290
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. ix. APRIL 12, 1902.
India,' published 1844, i. 240). What was a
Combermere chair ? I suppose it took its
name from Lord Combermere, the conqueror
of Bhurtpur, Commander-in-Chief of India
1825-30. W. CEOOKE.
Langton House, Charlton Kings.
" ROMANS DBS DOUZE PAIRS." What is the name of vol. x. of this series'? The 'Roman- cero ' of Paulin Paris, sometimes given, was not originally part of the series.
R. STEELE.
PONTIFICAL PEIVILEGES. The Pall Mall Gazette of 12 February reports a determina- tion on the part of Pope Leo XIII. to nominate his successor. Can any one give me chapter and verse for maintaining that the right of nominating a successor is in- cluded in the Pontifical prerogative ?
FREDEEICK WILLIAM ROLFE.
"ENGLAND'S DARLING."- Of whom is this title properly used 1 Is it not a designation of Alfred the Great 1 Dr. Brewer in his 'Dictionary of Phrase and Fable' assigns it to Hereward the Wake. To whom does it really belong; and what is the earliest instance of its occurrence 1 PEETINAX.
BEOWNE FAMILY AEMS. In Fairbairn's 'Crests' a crest of a demi-lion rampant, chained, is ascribed to a Browne family. Will any reader kindly inform me what arras are borne by the family that bears this crest ? GENEALOGICUS.
LAURENCE FAMILY. I should be grate- tul it any one would tell me the parentage of the Kev. John Laurence (or Lawrence) in- stituted to the living of St. Martin's, Stam- tord Baron, in 1666, and sometime prebendary of Lincoln. I should also be glad to know anything with regard to the family of Eliza- beth his wife, or with regard to the family of Mary, the wife of his son, the Rev. John Laurence rector of Bishop Wearmouth, the author ot well-known works on gardening
51, Medora Road, BdxYonHilf' MARCHANT '
.ST. PAUL AND SENECA.-IH Henryk Sien- kiewicz's romance 'Quo Vadis?' chap xv with reference to the desire of certain patS cians at Rome to see St. Paul, we read "So does Seneca, who heard of him from Gallofsecl " Apart from the tendency of the early fathers to claim Seneca as almost their ownf is there
StVaufeTr h r M Uth0rity f r fche b * lief S* SenecaJ ^ ^ P e ' >so ^ercourse with
Elstow. C> H<
HERALDRY BEFORE THE CONQUEST.
(9 th S. ix. 124.)
I QUITE sympathize with MR. ALFRED CHAS. JONAS with regard to the " bald state- ment" that he complains of. It is fearful the snubbing one gets for venturing to be- lieve that heraldry existed before 1066. No doubt all the arms he quotes of Egbert and the rest of the Saxon and Danish kings, down to Edward the Confessor in 1042, will be set down by the iron rule of heraldic authority as proleptic that is, the writers of the centuries from 1200 to 1600 were so saturated with the heraldic ideas prevalent during those centuries that they transferred them to their ancestors as a matter of course, for they were themselves so familiar with armorial bearings as a part of a gentleman's inherit- ance, that they could not conceive it possible for the grandfather of a man bearing arms, say with King Richard !. to have had no armorials himself of any kind. And there is a good deal of plain common sense in their ignorant conclusion. It is certain that the bcild statement that heraldry did not exist before 1066 would have been received in 1166 with derision. Nor would the monastic writers ignorant monks of course of the fourteenth century have given such a state- ment a moment's tolerance. ^ The bald statement will have to be quali- fied, and that very considerably, if it is to continue in force. In short, it will have to drop its baldness. The fact is it began as an opinion, and for want of proper treatment at first has settled down into a dogma. Of course, everybody knows that absolute and unalterable identity of form, method, and purpose from age to age is impossible. The course of nature forbids the possibility. But that every child has had a parent must be admitted, although parent and child may not be absolutely alike. Now the Planche faction of heraldists want to make us believe that, because the child in 1066 had not a father in 1030 or a grandfather in 1000 exactly like himself, therefore he had no father or grandfather at all. They talk of "regular and systematic use of arms" and "regular heraldic figures or disposition of figures," which, if they mean anything, must mean that the usage in 1066 must be precisely the same in every respect as it was in 1166, or it cannot be proper heraldry. But the ?reat point they make is that to be proper heraldry the bearing must be heritable and transmitted from father to son. And they
