Some years since, when walking down the valley of St. Nicholas, on the south side of the Valais, my guide, a native of the valley, pointed out to me a wood on the mountain side, and told me that therein dwelt great serpents, about 24 feet long, which carried off lambs from the pastures.  He had, however, never seen one of these monsters, but had only seen those who had, and I failed in procuring any testimony of a more decisive character.  My guide, however, affirmed that their existence was generally believed in the valley.

N.

* * * * *

ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY NAME OF BACON.

(Vol. ii., p. 247.)

The Query proposed by NOCAB evidently possesses some interest, having already elicited two or three replies.  I trust, therefore, I shall be excused for submitting yet another solution, which appears to me more satisfactory, if not conclusive.  The answers to such questions are for the most part merely ingenious conjectures; but these to be of weight, should be supported by antiquarian learning.  They claim perhaps more regard when they seem to elucidate collateral difficulties; but are of most value when authenticated by independent evidence, especially the evidence of documents or of facts.  Fortunately, in the case before us, all these desiderata are supplied.

Old Richard Verstegan, famous for Saxon lore and archaeological research, explains it thus:—­

“Bacon, of the Beechen tree, anciently called BUCON; and, whereas swinesflesh is now called by the name of BACON, it grew only at the first unto such as were fatted with BUCON or beechmast.”—­Chap. ix. p. 299.

There is one agreeable feature in this explanation, viz., that it professes somewhat naturally to account for the mysterious relation between the flesh of the unclean animal, and the name of a very ancient and honourable family.  But its chief value is to be found in the singular authentication of it which I accidentally discovered in Collins’s Baronetage.  In the very ample and particular account there given of the pedigree of the Premier Baronet, it will be seen that the first man who assumed the surname of Bacon, was one William (temp.  Rich.  I.), a great grandson of the Grimbaldus, who came over with the Conqueror and settled in Norfolk.  Of course there was some reason for his taking that name; and though Collins makes no comment on it, he does in fact unconsciously supply that reason (elucidated by Verstegan) by happily noting of this sole individual, that he bore for his arms, “argent, a beech tree proper!” Thank you, Mr. Collins! thank you kindly, Richard Verstegan!  You are both excellent and honest men.  You cannot have been in collusion.  You have not, until now, even reaped the merit of truthfulness and accuracy, which you silently reflect upon each other.  The family name, Bacon, then, undoubtedly signifies “of the beechen tree,” and is therefore of the same class with many others such as ash, beech, &c., latinized in ancient records by De Fraxino, De Fago, &c.