9 th S. I. JAN. 1, '98.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
11
II
sius, although they spread far and wide th
knowledge of the latter's system. This is
what I meant by his "bringing into use'
the Dionysian era. The voluminous Petai:
regarded Beda as the real introducer oi
the use of this era.* Mabillon, in whom MR
ANSCOMBE has such unquestioning belief
concluded that the era was brought into
Frarikish use by Englishmen ; t Ludwig
Ideler ascribed the main share in its spread
to Beda ; and the greatest of modern diplo-
matists holds that the Franks derived their
knowledge of this era from our great North-
umbrian scholar. :{:
Against these arguments MR. ANSCOMBE adduces the views of Kemble, which are vitiated by mistakes regarding the later Roman legal usages and by other errors, and he lays great stress upon the unsupported and apparently baseless assertion of Don Clement that the era was used in Prankish private deeds of the seventh century. The inconsequent conclusion of MR. ANSCOMBE'S letter does not concern me.
The rest of MR. ANSCOMBE'S remarks consists of discussions of such unimportant points as the inferiority of Spelman as an authority on O.E. charters ; charges, which he himself disproves, that I have seriously misrepre- sented Spelman and Ideler, and that I have dealt "in a way that is not quite fair " with a blunder of Kemble's ; what amounts to accusation of want of honesty, and the quibble that I am wrong in describing Ideler's argument as a " contention " because Ideler speaks " assuredly not contention sly." The general tone of MR. ANSCOMBE'S letter may perhaps suggest a reason for his in- ability to conceive that "contention" is applicable to an argument that is advanced judicially and inoffensively. If any one care to take the trouble of looking at the ' Craw- ford Charters,' p. 46, he will find there unmis- takably and unambiguously the reference to Ideler that MR. ANSCOMBE accuses me of omit- ting, apparently for some wicked reason of my own. MR. ANSCOMBE'S argument that the non-use of this era in the Papal Chancery in
- ' De Doctrina Temporum,' Paris, 1627, ii. c. 12,
t ' De Re Diplomatica,' ii. c. 23, 13.
t Theodor Sickel, ' Acta Carolina,' i. 221.
He was, even on MR. ANSCOMBE'S showing, superior to Mabillon, for the great Benedictine^ knowledge, such as it was, of O.E. charters was drawn exclusively from printed texts. In one case he gives a strong testimonial to the authenticity of one of the clumsy Ingulf forgeries. Spelman's instinct was sounder than Kemble's, for the latter saw no reason to doubt the authenticity of ^Ethel- bert's charter of 604 (' Cod. Dipl.,' i. 1).
the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries
must, pro tanto, be a proof that it was not
introduced into England in the seventh or
the eighth is of no weight, since I did not
claim that its use was derived from that
source. Is he not in error in stating that St.
Gregory and the other saints named by him
"extracted the Golden Number and the
Sunday Letter"? Writers on chronology
have, I believfe, failed to detect the use of
either the Number or the Letter at so early a
date. W. H. STEVENSON.
ENIGMA (8 th S. xii. 487). This old friend turns up at the appropriate season of Christ- mas. But at 3 rd S. vi. 497, for " third " read whole; at 7 th S. xi. 128, ditto, and for "used" read heard, for "friends" read all. The authorship has been attributed to Praed as well as to Archbishop Whately, and " Heart- ache" suggested as an answer, as well as "Ignis fatuus." I do not see this charade among the thirty-eight charades at the end of Praed's 'Poems'; but since its first appearance in 'N. & Q.,' thirty-three years ago, I have found it a more effective soporific than nume- ration, or sheep, or sulphonal, and I hope that no one will be so clever as to guess it now.
KlLLIGREW.
JOHNSTONE OF WAMPHRAY (8 th S. xi. 508 ; xii. 296, 364, 430, 470). I am sorry that any expressions in my note were such as to cause MR. JONAS displeasure. I trust he will accept my assurance that I intended no disrespect to himself, only a vigorous remonstrance against his version of Border history. I cannot say that his explanation diminishes the grounds on which I entered my protest. I think that " prior to the Union " is such a loose date that no good purpose is served by attempting to describe in a couple of pages the condition of society between 1191 (the first date men- tioned) and 1707, especially when the Scottish oorder is represented as being dotted with " at least half a dozen fortified towers." [n McGibbon and Ross's 'Castellated and Domestic Architecture of Scotland' twenty- six such towers, remaining to this day, are described in Dumfriesshire alone, while those which have disappeared almost defy com- putation.
Touching the so-called " native " families, it s now clear that MR. JONAS meant not the old Celtic families, but " resident " families, " in contradistinction to those planted by William ind his followers." William planted no fol- owers in Dumfriesshire, though in the twelfth jentury David I. of Scotland certainly en- couraged the settlement of Norman knights n his realm, having imbibed feudal doctrines
