his arm, and flames issue from his mouth. Few rustics are hardy enough to be found loitering on or near those bridges on that night; and my informant averred, that he was himself on one occasion hailed by this fiendish apparition, and asked to open a gate, but "he warn't sich a fool as to turn his head; and well a' didn't, for Sir Thomas passed him full gallop like:" and he heard a voice which told him that he (Sir Thomas) had no power to hurt such as turned a deaf ear to his requests, but that had he stopped he would have carried him off.
This tradition I have repeatedly heard in this neighbourhood from aged persons when I was a child, but I never found but one person who had ever actually seen the phantom. Perhaps some of your correspondents can give some clue to this extraordinary sentence. The coach and four horses is attached to another tradition I have heard in the west of Norfolk; where the ancestor of a family is reported to drive his spectral team through the old walled-up gateway of his now demolished mansion, on the anniversary of his death: and it is said that the bricks next morning have ever been found loosened and fallen, though as constantly repaired. The particulars of this I could easily procure by reference to a friend.
P.S. Another vision of Headless Horse is prevalent at Caistor Castle, the seat of the Fastolfs.
Shuck the Dog-fiend.—This phantom I have heard many persons in East Norfolk, and even Cambridgeshire, describe as having seen as a black shaggy dog, with fiery eyes, and of immense size, and who visits churchyards at midnight. One witness nearly fainted away at seeing it, and on bringing his neighbours to see the place where he saw it, he found a large spot as if gunpowder had been exploded there. A lane in the parish of Overstrand is called, after him, Shuck's Lane. The name appears to be a corruption of "shag," as shucky is the Norfolk dialect for "shaggy." Is not this a vestige of the German "Dog-fiend?"
QUERIES
NUMISMATIC QUERIES
Can any numismatical contributor give me any information as to the recurrence elsewhere, &c., of the following types of coins in my possession:—
1. A coin of the size of Roman 1 B., of the province of Macedonia Prima.—Obv. A female head, with symbols behind, and a rich floriated edge: Rev. A club within an oaken garland: Legend in the field, ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΗΣ.
The type is illustrated by Dr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Bible, in explanation of Acts, xvi. 11, 12. The specimen in my possession is in lead, finely struck, and therefore not a cast, and in all respects equal in point of sharpness and execution to the silver of the same size and type in the British Museum; and was dug up by a labourer at Chesterton, near Cambridge. How is the metal of which my specimen is composed to be accounted for?
2. A 3 B. coin apparently by the portrait of Tiberius.—Legend defaced: Rev. The type known by collectors as the altar of Lyons: Ex. (ROM)AE ET AV(G.)
3. A 3 B. of Herennia Estruscilla.—Rev. The usual seated figure of Pudicitia; and the Legend, PVDICITIA AVG.
According to Col. Smyth, Akermann, and other authorities, no third brass of this empress exists; but the specimen before me has been decided as undoubtedly genuine by many competent judges.
4. A 3 B. coin of the Emperor Macrinus, struck in some of the provinces.—Obv. A bearded portrait of the emperor: Leg., AVT. K.M.O.C.C. MAKPINOC: Rev. An archaic S.C. in a laurel garland, above L and beneath C. I am anxious to know to what locality I may ascribe this coin, as I have not been able to find it described.
QUERIES PROPOSED, NO. 2
When reflecting on my various pen-and-ink skirmishes, I have sometimes half-resolved to avoid controversy. The resolution would have been unwise; for silence, on many occasions, would be a dereliction of those duties which we owe to ourselves and the public.
The halcyon days, so much desired, may be far distant! I have to comment, elsewhere, on certain parts of the Report of the commissioners on the British Museum—which I hope to do firmly, yet respectfully; and on the evidence of Mr. Panizzi—in which task I must not disappoint his just expectations. I have also to propose a query on the blunder of Malone—to which I give precedence, as it relates to Shakspeare.
The query is—have I "mistaken the whole affair"? A few short paragraphs may enable others to decide.
1. The question at issue arose, I presume to say, out of the statement of Mr. Jebb. I never quoted the Irish edition. If C. can prove that Malone superintended it, he may fairly tax me with a violation of my new canon of criticism—not otherwise. What says Mr. James Boswell on that point? I must borrow his precise words: "The only edition for which Mr. Malone can be considered as responsible [is] his own in 1790." [Plays and poems of W.S. 1821, i. xxxiii.]
2. I am said to have "repeated what C. had already stated."—I consulted the Shakspere of Malone, and verified my recollections, when the query of "Mr. JEBB" appeared—but forbore to notice its misconceptions. Besides, one C., after an interval of two months, merely asserted that it was not a blunder of Malone; the other C. furnished, off-hand, his proofs and references.
3. To argue fairly, we must use the same words in the same sense. Now C. (No. 24. p. 386.) asserts the Malone had never seen the introductory fragment; and asks, who forged it? He uses the word fabrication in the sense of forgery.—The facts are produced (No. 25. p. 404.). He is informed that the audacious fabrication, which took place before 1770, was first published by Malone himself, in 1790—yet he expects me to apply the same terms to the blunder committed by another editor in 1794.
4. As an answer to my assertion that the Irish editor attempted to unite the two fragments, C. proceeds to prove that he did not unite them. The procedure is rather defective in point of logical exactness. It proves only what was not denied. Malone refers to the will of John Shakspere, found by Joseph Moseley, with sufficient clearness; and it is charitable to assume that the Irish editor intended to observe the instructions of his precursor. He failed, it seems—but why? It would be useless to go in search of the rationale of a blunder.
Have I "mistaken the whole affair"?—I entreat those readers of the "NOTES AND QUERIES" who may take up the affirmative side of the question to point out my errors, whether as to facts or inferences.
AUTHORS WHO HAVE PRIVATELY PRINTED THEIR OWN WORKS
Can any of your readers refer me to any source whence I can obtain an account of "JOHN PAINTER, B.A. of St. John's College, Oxford?" He appears to have been a very singular character, and fond of printing (privately) his own lucubrations; to most of which he subscribes himself "The King's Fool." Three of these privately printed tracts are now before me:—1. The Poor Man's Honest Praises and Thanksgiving, 1746. 2. An Oxford Dream, in Two Parts, 1751. 3. A Scheme designed for the Benefit of the Foundling Hospital, 1751.
Who was ROBERT DEVERELL, who privately printed, in 4to., Andalusia; or Notes tending to show that the Yellow Fever was well known to the Ancients? The book seems a mass of absurdity; containing illustrations of Milton's Comus, and several other subjects equally incongruous.
MINOR QUERIES
Seager a Painter.—Marlow's Autograph.—In a MS., which has lately been placed in my hands, containing a copy of Henry Howard's translation of the last instructions given by the Emperor Charles
