|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 6
The ring recovered by Mr. Knight evidently agrees with the above. I hope
Mr. K. will, sooner or later, present the curiosity to our national
museum,--which will be driven at last, if not by higher motives, by the
mere force of public opinion and public indignation, to form a regularly
arranged and grand collection of our own British antiquities in every
branch, secular and religious, from the earliest times, down through the
middle ages, to nearly our own days. Such an arch�ological department could
count not only upon the assistance of the state, but upon rich and generous
contributions from British sources, individuals and private societies, at
home and abroad, as well as foreign help, at least in the way of exchange.
But any such plan must be _speedily_ and _well_ organised and _well
announced_!
I give the above details, not only because they relate to a passage in our
immortal bard, who has ennobled and perpetuated every word and fact in his
writings, but because they illustrate the astronomical antiquities of our
own country and our kindred tribes during many centuries. These sun-dials
are now very scarce, even in the high Scandinavian North, driven out as
they have been by the watch, in the same manner as the ancient clog[1] or
Rune-staff (the carved wooden perpetual almanac) has been extirpated by the
printed calendar, and now only exists in the cabinets of the curious. In
fifty years more sun-rings will probably be quite extinct throughout
Europe. I hope this will cause you to excuse my prolixity. Will no
_astronomer_ among your readers direct his attention to this subject? Does
anything of the kind still linger in the East?
GEORGE STEPHENS.
Stockholm.
[Footnote 1: The Scandinavian Rune-staff is well known. An engraving of an
ancient English clog (but with Roman characters, instead of Runic) is in
Hone's _Every-Day Book_, vol. ii.]
* * * * *
DISCREPANCIES IN DUGDALE'S ACCOUNT OF SIR RALPH DE COBHAM.
There are some difficulties in Dugdale's account of the Cobham family which
it may be well to bring before your readers; especially as several other
historians and genealogists have repeated Dugdale's account without
remarking on its inconsistencies. In speaking of a junior branch of the
family, he says, in vol. ii. p. 69., "There was also Ralphe de Cobham,
brother of the first-mentioned Stephen." He only mentions one Stephen but
names him twice, first at page 66., and again at 69. Perhaps he meant the
_above_-mentioned Stephen. He continues:--
"This Ralphe took to wife Mary Countess of Norfolk, widdow of Thomas of
Brotherton. Which Mary was Daughter to William Lord Ros, and first
married to William Lord Braose of Brembre; and by her had Issue John,
who 20 E. III., making proof of his age, and doing his Fealty, had
Livery of his lands."
At page 64. of the same volume he states that Thomas de Brotherton died in
12 Edward III., which would be only eight years before his widow's son, by
a subsequent husband, is said to have become of age. That he did become of
age in this year we have unquestionable evidence. In _Cal. Ing. P. Mortem_,
vol. iv. p. 444., we find this entry:--
"Anno 20 Edw. III. Johannes de Cobham, Filius et H�res Radulphi de
Cobeham defuncti. Probatio �tatis."
There is also abundant proof that Thomas de Brotherton died in 12 Edward
III. The most natural way of removing this difficulty would be to conclude
that John de Cobham was the son of Ralph by a previous marriage. But here
we have another difficulty to encounter. He is not only called the son of
Mary, Countess of Norfolk, or Marishall, by Dugdale, but in all
contemporaneous records. See Rymer's _Foed._, vol. vi. p. 136.; _Rot.
Orig._, vol. ii. p. 277.; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, p. 178., again at p. 179.;
_Cal. Ing. P. Mortem_, vol. iii. pp. 7. 10. Being the son-in-law of the
Countess, he was probably called her son to distinguish him from a kinsman
of the same name, or because of her superior rank. She is frequently styled
the widow, and sometimes the wife of Thomas de Brotherton, even after the
death of her subsequent husband, Sir Ralph de Cobham. In the escheat at her
death she is thus described:--
"Maria Comitissa Norfolc', uxor Thome de Brotherton, Comitis Norfolc',
Relicta Radi de Cobeham, Militis."
It is remarkable that this discrepancy in Sir John Cobham's age, and the
time of his supposed mother's marriage with his father, has never before,
as far as my knowledge extends, been noticed by any of the numerous writers
who have repeated Dugdale's account of this family.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|