_Collars of SS._ (Vol. v., pp. 81. 183.).--Allow me to correct one or
two errors into which your correspondent H. L. has fallen.
In the first place, my letter was not intended (nor, I conceive, was
that of your correspondent LLEWELLYN) either to support a favourite
theory, or to combat a long-established prejudice; but simply to furnish
a contribution to MR. FOSS'S list of monumental effigies decorated with
this "much-vext" ornament.
As to the mistakes (if mistakes they be) which H. L. assumes, they are
not mine, but those of persons whose authority on these subjects H. L.
(like the celebrated reviewer who criticised Pindar's Greek without
knowing it) might find it awkward to impugn.
I may as well inform him, by the way, that the _corf de mailles_, which
originally covered the whole head, as a sort of cowl, was diminished in
size until it became little more than a gorget of mail; and appears at
last to have formed a portion of the hauberk. The name also changed its
orthography: passing, as has been suggested, through the intervening
stage of _cap-mail_, until it was corrupted into _camail_. There is,
therefore, no ground for "assuming" the ignorance of persons who use the
_original_, instead of the _corrupted_ form of a word.
Perhaps H. L. has never heard of a helmet being worn over a bascinet. I
can furnish him with a _few_ instances of monumental effigies where both
appear. He should study the monument in question before he pronounces
the use of the word "helmet" to be a mistake.
I would suggest to H. L. that the next time he appears in your pages he
had better append his name in full, that those whom he assails may be
better able to judge of the value of his criticism.
I will only add that it is hardly fair to "assume" that a man has never
studied a subject which has been his hobby for thirty years; and who
might be able to prove, by ocular demonstration, that he has "studied"
more monumental effigies than H. L. probably ever dreamt of.