^{Note 1 in page 415} See the bibliography in Bruun's edition of the Danish Broder Busses Historic (1555), Copenhagen, 1868, pp. 18 ff. Since 1868, the Low German poem has been edited (after Schade) by Bobertag, Narrenbuch, [1885,] pp. 363 ff., and the English tale (from Thoms, with omissions) by H. Morley, Early Prose Romances, Carisbrooke Library, 1889, pp. 409 ff. See also Furnivall, Captain Cox, 1871, p. xlvii; Herford, Studies in the Literary Relations of England and Germany in the Sixteenth Century, 1886, pp. 293–322; Arber, Stationers' Registers, i, 389.

In 1882, Gering published, from two fourteenth-century manuscripts, an Icelandic tale, “Frá ví er púkinn gjöriz ábóti” (Ílendzk Æventýri, No. 26, i, 104–7; cf. translation and note, ii, 83–85), which bears a striking resemblance to the legend of Friar Rush, and which, if it is really the same story, is the earliest version yet discovered. Here the devil, whose name is not given, actually becomes abbot. (Compare the cobold “Bôppole,” said to be the ghost of a Jew who in his lifetime had managed to become an abbot, though he had never been baptized: Birlinger, Volksthümliches aus Schwaben, i, 50.) The narrative is serious throughout, embodying none of the tricks that mark Rush as a goblin or cobold. It is quite possible that the story of Rush, as we know it, is a combination of a simple legend like the Icelandic text with some such tale of a house-cobold, serviceable in a monastery, as that told of Hödeken (Hutgin, Hütchen) of Hildesheim by Trithemius, Chronicon Hirsaugiense ad ann. 1132, and after him by Weier, De Praestigiis Daemonum, ed. of 1583, i, 22, cols. 114 ff. (not in ed. of 1568): see also Paullini, Zeit-kürtzender Erbaulichen Lust Driller Theil, 1725, ch. 169, pp. 1058–60; Grimms, Deutsche Sagen, i, 97 ff. The remarkable correspondence between Hödeken and Rush was observed by Reginald Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, Discourse upon Divels, ch. 21, 1584, p. 622, Nicholson's reprint, 1886, p. 438 (see particularly Wolf u. Endlicher, Von Bruoder Rauschen, 1835, pp. xxix, xxx, and notes 21 and 29, pp. xliii, xlvi; reprint in Scheible, Kloster, xi, 1087, 1097, 1099). The services of Rush in guarding a man's wife for him, related in the English version, but in no other (reprint of 1810, pp. 26 ff.; Thoms, Early Prose Romances, i, 32 ff., 2d. ed., 1858, i, 292 ff.; cf. Bolte's note in his edition of Valentin Schumann's Nachtbüchlein, p. 386) are curiously paralleled by one of Hödeken's adventures, though the point of the two stories is different. Scot does not mention the similarity. Perhaps the chapters in question were not in the English version which he knew. The extant English text dates from 1620 and contains a good deal of extraneous matter from Eulenspiegel and elsewhere. One of the chapters describing Rush's guardianship of the farmer's wife, “How Rush came home and found the Priest in the Cheese-basket” (reprint of 1810, pp. 32ff.; Thoms, as above, i, 38 ff., 2d. ed., 1858, i, 298 ff.) is nearly related (as Bolte has observed) to the twentieth tale in Valentin Schumann's Nachtbüchlein, 1559 (ed. Bolte, 1893, pp. 63 ff., cf. note, pp. 395–6), which is the source of Ayrer's drama Der Münch im Kesskorb (Dramen, ed. Keller, v, 3093 ff.). Cf. also the fifteenth-century Swiss poem printed by Bächtold, Germania, xxxiii, 271 (see Bolte, as above, pp. 396, 416; Fränkel, Vierteljahrschrift f. Litteralurgeschichte, v, 471; Pistl, the same, vi, 430). A remarkable parallel to the English chapters is a Calabrian-Greek popular tale published in Pitrè‘s Archivio, vi, 368 ff. The resemblance to Hödeken's exploits in disturbing the intrigues of the noble lady is general rather than particular. The Hödeken episode is identical with the plot of Hans Sachs's humorous poem, Der Teuffel hütt einer Bulerin, 1558 (ed. Keller, ix, 371 ff.). Stiefel, Hans Sachs-Forschunyen, p. 142, has overlooked this. He cites, as a possible source for the schwank, Burkard Waldis, Esopus, ii, 88 (from Abstemius, No. 62, see Kurz's Waldis, Anm., p. 108: this is No. 312 in Sir Roger L'Estrange‘s Fables of Æsop and other Eminent Mythologists, 1692, p. 274), but the Hödeken story is much closer, for in Waldis and Abstemius it is a friend, and not a devil, that watches the wife. In a later article (Ztsch. f. vergl. Litteraturgeschichte, N. F., x, 17–18) Stiefel quotes a brief story from Mensa Philosophica, ed. 1603, p. 241, which is much to the purpose. I have not seen this edition; in an undated edition of about 1500 (“Colonie, apud predicatores”), the passage is on folio 40a. Goetze, Sämtliche Fabeln u. Schwänke von Hans Sachs, ii, [1894,] xviii, cites K. Seifart, Sagen u. s. w. aus Stadt u. Stift Hildesheim, ii, 47 [41 ff.], where material about Hödeken may be found. Ayrer's Fastnachtspiel, Wie der Teufel einer Bulerin jhr Ehr vor jhren Bulern hütet (ed. Keller, iv, 2673 ff.), is based on Hans Sachs (see Stiefel, p. 143; Pistl, as above, vi, 432). Cf. also The Schole-house of Women, 1572, vv. 581–94 ([Utterson,] Select Pieces of Early Popular Poetry, 1817, II, 76; Hazlitt, Early Popular Poetry, iv, 127–8). One is tempted to seek the remote source of this anecdote in the well-known Oriental tale of the guardian bird in. The Seven Sages (on which see the references in Bolte, as above, pp. 391–392), but proof is out of the question. A good parallel to the episode of boiling the cook is what is told of the “Chimmeke” of Loitz in Pomerania (Grässe, Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, ii, 496). A demon serving as a cook and preparing “vivande finissime” occurs in the twenty-third novel of Sercambi (ed. Renier, 1889, pp. 95 ff.), but the novel as a whole belongs to a different set from that which we are discussing (see the parallels collected by Köhler, Giornale Storico della Lett. Ital., xvi, 108 ff). With the episode of the possessed princess, found in all versions of Friar Rush, and referred by Wolf and Endlicher to the legend of St. Zeno, should be compared the remarkable story of Malke the Saint in Prym u. Socin, Syrische Sagen u. Märchen, No. 53, pp. 216–18. A new study of Friar Rush is much needed, for Schade's excellent paper, Weimarisches Jahrbuch, 1856, v, 357 ff., is out of date. Such a study is promised by H. Anz, whose careful article in Euphorion, 1897, iv, 756 ff, calls attention to an unknown Low German copy of about 1486 and makes the beginning of a re-examination of the legend. Anz's results (which, to be sure, are provisional) are not altogether convincing. He ignores both Hödeken and the Icelandic legend, and he certainly attaches too much importance to the dubious “John Præst” of Pontoppidan and to the Esrom apostate discovered by Bruun. His theory that the specific Rush story originated in Low Germany is plausible and may perhaps be supported by some of the evidence cited in this note.

^{Note 1 in page 418} Theobald's Shakespeare, 1733, v, 163, 164 (cf. Furness, King Lear, p. 186). Theobald spells the name “Harsenet.” Warburton's Shakespear, 1747, vi, 99, has a similar note. The relations between these two editions are so well known that no one can hesitate to whom credit is due in this instance. Had Theobald received the note from Warburton, he would certainly have mentioned his obligation (see Theobald's Preface, i, lxvi). J. M. N[eal?], in an interesting communication in Notes and Queries, 2d. Ser., vii, 144, overlooks this point.

^{Note 2 in page 418} Observations on the Fairy Queen, 2d. ed., 1762, i, 120; ed. of 1807, i, 167 (not in the first edition, 1754): “The Goblin is Shakespeare's Robin Goodfellow, and the tradition about him is found in Harsenet's Declaration, &c. quoted above. ‘And if that the bowle of curdes and creame were not duly sett out for Robin Goodfellow, the frier, and Siss the dairy-maid, to meet him at, &c. why then either the pottage, &c.,‘ pag. 135.” The “above” means i, 62, of this second edition (where is the passage referred to in note 1, p. 420, below).

^{Note 3 in page 418} v, 33 (on Midsummer Night's Dream, ii, 1); cf. Var. of 1821, v, 203. In 1813, Warton's note on Puck was repeated, with due credit, in Brand's Popular Antiquities, ii, 358, a posthumous work, edited by Henry (afterwards Sir Henry) Ellis. Brand gives the quotation from Harsnet as it stood in the Var. of 1793, except for trifling variations in spelling and punctuation. He refers to Reed's Shakspeare. In Warton's edition of Milton's Poems upon Several Occasions, 1785, p. 53 (note on L'Allegro, 104), to which Brand refers also, Harsnet is not mentioned, and the same is true of the second edition, 1791, p. 58. Like Warton, Brand neither comments on “the Frier” nor makes any allusion to Friar Bush. In both the Observations and the note in the Var. of 1793 Warton spells the name “Harsenet,” and in this he is followed by Brand.

^{Note 1 in page 419} In the same note Scott refers to Reginald Scot's mention of The History of Friar Bush. In 1819 Sir Francis Palgrave (Quarterly Review, xxi, 107) remarked that Reginald Scot “ranks him [Friar Rush] in the same category with Robin Goodfellow, so that Robin and the Friar [N. B. Friar Rush, for Palgrave says nothing of Harsnet's ”frier“] were alike the heroes of popular and traditionary tales;” and again, in 1820 (Quarterly Review, xxii, 358): “Friar Rush is Puck under another name.” These observations of Palgrave's probably go back to the note to Marmion (see below, p. 421, note 4). The passage in Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft, 1584, pp. 521–2, hardly warrants the inference drawn from it by Walter Scott, Palgrave, and Wolf and Endlicher, p. xxx (Scheible, Kloster, xi, 1087). Scot merely says that “there go as many tales upon Hudgin, in some parts of Germanie, as there did in England of Robin Goodfellow,” and goes on to compare Hudgin (not Robin) with Friar Rush, on the basis of a printed text of the latter (see p. 416, note, above).

^{Note 1 in page 420} Perhaps he had never seen Harsnet's book. His note in the Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, 1802, ii, 193 (“Even so late as 1602, in Harsenet's Declaration of Popish Imposture [sic], p. 57, Mercury is called Prince of the Fairies”) is derived from Warton's Observations on the Fairy Queen, sect. ii, as is shown by the error in the title of the book (Imposture for Impostures). The passage does not appear in the first edition of Warton, 1754, but is in the second, 1762, i, 62: “In Harsenet's Declaration,* Mercury is called ‘Prince of the Fairies.‘”

^{Note 2 in page 420} A Collection of Early Prose Romances, vol. i; see also ed. 2, 1858, i, 258 (the second edition has new matter and refers to Wolf and Endlicher, but it does not modify the sentences pertaining to the relations between Puck and Rush). Thoms probably got his quotation from Warton's note on Midsummer Night's Dream: he reproduces Warton's errors, even to the spelling “Harsenet,” and adds some of his own.

^{Note 3 in page 420} The Fairy Mythology, ii, 110. So also in the edition of 1833, which is a mere re-issue of that of 1828 (see the Preface). Keightley spells “Harsenet” and shows by other errors that he got the quotation at second hand, probably from Brand or Warton.

* “Of Popish Imposture, &c. 1602, pag. 57, ch. 12.”

^{Note 1 in page 421} Von Bruoder Rauschen, Vienna, 1835, pp. xxx, xliv (reprint in Scheible's Kloster, xi, 1087, 1098). The “Harsenet” passage appears to be quoted from Warton. Wolf and Endlicher's notes are very learned throughout. They refer to Marmion, Reginald Scot, Sir Francis Palgrave's articles, etc.

^{Note 2 in page 421} Compare, for example, the Scandinavian Nisse or Nissen god dreng. See Grimm, D. M., 4th. ed., p. 417.

^{Note 3 in page 421} Friar Rush and the Frolicsome Elves, in the Foreign Quarterly Review, Oct., 1836, xviii, 193–4; reprinted in his Essays on Subjects connected with the Literature, etc., of England in the Middle Ages, 1846, ii, 1–37 (see pp. 22–23).

^{Note 4 in page 421} See below, p. 425, note 2. Reginald Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 1584, had already compared Rush with Hudgin (Hutgin) in Weier, De Praestigiis Daemonum, i, 23 (see p. 416, note 1, above), and had remarked: “This Hudgin was so called, bicause he alwaies ware a cap or a hood; and therefore I thinke it was Robin hood” (Discourse upon Divels, ch. xxi, p. 522, Nicholson's reprint, p. 438). It was perhaps this passage that led Scot to make his identification, which had in turn its influence upon Palgrave and Wolf and Endlicher.

^{Note 5 in page 421} The Fairy Mythology, new (3d.) ed., p. 347, note.

^{Note 6 in page 421} H. Anz, Euphorion, iv, 756 ff, 1897, says nothing about Harsnet's “Frier.”

^{Note 1 in page 422} Studies in the Literary Relations of England and Germany in the Sixteenth Century, 1886, p. 307. Mr. Herford has no authority but “Harsenet” for this statement. He has fallen into an error of chronology by not observing that Harsnet, whatever he means by “the Frier,” is referring to beliefs and practices as they were in Roman Catholic England, and is, therefore, not to be cited for the state of things a generation later than Gammer Gurton's Needle.

^{Note 2 in page 422} Dr. W. Aldis Wright prints the passage (“And if ... . good head”) correctly (as was to be expected) in his introduction to the Clarendon Press edition of A Midsummer Night's Dream, p. xix, but he makes no comment on “the Frier,” having no occasion to do so.

^{Note 3 in page 422} A Declaration of egregious Popish Impostures, to with-draw the harts of her Maiesties Subiects from their allegeance, and from the truth of Christian Religion professed in England, vnder the pretence of casting out deuils. Practised by Edmvnds, alias Weston, a Iesuit, and diuers Romish Priests his wicked associates. 4°. London, 1603. A second edition, 8vo., appeared in 1605.

^{Note 1 in page 423} What follows is in part word for word from Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft, vii, 15, pp. 152–3 (Nicholson's reprint, p. 122): “But in our childhood our mothers maids have so terrified us with an ouglie divell having homes on his head, fier in his mouth, and a taile in his breech, eies like a bason, fanges like a dog, clawes like a beare, a skin like a Niger, and a voice roring like a lion, whereby we start and are afraid when we heare one crie Bough: and they have so fraied us with bull beggers, spirits, witches,” etc. (there follows the famous list, which Harsnet reproduces, with a few inadvertent variations, in the italicized passage below). Observe that the words “or a lewd frier,” which are highly significant, are Harsnet's insertion.

^{Note 2 in page 423} Cf. Scot, ibid., p. 153 (Nicholson, p. 123): “Where a right hardie man heretofore scant durst passe by night, but his haire would stand upright.”

^{Note 3 in page 423} The enumeration that follows is italicised by Harsnet as being a quotation, and in the margin he adds a note, “See Scots booke of Witches.” (Cf. the last note but one.)

^{Note 1 in page 424} On the worship of St. Uncumber in England see W. Sparrow Simpson, S. Paul's Cathedral and Old Oily Life, 1894, pp. 247 ff.

^{Note 2 in page 424} Compare the interesting mention of Robin the Devil (i. e., Robin Goodfellow), in John Davis's Narrative, written 1560–70: “Furthermore, one Feerefilde, a waker, coming nightlie throwgh the guilde-hall . . ., woulde come and call this child at the hold, whether of his owne mynde or sett on by some other papest he knewe not, but these weare his woordes, 'Whie doste thow not recant ? Thow wilt be feared one tyme or other, as I have, by robing the devill, which is like a raged colte, whiche hath ledd me abowght this hall all night or now, and at length lawgh me to skorne, and sayd howgh hoo.” This was in 1546. The Imprisonment of John Davis, a boy of Worcester, written by himself in after life (ms. Harl. 425, folio 69), in J. G. Nichols, Narratives of the Reformation, Camden Soc, 1859, pp. 66–7.

^{Note 1 in page 425} “The Frier” is in apposition with “Robin Goodfellow.”

^{Note 2 in page 425} Wright (Essays, as above, p. 421, note 4) regards Cicely as a mythological personage, equating her with Maid Marian! Other scholars ungallantly ignore her. Harsnet uses the name elsewhere to designate a kitchen-wench: “Next, for that euery kitchin-maide, Hob, and Iohn, doth well see, and know, that a spoonful of water, a cursie of oyle, and a candels end can haue of themselues no power, and strength; to scald, broyle, or torture a deuil: now when this good Hob, Iohn, or Sisse shal bring,” etc. (p. 99). Cf. “When Tom came home from labour, Or Ciss to milking rose.” Corbet, The Faeryes Farewell, st. 3, Poems, 4th. ed. (Gilchrist), 1807, p. 214. On Maid Marian and the fact that she is not anciently associated with Robin Hood, see Child, English and Scottish Popular Ballads, iii, 43–46. In view of the evidence there collected and the cogency of the editor's reasoning, it is discouraging to see the obsolete errors set forth afresh by E. H. Meyer, Deutsche Mythologie, §§ 334, 339. The “mythic” Robin Hood dies very hard (see Binz, in Paul u. Braune's Beiträge, xx, 222, note 2).

^{Note 3 in page 425} Compare Round about our Coal-Fire: or, Christmas Entertainments. London: Printed for J. Roberts in Warwick-Lane, and sold by the Booksellers in Town and Country (cited in Brand, Pop. Antiq., ed. Hazlitt, iii, 23): “The Fairies were very necessary in Families, as much as Bread, Salt, or Pepper, or any other such Commodity, I believe; because they used to walk in my Father's House, and if I can judge right of the Matter, they were brought into all Families by the Servants; for in old Times Folks used to go to Bed at Nine o'Clock, and when the Master and Mistress were lain on their Pillows, the Men and Maids, if they had a Game at Ramps, and blunder'd up Stairs, or jumbled a Chair, the next Morning every one would swear 'twas the Fairies, and that they heard them stamping up and down Stairs all Night, crying Waters lock'd, Waters lock'd, when there was not Water in any Pail in the Kitchen” (pp. 44–5). So in Apothegmes of King James, 1658: Sir Fulke Greville “would say merrily of himself, that he was like Robin Good-fellow, for when the Maides spilt the Milkpannes, or kept any racket, they would lay it upon Robin,” etc. (p. 139, in Brand-Hazlitt, iii, 40).

^{Note 1 in page 426} Harsnet uses the term in another page in the innocent sense of a sort of rude Christmas game. He is addressing Roman Catholic priests in general. “In my opinion, there was neuer Christmas-game performed, with moe apish, indecent, slouenly gawdes, then your baptising, and super-baptising ceremonies are. Your puffe, your crosse-puffe, your expuffe, your inpuffe vppon the face of a tender infant, . . . your sorcerised chrisme, your lothsome driuell, that you put vppon theyr eyes, eares, and noses, and lyppes, are fitting complements for hynch pynch, and laugh not: coale under candlesticke: Frier Rush: and wo-penny hoe. Which are more ciuilly acted, and with lesse foule soyle, and lothsome indecorum, then your spattring, and greasing tricks vpon the poore infant,” pp. 32, 33. This interesting list of Christmas sports has attracted little attention. Friar Rush, it will be seen, had given his name to a rustic sport, probably of a boisterous kind. “Woe penny ho” occurs again with reference to a Christmas game at p. 116. “Hoppenny Hoe” is used by Nashe for “a rustic:” “No vulgar respect haue I, what Hoppenny Hoe and his fellow Hankin Booby thinke of mee, so those whom Arte hath adopted for the peculiar Plants of her Academie, and refined from the dull Northernly drosse of our Clyme, hold mee in any tollerable account.” Have with you to Saffron-Walden (Grosart, iii, 92). The phrase seems to be properly a call to a horse: “Ho (whoa)! Penny, ho!”

^{Note 2 in page 426} Cf. also what Harsnet says of Sara Williams, one of the “possessed” (Declaration, p. 21).

^{Note 1 in page 427} Oldys as long ago as 1737 (The British Librarian, No. 4, for April, 1737, London, 1738, p. 218) excerpted this passage from Scot with a complete understanding of the satire involved in it.

^{Note 1 in page 428} See also Henry More, Appendix to Antidote against Atheism, chap. 13, Philos. Writings, 2d. ed., 1662, Antid., p. 185.

^{Note 2 in page 428} We shall hardly be asked to accept Burton, Anat. of Mel., pt. ii, sec. 2, mem. 4, as evidence in rebuttal: “Merry tales of errant Knights, Queenes, Louers, Lords, Ladies, Giants, Dwarfes, Theeues, Cheaters, Witches, Fayries, Goblins, Friers, &c., such as the old woman told Psyche in Apuleius, Bocace Nouells and the rest.” (Cf. Shilleto's ed., 1893, ii, 93.)

^{Note 1 in page 429} Act iii, sc. 2, Dodsley's Old Plays, ed. Collier, ii, 44 (1825), ed. Hazlitt, iii, 213. Collier's edition quotes Scot. With this description compare the woodcut in the earliest (Low German) edition of Rush as reproduced by F. Bobertag, Narrenbuch, [1885,] p. 368. See also H. Anz, Euphorion, iv, 757. In the woodcut on the title-page of the English Rush (1620), as reproduced in the reprint of 1810, Rush is not so terrible as in the former, but still distinctly devilish.

^{Note 1 in page 430} Fairy Mythology, ed. 1850, p. 347, note (not in eds. of 1828 and 1833). “It was probably the name Rush,” he adds, “which suggested rushlight, that caused Milton's error.” Cf. his ed. of Milton, 1859, I, 52. Commentators since Keightley have not thrown much light on the verse. Masson (Cambridge ed., 1890, iii, 175) is inclined to follow him. Mr. Verity (Pitt Press ed., 1891, p. 85) tries to defend the poet, but gets into difficulties with Harsnet, whom he quotes in a form more sadly mutilated than ever.

^{Note 2 in page 430} How far this results from original identity among these creatures or their functions is a question that need not be raised here.

^{Note 3 in page 430} Examples will occur to every one, but a few may be cited to show the multifariousness of the confusion. Lutins (pie-pie-van-van) are identified with sorciers who drown men in a certain pond. Meyrac, Traditions, etc., des Ardennes, Charleville, 1890, p. 195, cf. p. 205 (cf. the Moine de Saire, p. 435, note 3).—Fées eat men and are called sorcières. Id., p. 197.—Nutons (= lutons) are confused with sorcerers. Id., p. 202. (On nutons in general see H. de Nimal, Légendes de la Meuse, Brussels, pp. 138 ff.).—Fées, lutins, witches, etc., confused. Carnoy, Litt. orale de la Picardie, pp. 3 ff.—Fées, lutins, etc., confused with wizards, revenants, pirates, Saracens. E. MacCulloch, Folk-lore de Guernesey, Revue des trad. pop., iii, 161–3.—Fions apparently used indiscriminately for fees and lutins espiègles. Sébillot, Traditions et Superstitions de la Haute-Bretagne, i, 74 (cf. 103).—Fées = the neutral angels. Id., i, 75 (cf. Les fées chrétiennes, Sébillot, Rev. des trad. pop., iv, 515–19). They take the forms of animals (like ordinary witches), i, 91.—Chats sorciers have taken the place of witches and also of serviceable house-cobolds. Id., ii, 47–49 (cf. Ztsch. f. Volkskunde, i, 77, etc.).—Le Sotré is a small mischievous cobold. He also takes care of horses and cattle and sings children to sleep. Sometimes he is a cauchemar. L. F. Sauvé, Folk-lore des Hautes-Vosges, pp. 232–5.—Compare the dracs in Bladé, Contes pop. de la Gascogne, ii, 262 ff., with the fées in Fleury, Litt. orale de la Basse-Normandie, pp. 56–57.—The folletto is sometimes a nightmare. Pitrè, Usi e Costumi del Popolo siciliano, iv, 68–70.—An avfhock in the shape of a cat was really the sehratl, but the schratl is also a house-spirit. Schlossar, Ztsch. f. Volkskunde, iv, 166–7. Cf. the confusion between Bôdbücksch and cat. U. Jahn, Volkssagen aus Pommern u. Rügen, pp. 115, 118 (cf. pp. 123, 135).—Wild Huntsman (Hackelberg) and Drâk: cf. U. Jahn, p. 129, with Kuhn u. Schwartz, Norddeutsche Sagen, p. 182.—For such confusions in the British Islands, see Henderson's rich chapter on “Local Sprites,” Notes on the Folk-lore of the Northern Counties, 2d. ed., 1879, pp. 246 ff.; cf. L. Brueyre, Contes pop. de la Grande-Bretagne, 1875, pp. 199 ff; Wirt Sikes, British Goblins, 2d. ed., 1880, pp. 30–32.

^{Note 1 in page 431} For example, with piskies, pisgies, or pixies, and spriggans (see Hunt, Popular Romances of the West of England, 3d. ed., pp. 81, 82; cf. M. A. Courtney, Cornish Feasts and Folk-Lore, Penzance, 1890, p. 122); with Pwca (Wirt Sikes, British Goblins, 2d. ed., 1880, pp. 18–23). Robin Goodfellow, as is well known, sometimes appears as a “walking fire.” Interesting tables of the names, forms, and functions of lutins may be found in Rev. des trad. pop., iv, 613 ff., 664 ff.; v, 101 ff.; viii, 46 f. (cf. v, 338 ff.; viii, 443).

^{Note 2 in page 431} Thus lutins, sorciers, and feux-follets are confounded: they wish to drown a man in a pool. A. Meyrac, Traditions des Ardennes, Charleville, 1890, pp. 203–4 (cf. p. 195). See Thoms, On Puck as Will-o'-the-Wisp, Athenæum, Sept. 25, 1847, No. 1039, p. 1005, reprinted in Three Notelets on Shakespeare, 1865, pp. 59 ff.

^{Note 3 in page 431} See U. Jahn, Volkssagen aus Pommern u. Rügen, pp. 105 ff., 110, 127, etc.; J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, pp. 75, 76; id., Beitr. zur deutschen Mythol., ii, 332, 338–41; Frau Adler, Ztschr. f. Volkskunde, i, 73, 74; O. Knoop, Volkssagen aus dem östlichen Hinterpommern, pp. 8, 124; H. Hartmann, Bilder aus Westfalen, p. 132; Sommer, Sagen aus Sachsen u. Thüringen, p. 32 (=Grässe, Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 462); Schambach u. Müller, Niedersächsische Sagen u. Märchen, pp. 163–6, 358. If it be thought that the dråk is not to be identified with the will-o‘-the-wisp in any way, it may be observed that the “fiery man” and the will-o‘-the-wisp cannot be kept apart and that the dråk and the “fiery man” are not always distinguishable: see Rochholz, Naturmythen, p. 178, and K. Haupt, Sagenbuch der Lausitz, i, 60, 61.

^{Note 1 in page 432} See references in note 3, p. 431, above.

^{Note 2 in page 432} Thuriet, Trad. pop. du Doubs, pp. 305, 306; cf. Monnier et Vingtrinier, Croyances et Trad. pop. receuillies dans la Franche-Comté, etc., 2d. ed., 1874, pp. 641–3.

^{Note 3 in page 432} Jules Lecæur, Esquisses du Bocage normand, Condé-sur-Noireau, 1887, ii, 418–19; J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, pp. 98, 99; cf. Sébillot, Trad. et Superstitions de la Haute-Bretagne, i, 213.

^{Note 4 in page 432} Rochholz, Naturmythen, p. 180 (cf. p. 181).

^{Note 5 in page 432} Wucke, Sagen aus der mittleren Werra, i, 48 (the Devil with a lantern).

^{Note 6 in page 432} Amélie Bosquet, La Normandie romanesque et merveilleuse, 1845, p. 247.

^{Note 7 in page 432} Many examples in Mannhardt, Wald. u. Feldkulte, ch. i, i, 75, 81, 90–92, etc.; cf. ii, 171, 195 ff. Erdweibchen as housemaid: Rochholz, Schweizersagen aus dem Aargau, i, 275. Follets or lutons, who live in holes in the rocks, thresh for farmer, like cream, etc.: Thuriet, Trad. pop. du Doubs, p. 518. The piskey or pixey may be serviceable as a house-cobold: Notes and Queries, 1st. Ser., ii, 475; cf. id., 510–11. 514; see also Hunt, Pop. Romances of the West of England, 2d. ed., pp. 81, 129. Kaboutermannekens (dwarfs), who live in a hill, serviceable as house-sprites: Panken, Noordbrabantsche Sagen, Nos. 16, 17, Ons Volkskven, iv, 28–29; No. 30, iv, 53; No. 31, iv, 68–69; No. 33, iv, 70; cf. also Nos. 35–40, iv, 92–95, 114–116. The malik is both a house and a wood sprite: J. Schmidt, Zeitschr. f. Volkskunde, iv, 219–21. Fées serve as house-sprites: H. Roux, Rev. des trad. pop., II, 488–9; so les Margot la fée, who come down the chimney and for whom meals are prepared: Sébillot, Trad. et Sup. de la Haute-Bretagne, i, 116 (cf. i, 124). “Weisse Frau” as serviceable house-sprite: Birlinger, Volksthümliches aus Schwaben, i, 54. The bergmándl, properly a mine-cobold, serves as hausgeist: Baumgarten, Aus der volksmässigen Ueberlieferung der Heimat, Linz, 1864, ii, 75 (cf. ii, 74). See also Sébillot, as above, i, 128–9, 133; jecklin, Volksthümliches aus Graubünden, i, 19; I. V. Zingerle, Sagen u. s. w. aus Tirol, 1859, pp. 38 ff. (2d. ed., 1891, pp. 54 ff.). We need not raise the question whether the belief in fiery sprites of the hearth has assisted in the domestication of fiery sprites of the air or the field: see Grimm, D. M., 4th. ed., ii, 765: J. W. Wolf, Beitr. zur deutschen Mythol., ii, 332; K. Haupt, Sagenbuch der Lausitz, i, 60, 61; Rochholz, Naturmythen, p. 176; Kuhn, Märkische Sagen, p. ix.

^{Note 1 in page 433} For the bad reputation of monks (as sorcerers and the like) in popular story, see Sébillot, Trad. et Sup. de la Haute-Bretagne, i, 337 ff.

^{Note 2 in page 433} Henne-Am Rhyn, Deutsche Volkssage, 2d. ed., 1879, pp. 383–4. Of. Witzschel, Sagen aus Thüringen, p, 282.

^{Note 3 in page 433} See Eisel, Sagenbuch des Voigtlandes, 1871, pp. 186–8; cf. No. 32, note, p. 20, with No. 202, p. 78. See also Grässe, Sagenschatz des Königreichs Sachsen, No. 798, 2d. ed., ii, 193; Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 366–7; Lyncker, Deutsche Sagen u. Sitten in hessischen Gauen, 1854, p. 128; Birlinger, Volksthümliches aus Schwaben, i, 52, note 2, 260–1, and note; Pröhle, Harzsagen, 1859, ii, 83, 95; J. Nicholson, Folk Lore of East Yorkshire, 1890, p. 81.

^{Note 4 in page 433} See, for example, J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, p. 181, and the references in note 1, p. 437, below.

^{Note 1 in page 434} Thus the “Cauld Lad of Hilton” seems properly to be a serviceable house-cobold; yet he is said to be the ghost of a servant “slain by an old baron of Hilton in a moment of passion.” Henderson, Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties, 2d. ed., 1879, pp. 266–7; see also Denham Tracts, ed. Hardy, i, 55–57, 201–2, 340. Compare the “Dunnie” (Henderson, p. 263; Denham Tracts, ii, 167 ff.) and “Silky” (Denham Tracts, ii, 169 ff.). Peg o' Nell, the evil goblin of the Ribble, who drowns men in that stream, is said to have been a servant maid in her lifetime: Henderson, p. 265; cf. Folk-Lore, vi, 295. See also Harland and Wilkinson, Lancashire Folk-Lore, 1867, pp. 49–62; C. Hardwick, Traditions, Superstitions, and Folk-Lore (chiefly Lancashire and the North of England), 1872, pp. 124 ff.; Byrne, Shropshire Folk-Lore, pp. 113–14; Bosquet, Normandie pittoresque et merveilleuse, p. 259 (cf. Byrne, p. 51); Birlinger, Aus Schwaben, i, 206–10.

^{Note 2 in page 434} See, for examples, Anekdotenbuch für katholische Priester, 1778, in Birlinger, Aus Schwaben, i, 345–6; Ed. Hager, Voigtländische Volkssagen, 1839, i, 33 (see Grässe, Sagenschatz des Köniyreichs Sachsen, No. 641, 2d. ed., ii, 46); A. Lütolf, Sagen u. s. w. aus den fünf Orten Lucern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden u. Zug, p. 142; A. Niederhöffer, Mecklenburg's Volkssagen, iv, 269–70 (two Franciscans); Kuhn, Märkische Sagen, p. 78; J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, p. 95; Pröhle, Harzsagen, 1859, i, 186; Bechstein, Deutsches Sagenbuch, pp. 445, 454 (monks and nuns), Wucke, Sagen aus der mittleren Werra, i, 3, 15; Birlinger, Aus Schwaben, i, 230 (ghost of a Benedictine seen in a wood in open day); I. V. Zingerle, Sagen u. s. w. aus Tirol, pp. 182–3; Schöppner, Sagenbuch der Bayerischen Lande, ii, 266, 348; J. A. E. Köhler, Volksbrauch u. s. w. im Voigtlande, pp. 511–12; Grössler, Sagen der Grafschaft Mansfeld, pp. 8–10 (Austin friar); id., pp. 202, 207; Eisel, Sagenbuch des Voigtlandes, pp. 78–82, 110; K. Gress, Holzlandsagen, 1870, p. 13; Witzschel, Sagen aus Thüringen, 1866, p. 255; id., Sagen, Sitten u. Gebräuche aus Thüringen, 1878, p. 127 (Franciscan); Grässe, Sagenschatz des Königreichs Sachsen, 2d. ed., 1874, i, 90–91, 103–6, 275–6, 385, 530; ii, 310, 321 (monk and nun); id., Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 138–9, 531; K. Haupt, Sagenbuch der Lansitz, i, 142–5, 150 (headless); Ch. Thuriet, Trad. pop. de la Haute-Saone et du Jura, p. 59 (of. Monnier et Vingtrinier, Croyances et Trad. pop. recueillies dans la Franche-Comté, etc., 2d. ed., 1874, p. 522), p. 200, p. 375 (“le Capucin du Mort-Bois,” who acts as a censor morum; cf. Monnier et Vingtrinier, p. 522); Sébillot, Trad. et Sup. de la Haute-Bretagne, i, 340; Firmenrich, Germaniens Völkerstimmen, i, 301 (abbot in the form of a raven). For nuns, and the like, see Witzschel, Sagen aus Thüringen, 1866, pp. 102 (procession), 276–8; id., Sagen u. s. w. aus Thüringen, 1878, pp. 92, 98; Grässe, Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 267; J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, p. 101; id., Deutsche Märchen u. Sagen, pp. 315, 365; Grössler, Sagen der Grafschaft Mansfeld, p. 92. For priests, see J. W. Wolf, Deutsche M. u. S., pp. 229–30; Witzschel, Sagen u. s. w. aus Thüringen, 1878, pp. 111, 113 (cf. pp. 51, 130); Grässe, Sagenschatz des Königreichs Sachsen, 2d. ed., 1874, i, 297; Birlinger, Aus Schwaben, i, 204; J. A. E. Köhler, Volksbrauch u. s. w. im Voigtlande, p. 512; I. V. Zingerle, Sagen u. s. w. aus Tirol, pp. 173–4; J. Lecæur, Esquisses du Bocage Normand, ii, 392; Pitrè, Usi, Costumi, Credenze e Pregudizi del Popolo Siciliano, iv, 29.

^{Note 1 in page 435} G. Amalfi, Tradizioni ed Usi nella Penisola Sorrentina, 1890, p. 173. See also the story of the Probst at Oberzell: Schöppner, Sagenbuch der Bayerischen Lande, ii, 266 (cf. ii, 349).

^{Note 2 in page 435} “Il Monaco della Scaletta” used to give warning of the arrival of pirates: Pitrè, Usi e Costumi, Credenze e Pregiudizi del Popolo Siciliano, iv, 30.

^{Note 3 in page 435} “Le moine bourru” used to traverse the streets of Paris at night and wring the necks of those who were looking out of the windows: Monnier et Vingtrinier, Croyances et Traditions pop. recueillies dans la Franche-Comté, etc., 2d. ed., p. 521; cf. Bosquet, La Normandie romanesque, p. 139. A nurse's bugbear is “la paparaugno ou moine bourru:” P. Laroche, Folklore du Lauraguais, pt. vi, Albi, 1894, p. 311. “Le moine de Saire” was a wicked monk who was carried off by the devil; he takes various shapes (of animals, of drowning men, etc.) for the purpose of inflicting bodily injuries or death: Bosquet, as above, pp. 264–6; J. Fleury, Litt. orale de la Basse-Normandie, pp. 32 ff.; cf. A. Meyrac, Traditions etc. des Ardennes, Charleville, 1890, p. 206. A ghostly abbot wrings the necks of persons who visit a certain cellar of the monastery at Michaelstein: Pröhle, Harzsagen, 1859, ii, 35; cf. i, 214. See also J. W. Wolf, Deutsche Märchen u. Sagen, p. 231.

^{Note 4 in page 435} See “le moine de Saire” in note 3, above.

^{Note 5 in page 435} The spirit that haunted the parsonage at Gröben, near Jena, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, first appeared about 1645 “in Gestalt eines grauen Mönches.” The stone-throwing began in June, 1718, and lasted about nine months. See the long story given (from J. Heinisch, Das Zeugniss der reinen Wahrheit u. s. w., Jena, 1723) by Grässe, Sagenschatz des Königreichs Sachsen, 2d. ed., 1874, ii, 360 ff.

^{Note 6 in page 435} A ghostly monk near Grünhain pulls travellers down hill or otherwise maltreats them: Grässe, as above (note 5), i, 504. A very similar story is told of a ghostly miner (ibid.). Cf. J. Gebhart, Oesterreichisches Sagenbuch, Pest, 1862, p. 231.

^{Note 7 in page 435} Cf. note 6, above, and note 4, p. 436, below.

^{Note 1 in page 436} Wucke, Sagen der mittleren Werra, i, 47 (cf. i, 3). On the auf hock in general see, for example, Rochholz, Schweizersagen aus dem Aargau, ii, 207 (Hockemänner); Bindewald, Oberhessisches Sagenbuch, pp. 87–88; Ph. Hoffmeister, Hessische Volksdichtung, Marburg, 1869, p. 142; K. Seifart, Sagen aus Hildesheim, 1854, pp. 6–8 (der Huckauf), etc., etc.

^{Note 2 in page 436} Kuhn u. Schwartz, Norddeutsche Sagen, pp. 12, 468. See p. 437, note 1.

^{Note 3 in page 436} The “Monaciello” is a fantastic little creature that haunts houses, pulling the bedclothes away from sleepers and playing other tricks like those in which house-cobolds take delight. He appears in various shapes. See Basile, Pentamerone, i, 2 (ed. Croce, i, 35, and note), i, 4 (ed. Croce, i, 63), iii, 7 (ed. 1674, p. 351); L. Correra, Giambattista Basile, Archivio di Letteratura Popolare, i, 29; Casetti and Imbriani, Canti pop. delle Provincie Meridionali, ii, 188–9; Amalfi, Tradizioni ed Usi nella Penisola Sorrentina, pp. 151 ff.; Folk-Lore, iv, 401. “Lu Munacchedu” of Sicily and Calabria is practically identical with the Monaciello, but has points in common with “le donne di fuora”: Pitrè, Archivio, viii, 119. The twitching away of the bedclothes is a familiar trick. For a good old case see Guil. Parisiensis, De Universo, ii, 3, 8 (Opera, ed. 1674, tom. i, p. 1030, col. 1, E). It was played by a mysterious spirit in a Tyrolese Capuchin monastery; the spirit was subsequently identified as a skeleton in monkish attire: I. V. Zingerle, Sagen u. s. w. aus Tirol, 2d. ed., 1891, p. 261 (1859, pp. 182–3). Zingerle compares Gebhardt, Heilige Sagen in Oesterreich, ii, 76, F. Müller, Siebenbürgische Sagen, Kronstadt, 1857, p. 43, and Vonbun, Sagen Vorarlbergs, 2d. ed., 1889, p. 68. Add Kuhn u. Schwartz, Norddeutsche Sagen, p. 205 (where the mischievous spirit is a ghostly monk); J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, p. 49; Harland and Wilkinson, Lancashire Folk-Lore, p. 61; The Mad Merry Prankes of Robbin Good-Fellow, Roxburghe Ballads, ed. Chappell, ii, i, 84; Harman, Caveat, 1567, E. E. T. S., p. 36.

^{Note 4 in page 436} The “Bergmönch” is sometimes a dwarf, sometimes a giant. In a story from the Harz (Grimms, Deutsche Sagen, i, 5) he is described as a gigantic man in the monkish habit, carrying in his hand a great miner's lamp. He gave the miners oil and assisted them at their work, accomplishing more in an hour than two men could do in a week. The men told of their strange assistant, and the supply of oil ceased. On the Bergmönch see also Pröhle, Harzsagen, 1859, i, 69–74, 132–4, 147, 157, 261–2; id., Deutsche Sagen, 1863, pp. 31 ff. (1879, pp. 31 ff.); Henne-Am Rhyn, Deutsche Volkssage, 2d. ed., 1879, pp. 359–70; J. W. Wolf, Beitr. zur deutschen Mythol., ii, 314; Kuhn u. Schwartz, Norddeutsche Sagen, pp. 194 ff.; Harrys, Volkssagen Niedersachsens, ii, 2 (= Grässe, Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 627), 48 (= Grässe, i, 636); Grässe, Sagenbuch, i, 628; Schöppner, Sagenbuch der Bayerischen Lande, i, 174. A monk conducts a miner into a mountain to see Kaiser Friedrich (Witzschel, Sagen aus Thüringen, 1866, pp. 269–70), but this is probably not significant here.

^{Note 1 in page 437} E. Sommer, Sagen, Märchen u. Gebräuche aus Sachsen u. Thüringen, i, 35–37 (= Grässe, Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 323–4); Pröhle, Harzsagen, 1859, ii, 112; Müllenhoff, Sagen u. s. w. der Herzogthümer Schleswig Holstein u. Lauenburg, p. 236; Bartsch, Sagen u. s. w. aus Meklenburg, pp. 59–60, 86; Niederhöffer, Mecklenburg's Volkssagen, iv, 12 ff., 105 ff.; J. W. Wolf, Beitr. zur deutschen Mythol., ii, 314, 331. Cf. J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, pp. 8, 181; Schambach u. Müller, Niedersächsische Sagen, pp. 115, 151; Rochholz, Naturmythen, pp. 109–111. For mönken as brewery-dwarfs see Bartsch, as above, i, 59–60, and cf. the malzmönch accompanied by dwarfs in Grässe, Sagenschatz des Königreichs Sachsen, 2d. ed., 1874, ii, 224. The “Kapleimännle” (Birlinger, Aus Schwaben, i, 327–9) is a strange mixture of ghost and sprite. Dwarfs are sometimes called Templars (Templiers) in Luxembourg: Wallonia, iii, 154. Ghostly monks dance about a great cherry tree near Rothbach, in Alsatia: Stöber, Sagen des Elsasses, p. 325 (cf. W. Hertz, Deutsche Sage im Elsass, p. 50).

^{Note 2 in page 437} Kuhn u. Schwartz, Norddeutsche Sagen, p. 206. Compare the stable-cobold (not a monk) in Eisel, Sagenbuch des Voigtlandes, pp. 51–52.

^{Note 3 in page 437} Birlinger, Volksthümliches aus Schwaben, i, 52.

^{Note 4 in page 437} Birlinger, as above, i, 50. Cf. the Icelandic tale cited above, p. 415, note 1.

^{Note 5 in page 437} E. Meier, Deutsche Sagen u. s. w. aus Schwaben, p. 274.

^{Note 1 in page 438} Grössler, Sagen der Grafschaft Mansfeld, p. 112.

^{Note 2 in page 438} See F. Mihm, Koburger Sagen, Schleusingen, 1845, pp. 71–2 (cf. pp. 114 ff.); Kuhn u. Schwartz, Norddeutsche Sagen, i, 205 (cf. the Monaciello, p. 436, above); Wucke, Sagen der mittleren Werra, i, 118; Birlinger, Volksthümliches aus Schwaben, i, 52; Grössler, Sagen der Grafschaft Mansfeld, pp. 54, 83, 204; Pröhle, Harzsagen, 1859, i, 213–14. The fullest account of house and stable cobolds under the name of mönche is perhaps that in E. Sommer, Sagen, Märchen u. Gebräuche aus Sachsen u. Thüringen, i, 35–37 (repeated in Grässe, Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 323–5), cf. Summer's note, i, 172.

^{Note 3 in page 438} Will-o'-the-wisps are (1) souls from Purgatory asking prayers and good works, (2) souls of unbaptized infants, (3) malicious lutins, (4) nightmares, (5) ladies singing and dancing, candle in hand: C. Moiset, Les Usages etc. dans le département de l'Yonne, pp. 89–90 (Bulletin de la Soc. des Sciences hist. et nat. de l'Yonne, année 1888). See also Gaetano di Giovanni, Usi, Credenze ed Pregiudizi del Canavese, p. 140; Carnoy, Litt. Orale de la Picardie, p. 9; J. Lemoine, Le Folklore an Pays Wallon, 2d. ed., Gand, 1892, p. 131; J. Lecæur, Esquisses du Bocage Normand, Condé-sur-Noireau, 1883–7, ii, 14 (souls of unbaptized infants or of unchaste and damned priests); Bosquet, La Normandie romanesque, pp. 247 ff. (priest or priest's concubine); Sébillot, Trad. et Sup. de la Haute-Bretagne, i, 150–1 (priests); U. Jahn, Volkssagen aus Pommern u. Rügen, p. 395; O. Knoop, Volkssagen aus dem östlichen Hinterpommern, Posen, 1885, pp. 13, 55–56; Philo vom Walde [J. Reinelt], Schlesien in Sage u. Brauch, pp. 22–24; Schambach u. Müller, Niedersächsische Sagen, p. 215; Henne-Am Rhyn, Deutsche Volkssage, 2d. ed., pp. 63 ff.; K. Haupt, Sagenbuch der Lausitz, i, 59; Laistner, Nebelsagen, pp. 130–1; J. W. Wolf, Hessische Sagen, p. 200; Baumgarten, Aus der volksmässigen Ueberlieferung der Heimat (29ter. Bericht über das Museum Franco-Carolinum), Linz, 1869, p. 132; Bartsch, Sagen aus Meklenburg, i, 214; Müllenhoff, Sagen u. s. w. der Herzogthümer Schleswig Holstein u. Lauenburg, p. 553 (cf. p. 188); J. W. Wolf, Deutsche Sagen u. Märchen, p. 500; Eisel, Sagenbuch des Voigtlandes, p. 165.

Field apparitions in the form of fiery or burning men are often explained as the ghosts of dishonest surveyors or of men who have sinned by “removing the ancient landmark.” Such apparitions cannot always be distinguished from the will-o'-the-wisp. See, for examples of them, Rochholz, Schweizersagen aus dem Aargau, ii, 74–86; id., Naturmythen, pp. 176, 181; Bindewald, Oberhessisches Sagenbuch, 1873, pp. 157–9; Lyncker, Deutsche Sagen u. Sitten in hessischen Gauen, 1854, p. 110; Schambach u. Müller, Niedersächsische Sagen, pp. 206–12; Henne-Am Rhyn, Deutsche Volkssage, 2d. ed., pp. 505–7; J. W. Wolf, Deutsche Märchen u. Sagen, p. 326; Hartmann, Bilder aus Westfalen, 1871, p. 133; Grässe, Sagenbuch des Preussischen Staats, i, 680. Revenants of this particular class are not always fiery: see, for examples, Ons Volksleven, i, 91–92; Panken, Noordbrabantsche Sagen, Ons Volksleven, iv, 7–8; Meyrac, Traditions des Ardennes, p. 199; Bosquet, La Normandie romanesque, p. 263; Müllenhoff, as above, p. 189; Jecklin, Volksthümliches aus Graubünden, ii, 120 ff. For serviceable “feurige Manner” see I. V. Zingerle, Sagen u. s. w. aus Tirol, 1859, p. 187; J. A. E. Köhler, Volksbrauch u. s. w. im Voigtlande, p. 500 (= Witzschel, Sagen aus Thüringen, 1866, p. 232). For a very curious story of a burning man who is really a ghost, see Ons Volksleven, iv, 8.

^{Note 1 in page 439} Bechstein, Mythen u. Sagen Tirols, 1857, p. 201.

^{Note 2 in page 439} Grässe, Sagenschatz des Königreichs Sachsen, 2d. ed., i, 335–6.

^{Note 3 in page 439} Grässe, as above, ii, 120–1.

^{Note 4 in page 439} Grössler, Sagen der Grafschaft Mansfeld, pp. 46–7.

^{Note 5 in page 439} Witzschel, Sagen aus Thüringen, 1866, pp. 242–3; see also Grässe, as above, ii, 412.

^{Note 6 in page 439} k. Haupt, Sagenbuch der Lausitz, ii, 81.

^{Note 7 in page 439} J. W. Wolf, Deutsche Märchen u. Sagen, p. 498, from P. C. Hilscher, Nachricht, 1729.

^{Note 1 in page 440} See examples in note 3, p. 438, above.

^{Note 2 in page 440} A few typical examples are given. The “Mirichicchiu” is the ghost of a physician; he is a dwarf in stature, and may be seen seeking bones with a lantern: Amalfi, Tradizioni ed Usi nella Penisola Sorrentina, p. 154. A headless man bears a lantern: Grössler, Sagen der Grafschaft Mansfeld, p. 171. Ghosts with lanterns: Eisel, Sagenbuch des Voigtlandes, p. 162, and note; Schambach u. Müller, Niedersächsische Sagen, p. 214; Grössler, as above, p. 138. Lantern borne by a hand (nothing else visible): Witzschel, Sagen aus Thüringen, p. 255 (cf. p. 294); Grössler, as above, pp. 66, 70, 167. A serviceable lantern released by a thank-you: Eisel, as above, p. 162.

^{Note 3 in page 440} Jabez Allies, On the Ignis Fatuus, 1846, p. 3, gives Hoberdy's Lantern, Hobany's Lantern, Hob and his Lantern, Jack-o'-Lantern, and Will-o'-the-Wisp as names known in Worcestershire. Hoberdy's and Hobany's are doubtless corruptions of Hob and his. Other forms are the following: Hob-o'-Lantern (Notes and Queries, 1st. Ser., xii, 290); Hobby lantern lantan, lanthorn (N. and Q., 1st. Ser., xii, 290; E. Moor, Suffolk Words and Phrases, 1823, pp. 172, 487; Forby, Vocab. of East Anglia, 1830, ii, 162); Hobbedy's Lantern (J. Drummond Robertson, Glossary of Dialect and Archaic Words used in the County of Gloucester, E. D. S., p. 69; R. Lawson, Upton-on-Severn Words and Phrases, E. D. S., p. 18; Mrs. Chamberlain, Glossary of West Worcestershire Words, E. D.S., p. 15); Hobbady-lantern (Jesse Salisbury, Glossary of Words and Phrases used in S. E. Worcestershire, 1893, pp. 17, 48); Hob-lantern (Rev. Sir W. H. Cope, Glossary of Hampshire Words and Phrases, E. D. S., p. 44). Hob is well-known as a goblin-name: cf. Hob of Runswick (Glossary of Yorkshire Words and Phrases, London, J. R. Smith, 1855, p. 83), Hob Thrust (J. Nicholson, Folk Lore of East Yorkshire, 1890, p. 80; J. T. Brockett, Glossary of North Country Words, 3d. ed., 1846, i, 223), Hobthrush (Denham Tracts, ed. Hardy, i, 339–40).

^{Note 4 in page 440} O. Heslop, Northumberland Words, E. D. S., pp. 407, 428.

^{Note 5 in page 440} Harland and Wilkinson, Lancashire Folk-lore, p. 53.

^{Note 6 in page 440} Georgina P. Jackson, Shropshire Word-Book, 1879, p. 117.

^{Note 1 in page 441} N. and Q., 1st. Ser., xii, 290; 4th. Ser., iii, 182; W. Rye, Glossary of Words used in East Anglia, E. D. S., p. 110.—Other names for the will-o‘-the-wisp are:—Kit with the cansticke (Scot, Discoverie of Witchcraft, 1584, bk. vii, ch, 15, p. 153, Nicholson's reprint, p. 122); Kit-in-the-candlestick (Rev. Sir W. H. Cope, Glossary of Hampshire Words and Phrases, E. D. S., p. 50); Kitty Candlestick (N. and Q., 7th. Ser., xi, 275); Kitty-wi‘-the-Wisp (O. Heslop, Northumberland Words, E. D. S., pp. 407, 428; cf. Brand, Pop. Ant., ed. Hazlitt, iii, 345); Joan-the-Wad (Courtney and Couch, Glossary of Words in Use in Cornwall, E. D. S., p. 31; Courtney, Cornish Feasts and Folk-Lore, Penzance, 1890, p. 122); Joan-in the-Wad (Holloway, General Dictionary of Provincialisms, 1839, p. 89, cited in N. and Q., 5th. Ser., x, 499); Jacket-a-wad (Holloway, as above, p. 89); Gillion a burnt taile or Gyl burnt tayle (Gayton, Pleasant [Festivous] Notes upon Don Quixot, 1654, pp. 268, 97, cited in Brand, Pop. Ant., ed. Hazlitt, iii, 347); Spunkie (W. Grant Stewart, Pop. Superstitions of the Highlanders of Scotland, 1823, p. 161, quoted by Allies, p. 34); Syleham Lamps (N. and Q., 1st. Ser., xii, 290); Syleham Lights (W. Rye, Glossary of Words used in East Anglia, E. D. S., p. 123); Aw-puck [= Hob-puck] (Jesse Salisbury, Glossary of Words used in S. E. Worcestershire, 1893, pp. 2,48); Pinkit (Jesse Salisbury, as above, pp. 28, 48); Pinket (Allies, p. 18).

^{Note 2 in page 441} This is substantially the opinion expressed by Thoms on the basis of Mlle. Bosquet's statement (see p. 438, note 3, above) that the feu follet is believed to be the soul of an unchaste priest: Athenæum, September 25, 1847, p. 1005 (reprinted in his Three Notelets on Shakespeare, 1865, p. 65).

^{Note 3 in page 441} The term “Friars' lanthorns” occurs in a catalogue of sprites in The Denham Tracts, ed. Hardy, ii, 78; but this catalogue is simply Mr. Denham's extension of Reginald Scot's well known list (see p. 423, note 3, above). The author was merely stringing together all the goblin-names he could think of and brought in the friar's lanthorn from L'Allegro.

^{Note 4 in page 441} The disappearance of the friars from England sufficiently accounts for this obsoleteness. In Milton's day, the memory of the begging “limitours” was still fresh.

October 18, 1900.