« PreviousContinue »
Canon J. T. Fowler has kindly drawn my attention to a few errata in the article which appeared under this title in the last volume of the Journal, and which should be corrected as follows:
Page 356, line 5. Cenagium has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. It is another mode of spelling Senagium, i.e. Synodals. Page 356, lines 4 and 6 from bottom. Oblacione inde facienda should
4 probably be read oblatis inde faciendis, and in the thirteenth line from the bottom oblacionis should probably be read oblatarum. Oblacione facta in the second line from the bottom of page 362 should probably be read Oblatis factis. The reference in every case being to the making of obleys or altar bread for the Easter celebration. Quoting from Canon Fowler's Introduction to the Durham Account Rolls, vol. iii, page xii, “ The bread (at Durham) was always in the form of wafers made of the finest flour that could be obtained from picked grains of the best wheat. These wafers were commonly called 'obleys,' which word is a short form of the word ' oblation,' and they were made by pinching the paste between a pair of nippers called 'obley-irons' or 'baking-irons,' previously heated." The cause of the false reading and extension is that in every
instance the word translated ' oblation’ is written oblač in the roll, and the last letter is more like a 'c' than a 't.' But on comparing other words on the
a roll which end with a 't,' I find that the scribe has used the same letter, and therefore Canon Fowler's correction seems to be right, especially as the obleys are more probable than an oblation.
Page 358, line 13 from top. The word 'et,' which is omitted in the roll, should follow arura, and the sentence should be translated, ‘he charges for ploughing and harrowing. The word arura is interlined in the roll.
I have translated gurgitis by the words Page 370, line 12 from bottom.
embankment' and 'dam,' although Page 378, line 6 from top.
such meanings are uncommon, but they seemed most probable. I now find that at one time there was a 'cut' or watercourse (see Saxton's map of 1600), which may have been the gurgitis (gurges) mentioned here.
Page 370, line 4 from bottom. Butamen is a mistake for bittumine. I have somehow overlooked the wrong transcript. The word in the roll is bittume. It should be translated 'tar,' as also should butimine in the eighteenth line of page 358.
Page 373n. For Kitchen's read Kitchin's.
Page 390, line 23. For decimam read decimalem, as in page 387, line 3 from bottom. Page 452, line 8 from bottom. For ayte read yate.
S. J. CHADWICK.
[The Council has decided to reserve a small space in each Number for notices of
Finds and other discoveries; and it is hoped that Members will assist in making this a record of all matters of archæological interest which from time to time may be brought to light in this large county.]
A Roman memorial stone was discovered (August, 1911), during excavation, in the grounds of the Mount (Girls') School, York. The stone was found lying horizontally, face upwards, about 10 feet from the surface, one corner of it being just under the foundation of a wall built about 1855. As will be seen from the accompanying illustration, it is in almost perfect preservation. Its surface measures approximately 6 feet by 2 feet 6 inches, and its thickness is about 6 inches. The spot where the stone was found is near to the line of the Roman road between York and Tadcaster, and Roman remains have often been found in this vicinity. The inscription reads :
"To the divine departed. L. Bæbius Crescens. of Augusta Vindelicorum (the modern Augsburg) soldier of the 6th legion, victorious, pious, faithful ; died aged 43, after 23 years' service. (?) His heir caused this to be erected.' (The reading and interpretation of the last line are doubtful:)
The stone will be kept in the Mount School, in the care of their Archæological Society.
P. W. Dopp.
RELIC OF THE BATTLE OF WAKEFIELD, 1460.
The sword which is here figured was dug up a few years ago during the operation of cutting a main drain near the site
of the battle of Wakefield. The engagement, it will be remembered, was fought between the Yorkists and Lancastrians, when the former were defeated with great loss, including Edward, Duke of York, and the youthful Duke of Rutland. When found, the sword was incrusted
with a thick coat of clay in which it was embedded, but which readily shelled off after immersion in paraffin, leaving the sword in almost perfect condition, with the exception of the wood grip. The contrary would have been the case had it lain about 450 years in either sand or gravel. The total length of the sword is 33} inches, that of the blade 284 inches, width of blade is inches. The armourer's mark, which occurs on both sides of the blade, may be described as 3 mascles, 2 and 1, with a mullet above, all within a pointed shield. A photograph having been submitted to Mr. Guy Francis Lakin, F.S.A., the King's Armourer, the weapon was described by him as of great interest and very unusual type. “Although back-edged,” he proceeds, “and possessing knuckle guard, I think it can safely be assigned to the latter part of the fifteenth century. The section of the straight quillon and the small cap-like pommel are characteristic. The mark upon the blade I am familiar with, although I do not know with whom it can be associated ; that, again, is distinctly of a fifteenth century nature. I think it can be accepted that the sword was probably an auxiliary arm of an archer or crossbowman.”'
It will readily be seen how this crude, and probably earliest, form of knuckle guard, for the unprotected hand of the archer, was evolved from the plain cross-hilt of the knight, with his steel gauntleted hand.
H. C. HALDANE.