422 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 109. 



to conquer it for him."* There is no reason to 

 doubt, that with the editor of the Tracts the 

 above imputation was a simple mistake ; but it is 

 an important duty of all who interfere with his- 

 torical literature, to state and correct every dis- 

 covered instance of the kind. Eupatob. 



«aucn'ps. 



CROSSES AND CRUCIFIXES. 



In the 22nd volume of the Archceologia, p. 58., 

 is the following passage : 



" The cross, which docs not appear to have been 

 peculiar to Christianity, when introduced on these 

 obelisks, is usually filled with tracery." 



The obelisks, or stones of memorial, referred to 

 are the subjects of a very interesting paper com- 

 municated by Mr. Loiian to the Society of Anti- 

 quaries. (See Plates 2, .3, 4, and 5.) 1 am desir- 

 ous of being informed what authentic: te 1 instances 

 there are of crosses, or stones marked with crosses, 

 being used for landmarks, memorials, or for any 

 other purpose, civil or I'eligious, before the intro- 

 duction of Chrisiiunity? I have met with one in- 

 stance. Prescott, in his History of Mexico, relates 

 that — 



" In the court of one of the temples in the island of 

 Columel he was amazed by the sight of a cross of 

 stone and lime, about ten palms high." 



It was the emblem of the god of rain. (See vol. i. 

 p. 240., &c.) 



In the same paper ]\Ir. Logan observes — 

 " Crosses, or stones on which the figure was traced, 

 marked a place of meeting for certain districts ; and 

 within memory of man a f;iir was held on this spot. It 

 is not improbable that m:u-ket-crosses may be deduced 

 from this custom." 



It seems that every town that had the privilege 

 of a market or fair (I am speaking of England) 

 had a market-cross. In most of these towns the 

 cross has disappeared, and in its place a ball or 

 globe has been mounted on the siiaft ; but the 

 term "market-cross" is still in use. In the town 

 of Giggleswick, in the parish of Giggleswick, there 

 is a perfect market-cross, the cross being what is, 

 I believe, called a cross-fleury. In the town of 

 Settle, in the same parish of Giggleswick, the ball 

 or globe is placed on the top of the shaft. Are 

 there other instances of market towns in which 

 the cross is still found ? 



I passed thi'ough a market town lately in which 

 the stone steps, and socket in which the shaft was 

 placed, are preserved ; but they have been re- 



• Camden, in his Elizahetli, under 1578, states the 

 fact without mention of the name, only calling him 

 "the popes bastard ;" but tlie date is the sixth year of 

 the pontificate of Gregory XIII. 



moved to one corner of the market-place. The 

 shaft and cross have disappeared. 



Is not this erection of tiie cross, in places in 

 wliich markets and fairs were held, of ecclesiastical 

 origin ? AVas the cross erected by licence granted 

 by the bishop within whose jurisdiction it was 

 placed? Is there any grant of such licence in 

 existence ? Or did these crosses originate in the 

 gratuitous piety of our ancestors? I fear to ask 

 the question, whether the buyers and sellers under 

 the cross are more upright in their dealings than 

 those who buy and sell without the presence of 

 this emblem of all that is true and just. Is the 

 cross erected in the cities and towns of other 

 states, as in England? Was the custom general in 

 Europe ? F. W. J. 



Mr. Curzon states, in the introduction to his 

 Monasteries of the Levant, that — 



" The crucifix was not known before the fifth or sixth 

 century, thougli the cross was always the emblem of 

 the Christian faith." 



I am persuaded that this assertion is incorrect, 

 and that the crucifi.x^ was used in much earlier 

 times. Will some one kindly inform me where 

 the first mention of it is to be found, and what is 

 the date of the earliest examples now known ? 



Dryasdust. 



MASTER OF THE BUCKHOUNDS. 



In reading the Topogrupher for January 1791 (a 

 work which was published under the editorship of 

 my uncle, Sir Egerton Brydges), I was surprised 

 to find, in an ac(;ount of the family of Brocas, of 

 Beaurepaire, in the county of Hampshire, that the 

 post of Master of the Buckhounds had been sold 

 in the reign of James I. 



Mr. Gough {Sepulchral Monuments, pp. 160, 

 161.) appears to be the authority quoted who 

 describes the monument of Sir Bernard Brocas, | 

 Kt., as existing at Westminster, and having on it 

 an inscription in which is the following sentence : | 



" Sir Bernard succeeded to tlie paternal inheritance 

 both in England and France, and having married Mary, 

 daughter and heiress of Sir John de Poche, had a large 

 estate with her, and the hereditary post of Master of 

 tlie Buckhounds; which was confirmed to him by 

 King Edward the Third, and held by the family, till i 

 sold in James the First's reign." j 



I have no means of ascertaining at the present 

 time whether this monument is still in existence 

 or not; nor indeed has that much to do with the 

 object of my writing, which is to suggest the fol* 

 lowing Queries, in the hope that some of your | 

 correspondents may be able to send satisfactory 

 answers. i 



1. By whom was the post of Master of the i 

 Buckhounds first instituted, and who was the first 

 blaster? 



