11 B. XL FEB. 20, 1915.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
143
Smith (John) .. 1784-91
Smith (W. H.) & Son 1905
Stevens (Timothy) 1786-1803
Stevens (W.), Jun. 1814-16
Stevens & Watkins 1807-9
Turner (James) 1801-6
Turner (Joseph) 1735
" Walker (Hookey) ' 1865
Watkins (Philip) 1809-31
Wheeler (W. H.) 1870-75
White (William) 1838
Woods (Frederick W.) 1894
In concluding, I wish to point out diffi- culties I have had to contend with. Some of the places named on imprints have not yet been located ; for instance, no one knows the situation of Pye Corner. Then the in- completeness of my knowledge hinders me from linking up some of the businesses, and the lack of dates from completing others. Again, some men of the same name may be of a different family, and have been sepa- rated where they should be joined together. Take the case of the Stevenses there are three or four of the same name. Timothy Stevens, senior, died 3 April, 1744, aged 64. A Timothy Stevens died 27 April, 1774, aged 29. Timothy Stevens, senior, was parish clerk in 1776-1816, and Timothy Stevens, junior, also held that office 1816 to 1839. Then there was a W. Stevens, junior, and Stevens & Watkins. A volume of
"Six | Sermons | on some of the | Most import- ant Doctrines | of Christianity : | To which are added | Five Sermons, | on occasional Subjects j By Rev. A.Freston, A.M. Rector of Edgeworth,"
was printed by P. Watkins for Cadell & Davies, Strand, London, and sold by Stevens & W^atkins, Cirencester, 1809.
The Chavasse succession is not quite clear ; and whether James Turner was a connexion of Joseph Turner is not known. The Smiths, are a very old Cirencester family, and Henry" Smith was related to John, and both were connected with chemistry, while Henry Smith was brother of Dr. John Smith and Messrs. Daniel & Charles Smith, chemists.
Whatever deficiency this paper may have, I hope it will form the basis for further research, and result in additions and corrections being made until the list reaches completeness. In conclusion, I wish to thank most heartily my friend MR. ROLAND AUSTIN for his kind help and enthusiasm in supporting my undertaking. He has supplied much information which otherwise would have escaped nay notice.
HERBERT E. NORRIS.
Cirencester,
THE HUNAS OF ' WIDSITH.'
" in Germauia pluribus nouerat (Ecgberctus)'
esse nationes, a quibus Angli uel Saxones, qui nunc Brittaniam incolunt, genus et originem duxisse uoscuntur ; uncle hactenus a uicina gente Brettonum corrupte Garmani nuncupantur. Sunt autem Fresones, Rugini, Danai, Hunni, Antiqui Saxones, Boructuari ; sunt alii perplures hisdem in partibus populi paganis ad hue ritibus seruientes ad quos aenire prsefati Christi miles disposuit." Bedse 'H.E.,' V. ix. p. 296.
MR. B. W. CHAMBERS does not quote the Venerable Bede with respect to the Hunni at any point of his thesis ; neither do any of the German scholars whose multitudinous works upon ' Widsith ' are cited by him : v. pp. 4463. One result of the ignorance of Bede shown by the critics is the absence of any misgivings about the correctness of their assumption that Widsith introduced the names of non-Germanic folks and their rulers into his Catalogue of Kings. Widsith's half-line " ^Etla weold Hunum " conse- quently appears to them to be as clear in meaning as one could possibly wish. So,, too, to others do the respective meanings of Hammersmith, Inkpen, Both's-child, pennywinkle, macaroon, &c. The course of assumption is this : Widsith admitted non- Germanic names of tribes into the third section of his poem ; therefore he admitted such in the second section. The only Huns the critics knew were Mongolian ; therefore Widsith's Huns also were Mongols. That being admitted, the ruler of the Hunas of ' Widsith ' can be no other than the ruler of the Mongolian Huns, viz., Attila. But when we know what Bede has to say about the Germanic tribes of his own time, and when we find that one of those tribes was .called Hunni, we become quite unable to. admit the truth of the proposition which is- taken for granted by the German school of critics of ' Widsith.'
This note is intended to make three points quite clear : (1) the assumption that Widsith introduced the names of non- Germanic kings and tribes into his Catalogue is without foundation; (2) the Hunni of Bede were the Hunas of ' Widsith ' ; and (3) the Hunas were German Huns and not Mongolian, and ^Etla was not Attila in either name or person.
The Venerable Bede teaches us that in his time (A.D. 731) there were tribes in Germany whose ancestors had taken part in the conquest of Britannia. The Fresones, Bugini, Danai, Hunni, Antiqui Saxones, are respectively the Fresenacynn, the Bugas, the Suf-Denas, the Hunas* and: the Gotas of:
