it, is sicklie, I am boulde to desier your Lordship's honorable favour to my servaunte, which I shall most kindlie accepte, and he for the same ever rest bounde to praye for your Lordship. And thus, leaving further to trouble you, &c. 28. March, 1587. H. PEMBROKE."
The whole body of this communication, it is worth remark, is in the handwriting of Arthur Massinger (whose penmanship was not unlike that of his son), and the signature only that of the Earl, in whose family he was entertained. I have not been able to ascertain whether the application was successful; and it is possible that some of the records of the court may exist, showing either the death of Sherar, and by whom he was succeeded about that date, or that Sherar recovered from his illness. As I have before said, it is quite clear that Arthur Massinger was high in the confidence and service of Lord Pembroke ten years after the date of the preceding note.
I have a good deal more to say about Arthur Massinger, but I must take another time for the purpose.
TOUCHSTONE'S DIAL
The conjecture of Mr. Knight, in his note to As You Like It, and to which your correspondent J.M.B. has so instructively drawn our attention, is undoubtedly correct. The "sun-ring" or ring-dial, was probably the watch of our forefathers some thousand years previous to the invention of the modern chronometer, and its history is deserving of more attention than has hitherto been paid to it. Its immense antiquity in Europe is proved by its still existing in the remotest and least civilised districts of North England, Scotland, and the Western Isles, Ireland, and in Scandinavia. I have in my possession two such rings, both of brass. The one, nearly half an inch broad, and two inches in diameter, is from the Swedish island of Gothland, and is of more modern make. It is held by the finger and thumb clasping a small brass ear or handle, to the right of which a slit in the ring extends nearly one-third of the whole length. A small narrow band of brass (about one-fifth of the width) runs along the centre of the ring, and of course covers the slit. This narrow band is movable, and has a hole in one part through which the rays of the sun can fall. On each side of the band (to the right of the handle) letters, which stand for the names of the months, are inscribed on the ring as follows:—
Inside the ring, opposite to these letters, are the following figures for the hours:—
The small brass band was made movable that the ring-click might be properly set by the sun at stated periods, perhaps once a month.
The second sun-ring, which I bought in Stockholm in 1847, also "out of a deal of old iron," is smaller and much broader than the first, and is perhaps a hundred years older; it is also more ornamented. Otherwise its fashion is the same, the only difference being in the arrangement of the inside figures, which are as follows:—
The ring recovered by Mr. Knight evidently agrees with the above. I hope Mr. K. will, sooner or later, present the curiosity to our national museum,—which will be driven at last, if not by higher motives, by the mere force of public opinion and public indignation, to form a regularly arranged and grand collection of our own British antiquities in every branch, secular and religious, from the earliest times, down through the middle ages, to nearly our own days. Such an archæological department could count not only upon the assistance of the state, but upon rich and generous contributions from British sources, individuals and private societies, at home and abroad, as well as foreign help, at least in the way of exchange. But any such plan must be speedily and well organised and well announced!
I give the above details, not only because they relate to a passage in our immortal bard, who has ennobled and perpetuated every word and fact in his writings, but because they illustrate the astronomical antiquities of our own country and our kindred tribes during many centuries. These sun-dials are now very scarce, even in the high Scandinavian North, driven out as they have been by the watch, in the same manner as the ancient clog1 or Rune-staff (the carved wooden perpetual almanac) has been extirpated by the printed calendar, and now only exists in the cabinets of the curious. In fifty years more sun-rings will probably be quite extinct throughout Europe. I hope this will cause you to excuse my prolixity. Will no astronomer among your readers direct his attention to this subject? Does anything of the kind still linger in the East?
Stockholm.
DISCREPANCIES IN DUGDALE'S ACCOUNT OF SIR RALPH DE COBHAM
There are some difficulties in Dugdale's account of the Cobham family which it may be well to bring before your readers; especially as several other historians and genealogists have repeated Dugdale's account without remarking on its inconsistencies. In speaking of a junior branch of the family, he says, in vol. ii. p. 69., "There was also Ralphe de Cobham, brother of the first-mentioned Stephen." He only mentions one Stephen but names him twice, first at page 66., and again at 69. Perhaps he meant the above-mentioned Stephen. He continues:—
"This Ralphe took to wife Mary Countess of Norfolk, widdow of Thomas of Brotherton. Which Mary was Daughter to William Lord Ros, and first married to William Lord Braose of Brembre; and by her had Issue John, who 20 E. III., making proof of his age, and doing his Fealty, had Livery of his lands."
At page 64. of the same volume he states that Thomas de Brotherton died in 12 Edward III., which would be only eight years before his widow's son, by a subsequent husband, is said to have become of age. That he did become of age in this year we have unquestionable evidence. In Cal. Ing. P. Mortem, vol. iv. p. 444., we find this entry:—
"Anno 20 Edw. III. Johannes de Cobham, Filius et Hæres Radulphi de Cobeham defuncti. Probatio ætatis."
There is also abundant proof that Thomas de Brotherton died in 12 Edward III. The most natural way of removing this difficulty would be to conclude that John de Cobham was the son of Ralph by a previous marriage. But here we have another difficulty to encounter. He is not only called the son of Mary, Countess of Norfolk, or Marishall, by Dugdale, but in all contemporaneous records. See Rymer's Foed., vol. vi. p. 136.; Rot. Orig., vol. ii. p. 277.; Cal. Rot. Pat., p. 178., again at p. 179.; Cal. Ing. P. Mortem, vol. iii. pp. 7. 10. Being the son-in-law of the Countess, he was probably called her son to distinguish him from a kinsman of the same name, or because of her superior rank. She is frequently styled the widow, and sometimes the wife of Thomas de Brotherton, even after the death of her subsequent husband, Sir Ralph de Cobham. In the escheat at her death she is thus described:—
"Maria Comitissa Norfolc', uxor Thome de Brotherton, Comitis Norfolc', Relicta Radi de Cobeham, Militis."
It is remarkable that this discrepancy in Sir John Cobham's age, and the time of his supposed mother's marriage with his father, has never before, as far as my knowledge extends, been noticed by any of the numerous writers who have repeated Dugdale's account of this family.
Before concluding I will mention another mistake respecting the Countess which runs through most of our county histories where she is named. For a short period she became an inmate of the Abbey of Langley, and is generally stated to have entered it previously to her marriage with Sir Ralph de Cobham. Clutterbuck, in his History of Hertfordshire (vol. ii. p. 512.), for instance, relates the circumstance in these words:—
"In the 19th year of the reign of Edward III., she became a nun in the Abbey of Langley, in the country of Norfolk; but quitting that religious establishment, she married Sir Ralph Cobham, Knt., and died anno 36 Edward III."
By Cal. Ing. P. Mortem, vol. i. p. 328., we find that Ralph Cobham died 19th Edward III.2, that is, the same year in which the Countess entered the Abbey, from whence we may conclude that she retired there to pass in seclusion the period of mourning.
HENRY