Dec. 18. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



581 



the following remarks not out of place. The 

 earliest representation of the Stone I am ac- 

 quainted with, is a woodcut in the Gentleman's 

 Magazine for December, 1750, p. 548., entitled : 



" A representation of the triangular monumental 

 Stone of William llufus (in the parish of Minstead) iu 

 the New Forest, Hampshire, instead of the oak which 

 always produced green leaves at Christmas Tide, and 

 was cut down about the year 1737 or 1738." 

 On the top of the column is a round ball, sup- 

 ported on a bottle-shaped stem, and the inscriptions 

 on the three sides are printed seriatim. In the 

 same work for the year 1816, part i. p. 111., in 

 some " Notes of a Journey to the Isle of Wight in 

 June, 1753," the writer says : 



" I hired a boy to guide me to King Rufus's Stone, 

 which has three sides like a prism, and a ball at top. 

 I copied the writing on each side, letter for letter." 



The inscriptions are then again printed, which 

 vary slightly from the copy given in 1750. Again, 

 in the same periodical for 1786, part ii. p. 753., is 

 a small engraving of the Stone, drawn in 1784, by 

 J. P. Andrews, who describes the monument as five 

 feet ten Inches in height, and each side one foot 

 ten inches wide. A third copy of the inscriptions is 

 here given, line by line, and Is perfectly accurate, 

 except that the date ad. 1745, which ought to 

 stand at the head of the inscription on the third 

 side of the column, is transposed to the end of the 

 second, and printed a.d. 1143, and thence ought to 

 be hence. In the Beauties of England and Wales, 

 compiled by E. W. Brayley and J. Britton, in 

 1804-5, p. 176., we have the following remarks 

 made on Rufus's Oak : 



" Another celebrated oak, and noted also for its pre- 

 mature vegetation, was formerly standing at Canterton, 

 near Stony Cross, a little to the north of Castle Mal- 

 ■wood, and traditionally said to be the very tree against 

 which the arrow glanced that was shot by Tyrrel, and 

 caused the death of William Rufus. This tree had 

 become so decayed and mutilated about sixty years 

 ago, that the late Lord Delawarr, to preserve the re- 

 membrance of the spot, had a triangular stone erected, 



about five feet high, and inscribed thus ." 



Then follows the inscription, which is correct, 

 with the exception of reading, first side, " on the 

 breast " for " in the breast ; " second side, omitting 

 "is" after "as;" and third side, reading '■'•had" 

 for " has ; " all three of which mistakes (with se- 

 veral others) are in the copy given from Old 

 England. The last of these errors Is important, 

 for as the Stone was erected by John Lord De- 

 lawarr In his lifetime, he did not write " had seen 

 the tree growing in this place," but " has seen," 

 ■which he might very well have done, if the tree 

 was cut down* in 1738. A proof of this also 

 existed in a piece of the tree itself, which was 



* In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1789, part ii. 

 p. 708., Dr. J. Miluer says, that the tree having been 



presented by Lord Delawarr to Dr. Lyttelton, 

 Bishop of Carlisle, in December, 1751, as appears 

 by a notice In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1786, 

 part ii. p. 859. This nobleman (inquired after by 

 JosiAH Cato) was John West, first Earl Delawarr, 

 created 18th March, 1761, and well known for his 

 military services. Among other appointments he 

 held that of Master-Forester of the bailiwick of 

 Fritham, in the New Forest, and resided at Boldre- 

 wood Lodge, in the vicinity. He died 16th March, 

 1766, and his descendants continued to reside at 

 the same spot, on a lease from the crown. In the 

 year 1789, on the occasion of King George III. 

 passing a few days in the New Forest, (at the 

 King's House, near Lyndhurst, a visit was paid by 

 his majesty to Rufus's Stone, accompanied by 

 John Richard, fourth Earl of Delawarr, by whom 

 the monument was then repaired, and a record 

 added to It, both of the royal visit and the repa- 

 ration. In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1789, 

 part ii. p. 707., the inscriptions are for the fourth 

 time printed, with the additional lines added in 

 that year, communicated by Dr. J. Mllner of Win- 

 chester ; and In the Topographical Collection of 

 the Royal Library, British Museum, are pre- 

 served drawings of two sides of the Stone, with 

 these inscriptions, made by J. Allen in 1803. 

 The angles of the column are represented as then 

 much broken and woim away, arising partly from 

 the fraying of the deers' horns, and partly from 

 the destructive habit of breaking off fragments by 

 curiosity hunters. It is remarkable, that in the 

 drawing of the first side (which appears very care- 

 fully executed) the lines added on the occasion of 

 George III.'s visit do not agree with the copy 

 given by Dr. Mllner. The latter reads, " This 

 spot was visited by King George and Queen Char- 

 lotte, June 27, 1789;" but the former, "This spot 

 was visited by King George the Third, the 27th 

 of June, Anno mdcolxxxix." I believe this to 

 be correct, and it is subject of real surprise, how 

 in trifiing matters of this kind such discrepancies 

 should occur ; for if this takes place In regard to 

 monuments of quite modern date, what have we 

 to expect in copies of ancient inscriptions, difficult 

 to read, contracted in the forms, and uncertain as 

 to the sense ? Before I conclude, I may remark, 

 that the copies of these inscriptions given in the 

 Additions to Gough's edition of Camden, in 1789, 

 and again in 1806, as well as in Lewis's Ancient and 

 Modern State of the New Forest, 1811, p. 60., are 

 not to be depended on ; and still less so in vol. iv. of 

 The Port-Folio, a collection of engravings from an- 

 tiquarian, &c. subjects, 12mo. 1824: in which latter 

 work is a neat engraving by Storer, representing 

 the second side of the Stone, on which the inscrip- 



worn down almost to a stump, was " at length privately 

 burned by one William House, out of mere wanton- 

 ness." 



