2»* S. IX. May 26. '60.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



409 



copied, and that the whole is so plainly and dis- 

 tinctly cut that there can be no difference of 

 opinion about the reading. Whether the en- 

 "raver may not have made some variations from 

 the copy given him by the writer is another 

 question, and I am disposed to think he did. 

 But I would propose that, if possible, in spite of 

 any such errors, we should attempt to arrive at 

 the writer's meaning. 



It is remarkable that an inscription of only 

 two lines should have given room to so many 

 doubts and different surmises, and that almost 

 every expression in turn has been questioned. 



The lines are evidently intended for hexame- 

 ters, and hexameters composed entirely of dac- 

 tyls except the last foot. This circumstance 

 forms a help towards reading them ; but it is 

 counterbalanced by the disregard to false quan- 

 tities in which the mediaeval writers indulged ; 

 and by their placing words close together instead 

 of leaving spaces between them. 



1. The first foot is Jon me do. If, with F. C. 

 H., we read this Ego Johannes do me, we not 

 only have me a long syllable, but we deprive 

 lumidutur of its nominative case. I am therefore 

 inclined to think that me do may have been the 

 engraver's error for modo, as suggested by the 

 Rev. Mr. Williams. 



2. Upon Numinis ordine all our interpretations 

 seem to agree, namely, that it was intended to be 

 equivalent to Numinis ordinaiione. 



3. In the second line, according to the idea of 

 every foot but the last being a dactyl, we read 

 Bard quoque. I withdraw my suggestion of the 

 second word being cujus ; but I may remark that 

 to represent quoque completely it ought to have 

 been engraved q°q3 instead of q°3. 



4. The word verbere is the one, on the full im- 

 port of which I have most doubt, and which in- 

 dued induces me to take the trouble of writing 

 again on the subject, as I will explain hereafter. 



5. Stigis e funere. These two feet of the verse 

 form a phrase which I decidedly read together, 

 and translate " from the death cf Hell." It is 

 true that c is a long syllable ; but, as I have 

 already remarked, our mediaeval Latin poets did 

 not care for false quantities, particularly when 

 they compensated for them by such jingling 

 rhymes as we have in this specimen. I do not 

 think with F. C. II. that E was intended for the 

 conjunction et. Still less can I agree with B. II. 

 C. that it was intended for the initial of Eques ; 

 for it is well known that Miles, and not Eques, 

 was the mediaeval Latin for Knight. I do not 

 suppose that it was made a capital with any 

 meaning, but merely by the bad scholarship or 

 misapprehension of the engraver. 



G. I am quite of opinion that tueatur is used in 

 its passive sense, as maintained by B. H. C, al- 

 though both Mr. Williams and F. C. II. have 



adopted the contrary interpretation ; and Mc I 

 conclude can mean only hie Johannes Flambard, 

 and not " he (God)," as suggested by F. C. II. 

 Numen, I believe, is always a neuter noun. Nor 

 would it seem to mend the matter to translate 

 Mc " here." 



If, then, the latter part of the second line be 

 taken as meaning " may he be preserved from the 

 death of Hell ! then it would follow that verbere 

 implied the means by which he should be so pre- 

 served. My first suggestion was, " by the stripes" 

 of Him by whom the Gospel teaches us we are 

 healed ; but 1 fear that is too evangelical a sense 

 for the time when the epitaph was written. Can 

 any support be found for the suggestion that the 

 word may have been employed to signify " pen- 

 ance," or purgatory ? John Gough Nichols. 



My learned friend F. C. H. wishes to see a rub- 

 bing of this curious inscription. 1 am happy to be 

 able to spare him the research, in a manner satisfac- 

 tory to himself. Having been in town lately, I took 

 a trip to Harrow, and inspected the brass myself. 

 The reading is decidedly me do, and no mistake. 

 So my "bold stroke" becomes a telum imbelle sine 

 ictu ; and I, too, as well as the redoubtable knight, 

 Sir John Flambard, must say me do, I surrender. 

 Mr. Gough Nichols has given the inscription 

 with perfect accuracy in his communication to 

 " N. & Q." This was not done by any of the 

 previous writers, — Gough (Sepidchral Monuments, 

 vol. ii. p. eclxxvii.) ; Weever, p. 531. ; Lysons 

 (Environs of Loudon, ii. p. 571.) ; Grose, in Plates 

 VI. and VII. in the Addenda to his Preface. 

 They all give the small e in the middle of the 

 second line ; whereas 't is plainly the old black- 

 letter capital (£. They all likewise give quoque in 

 full, and not the contraction q3. They were right, 

 however, in the word; for it can be nothing else, 

 being a very common form in MSS. But how 

 the jumble is increased by this reading, me do! — 

 more bunKling in the verse ; and " Jon " in the 

 first person, while Flam, the same individual, is 

 in the third ! 



F. C. H. must now allow me to reciprocate his 

 compliment, — " he has been enticed too far by his 

 ingenious speculations." He takes the <£ to stand 

 for et. Now I do not pretend to any special 

 acquaintance with brasses ; but I am tolerably 

 familiar with old MSS. of various ages and cha- 

 racter, and certainly I have never seen the et thus 

 written. Great is the variety of twirled lines 

 used to denote the little conjunction; but in no 

 instance have I seen a regularly formed capital 

 letter employed for the purpose. And MSS. 

 would be more likely to afford an instance of the 

 kind, in consequence of their variety, than in- 

 scriptions on. brasses, which are more formal and 

 uniform. However, if my friend can produce an 

 example, I will again sing me do. 



