"How would you be

If He, which is the top of judgment, should
But judge you as you are?"

I was told that there was a long-prevailing tradition among the inhabitants of Gubbio that Dante during his prolonged exile from Florence, which lasted from 1304 till his death in 1321, passed a great part of his time in their secluded and mountainous district, partly in the town, partly at the castle of Colmollara belonging to Bosone (distant six miles from Gubbio), and partly in the monastery of Santa Croce di Fonte Avellana, where there is an inscription asserting that he had composed a considerable part of his "præclari ac pene divini operis" at this spot; but I regretted that my time did not admit of my visiting the monastery, which was situated in a wild and solitary region among the mountains. There is a tower in Gubbio with the following inscription:

HIC MANSIT DANTES ALIGHIERIUS POETA ET CARMINA SCRIPSIT.

To the ancient remains of Iguvium (Gubbio), which are not without interest, the Temple of Jupiter Apenninus, and some little Umbrian towns of which I found the ruins as I threaded my way through the mountains to Gubbio from Nuceria, very far distant from the one of the same name in Calabria, to which I lately (4th S. vii. 529) referred, I may return in some future paper. C. T. RAMAGE.

PERCY, OR PERCEHAY, OF CHALDFIELD. In a manuscript, now in my possession, purporting to consist of extracts from an old "Legier book" relating to the possessions of the Tropnell family in Wilts, I find the following statements:

"PERCY of Great Chalfield, and PERCEHAY of Little Chalfield, were different families.

"Arms of PERCY of Great Chalfield-Ermine chief gules a lyon passant argent.

"Arms of PERCEHAY (or PERCY) of Little Chalfield— Ermine chief gules a lyon passant crowned with azure."

I give the extracts just as they are written, though I suspect some incorrectness in the former coat, as argent on ermine could hardly, I suppose, be authentic heraldry.

On a screen erected by some of the Tropnells in Great Chaldfield church, the arms of Percy are given the same as those of Percy, Earls and Dukes of Northumberland-viz. Azure five fusils in fesse or; and Aubrey, if I read him aright (see Jackson's Aubrey, p. 237), similarly describes the "coat of Pierse" in the "Legier book of Trapnell," though I do not quite understand him to say that he had verified it. One Duke of Northumberland, when on a visit to Bath, drove over to Chaldfield to see

the place, on the strength, I presume, of this coat of Percy described by Walker as being in the Tropnell screen, with a note about the "great old pedigree at Sion House." (History of Chaldfield Manor House and Church, p. 2.)

Both the estates, under the name of "Caldefelle," belonged, at the time of Domesday, to Ernulf de Hesding (Jones' Domesday for Wilts, p. 74), who, as Ellis tells us, in his Introduction to Domesday Book (i. 434), was the first Earl of Perch, referring us at the same time to Sandford's Geneal. Hist. p. 32. Another estate in Wilts belonging to the same owner is still called "Easton Piers" (or Percy). This is now reckoned as part of the parish of Kington S. Michael; and in the Calendar of Obits of the Priory of Kington S. Mary, also in that same parish, occurs, for March 14, the name of John Persay. (Wilts Arch. Mag. iv. 62.)

The families bearing the name Percy were connected with Great Chaldfield from 1180 till 1350, when, after an interval, the Tropnells succeeded them; and with Little Chaldfield, as far as is known, from about 1300 till 1565, when John Percy alias Rouse was lord of the manor.

I shall be glad if any of your readers can throw a little light on the history of the families of Percy of Chaldfield, and tell me whether there is any real proof of a connection between them and the family of Percy, afterwards Earls of NorthumW. H. JONES.

berland.

The Vicarage, Bradford-on-Avon.

HOMER AND HIS TRANSLATORS:
THE ANCIENT MODE OF PASSING THE BOTTLE.
Αὐτὰρ ὁ τοῖς ἄλλοισι θεοῖς ἐνδέξια πᾶσιν
Οἰνοχόει, γλυκὺ νέκταρ ἀπὸ κρητῆρος ἀφύσσων.
Note by Paley :-

"Evdétia, from left to right.' (See Buttmann's Lexil. in v.) Mr. Newman gives 'from right to left proeding,' and so Mr. Wright. (See vii. 194.) Arnold, all round, beginning from the right.' If Buttmann be right, the ev appears to represent és."

A distinguished classical scholar thus also interprets this remarkable passage:

:

"I agree with Buttmann that it means from left to right: v and ès, or eis, are, in my opinion, the same word, only sigma is added in the last form, which commonly expresses motion, as when it turns the ideal or the process of present and imperfect into the actual or action of future or first aorist."

"The propination," says Potter, "was carried about towards the right hand, where the superior quality of some of the guests did not oblige them to alter that method. Hence it was termed değiwois.-. . . . There is the following passage of Homer, where Vulcan fills wine express mention of drinking towards the right hand in to the gods :θεοῖς ἐνδέξια πᾶσιν

That is, he filled, as the old scholiast explains it, beginning from the right hand. Pollux and Eustathius explain it also as ἐπίδεξια.”

I have been induced to call the attention of Homeric students to this passage by an historical elucidation given us by Toland in his History of the Druids, pp. 108-10, as follows:

"The Irish and Albanian Scots do not derive Deiseal from Di-sul, which signifies Sunday in Armorican-British, as Dydh-sŷl in Welsh, and De-zil in Cornish do the same; but from Deas, the right (understanding hand), and Soil, one of the ancient names of the sun, the right hand in this round being ever next the heap (the carn, round which they walked three times from east to west according to the course of the sun). The Protestants in the Hebrides are almost as much addicted to the Deisiol as the Papists. This custom was used three thousand years ago, and God knows how long before by their ancestors, the ancient Gauls, of the same religion with them, who 'turn'd round right-handwise when they worship'd their gods,' as Athenæus informs us out of Posidonius, a much elder writer. Nor is this contradicted, but clearly confirm'd by Pliny, who says that the Gauls, contrary to the custom of the Romans (Hist. Nat. lib. xxviii. cap. 2), turn'd to the left in their religious ceremonies'; for as they begun their worship towards the east, so they turn'd about, as our Ilanders do now, from east to west, according to the course of the sun, that is from the right to the left, as Pliny has observ'd; whereas the left was among the Romans reputed the right in augury, and in all devotions answering to it. Nor were their neighbours the aboriginal Italians (most of 'em of Gallic descent) strangers to this custom of worshipping righthandwise, which, not to allege more passages, may be seen by this one in the Curculio of Plautus, who was himself one of them: when you worship the gods, do it turning to the right hand,' which answers to turning from the west to the east. It is perhaps from this respectful turning from east to west that we retain the custom of drinking over the left thumb, or, as others express it, according to the course of the sun; the breaking of which order is reckoned no small impropriety, if not a downright indecency, in Great Britain and Ireland. And no wonder, since this, if you have faith in Homer, was the custom of the gods themselves. Vulcan, in the first book of the Iliad, filling a bumper to his mother Juno'To th' other gods, going round from right to left, Skenk'd nectar sweet, which from full flask he pour'd.'" Blackie :

"Then he from left to right went round, and poured the nectar fine."

Chapman. Not translated.
Cowper:-

"He from right to left

Rich nectar from the beaker drawn, alert
Distributed to all the pow'rs divine."

Hobbes. Not translated. Ogilvie. Not translated. Pope. Not translated. Simcox :

"Then from the right hand beginning he poured to the other immortals."

A learned friend has kindly favoured me with additional translations and annotations as follows:

"I would recommend to your notice what Kennedy, a very competent editor, says in his note: évôégia, recte Lat. A dextra exorsus, qualis in conviviis mos fuit. Eodem jure émidéia, et sic diserte explicat Sch. br.-præfert vero Ernest. Gloss. MS. Lips. èπideğiws, expedite, strenue, nam pincernæ regum cum artificio aliquo ministrabant potum. Contrarium hic se habere videtur a v. 599 évégia Ernesti renders by dextre, scite. The cupbearer in distributing the cups, for the sake of a good omen, usually commenced at the right hand. idéia occurs in the same sense, Od. ', 141. Wheeler.] So wrote Kennedy in 1821 (Ilias Grace, a Ja. Kennedy, Dublin, 1821 [and 1827], i. 206). Nor did he subsequently alter his opinion of the passage, for in his later edition (Dublin, 1833) he gives it as before, only expressing it thus :—évdégia, a dextra exorsus, as the Latin version correctly renders it. "But in both notes he leaves it doubtful whether the course was dextrorsum or sinistrorsum, which is the true difficulty. On this subject I should like to consult Schauffelberger's Clavis Homerica, Feith's Antiquitates Homerica [v. Gronovii Thes. vi. 3787, cf. Potter, supra], and Stuckii, Antiquitates Conviviales.*

"Fausset, a recent editor of the Il. (3rd ed. Lond. 1862), has this note:-évdéia, a neuter adjective plural used adverbially; the cupbearer proceeds from left to right from superstitious motives. Ev degia was written separately, only when opposed to ev àpiσtepâ.

"Ozell, in his translation of the Iliad (2nd ed. Lond. 1714), merely says:

'He afterwards serv'd round to all the gods;
And as the cup was emptied, he again

Crown'd it with speedy and officious hands.'

Apollonius, the sophist, in his Homeric Lexicon, has nothing on this question, nor has the ancient scholiast published by Villoison (Venet. 1788.) The question, I think, is rather to be determined by usage than by philological criticism.†

"Dart's rendering of the passage does not appear among your series of versions. I recollect that when I looked into his work I thought it superior to that of Simcox and even of Herschel.

"P.S. The most ancient Greek writing (inscriptions) is from right to left, and you will readily find that using the right hand it is easier to pass any object to the left

* From the work here referred to I shall make a short extract. Stuckius first quotes (p. 552) Athenæus, lib. ii., and Anaxandrides:

"Ut in veneratione Deorum dextrorsum circumagi solebant, ut Athenæus, lib. iv. de Celtis testatur: ita in hac quasi sacra symposi quasi moris fuit pateram in dextram circumferre. Homerus, Il. á, etc. În Platonis convivio sub finem Agathon, Aristophanes et Socrates biberunt ἐκ φιάλης μεγάλης ἐπιδέξια, id est, ἐκ magna phiala ad dextram biberunt."

+ Cfr. Edw. Jones's Lyric Airs, consisting of Specimens of Greek and other National Songs. 1810, fol.

than in the contrary direction. Hence, I believe, that Homer meant to describe Hephaistos as holding the great cup in his right hand, and thus proceeding towards the left, as he waited on the whole company.' BIBLIOTHECAR. CHETHAM.

JUNIUS.

Although I have been unable to give more than a cursory glance at Mr. Twisleton's volume on the "Handwriting of Junius," I have seen enough to satisfy me of the interesting character of the work, and that it offers matter for extended observation. At present, however, I really have not time to do more than draw attention to one point-a very important one-in the hope that it may induce others who have more leisure than myself to discuss and elucidate it. Entertaining a settled conviction that Francis was no more capable of writing the famous letters than Bragge Bathurst was of making Canning's speeches or Mr. Bankes Plunket's, I must acknowledge I was staggered when I saw in Mr. Twisleton's book the " photolithographed" copy of the note inclosing the verses to Miss Giles. (I assume that all your readers who take any interest in the Junian controversy are by this time acquainted with their history, if not from Mr. Twisleton's book at least from the reviews of it which have appeared in The Times and the Quarterly.) Here was an astounding fact-a note which evidence showed must have been written by Francis or by some one whom he knew, and which was in the Junian handwriting. In vain I urged to myself the extreme improbability of Junius having, at the very moment when he was adopting the most anxious precautions to secure his secret,* written such a note under circumstances which the writer knew must ensure its being shown to every person at Bath with the view of discovering the author. But what are probabilities and improbabilities when weighed against facts? There was the note before my eyes. It was only after comparing this "photolithographed " note with the "lithograph "of the "fac-simile" copper-plate made, as Mr. Twisleton informs us, more than fifty years ago (and which seems to me to bear no particular resemblance to the Junian hand), that I recovered my equanimity, and became convinced that the note from which the photolithographed copy was taken was written many years after the original note accompanying the verses to Miss Giles. For the reasons before adverted to, I am obliged, at the “I would send the above to Garrick directly, but

that I would avoid having this hand too commonly seen.

I must be more cautious than ever. I am sure I should not survive a discovery three days, or if I did they would attaint me by bill. Change to the Somerset Coffee House, and let no mortal know the alteration. I am persuaded you are too honest a man to contribute in any way to my destruction."-Junius to Woodfall, Nov. 10, 1771.

risk of appearing abrupt and not sufficiently explanatory, to go straight to the point. If the two copies had been made from the same document they would be exactly the same, with this slight possible difference, that the letters might, in the one copy or the other, be occasionally a trifle thinner or thicker, arising from the want of care on the part of the tracer. In all other respects it is impossible that there could be any variation. Every letter must in form and size be precisely the same in each copy. Every letter and every word must occupy precisely the same space in each copy. There must be in each copy precisely the same space between each letter and each word and each line; in short they must be facsimiles. Now if any one will take the trouble to compare the two copies of what is supposed to be the same document in Mr. Twisleton's book he will find that the space occupied by the writing is greater in one than in the other-that the forms and sizes of some of the letters differ materially— that the positions occupied by the letters differ in the two copies, and the spaces between the last four lines of the note vary in a marked degree.

Now the query I wish to append to this note is, Was Francis intimate with the King or Giles family, after his return from India, and could he, in accordance with his persistent attempts to impress every one with the notion that he was Junius, while affecting to deny the fact, have substituted the note in imitation of the Junian hand for the original? If he did not do it some one else did. But I suspect Francis. The original was his own, and since persons were determined to find in it a resemblance to Junius's handwriting, he may have resolved upon giving them a good imitation of the Junian hand, which the publication of the specimens in Woodfall's Junius would enable him to furnish.

M. Chabot, in his report on Francis's handwriting, published in Mr. Twisleton's book, points to the fact that, in the proof sheets which were sent to Junius for correction when the first edition of the Letters was about to be published, contain dates written upon the proofs, which have in several instances-eleven, I believe — been partly obliterated by the pen; while the dates still remaining on the proofs are written in the Junian hand. M. Chabot's theory is, that the obliterated dates were first written by Francis in his natural hand, and then, on the fact being observed, by him obliterated and re-written in the Junian hand. I will merely observe in passing, that it is very remarkable that it is only in the matter of these dates Junius should have been forgetful of his ever-pressing secret. There is much writing on the proofs; but in no instance does Junius forget himself except with regard to these dates. If Junius had broken out into his