324 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 20. 
was, by the act of settlement made on the acces- 
sion of Henry VIL., continued in his office “ of 
the kepyng of our chase of Moketree in Wigmores- 
land under the Erledom of Marche,” and Thomas 
Grove “in the kepyng of our chase of the Boryng- 
wood in Wigmoresland and of the ‘ Poulterership’ 
and keping of the ditch of the same.” 
In An Abstract of the late King’s Revenues 
(printed 1651, 4to.) is this entry relating to 
Bringwood : — 
“To Sir Robert Harley for keeping Boringwood 
alias Bringwood Forest Com. Heref. 6/. 2s. 8d. per 
ann, for the Pokership 30s. 5d. by the year, and for 
the keeping the forest of Prestwood 18s. by the 
year.” 
In a survey made of Mocktree and Bringwood 
Forests in 1633, it is stated, that “these Forests 
are stately grounds, and do feed a great and 
large Deer, and will keep of Red and Fallow 
Deer two or three thousand at the least.” 
These enclosures were disafforested temp. 
Charles II., and they now form part of the Down- 
ton Castle Estate. W. H.C. 
Temple. 
Porkership. — Accept my best thanks for your 
ready insertion of my observations in No. 18. ; but I 
regret to say that the printer has unfortunately 
made a mistake in one word, and that, as it mostly 
happens, the principal one, on which the gist of 
my illustration in regard to the Pokership depends. 
The error occurs in the extract from the Pipe Roll, 
where the word has been printed Parcario instead 
of Porcario ; added to which the abbreviations in 
the other words are wanting, which renders the 
meaning doubtful. It should have been printed 
thus : — “ Et 7 libae const) Porcario de eford,” — 
being in extenso, “ Et in liberatione constat Porca- 
rio de Hereford.” Showing that in early times 
there was a hog warden, or person who collected 
the king’s hog-rent in Hereford. And further, 
Mr. Smirke’s extract in No. 17. p. 269., shows that 
in Henry VIII.’s time the Porcarius had become 
Pocarius, the fee being within Id. of the same 
amount as that paid in John’s reign. 
May I, under these circumstances, crave a short 
notein your next Number, correcting the oversight, 
so that my Porker may be set on his legs again ? 
P.S.—In reference to the claim, the name of 
the place should be Burnford, not Barnford. 
LUST ity, Ue 
Spring Gardens, March 4. 1850. 
REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES. 
Coleridge's Christabel and Byron's Lara (No. 17. 
p- 262.).— What Christabel saw is plain enough. 
‘The lady was a being like Duessa, in Spenser; a 
horrible-looking witch, who could, to a certain 
degree, put on an appearance of beauty. The 
difference is, that this lady had both forms at 
once; the one in her face, the other concealed. 
This is quite plain from the very words of Cole- 
ridge. 
The lifting her over the sill seems to be some- 
thing like the same superstition that we have in 
Scott’s Eve of St. John : — 
“ But I had not had pow’r to come to thy bow’r, 
If thou had’st not charm’d me so,” 
I have no doubt that Lara is the Corsair; and 
Kaled Gulnare, from the Corsair: the least in- 
spection is enough to show this. Ezzelin must 
also be Seyd; but that does not answer quite so 
well. All that there is to prepare it is, that Seyd 
is only left for dead, in a great hurry, and there- 
fore might recover ; and that he drank wine, and 
therefore might be of Christian extraction. In 
Lara he is described as dark ; but his appearance 
is rather confusedly related, as if he never ap- 
peared but once, and yet Otho knows him, and he 
has a dwelling. The shriek is more difficult. 
There could be no meeting, then, between Ezzelin 
and Lara, because Ezzelin is surprised by meeting 
him at Otho’s. Whether the shriek may not be 
owing to a meeting between Kaled and Ezzelin, 
is not so clear. From the splendid description of 
her looking down upon him, it is not proved that 
she there saw him first; and Ezzelin never sees 
her at all there. 
Nothing is more interesting than these mysteries 
left in narrative fictions. ‘The story of Gertrude, 
in that first of romances, the Promessi Sposi, is a 
very great instance ; and the bad taste, of bringing 
her up again to be the subject of a story by another 
writer, is so extreme, that I never could look into 
the book. That Manzoni has left the character, 
whom he calls the Znnominato, in mystery, is his- 
torical, and not of his own contrivance. 
I used to think that Scott had left the part of 
Clara, in St. Ronan's Weill, intentionally mys- 
terious, as to a most important circumstance; but 
we learn, from his Life, that he meant to have 
made that circumstance a part of the story, but 
was prevented by the publisher. It is natural 
that the altered novel, therefore, should retain 
some impressions of it. I refer particularly to the 
latter part of the communications between her 
and her brother. But the meeting between her 
and Tyrrell in the woods, and their conversation 
there, I now think, forbid the reader to suspect 
any thing like what I speak of. In such cases 1 
do not myself wish to know too much about the 
matter. Sometimes the author wishes you to have 
the pleasure of guessing, as I thmk, in Lara; 
sometimes he means to be more mysterious ; some- 
times*he does not know himself. It would have 
been idle to have asked Johnson where Ajeet 
C. B. 
went to. 
