= a 
210 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 14. 
“I wyll edefy more, with the syght of it 
Than wyll all the pratynge of holy wryt; 
For that except that the precher, hym selfe lyue well, 
His predycacyon wyll helpe neuer a dell, 
And I know well, that thy lyuynge is nought : 
Thou art an apostata, yf it were well sought, 
_ An homycyde thou art I know well inoughe,” &c. 
The line omitted is the more remarkable, be- 
cause it contains an instance of the employment 
of a word very old in our language, and in use in 
the best periods of our prose and poetry: “apo- 
stata” is explained in the Promptorium, is found 
in Skelton and Heywood, and so down to the time 
of Massinger, who was especially fond of it. 
How many copies were issued of Smeeton’s re- 
print of The Pardoner and the Frere, I know not; 
but any of your readers, who chance to possess it, 
will do well to add the absent line in the margin, 
so that the mistake may be both rectified and re- 
corded. I was not aware of Mr. Child’s intention 
to re-publish the interlude in the United States, or 
I would long ago have sent him the correction, as 
indeed 1 did, a day or two after I received his 
volume. It was, nevertheless, somewhat ungra- 
cious to thank him for his book, and at the same 
time to point out an important error in it, for 
which, however, he was in no way responsible. 
Kensington, Jan. 28. 18509. J. Payne Coicier. 
CATACOMES AND BONE-HOUSES. 
Without attempting to answer the queries of 
Mr. Gatty, No. 11. p. 171, I venture to send a note 
on the subject. I believe it will generally be found 
that the local tradition makes such collections of 
field.” One of the most noteworthy collections of 
this kind that I have seen is contained in the | 
erypt of Hythe Church, Kent, where a vast | 
quantity of bones are piled up with great regu- 
larity, and preserved with much care. According 
to a written statement suspended in the crypt, 
they are the relics of Britons and Saxons slain in 
a battle fought on the beach in the sixth century ; 
the local tradition is nearly to the same effect, 
but of course is of little value as it has most likely 
arisen from or been conformed to this ‘ written 
chronicle ;” both writing and tradition must 
indeed be regarded with distrust. It is affirmed 
in the neighbourhood that the bones were dug up 
from the beach; but I, at least, could hear of no 
tradition as to the period when they were ex- 
humed. Perhaps some resident will ascertain 
whether any such exists. 
The bones have all the appearance of consider- | 
able antiquity; yet they are in excellent pre- 
servation. ‘he skulls are remarkably white and 
perfect, and are altogether a very curious col- 
lection, differing greatly in size, form, and 
thickness. The holes and fractures in many of 
them (made evidently during life) leave no doubt 
that they belonged to persons who met with a 
violent death. 
I will not pretend to reply to the concluding 
queries of your correspondent, but I would just 
remark that, from what we know of the feeling of 
our ancestors respecting the remains of the dead, 
it appears probable that if from any cause a large 
quantity of human bones were found, or were 
from any cause obliged to be disturbed, some 
ecclesiastic or pious layman would take measures 
to have them removed to some.consecrated spot 
where they might be safe from further moles- 
tation. They would hardly be treated in any 
such manner as Dr. Mantell states the bones 
removed by the railway engineers from the Priory 
ground at Lewes were treated. I remain, sir, 
your very obedient servant, oe. 
Sydenham, Jan. 21. 1850. 
LINES ATTRIBUTED TO HUDIBRAS. 
Perhaps the following extract from a volume 
entitled The Relics of Literature, published by 
Boys and Co., Ludgate Hill, 1820, may prove in- 
teresting, as further illustrating the so frequently 
disputed passage which forms the subject matter 
of your first article in No. 12.:— 
“ Few popular quotations have more engaged the 
pens of critics than the following : — 
‘ For he that fights and runs away 
Will live to fight another day.’ 
These lines are almost universally supposed to form a 
l : | part of Hudibras; and, so confident have even scholars 
bones to be “the grisly gleanings of some battle- | 
been on the subject, that in 1784 a wager was made at 
Bootle’s, of twenty to one, that they were to be found 
in that inimitable poem, Dodsley was referred to as 
the arbitrator, when he ridiculed the idea of consulting 
him on the subject, saying, ‘ Every fool knows they 
are in Hudibras.’ George Selwyn, who was present, 
said to Dodsley, ‘ Pray, sir, will you be good enough, 
then, to inform an old fool, who is at the same time 
your wise worship’s very humble servant, in what 
canto they are to be found?’ Dodsley took down 
the volume, but he could not find the passage; the 
next day came, with no better success; and the sage 
bibliopole was obliged to confess, ‘that a man might 
be ignorant of the author of this well-known couplet 
without being absolutely a fool.’ ” 
I have also the following memorandum in a 
common-place book of mine, but I do not remem- 
ber from what source I transcribed it many years 
| past :— 
“The couplet, thus erroneously ascribed to the 
author of Hudibras, oceurs in a small volume of Mis- 
cellaneous Poems, by Sir John Mennis, written in the 
reign of Charles the Second, which has now become 
extremely scarce. The original of the couplet may, 
however, be traced to much higher authority, even to 
Demosthenes, who has the following expression : — 
