his 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?

GEORGE STEPHENS.

Stockholm.

[Footnote 1: The Scandinavian Rune-staff is well known. An engraving of an
ancient English clog (but with Roman characters, instead of Runic) is in
Hone's _Every-Day Book_, vol. ii.]

* * * * *

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 Haeres Radulphi de
Cobeham defuncti. Probatio aetatis."

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 fr