52
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9* 8. xii. Jm.r is. im
does not seem extravagant. There was
formerly a similar collection of bones at
the parish church of Folkestone, no doubt
of like origin. In connexion with these an
interesting fact has lately occurred. When
digging was going on in the old churchyard of
St. Nicholas, behind the School of Musketry,
many skulls and bones were found in a
good state of preservation. Three of these
skulls are now in the crypt, and will soon
be difficult to distinguish from the others.
This church fell into decay before the Refor-
mation, so these burials must have taken
place some 400 years ago.
A. RANDALL DAVIS. Hythe, Kent.
1 can perhaps throw a little light on MR. PEACOCK s query. The cranial bones are much harder than the rest of the bones in the human body, and consequently resist decomposition longer. The Bradford Corpo- ration recently acquired 730 square yards of ground from the parish church authorities, for the purposes of widening Church Bank, with the object of laying train lines. At the Ecclesiastical Court held in February last it was stated that this would mean inter- ference with 155 graves and 522 bodies. Evidently the records at the disposal of the authorities only partially cover the period during which interments have taken place, for close upon 3,000 remains were removed. I was an eye-witness of the removal of some of these, and I can unhesitatingly assert that had it not been for the skulls it would have been absolutely impossible to arrive at the number with anything like accuracy, for in scores of instances nothing remained but the skulls, many of which had their full com- plement of teeth, showing no signs of decay, though many of the cuspids and molars were much worn, as if from contact with some hard material.
CHAS. F. FORSHAW, LL.D.
Baltimore House, Bradford.
POPE SELF-CONDEMNED FOR HERESY (9 th S.
xi. 67, 218, 409). The story told by your correspondent A. W. is not in so complete a form as I remember hearing it from Stephen Rigaud (afterwards Bishop of Antigua) in 1840 or 1841. His version was "Et orabant Papain ut se cremari jju beret. Et jussit Papa. Et creraatus est. Et post cremationem pro sancto habebatur." ALDENHAM.
BYRONIANA (9 th S. xi. 444, 492 ; xii. 18). Your correspondent invites me to prove a negative. He might just as well ask me to prove that Byron never visited Paris. The process, though easy, would be tedious.
Meanwhile, I see no reason to amend my
statement/most deliberately reiterated, that
Count Szechenyi (or someone else) is at fault
in stating that Byron made any inspection
of the Tasso MSS. at Ferrara in July, 1818.
If Byron visited Ferrara previous to June,
1819, that circumstance could easily be proved
by reference to Mr. Murray's latest edition ot
the 'Journals and Letters' of Lord Byron.
RICHARD EDGCUMBE.
Edgbarrow, Crowthorne, Berks.
The entry in Count Szechenyi's 'Diary' relating to Byron's having been to Ferrara in 1817 is fully borne out by the latter s own letters; see the * Works of Lord Byron: with his Letters and Journals and his Life,' by Thomas Moore, Esq. (John Murray, 1832), where in vol. iv. letter 273, Byron, writing to Moore from Venice on 11 April, 1817, says :
" I shall go to Bologna by Ferrara, instead of Mantua, because I would rather see the cell where they caged Tasso, and where he became mad and than his own MSS. at Modena," &c.
And in letter 276 to Mr. Murray, dated from Foligno on 26 April, 1817, Byron remarks :
"I wrote to you the other day from Florence, inclosing a MS. entitled 4 The Lament of Tasso.' It was written in consequence of my having been lately at Ferrara."
Now Tom Moore, in a prefatory note to 'The Lament of Tasso,' tells us that the original MS. is dated "The Apennines," 20 April, 1817, and that Byron had paid a visit of one day only to Ferrara, which must, therefore, have taken place between 11 and 20 April of that year. S. J. ALDRICH.
New Southgate.
RlVER NOT PLOWING ON THE SABBATH (9 th S.
xi. 508; xii. 19). Are Izaac Walton and Bailey correct in their reference? According to Whiston, Josephus wrote :
" He [Titus] then saw a river as he went along, of such a nature as deserves to be recorded in his- tory ; it runs in the middle between Arcea, belong- ing to Agrippa's kingdom, and Raphanea. It hath somewhat very peculiar in it ; for when it runs, its current is strong, and has plenty of water ; after which its springs fail for six days together, and leave its channel dry, as any one may see ; after which days it runs on the seventh day as it did before, and as though it had undergone no change at all : it hath also been observed to keep this order perpetually and exactly ; whence it is that they call it the Sabbatic River that name being taken from the sacred seventh day among the Jews." ' Wars,' book vii. chap. v. L
This passage, reversing the statements of Walton and Bailey, tells us that the river flowed swiftly on the Sabbath and ceased flowing all the other six days of the week.
