Feb. 22. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



147 



FOUNDATION-STONE OF ST. MARK S AT VENICE. 



(Vol.iii., p. 88.) 



I recollect haYiiig seen the stone in question in 

 the collection of the late Mr. Douce, in whose pos- 

 session it had been for some years before his com- 

 munication of it to the Society of Antiquaries. 

 It is quite evident that he was satisfied of its 

 authenticity, and it was most probably an acci- 

 dental purchase from some dealer in antiquities, 

 who knew nothing about it. I happen to know 

 that it remained in the hands of Sir Henry Ellis 

 at the time of 111-. Douce's death, and your cor- 

 respondent H. C. R. will most probably find it 

 among the other collections of Mr. Douce now in 

 the museum at Goodrich Castle. 



The doubt expressed by your correspondent is 

 evidently founded upon the engraving and ac- 

 companying paper in the 26th volume of the 

 Ai-ch(Bologia ; and as it conveys such a grave cen- 

 sure of the judgment of the director of the council 

 and secretaries of the Antiquarian Society, it ap- 

 pears to me that it is incumbent upon him to 

 satisfy his doubts by seeing the stone itself, and, 

 if he should be convinced of his error, to make the 

 amende honorable. 



It is to be regretted that he did not state " the 

 points which have suggested this notion of its 

 being a hoax." For my own part, I cannot see 

 the motive for such a falsification ; and if it is one, 

 it is the contrivance of some one who had more 

 epigraphic skill than is usually found on such 

 occasions. 



There is nothing in the objection of your cor- 

 respondent as to the size and form of the stone 

 which would have any weight, and it is not neces- 

 sary to suppose that it " must have been loose in 

 the world for 858 years." On pulling down the 

 old church, the foundation-stone in which this was 

 imbedded may have been buried with the rubbish, 

 and exhumed in comparatively recent times. It 

 had evidently fallen into rude and ignorant hands, 

 and suffered by being violently detached from the 

 stone in which it was imbedded. 



Every one who knew the late Mr. Douce must 

 have full confidence in his intimate knowledge of 

 mediaeval antiquity, and would not easily be led 

 to imagine that he could be deceived on a point 

 like this ; but are we to presume, from a vague 

 idea of your correspondent's, that the executive 

 body of the Society of Antiquaries would fail to 

 detect a forgery of this nature ? 



S. W. S., oUm F. S. A. 



Foundation-stone of St. Mark's, Venice (Vol. iii., 

 p. 88.). — This singular relic is now preserved in 

 the " Doucean Museum," at Goodrich Court, 

 Herefordshire, with the numerous objects of art 

 and antiquities bequeathed by Mr. Douce to the 

 late Sir Samuel Meyrick. I believe that nothing 



can now be ascertained regarding the history of 

 this stone, or how it came into the possession of 

 Mr. Douce. Sir Samuel enumerates it amongst 

 " Miscellaneous Antiquities," No. 2., in his inter- 

 esting Inventory of this Collection, given in the 

 Gentleman's Magazine, Feb., 1835, p. 198. The 

 Doucean Museum comprises, probably, the finest 

 series of specimens of sculpture in ivory existing 

 in any collection in England. The Limoges 

 enamels are also highly deserving of notice. 



Albekt Wat. 



HISTOIRE DES SEVARAMBES. 



(Vol. iii., pp. 4. and 72.) 



I am not sufficiently familiar with Vossius or 

 his works to form any opinion as to the accuracy 

 of the conclusion which Mr. Crossley has arrived 

 at. There is at least much obscurity in the 

 matter, to which I have long paid some little 

 attention. 



My copy is entitled, — 



" The History of the Sevarambians : A People of 

 the South continent. In Five Parts. Containing an 

 Account of the Government, &c. Translated from the 

 Memoirs of Capt. Siden, who lived fifteen years amongst 

 them. Lond. 1738." (8vo. pp. xxiii. and U2.) 



I have given this to show how it differs from 

 that spoken of by ^Ir. C. as being in tivo parts, by 

 Capt. Thos. Ziden, and not a repi'int, but a trans- 

 lation from the French, which Lowndes says was 

 " considerably altered and enlarged." 



If this be so, we can hardly ascribe to Vossius 

 the edition of 1738. The preface intimates that 

 the papers were written in Latin, French, Italian, 

 and Dutch, and placed in the editor's hands in 

 England, on his promising to methodise them and 

 put them all into one language ; but I do not ob- 

 serve the slightest allusion to the work having 

 previously appeared either in English or French, 

 although we find that Barbier, in his Diet, des 

 Anon., gives the French edit. 1 pt. Paris, 1677 ; 

 2 pt. Paris, 1678 et 1679, 2 vols. 12mo. ; Nouvelle 

 edit. Amsterdam, 1716, 2 vols. 12mo. ; and ascribes 

 it to Denis Vairasse d'Alais. 



There is a long account of this woi'k in Diet. 

 Historique, par March and : a la Haye, 1758, fo. 

 sub. nom., Allais, as the author, observing — 



"II y a diversite d'opinions touchant la langue en 

 laquelle il a ete ecrit ou compose." 



The earliest he mentions is the English one of 

 1675, and an edition in the French, "a Paris, 

 1677 ;" which states on the title, Truduit de V An- 

 glais, whereas the second part is "impriince a 

 Paris chez VAutenr, 1678," from which Marchand 

 concludes that Allais was the writer, adding, — 



" On n'a pcut-elre jamais vu de Fiction composee 

 avcc plus d'art et plus d'industrie, et il faut avouer 



