212 THE ANCESTOR arms is certainly needed by the Student, Some Feudal Coats of Arms will not serve his turn, for it is very far from complete. It includes the contents of certain documents to which the compiler adjudges the title of 'Heraldic Rolls,' and of others which Mr. Foster can only rank as 'so-called Heraldic Rolls or Lists.' There is possibly some hidden meaning in this adjective ' so-called,' which guilty heralds will recog- nize and tremble at, but as both ' rolls ' and ' so-called rolls ' are equally lists of names and arms the distinction will be lost upon the public. It includes also the arms of those families which were included in Mr. Shirley's book of ISIohle and Gentle Families^ and Mr. Foster seems prepared on the authority of their inclusion therein to credit the remote ancestors of these families with any arms which their descend- ants happened to be bearing in the reign of Victoria. Thus it would be difficult to find any ground other than the entry in Mr. Shirley's little book for the statement that 'Roger Oglander, temp, H. III., bore azure, a stork between three crosses crosslet fitchee or.' But many rolls of arms are miss- ing from Mr. Foster's list, and some of these are of the first consequence as being contemporary records. One can under- stand that Mr. Foster would disdain to apply for permission to copy an ancient document which absurd chance has left in the custody of the College of Arms, but this excuse does not serve in the case of a famous roll at Oxford, nor in the case of other original rolls whose places of deposit are well known. There are many instances of carelessness in this dictionary of arms, but criticism of such details in the case of a book upon which much work has been misspent would be a distaste- ful task. The lexicographical side is imperfect. For no reason we find Lisles indexed under De Insula, De L'Isle, De Lisle, Idle, Illey, Isle, Lisle and Lisley, and some of these entries refer to the same knight. Sir Reynaud de Boterels is treated as a stranger when he appears again as Renaud Botreaux, and Fouke Payfote is kept separate from himself in the guise of Fouke Peyferer. The compiler has never made up his mind whether the names should keep the original form or take that of modern English. Thus the knights are Sire or Sir followed by Christian names in Latin, French or English. But it is not with such matters as this that we can occupy ourselves. Our complaint is that the whole dictionary is a work confessing in its every line that Mr. Foster is unequal to
