9 th S. II. JULY 9, '98.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
such as Bede, is of itself remarkable, and if it \vas
due to his studying in England, as I am inclined to
believe he did, then England may have furnished
the thread which brought into his view the root-
idea of his poem." '
Would not the " root-idea " have been really furnished by Ireland, if the hypothesis be sustainable ? But no one will begrudge Eng- land the "thread." Who, by the way, is St. Fursey ? J. B. S.
Manchester.
THE 'HISTORICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY' AND THE DATES OF SHAKSPEARE'S PLAYS. Whatever may be said in favour of the sub- jective method of determining the chrono- logy of Shakespeare's plays adopted bv the ' Historical English Dictionary,' there should be, at least, consistency in its application. That this has not been observed the follow- ing references will show :
'Hamlet,' under 'Aboard' is dated 1602, under 'A' 1604.
' 1 Henry IV.,' under ' Afar' is dated 1597, under ' Back ' 1596.
'Henry VIII.,' under 'A' is dated 1613, under 'Abode ^1603.
'Julius Cajsar,' under 'A' is dated 1601, under 'Abide '1607.
' Macbeth,' under ' Abed ' Catch ' 1560 !
'Pericles,' under 'Aboard 'Belfry' 1601.
'Richard II.,' under 'A' 'Castle '1597.
' Tempest,' under 'Abjure 'Cat' 1600.
' Timon,' under ' Back ' is dated 1607, under ' Chaff' c. 1600.
' Two Gentlemen,' under ' Abridge ' is dated 1590, under ' Catch ' 1591.
It may be mentioned, though probably known to your readers, that there is not any edition of any of the above plays correspond- ing to the dates given, except as to the 1604 ' Hamlet' (Q. 2) and the 1597 'Richard II.' (Q.I). Doubtless the dates assigned are the result of some well-considered system, but seeing that Shakespeare's literary career was compara- tively snort, a date corresponding to that of Shakespeare's literary activity, viz., 1588-1613, would have avoided the anomalies observable in the dates given in the 'Historical Eng- lish Dictionary ' to the various plays, and answered the purposes of the ' Dictionary ' from an historical point of view equally well. EDWARD B. HARRIS.
5, Sussex Place, N.W.
Ross AND ROSE. In the British Museum 'Catalogue of Seals' (vol. iv. pp. 540-3) are described various seals which are ascribed to the " family of Ros' and Ross." Would it not have been preferable to say families of Ross
is dated 1605, under
' is dated 1608, under
is dated 1593, under
is dated 1610, under
and Rose ? It would seem that in the north-
east of Scotland there were two distinct
families, the one of Scottish, the other of
Norman descent. The ancient Earls of Ross
were doubtless Scottish, while the Roses of
Kilravock and their numerous collaterals
were assuredly of Norman or English ex-
traction. It is true that the name in early
deeds was written indifferently by each family
Ros or Ross, but there are not wanting in-
dications here and there of the different origin
of the names, as, for instance, the occasional
use of " le Ros " by the Norman family, instead
of the " de Ros " invariably employed by the
Scottish Rosses.
When dealing with heraldic seals it is, indeed, easy to determine to which family they pertained, for the Scottish Rosses always bore three lions rampant, while the Norman Roses invariably in trod uced the water-bougets which had been assumed by the Anglo-Norman family of de Ros on the marriage of one of them with the heiress of Trusbut of Wartre, who bore " trois bout/ d'eau " three butts of water (Planche). It would, therefore, perhaps have been more satisfactory to separate the Ros seals in accordance with these facts.
In the ' Catalogue,' No. 16,798 is ascribed to Hugh Ros, Baron Ros, the legend being " S hugonis ros baronis." Laing (' Catalogue,' No. 703) justly regards the legend as singular, " giving the rank, without other designation," but he does not describe Hugh as Baron Ros, and doubtless was aware of the fact that he was the feudal Baron of Kilravock. The seal of Muriella de Ros (No. 16,802) gives on a shield a water-bouget, and in chief three mullets, " for Ros," says the ' Catalogue '; but probably only the water-bouget was for Ros, the three mullets representing the paternal arms of Doun, and having nothing to do with the lady's spouse, Sir William de Ros of Kilravock. The stars of Moravia, indeed, are ubiquitous in the north-east of Scotland, and very likely Andrew de Doun, Muriella's father, derived both his property and his arms from some well-dowered daughter of the house of Murray.
As regards No. 16,803 of the ' Catalogue,' the legend is said to be " uncertain " and the seal " doubtful." Might not this seal, which
apparently has "W Ross" legible, and
for arms a fess between three water-bougets, be that of Walter Ros of Kinstary, who in 1513 certainly sealed with these arms?
JAMES DALLAS.
CRUCIFIXION IN YORKSHIRE. In an anonym- ous work published in 1867, entitled 'Criminal Chronology of York Castle,' mention is made
