252 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2n« S. X. Sept. 29. '60. 



which concerns Nefydd Hardd, whom Mb. Gbes- 

 FORD calls the ancestor of Caradoc Freichfras. 

 But Powel, in his account of the descent of King 

 Caradoc, makes him fifth from Bledricus, Prince 

 of Cornwall — a contemporary of Caduan, King^of 

 Britain, who lived in the beginning of the seventh 

 century. Will Mr. Ghesfobd kindly tell me at 

 what period this Nefydd Hardd and the Owain 

 Gwyned, mentioned by him, flourished ? The 

 only Owen Gwyned known to me is the Prince of 

 North Wales, who lived much more recently, viz. 

 in the middle of the twelfth century. My other 

 and last Query has reference to Belinus, of whom 

 Powel makes mention (p. 19.) as the brother of 

 Brennus, King of the IBrytains, and ancestor of 

 Mervyn Vrych. The pedigree lay Randle Holme 

 also contains the name of Bellinus Magnus alias 

 Bellymawr, King of Britain ; and makes him to 

 have lived b.c. 88, giving him substantially the 

 same coat of arms as is to be found in the Heralds' 

 College attributed to Beli Mawr : az. 3 crowns 

 or, which are in pale according to the latter au- 

 thority, but placed 2 and 1 by Holme. I have 

 searched Sir W. Betham's Genealogical Tables in 

 vain for either Brennus or Belinus at the time 

 specified ; but both names occur in the fourth 

 century n.c, and they appear as brothers, the 

 latter of them alone with issue. Sir W. Betham 

 conjectures that they, like many others belonging 

 to those distant and almost fabulous times, were 

 the chiefs of petty clans. This Belinus, from the 

 era assigned to him, can scarcely be the one in- 

 tended by either Powel or Holme. Can Mr. 

 Gbesford, or other of your correspondents, throw 

 light upon the matter ? And if any work can be 

 pointed out, where information may be obtained 

 respecting the names eminent in the old Welsh 

 annals, I shall be much obliged. This long Note 

 is ventured upon in the belief that it may contain 

 something of interest to others. Ned Alsned. 



CARNIVAL AT MILAN. 



(2»« S. ix. 197. 312. 405. ; x. 18. 151.) 



The original question is not precisely as the 

 Rev. Mr. Williams puts it (" N. & Q." x. 151.), 

 but as it appeared in " N. & Q." ix. 197.), " Why 

 have the inhabitants of Milan and of Varese four 

 days additional carnival, or a later Lent by four 

 days than in other parts of Christendom ? " The 

 answer is briefly given by Guericke {Manual of 

 Church Antiquities, ii. s. xxiv. p. 141.), " It was 

 only in the papacy of Gregory 11. [a.d. 714 — 731] 

 that four days more were added." The Rev. Mr. 

 Williams admits (" N. & Q." x. 151.) that " at 

 Rome in the time of Gregory the Great [a. d. 

 590 — 604] Lent was kept six weeks, from which 

 deducting Sundays, thirty-six days of fasting 

 were left, being a tithe of the year." But on the a 



priori arguments of Martene and Benedict XIV. 

 Mr, Williams infers that at Milan, Lent was 

 kept seven weeks ; and whilst asking me for the 

 passage in St. Ambrose's Sermons, adduced by 

 me as evidence of it being kept lor six weeks 

 only, as at Rome, which he cannot find, notifies 

 that, when found, he shall reject it as spurious, 

 on the authority of two monks of St. Maur. In 

 opposition to these Benedictines, I will name 

 Baronius and Gibbon, who have quoted these 

 Sermons of St. Ambrose as historical evidence. 

 The words of St. Ambrose, to which I particularly 

 referred (N. & Q," ix, 312,) are — 



" Sed cur eadem Quadragesima quadraginta et duos dies 

 habeat, audire gestimu?. Legimus in veteri testamento 

 cum sanctus Moyses Alios Israel de jugo ^igyptise cap- 

 tivitatis eruerit, utin terram eos repromissionis induceret, 

 quadraginta et duorum locorum eum ad memoratam ter- 

 ram mansionibus pervenisse." — Vol. v. p. 22. b. 



I quote from the Cologne edition of 1616. 

 To this I may add the commencement of the same 

 Sermon preached on Quadragesima Sunday, where 

 he says Lent begins this day ; not, therefore, as the 

 Rev, Mr, Williams thinks, on Quinquagesima, 

 In the previous Sermon (xxxi.) on the same day, 

 he mentions with reprobation those who pro- 

 fessed to commence Lent on Quinquagesima as 

 guilty of superstition, and hints that probably 

 they were scarcely able to keep Lent from Quad- 

 ragesima, Assume, however, for the argument's 

 sake merely, that such Sermons are fabrications ; 

 the inference then is that the fabricator, to pass 

 off his forgery, must avoid contradicting any noto- 

 rious fact, such as the six weeks' Lent, or detec- 

 tion must at once ensue. Thus the ancient 

 fabricator becomes evidence of a fact, continued 

 to the present time, of a six weeks' Lent at Mi- 

 lan.* That the term of Lent was a matter of 

 political as well as ecclesiastical notoriety is ap- 

 parent from the efforts made by Justina, exer- 

 cising the authority of her son, the young Em- 

 peror Valentinian II., to perform her public 

 devotions prior to Easter, which Ambrose refused 

 on the ground of her Arianism, and the same 

 people, who elected Ambrose their bishop, al- 

 though he was not then in holy orders, supported 

 him in this resistance to imperial authority. 

 Socrates, the most accurate of our early church 

 historians, notwithstanding occasional errors, was 

 adduced by me as evidence of the various early 

 practices in different churches as to Lent term, 

 certainly not to prove such as prevailed long after 

 his death. The passnge of Socrates to which 

 Martene and Benedict XIV. object in such un- 

 measured terms, may admit of an easy solution 

 by supposing that he refers to a very early prac- 

 tice at Rome, in keeping -a Lent of three weeks, 

 with the exception of Saturday and Sunday ; and 



* If we assume that St. Maxirain of Turin was the 

 author, we take his evidence instead of St. Ambrose's. 



