"Molliter incedit" (Ovid, Amor. II. 23.); "Passu incedit inerti" (Ovid, Metam. II. 772.); "Melius est incessu regem quam imperium regno claudicare" (Justin. VI. ii. 6.); "Incessus omnibus animalibus certus et uniusmodi, et in suo, cuique, genere" (Plin. X. 38.).

The emphasis, therefore, is on regina, and the meaning is, I who step, or walk, QUEEN of the Gods; the dignity of the step being not expressed by "incedo," but inferable from "regina." The expression corresponds exactly to "ibit regina" (Æn. II. 578.); with this difference only, that "ibit" does not, like "incedo," specify motion on foot.

"Jovisque et soror et conjux."—Both the ets are emphatic. "Jovisque et soror et conjux."

"Bella" expresses the organised resistance which she meets, and the uncertainty of the issue; and being placed first word in the line is emphatic.

JAMES HENRY.

Minor Notes.

Verses presented to General Monck.

—The subjoined notice of a curious entry in the records of the Belfast corporation may be acceptable. The author is unknown. They are inscribed, "Verses to General Monck," and, as the last six lines show, are an attack on the Rump Parliament:—

The occasion of their presentation is unknown. General Monck took Belfast in 1646 from the Scotch, who being true Presbyterians of the older school, had turned against the parliament. This was the probable occasion of their being presented to the future restorer of King Charles II.

E. L. B.

Justice to Pope Pius V.

—You have done yourself credit by exonerating Queen Elizabeth from a charge the easiest to bring, and the most difficult to rebut, implying the proof of a negative; and therefore frequently brought by the unprincipled. I propose, as a counterpart, to exonerate Pope Pius V. from an imputation, mistakingly, though unjustly, cast upon him by an authority of no less weight than that of Sir Walter Scott. In his edition of Somers's Tracts, vol. i. p. 192., occurs a note on a place in the execution of justice: "Pius V. resolved to make his bastard son, Boncompagni, Marquis of Vincola, King of Ireland," &c. For this assertion no authority is cited, nor indeed could be. The very name might have suggested the filiation to his successor, Gregory XIII., which was the fact. In a work, not much known, The Burnt Child dreads the Fire, &c., by William Denton, M.D., London, 1675, at p. 25. we read, "Gregory XIII. had a bastard, James Buon Compagna, and to him he gave Ireland, and impowered Stewkely with men, arms, and money, to conquer it for him."[2] 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 historical literature, to state and correct every discovered instance of the kind.

[2] Camden, in his Elizabeth, under 1578, states the fact without mention of the name, only calling him "the pope's bastard;" but the date is the sixth year of the pontificate of Gregory XIII.

EUPATOR.

Queries.

CROSSES AND CRUCIFIXES.

In the 22nd volume of the Archæologia, p. 58., is the following passage:

"The cross, which does 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 communicated by Mr. Logan to the Society of Antiquaries. (See Plates 2, 3, 4, and 5.) I am desirous of being informed what authenticated instances there are of crosses, or stones marked with crosses, being used for landmarks, memorials, or for any other purpose, civil or religious, before the introduction of Christianity? I have met with one instance. 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 Mr. 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 fair was held on this spot. It is not improbable that market-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 shaft; 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 through a market town lately in which the stone steps, and socket in which the shaft was placed, are preserved; but they have been removed to one corner of the market-place. The shaft and cross have disappeared.

Is not this erection of the cross, in places in which markets and fairs were held, of ecclesiastical origin? Was 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, though the cross was always the emblem of the Christian faith."

I am persuaded that this assertion is incorrect, and that the crucifix was used in much earlier times. Will some one kindly inform me where the first mention of