2»d S. VIIL Nov. 5. '59.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



387 



Louis the Fifteenth (S-'i S. viii. 298.)— When I 

 last wrote I was wholly unaware whether the 

 claimant to the earldom of Stirling was alive or 

 not. I have referred to the account of his trial 

 in 1839, which appears to be very carefully re- 

 ported, and I hasten to correct a mistatement 

 of mine. Mr. " Alexander Humphreys, or Alex- 

 ander," for such was his designation, was " as- 

 soilzied," which I suppose means " not convicted." 

 The verdict commences thus : — 



" 1st. We find unanimously that the Excerpt Charter 

 libelled on is a forged document ; and find by a majority 

 that it is not proven that the prisoner forged it, or was 

 guilty art and part thereof; and also that it is not 

 proven that he uttered it as genuine, knowing it to be 

 forged." 



(The italics are mine.) The Excerpt Charter 

 found to be a forgery was the pretended charter 

 of Novo Damns from Charles I., upon which the 

 claim of Mr. Alexander was founded. 



I believe that a verdict of " not proven " is 

 not, in Scottish law, equivalent to an acquittal. 

 That a minority of the jury found Mr. Alexander 

 guilty of forging the charter appears evident 

 from the words of the verdict ; and I think any 

 unprejudiced person, after reading the details of 

 the trial, will agree with me that the less said on 

 the matter the better for the reputation of Mr. 

 Alexander. 



I think the audacious forgery of the tombstone 

 in the case of the Tracy Peerage, a few years 

 since, was in no respect of a worse character than 

 the forgery of this pretended charter; and I can- 

 not understand how any one, in the face of the 

 verdict, can venture to assert that this Mr. Hum- 

 phreys, or Alexander, was the rightful Earl of 

 Stirling, or had even a shadow of right to the 

 dignity. y. S. M. 



Dublin. 



Humphreys, soi-disant Earl of Stirling (2"'^ S. 

 viii. 298.) — J. A. Pn. should have recollected, 

 prior to sending his Minor Reply, that there are 

 two reports of the trial of this impostor: one by Mr. 

 Swinton, the other by Mr. Turnbull, — in the Pre- 

 face to the latter of which reports, all the singular 

 antecedents of Humphreys are faithfully recorded. 

 Neither de jure nor de facto had this man any 

 pretensions to the extinct dignity ; and so far from 

 being acquitted in the manner represented by 

 J. A. Pn. (quasi-triumphaliter), he was merely 

 acquitted from the charge of forging documents 

 upon which he based his pretended claim, but 

 which documents were found to have been forged. 

 The contributor of this Note knows the admission 

 of Humphreys' own solicitor as to the forging of 

 these documents. M. L. 



Lincoln's Inn. 



Cloven Foot (2"* S. viii. 309.) —Your respected 

 correspondent is naturally struck with the ap- 



parent contradiction, that the evil one should be 

 represented as cloven-footed, while cloven feet, 

 under the Old Testament ritual, were a criterion 

 of clean beasts. 



It might be deemed equally strange that the 

 devil should be generally represented as horned, 

 seeing that horns are usually the pictorial attri- 

 bute of Moses, the great lawgiver of the Jews. 



The horns of Moses are easily explained. When 

 he descended from the Holy Mount, his face 

 "shone" or beamed (Ex. xxxiv. 29, 30. 35.) ; and 

 in its primitive signification the Hebrew word 

 which we render " shone," implies that his face 

 " horned," i. e. shot out horns or beams of light. 

 Hence the two-horned Moses of mediaaval art. 

 Even the great Buonarroti himself fell into this 

 trap, as may be seen in the statue of Moses at the 

 Crystal Palace. 



But why is the devil usually portrayed both 

 horned and cloven-footed ? 



The fact is that the devil, as he has been com- 

 monly depicted, is a form of composite character, 

 chiefly derived from the classical superstitions of 

 Greece and Rome. 



The devil, as usually described, and still in 

 magic-lanthorn exhibitions portrayed, is cloven- 

 footed and horned, tailed and black, and carries a 

 pitchfork. 



The pitchfork vernacularly attributed to Satan 

 is the two-pronged sceptre of Pluto, king of Hell. 

 Mythologists earnestly solicit our attention to the 

 important distinction, that the sceptre of Neptune, 

 indeed, was a trident, or had three teeth ; but the 

 sceptre of Pluto had only two. This last, then, is 

 the fti?o-pronged instrument in the hands of the 

 evil one, — the devil's pitchfork. Not only his 

 pitchfork, however, but his blackness, the devil 

 owes to Pluto ; who, from his disadvantageous 

 position beneath the surface, is named "Jupiter 

 niger," the black Jupiter. (^Sen.) Cf. " atri janua 

 Ditis" (Virg.), '^'^ nigri regia cceca dei " (Ov.). 



The tail, horns, and cloven feet of the evil one, 

 are due to the Greek satyri, and to their equiva- 

 lents the Roman fauni. These, as we all know, 

 had horns, and tails, and cloven feet. But be it 

 borne in mind, as a connecting link, that the word 

 rendered '■'■ satyrs,"" in the Old Testament, h;is by 

 some been understood to signify demons or devils. 

 (Is. xiii. 21. ; xxxiv. 13.) Hence the confusion of 

 the attributes. 



Considering the many fearful and truthful re- 

 presentations of Satanic power which we find in 

 Scripture, does it not signally indicate the influ- 

 ence of folk lore, and the abiding operation of 

 popular tradition, when we thus find our worst 

 enemy (next to ourselves) known vernacularly to 

 this day rather as the embodiment of by-gone 

 superstitions, than as a spiritual adversary, not to 

 be combated save by weapons drawn from the 

 Christian armoury ? Thomas Bots. 



