NOTES AND QUERIES. [9* s. v. FEB. 17, 1060.
to discover the text, so encumbered is it with
" perpetual commentary," illustration, quota-
tion, and I know not what. I have just
looked at a copy of Farnaby's edition of
Lucan's 'Pharsalia,' printed by Richard
Field, London, 1618, and am confirmed in the
truth of my assertion by a glance at the
very first page. Strange to say, I find that
the book contains a congratulatory Latin
poem of thirty-six lines, without a single
note, addressed to the editor by the same
John Selden. Why he himself refrains will
be understood by quoting the dedication
prefixed to his verses : " Ad V. C. Th. Farna-
bium, de Lucano perpetuis illius Notis
explicato, et in lucem iam prodituro." Selden
must have had a liking for this sort of work,
for did he not also address his friend Ben
Jonson in a long Latin poem, and, above all,
did he not furnish notes to the first eighteen
chapters of Dray ton's 'Polyolbion'T See
Arber's reprint of 'Table-Talk,' 1868.
Hoptpn's ' Concordancie ' was first pub- lished in 1615, and must have met with instant success, for another " impression," to use the word now in vogue, was required in the ensuing year, as I can show. On exam- ining my copy of Penketh man's edition I found the cover loose at the back of the book, and inside a piece of printed paper, which proved to be the title-page of the issue for 1616. The first and last are the only edi- tions mentioned by Lowndes, but I cannot help thinking that others must have been printed in the interval between 1616 and 1635. The volume is in black-letter type with very few exceptions, and contains 252 pages, to which may be added some twenty more, unnumbered, contributed by Penketh- man, who has not, so far as I can judge, interfered with Hopton's text. I think that a man commended by Selden and called " the miracle of his age for learning " by Wood, may be accepted as sufficient con- temporary authority on the matter under discussion. JOHN T. CURRY.
This question has been discussed in 1 N. & Q.' on more than one occasion. So recently as 8 th S. vii. 272 I stated that the mile in England was not formerly a uniform measure in distance. The late Prof. De Morgan, in his article 'Mile' in the 'Penny Cyclopaedia,' showed that the old English mile was half as long again as the statute mile. The ancient Scottish mile was 1,984 yards, and the Irish mile 2,240 yards.
By the 35 Elizabeth, c. 6 (1593), it was enacted that the mile in England should con- sist of eight furlongs of forty lugs or poles
^f sixteen and a half feet each, which is 1,760
yards. The length of a mile in the different
Darts of the world will be found in 'Measures, Weights, and Moneys of all Nations,' by the
ate W. S. B. Woolhouse, F.R.A.S., London, 1881. EVERARD HOME COLEMAN.
71, Brecknock Road.
ALDGATE AND WHITECHAPEL (9 th S. iv. 168, 269, 385, 441 ; v. 34). Since reading MR. STEVENSON'S note at the last reference, I lave had an opportunity of consulting Herman's 'De Miraculis S. Eadmundi,' and regret that I can see no probable grounds for identifying Ealsegate with the modern Aldgate. The idea seems to have originated, not with MR. STEVENSON, but with Mr. T. Arnold, the editor of 'Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey,' who in a note observes : "Coming to London from Essex, Egelwin would naturally enter the City by the eastern gate, Aldgate (Stow's 'London')." I cannot accurately gauge the weight of this vague reference' to Stow, and will confine myself to asserting that a person travelling to London from Essex need not necessarily enter the City by Aldgate. A person coming from Colchester and Chelmsford would do so, but ^Egelwine started from Beodrics worth (Bury St. Edmunds), and as there was apparently no reason for his taking a circuitous route, the probability is that he rested at Sudbury or Dunmow, and, thence travelling vid Epping or Ware, entered the City by one of the north-eastern gateways.
The traditional account as recorded by Stow is that the body of St. Edmund entered the City by Cripplegate. This gate was much nearer to St. Gregory's Church than Aldgate, and it must also be remembered that at the beginning of the eleventh century there was a strong Danish element in that quarter of London through which the body would have to be carried, if it entered the City by the eastern gate, and which, it may be presumed, ^Egelwine would endeavour to avoid (cf. Green's ' Conquest of England,' pp. 464-5).
But it may be questioned whether Herman referred to a gate at all. He does not describe Ealsegate as a porta, but as a via, and the natural inference is that it was a roadway, and not a portal of the City. I admit the uncertainty that surrounds the whole subject, but merely as a hypothesis I am inclined to advance the opinion that the " via, quse Anglice dicitur Ealsegate," was the modern Old Street, or, as Stow usually calls it, Eald Street. We know that Old Street was a very ancient probably a Roman thoroughfare, and Stow records the
