many extant illuminations preserved in the public libraries. The Saxon Shoes are generally depicted as black, with an opening down the instep; but the shoes of the females, at that period, were not thus open. The dress of Charlemagne, King of France, is, accurately, described by contemporary writers of the ninth century; and, since (as Strutt says) the habits of the French, and Anglo-Saxons, at that period corresponded, it may not be amiss to state, that his shoes are represented to have been gilt on the outside, but nothing is said as to their form; yet a curious fact was developed on the opening of the sepulchre of Bernard, King of Italy, the grandson of Charlemagne; his shoes were found to be made of red leather laced with thongs, their soles were of wood, and so closely were they made to the shape of the feet, that they could not be worn interchanged. It is also stated, that Louis le Debonnaire, the son of Charlemagne, wore buskins of gold, (ocreas aureas;) but they were, more probably, gilt alone; indeed the shoes, and buskins, of princes, and high ecclesiastical dignitaries, of this period, are supposed to have been, generally, thus highly decorated; and it appears, from coeval illuminations, that the shoes of the Anglo-Saxon Ladies were of various colours, (as is observed by Strutt,) red, brown, light orange, and blue. To this era, the AngloSaxon, I think, is rightly referred a very curious ancient sandal, which is described (and of which a representation is also given) in a small, but interesting, modern work, entitled "Domestic

Life in England," p. 263, as being made of cloth, partly gilt, and variously coloured, and belonging to the left foot of the wearer; so that, if other evidence could not be adduced, this is proof, that "rights and lefts are only a very old fashion revived." To this æra I also cannot but attribute a pair of shoes, (highly beautiful in their original state,) which were found, with other sepulchral remains, in an arable field at Southfleet, in Kent, in the year 1801. Two interesting memoirs on these ancient reliques (accompanied with several illustrative plates) from the pen of the Rev. Peter Rashleigh, the Rector of that Parish, appear in the 14th volume of the Archæologia. Mr. R. considers them to be of Roman Origin, and it is with great deference, that I do not embrace his opinion, but am inclined to assign them to the Anglo-Saxon Period. It does not appear, that any Roman Coins were found on this occasion, which so generally accompany the buried deposits of that people, nor are there, as I think, any peculiar features in the articles exhumed, which decidedly pronounce them to be of Roman Origin. The Rev. J. Douglas, in his elaborate work, the "Nenia Britannica," gives an account of the opening, and contents, of numerous small barrows in various parts of Kent. The articles found in them vary greatly from those discovered in the tumuli on the Wiltshire Plains, (which I should pronounce to be the sepulchres of the Aboriginal Britons, prior to the Roman Invasion.) The general contents, also, of the Kentish Barrows do not assimilate with the accustomed

K K

Roman Reliques, but Mr. Douglas regarded them as pertaining to the Saxons, and, perhaps, after their conversion to Christianity. Many of the articles, as brooches, &c., are beautifully enamelled; but, I do not recollect, at present, (yet I may be mistaken,) that enamel bears a part in Roman Antiquities. Are such articles found at Herculaneum, or Pompeii? The chain, found at Southfleet, was also ornamented with enamel. If it be objected, that the above curious chain, &c., (of which engravings are given,) are too elaborate in their workmanship to be, with propriety, assigned to the Anglo-Saxons, let me refer the objector to the beautiful jewel of Alfred, in the Ashmolean Museum, at Oxford, indubitably genuine, and enamelled. This was found, about the close of the seventeenth century, in the Isle of Athelney, in Somersetshire; and thus is the strength of this objection removed.

To revert to the shoes-" Between the two urns in the sarcophagus," (says Mr. R.) "were two pair of shoes, much decayed by time, but enough of them is fortunately remaining to show their form, and to prove, that they had been very superb, and of very expensive workmanship; they were made of fine purple leather, reticulated in the form of hexagons all over, and each hexagonal division worked with gold."

The Danes, on their arrival in this country, introduced a variation in the form of the shoe and buskin, wearing them with the point somewhat long, and turned downwards; thus are they depicted in a MS. in the Cotton Library, (marked Caligula A vII,) and in the plates 26

and 27, Vol. I. of Strutt's "Manners, Customs, &c." Whether the elongated points of this Danish Shoe were elastic, or of unyielding strength, it is impossible to say; but, if the latter, the firmness of step must, apparently, have been somewhat impeded by the toes resting on the diminished point. They, also, as well as the Saxons, wore bandages around the legs, after the manner of the Highlanders at a later period; and, I think, it is probable, that the use of these bandages was supplanted gradually, not merely by the invention of the short hose, or stocking, but by the increased height of the shoe-that is, by the boot.

It is extremely probable, that, when the

Saxon Line of Princes was resumed under Edward, the Confessor, the fashions underwent a revolution. Edward, prior to his accession to the throne, had spent most of his time in Normandy, and, consequently, he was (as the venerable Camden expresses it)" all Frenchified." This alteration of fashion, however, did not extend itself to the shoe, and the bandages of the leg; and from hence, in the Bayeux Tapestry, great similarity prevails between the shoes, and the leg coverings, of the Saxons and Normans. William, Duke of Normandy, is there represented with shoes, and leg bandages, which latter are fastened in front with tasseled ends as, we may presume, a royal distinction.

Towards the close of the reign of William, the First, short boots were introduced; and, at first, were very short, not reaching above the middle of the leg. They were, probably, made

66

of cloth, or soft leather, and with a strong sole. When covering the leg and thigh, they assumed the name of chausses; and thus were the boot, and the hose, as I think, of indiscriminate use, and name. I draw this inference from the fact, that Robert, the eldest son of William, the First, who (as observed in p. 231) bore the name of Curthose," was also denominated "ShortBoots." Strutt says, that the early Norman Historians" are entirely silent respecting the reason for such an appellation being particularly applied to him;" but he seems to have overlooked a passage in Malmesbury, by which, I think, it would appear, that he was thus named, because, being of short stature himself, his boots were also of unusual shortness. Having offended his father, William, by his attempts to wrest Normandy from him in his life-time, the latter, by way of derision, converts (with his usual oath) his name of Robertus into that of Robelinus. The passage in Malmesbury is as follows: "Primò quidem excutiente genitore cachinnos, & subinde dicente per resurrectionē Dei ‘ 'probus erit Robelinus curtâ ocreâ:' hoc enim erat eius

cognomen, quòd esset exiguus." The word probus is here to be taken in its contemptuous sense; but I am at a loss for the intended meaning of Robelinus, unless William considered it as a diminutive; and, if so, we may then regard him as swearing, that his son should be called the "fine little Robert with the short boot."

In the reign of his successor, William, the Second, the love of dress predominated, and the