of the Lion and Castle, with or without the Crowned Rose. In place of these we have a Lion, which I am unable to identify in connection with Norwich, or indeed to account for in any

1 It will be noticed that this mark is not struck from the same punch as in the Dutch church cups.

2 Cripps, op. cit. 90.

3 The Reliquary. As to Skottowe see Cripps (op. cit.) 92. History of the Insignia and Plate of Norwich (ut supra) 22. Dr. Rosenberg figures two instances of a similar monogram, both from Nurnberg (op. cit. 276, 315).