to his memory. But on hearing a just remark, that this was not the way to preserve it to posterity (as it would be exposed to depredations), she decided upon one of stone, which still exists at Agra.* Her subsequent history is wound up with that of Hindostan. During the rebellion of the injured Mohabet-Khan, when she repaired to his camp, where the emperor was detained, that officer (who regarded her as his inveterate enemy), thought of putting her to death, and was only dissuaded by the tears and entreaties of Jehanguire. His friends reproved him for his generosity, which they treated as weakness, and the event justified their representations too well, for not long after she sent one of her slaves to assassinate him in the emperor's apartment. Jehanguire, however, warned him of his danger, and advised him to seek his safety in flight; a price was then set upon his head by the vindictive empress, contrary to her brother the vizir's wishes. Mohabet prevailed on the vizir to bring forward the prince Shah-Jehan, who had married his daughter, as a claimant for the throne, but the sudden death of Jehanguire, from an attack of asthma, saved the nation from the horrors of a civil war (1627). It was not till 1645 that she followed him to the tomb. "Too haughty (says the historian) to appear at court without authority, power, and influence, she, who had formerly governed the empire, had shut herself up in her palace at Lahore; and to impress others with the belief that this choice of retirement was not a concealed vexation, she devoted herself entirely to study. She probably lived more happy or less agitated," (vol. v. p. 160.) She was buried at a place called Shah-Durrah, about two miles south of Lahore, near the tomb of Jehanguire, but without any inscription; to have composed one, when her memory was held in little respect, would have been a diffi

* M. de Marlés, who states this at vol. v. p. 101, says at p. 126, that Shaja is buried at Lahore. Both accounts may be true; for he may have been buried in one place, and a monument erected to his memory at another.

I AM not aware that any English, or indeed any foreign writer, has investigated the subject of Sanctuaries, such as they formerly existed, at full length. Nevertheless, copious materials exist for such an inquiry, and the subject is connected with the history of almost every country, during the Middle Ages. This remark is suggested by a circumstance which occurs in our own history, in the reign of Edward IV. That monarch, in his fear of Henry of Richmond, endeavoured to secure his person in Bretagne, under plausible pretences of attaching him to his interests, by giving him one of his daughters in marriage. Francis II. Duke of Bretagne, had nearly fallen into the snare, when Cheulet, one of his council, opened his eyes to the treacherous intentions of Edward, and the Duke accordingly dispatched his minister, Landais, to prevent their taking effect. What followed, I shall give in the words of Miss Roberts, in her History of the Houses of York and Lancaster." The delay of an hour would have changed the destinies of Henry Tudor, upon the point of embarking at St. Maloes, to meet a doubtful fate; his voyage was arrested by the joyful interposition of the Duke's faithful servant; a stratagem was necessary to recover him from the grasp of. Edward: the ambassadors were secure of their prize, and Landais engaged them in conversation, whilst Pembroke and Richmond, apprised of the Duke's change of measures, hastened into Sanctuary, and remained protected by the inviolable privileges of their asylum until the return of Edward's messengers to England." Vol. ii. p. 151.

M. Delaporte, in his Recherches sur la Bretagne, vol. i. has appropriately introduced this event into that work. He adds, that the ambassadors demanded the restoration of Henry's person from Landais, but that he replied it was impossible,

"since the town of St. Malo was a place of asylum," and that they departed in great anger. (p. 292.) And he mentions, that Conan III. of Bretagne, (who died in 1148,) is said to have given the privilege to that place. At p. 268, he enters more fully into the subject: he derives the institution of sanctuaries from the reign of Theodosius, and says that it dates, March 23, 431; but he omits to say, that the person meant was Theodosius II. In 398, the Emperor Arcadius had enacted, that the Economi of churches should discharge the debts of such creditors as the ecclesiastics refused to deliver up. This proves its antiquity; and in fact the usage may be traced up to Paganism, and even to Judaism, for the cities of refuge were sanctuaries in cases of accidental homicide. In 431, Theodosius enacted, that the churches should be open to persons who were in danger, and that these should be safe, not only near the altar, but even in all the buildings which formed a part of the church, provided they entered unarmed. This law was owing to the profanation of a church at Constantinople, where a number of slaves took refuge near the sanctuary, and maintained their position, by arms, for several days, when they slew themselves. In 466, the Emperor Leo, by a law dated the last day of February, forbade the forcing of persons away from sanctuaries, or molesting the bishops or the Economi for the debts of the fugitives, for which the law of Arcadius had made the latter responsible; Charlemagne, however, ordered by the capitulary of 779, that criminals who deserved death should not be protected in the churches; though in that of 778, (which was intended for his Saxon subjects,) he recognises the privilege of sanctuaries, which are to serve for refuge to such as seek it, nor are they to be condemned to death or mutilation; hence it seems that capital punishment was evaded by taking refuge. The preceding particulars are extracted from Macquer's Histoire Ecclesiastique, a work drawn up in annals, after the model of Henault, 2 vols. 1757. (Anonymous.)

M. Delaporte, with reference to

such as existed in Bretagne, remarks, that "They were places, whither persons withdrew who had committed crimes, and whence they could not be taken for punishment; their clothes were marked with a cross. Places which were noted for the residence or the penitence of some celebrated saint, were regarded as sanctuaries; of this number was the town of St. Malo, because it had formerly served as the retreat of several saints."

In Bretagne these sanctuaries were called minihi, a term of doubtful origin. "Some (says M. Delaporte,) suppose that the etymology of this word is mane hic, remain here; others say that it comes from two Celtic words, which signify monk's house; and others derive it from the Celtic minichi, which means immediately." (Franchise.) Le Gonidec, in his Celto-Breton Dictionary, 1821, spells it menechi, and says, "I have no doubt that this word is composed of menech, the plural of manach, monk, and of ti, house; menachi, therefore, must mean originally, monastery, house of monks." He explains it by asile, franchise, lieu de refuge, thus agreeing with the second and third opinions related by M. Delaporte, whose first is much less probable. A few circumstances may be added, concerning their restriction and abolition. The Dukes of Bretagne often complained to the Pope, of the abuses which these sanctuaries caused. In 1451, April 10, Cardinal d'Estouteville, the papal legate, made a regulation by which their number was diminished in that province. In 1453, Pope Nicholas V. commissioned the Abbot of Redon to order the bishops of Bretagne to restrict the rights of asylum to churches, thereby depriving monasteries of it.

Subsequently (adds the historian) they have justly been suppressed en tirely."

Macquer mentions, that a bull is extant of the year 1488, by which the Pope (Innocent VIII.) restricted the privileges of sanctuaries in England, at the request of King Henry VII. "These privileges (he remarks) had been carried to the greatest abuse, without considering that thus more favour was allowed to crime than real

prerogative to religion. This bull was published and executed in spite of the clergy, who were much displeased at it." It is singular, that the request to restrict these privileges, should come from a person who was so deeply indebted to them, indeed who owed to them his liberty, his crown, and perhaps, his life. Some powerful motive must have induced him thus to destroy the bridge, over which he had made his own escape. Perhaps he feared that conspirators might elude his grasp by these means. Perkin Warbeck indeed took refuge in the monastery at Sheen, and its privilege or its character was respected, but this occurred some years later, and the restriction was made in the earlier part of his reign.

The disputes between Innocent XI. and Louis XIV. of France in 1687, belong partly to this subject.

The

Pope was anxious to suppress, or rather to limit the franchises enjoyed by ambassadors residing at Rome, which "had, on many occasions, proved a sanctuary for rapine, violence, and injustice, by procuring inpunity for the most heinous malefactors.' The right was finally suppressed by the King's consent, though not till after a disreputable struggle on his part, which is well related in Perceval's History of Italy.

Immunity from arrest, within the verge of the King's court, partakes of the nature of this privilege, and perhaps some other remains of it may be traced in the usages of our own country.

Yours, &c.

ANSELM.

* Mosheim, Cent. xvii. s. 2, part i.

THE accompanying drawing represents an ancient font formerly belonging to St. George's Church, Southwark, which was removed from the church on its being rebuilt in 1736.

It is composed of two blocks of stone, one forming the pedestal, the

other the basin; and previous to the year 1838 they were disunited and used in the parochial workhouse in the Mint for the purpose of beating oakum upon, which then formed a part of the employment of the paupers; after the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act, some alterations having taken

place in the workhouse amounting nearly to the rebuilding of the structure, the old font was thrown aside among the discarded rubbish of the building, as not suitable to the discipline of the new system; and it would without doubt have been consigned to the repair of the road, if a gentleman, who takes a lively interest in the history of the parish (Mr. Griffiths) had not by accident heard of its original use, and determined to preserve it.

It would have been creditable to the parishioners if they had deemed it proper to restore this ancient font to its proper station in their parish church, again to be applied to the sacred purpose for which it was designed; but, as they did not consider it worthy of their attention, it is pleasing to find that it has been rescued from destruction, and is likely to be safely preserved by the care of Mr. Griffiths.

It is somewhat extraordinary that the font should be in such good preservation after the vile use to which it has been applied for upwards of a century; but it is observable in this, as well as every ancient production, the best materials were used, and in consequence such works will stand secure from the effects of time, neglect, and ill usage, whilst modern structures formed within memory, are from the unsoundness of their substance already crumbling into decay.

The general form of this font is octagonal, and from the appearance of the shaft, which is square at the base, and ingeniously formed into an octagon by mouldings at the angles, it had originally, in addition to the present members, a square plinth. The basin has a panel in each face inclosing a small flower, the mouldings are simple, and less expense appears to have been bestowed on it than is usually seen in old works.

The date of its construction may be about the reign of Henry VIII. The church being entirely modern, and little historical matter having been published concerning the old edifice, there is no means of ascertaining the exact date of the font, but the workmanship is not, earlier than the period above assigned. The old church underwent a thorough repair in 1629, (New View of London, vol. i. p. 245,) but

the font is evidently older than this period.

On pulling down the ancient steeple in 1733, a fragment of an inscription was discovered, which is preserved in Pegge's Sylloge, p. 56, which appears to relate to the laying of the first stone either of the church or steeple ; but judging from the engraving in the above work, it was so far mutilated as to afford little information. Mr. Pegge states that he received the copy from the Rev. Mr. Lewis of Margate, and copies appear also to have been exhibited to the Society of Antiquaries, by Mr. Frederick in 1734, and Mr. Ames in 1737, and it is also engraved in Archælogia, vol. ii. pl. xiii., and illustrated by observations made by Mr. Gough. This stone has not been preserved in the parish, and it would be satisfactory to know whether it now exists. E. I. C.

A GOLD ring was found a few years since in Rhôsilly sands, in Glamorganshire, bearing two inscriptions, or posies, in a language hitherto supposed to exist only in the MœsoGothic version of the New Testament, by Ulphilas. But as the Western or Saracenic Goths were settled in Spain for many centuries,-say from the 5th to the 8th, we may conclude they carried their language with them; and some of them may have crossed the seas, or passed through France into South Britain. Certain it is, that these inscriptions, though perhaps from the hands of a Gentilizing Jew, are in pure Zumerset Gothic. They here follow:

1. ZARA ZAI DE ZEVEL," Sarah! See the Sun!" (On the outside.)

2. DE BAL GVT GVTTANI, "The Sun (Baal) is the God of the Goths; or, "the God of Gods." This latter posey was in the inside of the ring, and accords with the Heathen mythology of Western Europe.*

It should be added that a Spanish vessel was wrecked about a century ago near this spot.†

Yours, &c. J. I.

* See Hermes Britannicus, &c.

But it does not seem probable that such a circumstance should have any connexion with the history of the ring.

March 17.

MR. URBAN, SIR F. MADDEN, p. 263, objects to my having called the new orthography "unsightly." I will tell you why I so call it. It is not that there is any thing really less pleasing to the eye in the combination of letters which forms Shakspere, than when by another combination we obtain Shakespeare. It is not that the one is simply new. But that it exhibits departure from long established practice, without any real advantage being gained, and also without, as I conceive, a due consideration of all the circumstances which ought to have been taken into account before so violent an innovation was made, and I venture to add in opposition to the law, by which affairs of this kind ought to be determined. It is "unsightly," because it suggests a short and sharp pronunciation, when in all our poetry, and there is much fine poetry in which the word occurs, it must be read with at least the first syllable long and grave: and it is "unsightly," because it carries with it (at least it does so to me) an appearance of exact knowledge and minute attention without the reality. I am sure that neither Sir F. Madden nor Mr. Bruce will interpret this in a manner to be inconsistent with the high respect I bear them. To my eye, I repeat, it comes like the words favor and honor, which one may sometimes see; proofs that the writer of them has seen a certain way into the history of the word further than the generality, and has paid attention to the principles which determine our orthography, but that he has not seen far enough. And these are the things which render the word to me "unsightly."

I have said that there is not an adequate advantage gained by this disturbance of an ancient practice. So far from it, I see not the smallest advantage, and there are certain positive disadvantages, one of which is suggested by Sir F. Madden himself. He tells us that he "is in much perplexity how to write the name of the great Reformer of Lutterworth." Now this arises chiefly from Mr. Baber having committed on this name, that which has been committed on the name of Shakespeare. There may have been here and there a fanciful or a careless person GENT, MAG. VOL. XIII.

who might write it otherwise; but the great body of English authors wrote the name with unanimity, Wickliffe, till Mr. Baber chose to print the name cut down to Wiclif. Before Mr. Baber's edition of the version of the New Testament appeared with this name Wiclif, no writer would I think have found himself in any state of perplexity.

But in determining the question whether we shall continue to write the name Shakespeare, or adopt the proposal to change it for Shakspere, it is not the sightliness or the unsightliness of either, or the advantage or disadvantage of the change that ought to determine us: but whether there are sufficient reasons shown for the innovation. A habit, though persevered in for two centuries and a half, may be a bad one, and evidence may spring up at the expiration of two centuries and a half, which may convict the persons who began and continued the practice, of being in error. This, and not the advantage or the sightliness of the proposed change, I willingly admit to be in this instance the material point.

The habit, however, of writing the name in the form for which I have of late contended is of very respectable origin. The first time in which, as far as our knowledge at present extends, that name appears in print, it is in the form Shakespeare, printed by the poet himself. It would seem as if this were sufficient authority for all other persons to do the same. But we are told to consider it a typographical error, or a conceit of the printer. This is the sheerest conjecture, and few conjectures can be more improbable. The name of an author is the last word in which typographical incorrectness may be expected to appear, when the work is passed through the press by the author himself. But observe, when next the poet prints one of his works, we find his name in the same orthography. What are the chances that a typographer will twice blunder in the same word; or that a typographer will force upon an author his own fancy respecting the mode in which that author shall print his own name?

We begin therefore with the poet himself, and from the time when he

3 B