Miss Strickland (_Lives of Queens_, 1st edit., vol. ii. p. 336.) likewise gives the story as related by Froissart, but mentions the fact of Queen Philippa taking possession of Jean d'Acre's property, and the doubt cast upon Eustache's loyalty; but she would appear to justify him by reason of King Philip's abandoning the brave Calaisiens to their fate. However this may be, documents exist proving that the inhabitants of Calais were indemnified for their losses: and whether or not the family of Eustache de St. Pierre approved his conduct, so much is certain, that, on the death of the latter, the property which had been granted to him by King Edward was confiscated, because they would not acknowledge their allegiance to the English. I wish to ask whether this new light thrown on the subject, through M. de Bréquigny's labours, has been hitherto noticed, for it would appear the story should be re-written. PHILIP S. KING. * * * * * DEVIZES, ORIGIN OF: A QUESTION FOR THE HERALDS. I will put the following case as briefly as I can. Throughout the mediæval ages, the word _devise_ formed the generic term for every species of emblazonment. Thus we have "_Devises Heroiques_, per Claude Paradin, Lyons, 1557;" "_Devises et Emblems d'Amour moralisés_, par Flamen;" "_The Paradise of Dainty Devices_, 1576;" "_Minerva Britannica, or a Garden of Heroical Devices furnished and adorned with Emblems and Impressa's of Sundry Natives_, newly devised, moralised, and published by Henry Peachum, 1612;" and lastly, Henry Estienne's "discourse of hieroglyphs, symbols, gryphs, emblems, enigmas, sentences, parables, reverses of medals, arms, blazons, cimiers, cyphers, and rebus," which learned discourse, be it observed, is entitled _The Art of making Devises_, 1646. As an additional proof that device included the motto, take the following: "Henry III. commanded to be written by way of device in his chamber at Woodstock, 'Qui non dat quod amat non accipit ille quod optat;'" quoted by Sir Eger. Brydges. Here I must stop, though I could add many illustrations; and go on to observe, that whereas all the explanations which I have ever met with, of the unique appellation of "Castrum Divisarum," or the castle of Devises, are totally un-historic, if not ridiculous, I crave the attention of all whom it may concern to a new solution of the difficulty. First, then, in order to clear the way, I would observe, that if, as commonly stated, the name had signified a frontier fort, would it not have been called the castle of the division [singular] rather than the castle of the divided districts? In other words, why make it a plural term?