Memorabilia; Or Recollections, Historical, Biographical, and Antiquarian
Date: 2022-04-02T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: History -- Miscellanea; Savage; James; 1767-1845

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Memorabilia; Or Recollections, Historical, Biographical, and Antiquarian

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Memorabilia; Or Recollections, Historical, Biographical, and Antiquarian

Author: James Savage

Release date: April 1, 2022 [eBook #67755]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Original publication: United Kingdom: Taunton, 1820

Credits: Charlene Taylor, David King, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MEMORABILIA; OR RECOLLECTIONS, HISTORICAL, BIOGRAPHICAL, AND ANTIQUARIAN ***

MEMORABILIA.

MEMORABILIA;
OR
RECOLLECTIONS,
HISTORICAL, BIOGRAPHICAL,
AND
Antiquarian,
By JAMES SAVAGE.
TAUNTON:
PRINTED FOR JAMES SAVAGE,
AND SOLD BY
J. POOLE, BOOKSELLER, FORE-STREET, AND
BY BALDWIN, CRADOCK, & JOY, PATERNOSTER ROW,
LONDON.
1820.

TAUNTON:

PRINTED BY J. POOLE, FORE-STREET.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The following pages have been compiled from various sources, and from an extensive course of reading. The Editor has in some instances placed his authorities in the notes at the bottom of the page; and, where he has copied from former writers, he has inserted the names of those from whom he has borrowed his materials. His chief object has been to confine himself to facts; he has therefore carefully avoided giving opinions upon, or drawing conclusions from, the various subjects of which he has treated. He has endeavoured to place many points of history in a new light, and in every part to illustrate, in some degree, the several matters which have occupied his attention. It has been his desire to present the reader with a volume, from which he hopes both instruction and amusement may be drawn, and he submits it with confidence, to the perusal of young persons in particular, as a collection of biographical and historical Miscellanea, calculated to beguile the tedium of an hour, without inculcating a single idea that may sully the purest mind.

Taunton, May 31st, 1820.

CONTENTS.

Anecdotes of Dr. Kennicott, 1

Remarkable Historical Coincidences, 4

Charles XII. of Sweden, 6

British Pearls, 8

Pillars of Commemoration, 9

Mason, the Poet, 13

Bishops of Sodor and Man, 17

The Table, 19

Clocks, 20

Aldus Manutius, 22

Bottles of Skin, 24

English Slave Trade, 25

Oliver Cromwell’s Wife, 26

Shakespeare, 28

University Degrees, 31

Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester, 33

Figs, 35

Fruits cultivated at Rome in the time of Pliny, that are now grown in our English gardens, 37

Peacocks, 51

Ancient Libraries, 52

King Charles the First, 58

The Fair Geraldine and the Earl of Surrey, 60

Jews in England, 66

The English Bible, 67

Luxury of Ancient Rome, 68

Rhyme, 70

Mr. Coquebert de Montbret, 72

Dr. Thomas Pierce, 73

Writing among the Greeks, 74

Account of the Scriptoria, or Writing Rooms in the Monasteries of England, 76

Torture in England, 105

Dr. Johnson’s Conversation with the late King, 114

Dr. Beattie’s Conversation with the late King & Queen, 121

Sacred Gardens, 128

Sir Thomas Wyat, 129

The Hand, a Symbol of Power, 132

Henrietta Maria, Queen of Charles I, 135

Last Moments of Philip Melancthon, 142

House of Commons, 145

Mosaic Painting, 165

King Egbert, 168

The Latin Language, 171

Dr. Herschel, 174

Parodies, 177

Mourning for the Dead, 178

Garrick, 179

Lemons, 181

Origin of the Point of Honour, 182

Geoffrey of Monmouth, 185

Lifting up the Hand in Swearing, 205

Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, 207

King Arthur, 210

Alchemy, 213

Account of several Noble Families, in England, who owe their elevation to the Peerage to their Ancestors having been engaged in Trade, 214

Last Moments of Queen Caroline, 220

The Britons, according to the Greek and Latin Classics, 221

The Seven Sleepers, 227

John Ray, the Naturalist, 230

London Bankers and their Origin, 233

Elucidation of the Ornaments with which the Greeks and Romans adorned the Human Head on Coins & Medals, 237

The Tradescants, 243

Orange Trees, 249

Articles of Use and Luxury introduced into Europe by the Romans, 251

Account of the Escape of the Earl of Nithsdale from the Tower, in 1716, 255

Account of the first rise of Fairs in England, and the Manner of Living, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, 269

Sir Richard Clough, 277

Royal Clemency, 279

Lotteries, 280

Herculaneum Manuscripts, 283

Wolves in England, 286

Professor Porson, 288

History of Sepulchral Monuments, 297

Dr. KENNICOTT.

Dr. Kennicott was the son of the parish clerk of Totness, once master of a charity school in that town. At an early age young Kennicott took the care of the school, and in that situation wrote some verses, addressed to the Hon. Mrs. Courtenay, which recommended him to her notice, and to that of many neighbouring gentlemen, who laudably opened a subscription to send him to Oxford.

The following inscription, written by Dr. Kennicott, is engraven on the tomb of his parents:

As Virtue should be of good Report,

Sacred be this humble Monument to the Memory of

BENJAMIN KENNICOTT,
Parish Clerk of Totness,
and ELIZABETH his Wife;

The latter an example of every Christian Duty,

The former animated with the warmest zeal, regulated by the
best good sense, and both constantly exerted
for the salvation of himself and others.
Reader! soon shalt thou die also;

And as a Candidate for Immortality, strike thy breast and say,

“Let me live the life of the righteous,that my
latter end may be like his.”

Trifling are the dates of Time, where the subject is Eternity.

Erected by their Son, B. Kennicott, D. D.

Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.

It is said that when Dr. Kennicott took orders, he came to officiate in his clerical capacity in his native town,—when his father, as parish clerk, proceeded to place the surplice on his shoulders, a struggle ensued between the modesty of the son and the honest pride of the parent, who insisted on paying that respect to his son which he had been accustomed to shew to other clergymen; to this filial obedience he was obliged to submit. A circumstance is added, that his mother had often declared she should never be able to support the joy of hearing her son preach; and that on her attendance at the church, for the first time, she was so overcome as to be taken out in a state of temporary insensibility.

The following Letter from Dr. Kennicott to the Rev. William Daddo has been preserved:

“To the Rev. Mr. Daddo, in Tiverton, Devon.

“Wadh. Coll. Mar. 30, 1744.

“Rev. and Hon. Sir,

“Gratitude to benefactors is the great law of nature, and lest I should violate what was ever sacred, I presume to lay the following before you.

“There are, Sir, in the world, gentlemen who confine their regards to self, or the circle of their own acquaintance, and there are (happy experience convinces me) who command their influence to enlarge and exert itself on persons remotely situate, both by fortune and education. To you, Sir, belongs the honour of this encomium,—to me the pleasure of the obligation, and as I am now first at leisure in the place whither your goodness has transplanted me, I lay this acknowledgment before you, as one of the movers in this system of exalted generosity; for when I consider myself as surrounded with benefactors, there seems a bright resemblance of the now exploded system of Ptolemy, in which, Sir, (you know) the heavenly bodies revolved around the central earth which was thus rendered completely blest by the contribution of their cheering and benign influence.

“And now, Sir, the sentiments of duty rise so warm within me, that every expression of thanks seems faint, and I am lost in endeavours after a suitable acknowledgment of my obligations.

“But I know, Sir, whom I am now addressing; I know those who most deserve can least bear praise, and that your goodness is so great, as even to reject the very thanks of the grateful; like the sun in its splendour, which forbids the eye that offers to admire it.

“That Heaven may reward yourself and Mrs. Daddo with its best favours, and console you under your parental sorrows, is my daily and fervent prayer; and I shall esteem it one of the great honours of my life to be favoured at your leisure with any commands or advices you shall condescend to bestow on

Rev. Sir,

Your dutiful and obliged Servant,

BENJAMIN KENNICOTT.”

The Rev. William Daddo was for many years head-master of Blundell’s Free School, in Tiverton, where young Kennicott received the rudiments of his classical education. Mr. Daddo having acquired a considerable fortune from the emoluments of his school, quitted Tiverton, and retired to Bow-hill House, in the neighbourhood of Exeter, and there died many years ago, leaving a daughter, an only child, afterwards married to the Rev. Mr. Terry.

REMARKABLE HISTORICAL COINCIDENCES.

Among the curiosities in the British Museum are shewn two helmets; the one Roman, found in the ground on which the battle of Cannæ was fought, 216 years before Christ, and the other made of feathers, brought from one of the South Sea Islands, by Captain Cook. On comparing these helmets, the shape will be found exactly similar, though the latter was made by an uncivilized people living at the distance of more than 2000 years since the battle of Cannæ was fought, and who had never even heard of the Roman name.

A second coincidence is found in the same collection. Two breast-plates are shewn to the visitors, exactly corresponding in uniformity of shape, though made of different materials, the one taken from the bosom of an Egyptian Mummy, which had been dissected, if I may be allowed to use the term, in the Museum, and the other brought by Captain Cook, among various other curiosities, from the South Sea Islands.

A third coincidence is the mode of cookery practised by the South Sea Islanders as described by Captain Cook, especially in roasting their hogs. This is by means of hot stones placed in a hole dug in the ground. In Ossian’s Poems the reader will find that the Caledonians of that time made use of the same method in cooking their hogs for the table.

The extinction of the Roman Empire in the West, about the year 476, by Odoacer, King of Italy, was attended by one of the most memorable coincidences in the history of mankind. The patrician Orestes had married the daughter of Count Romulus, of Petovio in Noricum; the name of Augustus, notwithstanding the jealousy of power, was known at Aquileia as a familial surname; and the appellations of the two great founders, the first of the city of Rome, and the second of the Roman monarchy, were strangely united in the last of their successors. The son of Orestes succeeded to the throne of the Western Empire, and assumed and disgraced the names of Romulus Augustus; the first was corrupted into Momyllus by the Greeks, and the second has been changed by the Latins into the contemptible diminutive Augustulus. The life of this inoffensive youth, the last Sovereign of the Roman Empire in the West, was spared by the generous clemency of Odoacer, who dismissed him, with his whole family, from the imperial palace, fixed his annual allowance at 6000 pieces of Gold, and assigned the castle of Lucullus, in Campania, for the place of his exile or retirement.

CHARLES XII. OF SWEDEN.

That Charles the twelfth did not fall by a shot from the walls of Fredericshall, as is commonly supposed, but met his death from a nearer and more secret hand, has been fully ascertained; and M. Megret, a French Engineer, who accompanied him, was, no doubt, concerned in the murder. Many years afterwards, one Cronsted, an officer, on his death bed, confessed that he had himself, at the instigation of the Prince of Hesse, brother-in-law of Charles, and whose wife was declared Queen of Sweden, fired the shot that killed the unfortunate monarch.

In the arsenal at Stockholm, the Swedes preserve, with great care, the clothes he was habited in at the time he fell. The coat is a plain blue cloth regimental one, such as every common soldier wore. Round the waist he had a broad buff leathern belt, in which hung his sword. The hat is torn only about an inch square, in that part of it which lies over the temple, and certainly would have been much more injured by a large shot. His gloves are of very fine leather, and as the left one is perfectly clean and unsoiled could only have been newly put on. Voltaire says that the instant the King received the shot, he had the force and courage to put his hand to his sword, and lay in that posture. The right hand glove is covered in the inside with blood, and the belt at that part where the hilt of his sword lay, is likewise bloody, so that it seems clear, he had previously put his hand to his head, on receiving the shot, before he attempted to draw his sword and make resistance.

In the same case that contains his clothes is preserved the cap he wore on the terrible day at Bender, when he so desperately defended himself against the Turks. It is of fur; and has one tremendous cut on the side, which must have been within a hair’s breadth of there ending the career of this wonderful man.

BRITISH PEARLS.

The River Conway in North Wales was of considerable importance, even before the Roman invasion, for the Pearl muscle, (the Mya Margaritifera of Linnæus) and Suetonius acknowledged, that one of his inducements for undertaking the subjugation of Wales, was the Pearl Fishery carried forwards in that river. According to Pliny, the muscles, called by the natives Kregindilin, were sought for with avidity by the Romans, and the pearls found within them were highly valued; in proof of which it is asserted, that Julius Cæsar, dedicated a breastplate set with British Pearls to Venus Genetrix, and placed it in her temple at Rome. A fine specimen from the Conway is said to have been presented to Catherine, consort of Charles II. by Sir Richard Wynne of Gwydir; and it is further said that it has since contributed to adorn the regal crown of England. Lady Newborough possessed a good collection of the Conway pearls, which she purchased of those who were fortunate enough to find them, as there is no regular fishery at present. The late Sir Robert Vaughan had obtained a sufficient number to appear at Court, with a button and loop to his hat, formed of these beautiful productions, about the year 1780.

PILLARS OF COMMEMORATION.

The erection of a column or pillar, on the highest point of that ridge of hills, called Blackdown, which separates the county of Somerset from that of Devon, in commemoration of the great victories obtained by the Duke of Wellington, is an inducement to look into history, to see how the nations of antiquity, particularly those of Greece and Rome, rewarded their heroes who signalized themselves by the performance of feats of military courage, valour, and skill.

Among the Grecians it was usual to confer honours and rewards upon those who distinguished themselves in battle by valiant and courageous conduct. The ordinary rewards presented to conquerors in all the states of Greece, were crowns, which were sometimes inscribed with the person’s name and actions that had merited them, as appears from the inscription upon the crown presented by the Athenians to Conon. The Athenians sometimes honoured those who had performed great actions with permission to raise pillars, or erect statues to the gods, with inscriptions declaring their victories. Plutarch, however, supposes this to have been a grant rarely yielded to the greatest commanders. Cimon, who commanded the Athenian fleet against the Persians, became master of the city of Eion, in Thrace, and was, on account of his not imitating former commanders, by standing upon the defensive, but repulsing the enemy, and carrying the war into their own country, highly respected and admired by his countrymen, who allowed him, in honour of his success over the enemy, to erect three pillars of stone or marble, each surmounted with the head of Mercury; but though they bore an inscription, Cimon was not permitted to inscribe his name upon them. These pillars were considered by his contemporaries as the highest honour which had then been conferred upon any commander.

Various Pillars were erected at Rome in honour of great men, and to commemorate illustrious actions. Thus there were the Columna Ænea, a pillar of Brass, on which a league with the Latins was written. The Columna Rostrata, the Rostral Column, erected in the Forum, in honour of Duillius, was adorned with figures of ships, and was constructed of white marble. This column is still remaining with its inscription. It was built in honour of a great victory gained by Duillius over the Carthaginian fleet near Lipara, in the first Punic war. Another Pillar was erected by M. Fulvius, the Consul, consisting of one stone of Numidian marble, nearly 20 feet high.

But the most remarkable columns were those of Trajan and Antoninus Pius.

Trajan’s Pillar was erected in the middle of his Forum, and was composed of twenty-four great pieces of marble, but so curiously cemented as to seem but one. Its height is 128 feet. It is about 12 feet in diameter at the bottom, and 10 at the top. It has in the inside 185 steps for ascending to the top, and forty windows for the admission of light. The whole pillar is incrusted with marble, on which are represented the warlike exploits of that Emperor and his army, particularly in Dacia. On the top was a Colossal figure of Trajan, holding in his left hand a sceptre, and in his right a hollow globe of gold, in which his ashes were put, but Eutropius affirms that his ashes were put under the pillar.

The pillar of Antoninus was erected after his death, by the Senate, in honour of his memory. It is 176 feet high, the steps of ascent 106, and the windows 56. The sculpture and other ornaments are much of the same kind with those of Trajan’s pillar, but the work is greatly inferior.

Both these pillars are still standing, and justly reckoned among the most precious remains of antiquity. Pope Sixtus V. instead of the statues of the Emperors, caused the statue of St. Peter to be erected on Trajan’s pillar, and of St. Paul on that of Antoninus.

Pompey’s Pillar, as it is commonly called, in the city of Alexandria in Egypt, is equally celebrated with the two just mentioned. It is composed of red granite. The base is a square of about 15 feet on each side; this block of marble, 60 feet in circumference, rests on two layers of stone bound together with lead. The shaft and the upper member of the base are of one piece of 90 feet long, and nine in diameter. The capital is corinthian, with palm leaves, and not indented; it is 9 feet high. The whole column is 114 feet in height. It is perfectly well polished, and only a little shivered on the eastern side. Nothing can equal the majesty of this column; seen from a distance it overtops the town, and serves as a signal for vessels. Approaching it nearer, it produces astonishment mixed with awe. The eye can never be tired with admiring the beauty of the capital, the length of the shaft, nor the extraordinary simplicity of the pedestal.

Among the first inhabitants of the world after the flood there were pillars erected sacred to the Pythonic god, Apollo, or the Sun. These pillars had curious hieroglyphical inscriptions; they were very lofty and narrow in comparison of their length; hence among the Greeks, who copied from the Egyptians, every thing gradually tapering to a point was stiled an Obelisk.

MASON THE POET.

The merit of this gentleman as a poet is well known. However he was not satisfied with the applause he received in that character; he was desirous also of being esteemed a good musician and a good painter. In music he succeeded better than in painting. He performed decently on the harpsichord, and by desire, I undertook, says Dr. Miller, in the History of Doncaster, to teach him the principles of composition; but that I never could effect. Indeed, others before me had failed in the attempt, nevertheless he fancied himself qualified to compose; for a short Anthem of his, beginning “Lord of all power and might,” was performed at the Chapel Royal, of which only the melody was his own; the bass was composed by another person. The same may be said of two more Anthems, sung in the Cathedral of York. In painting he never arrived even to a degree of mediocrity; so true is Pope’s observation:

“One science only will one genius fit,

”So vast is art, so narrow human wit.”

Fond, however, of being considered as a patron both of music and painting, he contributed to the advancement of several young men by his recommendation: yet I never knew him patronize but one, in either of these arts, whom he did not desert afterwards, without his former favourite ever knowing in what he had offended him.

“When young,” says Dr. Miller, “I was one of those he took under his protection. He permitted me to dedicate the music of some elegies to him, and also gave me pieces of his own writing to set to music, particularly the ‘Ode to Death’ in Caractacus. However, at the end of a few years, I found myself involved in the disgrace of others, though I never knew the cause of my dismissal; most probably our disgrace proceeded from the envy of some officious tale-bearer. On recollection, I have often observed him listen attentively to these characters; and his favourite servant had it in his power to lead him which way he pleased, even to the changing a former acquaintance as easily as he would change his coat. Rather late in life he married Miss Sharman, of Hull, which was his native place. The reason he assigned for making her an offer of marriage was, that he had been a whole evening in her company with others, and observed, that during all that time she never spoke a single word. This lady lived about a year after their marriage. She died at Bristol, where, in the Cathedral, he placed a handsome monument to her memory, on which are inscribed some beautiful and much-admired lines as an epitaph. During the short time this lady lived with him, he appeared more animated and agreeable in his conversation; but after her decease, his former phlegm returned, and he became silent, sullen, and reserved.

“Though he had a good income, and was by no means extravagant, yet he frequently fancied himself poor, to that degree, that he once asked an acquaintance to lend him a hundred pounds, though at that very time he had considerable sums of money in the public funds, for which he neglected taking the interest. A great attachment appeared to exist between him and a very hospitable family in the neighbourhood of Doncaster, to whom he was nearly related, and with whom he used to pass some months in the summer. At length he fancied they expected to receive a good legacy at his decease, but resolving to disappoint them, he did not even mention them in his will, but left the greater part of his property to a person who had formerly been his curate.”

The following Letter from Mason to Dr. Beattie, is preserved in Sir William Forbes’s Life of the latter:

York, 17th October, 1771.

“In my late melancholy employment of reviewing and arranging the papers, which dear Mr. Gray’s friendship bequeathed to my care, I have found nine letters of yours, which I meant to have returned ere this, had I found a safe opportunity by a private hand; but as no such opportunity has yet occurred, I take the liberty of troubling you with this, to enquire how I may best convey them to you. I shall continue here till the 12th of next month, and hope in that interval to be favoured with a line from you upon this subject.

“I should deprive myself of a very sincere gratification, if I finished this letter, with the business that occasions it. You must suffer me to thank you for the very high degree of poetical pleasure which the first book of your ‘Minstrel’ gave my imagination, and that equal degree of rational conviction which your ‘Essay on the Immutability of Truth’ impressed on my understanding. I will freely own to you, that the very idea of a Scotsman’s attacking Mr. Hume, prejudiced me so much in favour of the latter piece, that I should have approved it, if, instead of a masterly, it had been only a moderate performance.

“I shall be happy to know, that the remaining books of your ‘Minstrel’ are likely to be published soon. The next best thing, after instructing the world profitably, is to amuse it innocently. England has lost that man, (Mr. Gray) who, of all others in it, was best qualified for both these purposes; but who, from early chagrin and disappointment, had imbibed a disinclination to employ his talents beyond the sphere of self-satisfaction and improvement. May Scotland long possess, in you, a person both qualified and willing to exert his, for the pleasure and benefit of society.”

BISHOPS OF SODOR AND MAN.

The Bishopric of Sodor and Man was first erected by Pope Gregory IV, about the year 840, and had for its diocese the Isle of Man and all the Hebrides or Western Islands of Scotland; but when the Isle of Man became dependent upon the kingdom of England, the Western Islands withdrew themselves from the obedience of their Bishop, and had Bishops of their own, whom they entitled Episcopi Sodorenses, but commonly Bishops of the Isles. The Prelates of the diocese of the Isles had three places of residence, namely, the Isle of Icolumkill, Man, and Bute; and in ancient writs, are promiscuously styled Episcopi Manniæ et Insularum, Episcopi Æbudarum, and Episcopi Sodorenses, which last title is still retained by the Bishops of the Isle of Man; and the reason of this style is as follows: The Island of Ily, or I, or Ionah, was in former ages a place famous for sanctity and learning, and very early became the seat of a Bishop. This little Island was likewise denominated Icolumkill, from St. Columba (the companion of St. Patrick) founding a monastery here in the sixth century, which was the mother of above one hundred other monasteries situated in different parts of Britain and Ireland. From the many learned men who came to study here, the Picts and English Saxons of the North owe their conversion to Christianity. The Scots used long ago to commit the education of the presumptive heir of the crown to the care of the Bishops of this see; and so holy was the Island of Icolumkill reckoned, that most of the Scottish monarchs were interred there. The Cathedral church was dedicated to our Saviour, for whom the Greek word is Soter, hence Soterensis, now corrupted to Sodorensis; and it seems probable that this is the reason why the Danes called these Islands Sodoroe. The civil wars that raged among the Scots enabled the Danes and Norwegians to seize the Isle of Man; and about the year 1097 or 1098, Donald Bane, an usurper, who then sat on the throne of Scotland, treacherously put the Norwegians in possession of the Western Isles, for the assistance they had given him. It is probable that these foreigners were the cause that the see was translated entirely to the Isle of Man. They were at length however, expelled from all their usurped dominions. During the great contest between the houses of Bruce and Baliol for the throne of Scotland, King Edward III., of England, made himself master of the Isle of Man, and it has remained an appendage of the crown of England ever since. The Lords of the Isle of Man sat up Bishops of their own, and the Scottish monarchs continued their Bishops of the Isles. The patronage of the Bishopric of Man was given, together with the Island, to the Stanleys, by King Edward IV. and they came by an heir-female to the Duke of Athol, who still keeps it; and on a vacancy thereof, he nominates the intended Bishop to the King, who sends him to the Archbishop of York for consecration. This is the reason why the Bishop of Sodor and Man is not a Lord of Parliament, as none can have suffrage in the house of Peers who do not hold immediately of the King himself.

THE TABLE.

The form of a half-moon for a table is of very ancient date; the Romans called it the Sigma, from its resemblance to the Greek letter so called, which was in the time of the Roman Emperors like the letter C. Martial tells us this sort of table admitted but of seven persons, septem sigma capit. And Lampridius, in his life of Heliogabalus, mentions it very frequently, and says it was for seven only; he tells us the Emperor once invited eight, on purpose to raise a laugh against the person for whom there would be no seat. The same form of a table continued in after ages. The authors of the life of St. Martin say, that the Emperor Maximus invited him to a repast, where the table had the form of a sigma; and again in the lower ages, Sidonius Apollinaris speaks of the same thing in the life of the Emperor Majorianus; and it is likewise represented in a manuscript of the fifth or sixth century. The seat itself was only a common bench or form; the sigma was the principal piece of furniture, and most ornamented. In the time of Homer the guests sat round the table, as we do now, but afterwards some nations adopted the custom of a reclining position at their meals.

CLOCKS.

The first Clock we know of in this Country was put up in an old tower of Westminster Hall, in the year 1288, and in 1292, there was one in the Cathedral of Canterbury. These were probably of foreign workmanship; and it may be doubted, if there was at that time any person who followed the business of making clocks. There was, however, one very ingenious artist, Richard of Wallingford, Abbot of St. Albans, who constructed a clock which represented the motions of the sun, moon, and stars, and the ebbing and flowing of the sea. That this wonderful piece of mechanism might be of permanent utility to his Abbey, he composed a book of directions for the management of it. And Leland who appears to have seen it, says, that in his opinion all Europe could not produce such another.

There is a fine specimen of ancient Clock-making in Wells Cathedral. It is a clock constructed by Peter Lightfoot, one of the monks of Glastonbury, about the year 1325, of complicated design and ingenious execution. It was originally put up in that celebrated Monastery, and was placed in the south transept, and by means of a communication tolled the hours on the great bell of the central tower, whilst the quarters were struck by automata on two small bells in the transept. The dial plate shews the hours, and also the changes of the moon, the solar and other astronomical motions; on its summit there is an horizontal frame work, which exhibits by the aid of machinery, eight knights on horseback armed for a tournament, and pursuing each other with a rapid rotatory motion. At the Reformation this clock was removed from Glastonbury Abbey to its present situation in Wells Cathedral.

The Clock in Exeter Cathedral was erected by Bishop Courtenay in the year 1480. It is on the Ptolemaic system of Astronomy and of a curious construction for the age in which it was put up. The earth is represented by a globe in the centre; the sun by a fleur-de-lys; and the moon by a ball painted half black and half white, which turns on its axis, and shews the different phases of that luminary.

ALDUS MANUTIUS.
[DIED 1516.]

It would be difficult to say whether the exertions of any individual, however splendid his talents, or even the labours of any particular association, or academy, however celebrated, ever shed so much lustre on the place of their residence as that which Venice derives from the reputation of a stranger, who voluntarily selected it for his abode. I allude to Aldus Manutius. This extraordinary person combined the lights of the scholar, with the industry of the mechanic; and to his labours, carried on without interruption till the conclusion of a long life, the world owes the first or principes editiones of twenty eight Greek Classics. Among these we find Pindar, Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Plato, and Aristotle. Besides these, there are few ancient authors of any note, of whom this indefatigable editor has not published editions of acknowledged accuracy, and as far as the means of the art of printing, then in its infancy, permitted, of great beauty. In order to appreciate the merit of Aldus, we must consider the difficulties under which he must have laboured at a time when there were few public libraries; when there was no regular communication between distant cities; when the price of manuscripts put them out of the reach of persons of ordinary incomes; and when the existence of many since discovered, was utterly unknown. The man who could surmount these obstacles, and publish so many authors till then inedited; who could find means and time to give new and more accurate editions of so many others already published, and accompany them all with prefaces mostly of his own composition; who could extend his attention still farther and by his labours secure the fame, by immortalizing the compositions of the most distinguished scholars of his own age and country, must have been endowed in a very high degree, not only with industry and perseverance, but with judgment, learning, and discrimination. One virtue more, Aldus possessed in common with many of the great literary characters of that period, I mean, a sincere and manly piety, a virtue which gives consistency, vigour, and permanency to every good quality, and never fails to communicate a certain grace and dignity to the whole character.

BOTTLES OF SKIN.

The Ancients made use of bottles of skin to hold their wine, as is usual in many countries to this day. Thus Homer mentions wine being brought in a goat’s skin. (Il. II. iii. line 247. Odys. VI. line 78, IX. line 196, 212) Herodotus (ii. 121,) mentions skins being filled with wine. And Maundrell in his Travels to Jerusalem, speaking of the Greek Convent at Bellmount, near Tripoli, in Syria, says, “The same person whom we saw officiating at the altar in his embroidered sacerdotal robe, brought us the next day on his own back, a kid, and a goat’s skin of wine as a present from the Convent.”

ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE.

A great article of exportation among the Anglo-Saxons was Slaves, in which kind of traffic, the Northumbrians in particular, were very famous, amongst whom this trade continued, according to William of Malmesbury, for some time after the conquest. The people of Bristol were also very much employed in the Slave Trade, which they pursued with such eagerness, that they frequently spared not their nearest relations; but at length they were prevailed upon by the preaching and exhortation of Wulstan, Bishop of Worcester, who possessed that See at the time of the Conquest, to quit such a barbarous and inhuman traffic.

In the history of the Saxon period there is frequent mention of living money, in contradistinction to coins of gold, silver, &c. This living money consisted of slaves and cattle of all sorts, which according to the value fixed upon them by law, were equally current with gold or silver in the payment of debts.

In Domesday Book it is said that in the Borough of Lewes, four-pence was to be paid to the Portreeve for every man sold within that borough.

The Monks were forbid by an ancient Canon to manumit their slaves, and this unhappy race of men seems to have been longer perpetuated on the estates of the Monasteries than elsewhere, for in the survey of Glastonbury Abbey taken after the dissolution, there is mention of “271 bondmen, whose bodies and goods were at the King’s Highness’s pleasure.”

OLIVER CROMWELL’S WIFE.

The two following notable instances of this Lady’s niggardliness are taken from a very scarce little book intitled “The Court and Kitchen of Elizabeth Cromwell,” &c. printed in 1664.

“The first, was the very next summer after Oliver’s coming to the Protectorate in 1654. In June, at the very first season of green pease, where a poor country woman living some where about London, having a very early but small quantity in her garden, was advised to gather them and carry them to the Lady Protectress; her counsellors conceiving she would be very liberal in her reward, they being the first of that year; accordingly the poor woman came to the Strand; and having her pease amounting to a peck and a half, in a basket, a cook by the Savoy as she passed, either seeing or guessing at them, demanded the price, and upon her silence offered her an angel (a coin so called) for them, but the woman expecting some greater matter, went on her way to Whitehall, where after much ado, she was directed to her chamber, and one of her maids came out, and understanding it was a present and a rarity, carried it in to the Protectress, who out of her princely munificence sent her a crown, which the maid told into her hand; the woman seeing this baseness, and the frustration of her hopes, and remembering withal what the cook had proffered her, threw back the money into the maid’s hands, and desired her to fetch her back her pease, for that she was offered five shillings more for them before she brought them thither, and could go fetch it presently; and so half slightingly and half ashamedly, this great lady returned her present, putting it off with a censure upon the unsatisfactory daintiness of luxurious and prodigal epicurism. The very same pease were afterwards sold by the woman to the said cook, who is yet alive (that is in 1664) to justify the truth of this relation.

“The other is of a later date. Upon Oliver’s rupture with the Spaniards, the commodities of Spain grew very scarce, and the prices of them raised by such as could procure them under-hand. Among the rest of these goods, the fruits of the growth of that country were very rare and dear, especially oranges and lemons. One day as the Protector was private at dinner he called for an orange to a loin of veal, to which he used no other sauce, and urging the same command, was answered by his wife, that Oranges were oranges now; that crab oranges would cost a groat, and for her part she never intended to give it; and it was presently whispered that sure her Highness was never the adviser of the Spanish war: and that his Highness would have done well to have consulted his digestion, before his lusty and inordinate appetite of dominion and riches in the West Indies.”

SHAKESPEARE.

The following ingenious reasons are assigned by Mr. Charles Butler, in his “Memoirs of the English Catholics,” as grounds for a belief that Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic.

“May the Writer premise a suspicion, which from internal evidence, he has long entertained, that Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic. Not one of his works contains the slightest reflections on Popery, or any of its practices; or any eulogy of the Reformation. His panegyric on Queen Elizabeth is cautiously expressed; whilst Queen Catherine is placed in a state of veneration; and nothing can exceed the skill with which Griffith draws the panegyric of Wolsey. The Ecclesiastic is never presented by Shakespeare in a degrading point of view. The jolly Monk, the irregular Nun, never appear in his Drama. Is it not natural to suppose, that the topics, on which at that time, those who criminated Popery loved so much to dwell, must have often solicited his notice, and invited him to employ his muse upon them, as subjects likely to engage the favourable attention both of the Sovereign and the subject? Does not his abstinence from these justify a suspicion, that a Popish feeling with-held him from them. Milton made the Gunpowder Conspiracy the theme of a regular Poem. Shakespeare is altogether silent on it.”

The Editor of the Morning Chronicle has given a short comment on the above Paragraph: “We will only oppose” says he, “a single observation to Mr. Butler’s suspicion. Shakespeare was buried at his own desire in a Protestant Church, with this rather curious Inscription, which we recommend to Mr. Butler’s perusal:

Good Friend for Jesu’s sake forbear

To dig the dust inclosed here.

Blest be the man that spares these stones,

And curst be he that moves my bones.”

The Editor of the Morning Chronicle does not give his authority for stating that Shakespeare was buried by his own desire in a Protestant Church. The poet, in his will, does not express any desire about being buried in any particular place, and being buried in a Protestant Church, neither proves one thing nor another respecting his religion. It is no proof that he was a Protestant because he was buried in a Protestant Church, even if it were clearly shewn that it was by his own desire; neither is it any proof that he was not a Roman Catholic because he was buried in a Protestant Church. Let us ask the Editor of the M. C. where the Catholics of Shakespeare’s time could bury their dead but in Protestant Churches, or in consecrated ground belonging to Protestant Churches?

The inscription which the Editor of the M. C. mentions to have been placed upon Shakespeare’s tomb, certainly does not prove any more respecting his religion than does his being buried in a Protestant Church. It has been observed with a high degree of probability that the inscription in question alludes to the custom which was then in use of removing skeletons after a certain time, and depositing them in Charnel Houses. Similar execrations are found in many ancient Latin Epitaphs.

It is one of the observations of Mr. Butler, in proof of his suspicion, that Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic, that the poet has not eulogized the Reformation. In the speech (play of Henry VIII. scene the last) which Archbishop Cranmer makes at the christening of the Princess Elizabeth, Shakespeare puts into the Prelate’s mouth these prophetic words—

“In her days ...

“God shall be truly known” ...

which appear evidently to infer that in the Roman Catholic times God was not truly known, but that the Reformation, so eminently promoted by Queen Elizabeth, had brought forth light and truth. Mr. Butler seems to have overlooked these lines, and the inference that may be drawn from them, namely, that Shakespeare was not a Roman Catholic.

The author of a Tragedy, recently published, entitled “Moscow,” says (p. 67.) that “he has discovered that Shakespeare was a Free-Mason. Let every brother of the third degree, therefore SEARCH the works of the immortal bard, and he will find the TRUTH of the above assertion.”

UNIVERSITY DEGREES.

It does not appear that there were any degrees in either the Greek or Roman academies; the only distinction was that of masters and scholars. The first seminaries of learning among christians were the cathedral churches and monasteries, but in process of time the schools belonging to them were regulated, and men of learning opened others in places where they could find protection and encouragement. Hence the origin of universities, which at first were merely a collection of those schools, to which Princes and great men gave liberal endowments, and granted particular immunities and privileges. Degrees were not conferred till the universities were incorporated; a circumstance extremely probable, when we recollect that all civil honours must be derived from the supreme magistrate.

The most ancient degrees were those of Bachelor and Master of Arts. Before the existence of a certain statute, which obliged the theologists to be regents in arts previously to their ascending the chair of Doctor, they were only students, and bachelors, or masters of divinity, without reading the arts. At that time the degrees in arts were held in such estimation, as to be thought superior to that of doctor in any other faculty.

The degree of Doctor was not known in England till the time of Henry II. It afterwards became common, and was taken not only by Professors of Divinity, Law, and Medicine, but by those of Grammar, Music, Philosophy, Arts, &c. As the Doctors of those professions, however, seldom obtained great honour or riches, this degree declined and fell into neglect. That of Music is the only one which has survived.

GUY CARLETON,
LORD DORCHESTER.

When General Wolfe was appointed to the Command of the Land Forces destined to act against Canada, in 1759, Mr. Pitt, then Secretary of State, told him, that as he could not give him so many troops as he wanted for the Expedition, he would make it up to him in the best manner he could, by allowing him the appointment of all his Officers. Accordingly the General sent in a list, in which was the name of Lieutenant-Colonel Carleton, whom he had put down as Quarter-Master-General. This Officer, who had been Aide-de-Camp to the Duke of Cumberland during the campaign in Germany, in 1757, had unfortunately made himself obnoxious to George the Second, by some unguarded expressions relating to the Hanoverian Troops, and which had by some officious person been reported to the King. Lord Ligonier, then Commander in Chief of the Forces, took General Wolfe’s list to his Majesty for his approbation, when the King having looked over it, made some objections in pointed terms, to Colonel Carleton’s name, and refused to sign his commission. Lord Ligonier reported the King’s objections and refusal to Mr. Pitt, who immediately sent his Lordship a second time to his Majesty with no better success. Mr. Pitt then suggested that his Lordship should go again, which he refused, on which Mr. Pitt told him, that unless he went to the King and got Colonel Carleton’s commission signed he should lose his place. Lord Ligonier then went a third time to the King, and represented to him the peculiar state of the expedition, and that in order to make the General completely responsible for every part of his conduct, it was necessary that the officers employed under him should be those who enjoyed his entire and perfect confidence, so that, if he did not succeed, he might not accuse the Government at home with putting under him officers who, either by incapacity, want of energy, or inactivity, should thwart his commands, and thus paralyse the most skilful arrangements. The King listened to his Lordship’s reasons with a favourable ear, and his resentment against Colonel Carleton, was so completely disarmed, that he immediately signed the commission under which that Officer accompanied General Wolfe as Quarter-Master-General of his army.

FIGS.

Figs have from the earliest times been reckoned among the delights of the palate.

Moses, in the Pentateuch, enumerates among the praises of the promised land, (Deut. viii. 8.) that it was a “Land of Fig Trees”.

The Athenians valued figs at least as highly as the Jews. Alexis (in the Deipnosophists) calls figs “Food for the Gods.” Pausanias says that the Athenian, Phytalus, was rewarded by Ceres for his hospitality, with the gift of the first fig-tree. Some foreign guest, no doubt, transmitted to him the plant, which he introduced into Attica. It succeeded so well there, that Athensæus brings forward Lynceus and Antiphanes vaunting the figs of Attica as the best on the earth. Horapollo, or rather his commentator Bolzair, says that when the master of a house is going a journey he hangs out a broom of fig-boughs for good luck.

By one of the laws of Solon all the products of the earth were forbidden to be exported from Athens; under this law the exportation of figs was prohibited, and it is from this circumstance we have the word sycophant from the Greek; those who violated this law were subject to a heavy penalty, and the informer against the delinquents was called a sycophant from the original word literally meaning an “exhibiter of figs,” as thereby substantiating his charge. The name was afterward more extensively applied, and is now associated with the ideas of meanness, servility, and calumny.

A taste for figs marked the progress of refinement in the Roman Empire. In Cato’s time but six sorts of figs were known; in Pliny’s twenty-nine. The sexual system of plants seems first to have been observed in the fig tree. Pliny in his Natural History alludes to this under the term caprification.

In modern times the esteem for figs has been more widely diffused; when Charles the 5th visited Holland in 1540, a Dutch merchant sent him, as the greatest delicacy which Zuricksee could offer, a plate of figs. The gracious Emperor dispelled for a moment the fogs of the climate by declaring, that he had never eaten figs in Spain with more pleasure. Carter praises the figs of Malaga; Tournefort those of Marseilles; Ray those of Italy; Brydone those of Sicily; Dumont those of Malta; Browne those of Thessaly; Pocock those of Mycone; De la Mourtraye those of Tenedos and Mitylene; Chandler those of Smyrna; Maillet those of Cairo; and Lady Mary Wortley Montague those of Tunis. What less can be inferred from this conspiring testimony than that wherever there is a fig there is a feast?

It remains for Jamaica, and the contiguous Islands, to acquire that celebrity for the growth of figs, which yet attaches to the Eastern Archipelago; to learn to dry them as in the Levant, and to supply the desserts of the English tables.

FRUITS,
CULTIVATED AT ROME IN THE TIME OF PLINY, THAT ARE NOW GROWN IN OUR ENGLISH GARDENS.

Apples.—The Romans had twenty-two sorts of Apples. Sweet Apples (melimala) for eating, and others for cookery. They had one sort without kernels.

[Eugene Aram, in his collections for a dictionary of the Celtic language, says that the name of the Apple Tree is a corruption of “Apollo’s Tree.”—“And that this is its original, will be easily deducible from a little reflection on the proofs in support of it. The prizes in the sacred games were the Olive Crown, Apples, Parsleys and the Pine. Lucian, in his Book of Games, affirms that Apples were the reward in the Sacred Games of Apollo; and Curtius asserts the same thing. It appears also that the Apple Tree was consecrated to Apollo before the Laurel; for both Pindar and Callimachus observe that Apollo did not put on the Laurel until after his conquest of the Python, and that he appropriated it to himself on account of his passion for Daphne, to whom the laurel was sacred. The Victor’s wreath at first was a bough with its apples hanging upon it, sometimes with a branch of laurel; and antiquity united these together as the reward of the Victor in the Pythian games.”]

Apricots.—Pliny says of the Apricot (Armeniaca) quæ sola et odore commendantur. He arranges them among his plums.—Martial valued them but little, as appears by his epigram, xiii. 46.

[The Apricot, we are told came originally from Armenia, whence its name Armeniaca. Wolfe, gardener to King Henry the 8th, first introduced Apricots into England. Tusser mentions the Apricot in his list of fruits cultivated here in 1573.]

Almonds—were abundant, both bitter and sweet. [The Almond was introduced into England in 1570; it is not, however, in Tusser’s list of fruits cultivated here in 1573.]

Cherries—were introduced into Rome in the year of the city 680, B. C. 73, and were carried thence to Britain 120 years after, A. D. 48. The Romans had eight kinds, a red one, a black one, a kind so tender as scarce to bear any carriage, a hard fleshed one (duracina) like our bigarreau, a small one with a bitterish flavour (laurea) like our little wild black, also a dwarf one, the tree bearing which did not exceed three feet in height.

[Cherries are said to have come originally from Cerasus, a city of Pontus, from which Lucullus brought them into Italy, after the Mithridatic War. They so generally pleased at Rome, and were so easily propagated in all climates into which the Romans extended their arms, that within the space of a hundred years, they had become common. It has been erroneously supposed that Cherries were first introduced into this country by Richard Haynes, fruiterer to King Henry the eighth, who planted them at Teynham, in Kent, whence they had the name of Kentish cherries; but Lydgate who wrote his poem called “Lickpenny” before the middle of the fifteenth century, or probably before the year 1415, mentions them in the following lines, as being commonly sold at that time by the hawkers in the streets of London:

“Hot pescode oon began to cry,

”Straberys rype, and cherreys in the ryse.”

Ryce, rice, or ris, properly means a long-branch; and the word is still used in that sense in the West of England.

Dr. Bulleyn shews there were plenty of good native cherries at Ketteringham, near Norwich; pears, called the Blackfriars, in and about that city; and excellent grapes at Blaxhall in Suffolk, where he was rector from 1550 to 1554.]

Chesnuts.—The Romans had six sorts, some more easily separated from the skin than others, and one with a red skin. They roasted them as we do.

[The chesnut, castanea, is a native of the South of Europe, and is said to take its name from Castanea, a city of Thessaly, where anciently it grew in great plenty. Gerard says that in his time there were several woods of chesnuts in England, particularly one near Feversham, in Kent; and Fitz-Stephen, in a description of London, written by him in Henry the second’s time, speaks of a very noble forest which grew on the north side of it. This tree grows sometimes to an amazing size. There is one at Lord Ducie’s at Tortworth, in the county of Gloucester, which measures 19 yards in circumference, and is mentioned by Sir Robert Atkyns, in his History of that County, as a famous tree in King John’s time; and by Mr. Evelyn in his Sylva, to have been so remarkable for its magnitude in the reign of King Stephen, as then to be called the great chesnut of Tortworth; from which it may be reasonably supposed to have been standing before the conquest. Lord Ducie had a drawing of it taken and engraved in 1772. Formerly a great part of London was built with chesnut and walnut timber.]

The Horse Chesnut was brought from the northern parts of Asia into Europe, about the year 1550, and was sent to Vienna, about the year 1558. From Vienna it migrated into Italy and France: but it comes to us from the Levant immediately. Gerard in his Herbal, printed in 1597, speaks of it only as a foreign Tree. In Johnson’s edition of the same Work printed in 1633, it is said, “Horse Chesnut groweth in Italy, and in sundry places of the East Country; it is now growing with Mr. Tradescant at South Lambeth.” Parkinson says “our Christian World had first the knowledge of it from Constantinople.”—The same Author places the Horse Chesnut in his Orchard, as a fruit tree between the Walnut and the Mulberry. How little it was then known, 1629, may be inferred from his saying not only that it is of a greater and more pleasant aspect, for the fair leaves, but also of a good use for the fruit, which is of a sweet taste, roasted and eaten as the ordinary sort.—This tree does not seem to have been so common a hundred years ago as it is now. Mr. Houghton (1700) mentions some at Sir William Ashhurst’s at Highgate, and especially at the Bishop of London’s at Fulham. Those now standing at Chelsea College were then very young. There was also a very fine one in the Pest-house garden near Old-Street, and another not far from the Ice-house under the shadow of the Observatory in Greenwich Park.

Figs.—The Romans had many sorts of figs, black and white, large and small; one as large as a pear, another no larger than an olive.

[The fig has been cultivated in England ever since 1562. It is omitted by Tusser in his list of fruits cultivated in our gardens. Cardinal Pole is said to have imported from Italy that tree, which is still growing in the garden of the Archbishop’s palace at Lambeth. It is the oldest fig tree that is known in this kingdom. In the Percy Household-book, the person who had the charge of providing for the consumption and use of the Earl of Northumberland’s numerous family, was ordered to purchase four coppets of figs, for which he was to pay twenty pence for each coppet. This quantity was to serve for one year.]

Medlars.—The Romans had two kinds of medlars, the one larger, and the other smaller.

Mulberries.—The Romans had two kinds of the black sort, a larger and a smaller. Pliny speaks also of a mulberry growing on a briar: Nascuntur et in rubis, (1. xv. sect. 27) but whether this means the raspberry, or the common blackberry, does not appear.

[The mulberry, Morus, is a native of Persia, whence it was introduced into the southern parts of Europe, and is commonly cultivated in England, Germany, and other countries where the winters are not very severe. “We are informed,” says Forsyth in his treatise on fruit trees, “that mulberries were first introduced into this country in 1596; but I have reason to believe that they were brought hither previous to that period, as many old trees are to be seen standing at this day about the sites of ancient abbeys and monasteries, from which it is at least probable that they had been introduced before the dissolution of religious houses. Four large mulberry trees are still standing on the site of an old kitchen garden, now part of the pleasure-ground, at Sion House, which, perhaps may have stood there ever since that house was a monastery. The first Duke of Northumberland has been heard to say, that these trees were above 300 years old. At the Priory near Stanmore, Middlesex, (the seat of the Marquis of Abercorn) there are also some ancient Mulberry trees. The Priory was formerly a religious house.”

Gerard in his description of the mulberry tree has the following curious paragraph: “Hexander in Athenæus affirmeth, that the mulberry trees in his time did not bring forth fruit in twenty years together; and that so great a plague of the gout reigned and raged so generally, as not only men, but boys, and women were troubled with that disease.”

Tusser, in his list of fruits cultivated in England in 1573 enumerates the Mulberry.—Gerard, who published his history of plants in 1597, says in that book, that Mulberry Trees then grew in sundry gardens in England.]

Nuts.—The Romans had Hazel Nuts and Filberds. They roasted these Nuts.

Pears.—Of these the Romans had many sorts, both Summer and Winter Fruit, melting and hard; they had more than thirty six kinds, some were called Libralia. We have our Pound Pear.

[Pliny mentions twenty kinds of this fruit, and Virgil five or six.

Ælian describing the most ancient food of several nations, reports that at Argos they fed chiefly upon Pears.

Tusser, states that “Pears of all sorts” were cultivated here in his time.

The Arms of Wardon Abbey, in Bedfordshire, as given by Tanner, are Argent, Three Pears, Or.—Quere, if these are the species called Wardons, or if they are peculiar to that part of England.

The Wardon Pear is common in Yorkshire.]

Plums.—The Romans had a multiplicity of sorts (ingens turba prunorum) black, white, and variegated; one sort was called asinia, from its cheapness; another damascena; this had much stone and little flesh: from Martial’s Epigram, xiii. 29, we may conclude that it was what we now call prunes.

[The Plum is generally supposed to be a native of Asia, and the Damascene (Damson) to take its name from Damascus, a city of Syria.

Tusser enumerates in his list of fruits “Grene or Grass Plums, and Peer Plums, black and yellow.”

Lord Cromwell introduced the Perdrigon Plum in the Reign of Henry the seventh.]

Quinces.—The Romans had three sorts, one was called Chrysomela, from its yellow flesh. They boiled them with honey as we make marmalade. See Martial, xiii. 24.

[The Quince is called Cydonia, from Cydon, a town of Crete, famous for this fruit.—Tusser mentions it among his fruit-trees, and Gerard says it was cultivated here in his time.]

Services.—They had the Apple-shaped, the Pear-shaped, and a small kind, probably the same that we gather wild, the Azarole.

[There are three sorts of the Service Tree cultivated in England, namely the cultivated Service; the Wild Service or Mountain Ash; and the Maple leaved Service. The first is a native of the warmer climes of Europe; and the other two grow wild in different parts of England.]

Strawberries.—The Romans had Strawberries, but do not appear to have prized them. The climate is too warm to produce this fruit in perfection unless in the hills.

[Tusser enumerates Strawberries, red and white, as being cultivated when he wrote.]

Vines.—The Romans had a multiplicity of Vines, both thick-skinned, (duracina,) and thin-skinned: one Vine growing at Rome produced 12 Amphoræ of juice, equal to 84 gallons. They had round-berried, and long-berried sorts, one so long that it was called dactilydes, the grapes being like the fingers on the hand. Martial (xiii. 22.) speaks favourably of the hard-skinned grape for eating.

[In Domesday Book, (1. p. 8. col 1.) there are said to be in the Bishop of Bayeux’s Manor of Chert, in the county of Kent, three arpents of Vineyard, and in the Manor of Leeds (1. p. 7. col. 4.) belonging to the same Bishop, two Arpents of Vineyard.

In several Charters in the “Registrum Roffensis” mention is made of the Vineyard belonging to the Monks of Rochester, wherein grew great quantities of grapes; and which is also, in much later days, said by Worlidge, to have produced excellent wines. Bishop Hamon presented some of the wine and grapes of his own growth, at Halling, near Rochester, to Edward the second, when at Bockinfold; and in some old leases of the bishoprick, mention has been found made, of considerable quantities of Blackberries being delivered to the Bishop of Rochester, by sundry of his Tenants, for the purpose of colouring the wine growing in his Vineyard. This gives us some idea of what sort the wine was, and also deserves well to be compared with that ancient usage of making wines in this country, the remembrance whereof is preserved by means of some records of the reign of Henry the third; amongst which are two precepts, the one (Claus. An. 34. Hen. III.) to the keepers of the king’s wines at York, to deliver out to one Robert (de Monte Pessulano) such wines, and as much as he pleased to make for the king’s use, against the feast of Christmas, (Claret) such drink, as he used to make in preceding years. The first record says, ad potus regis pretiosos delicatos inde faciendos. The second says, ad Claretum inde faciend.—Ad opus regis sicut annis preteritis facere consuevit. And both may be seen at length in Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting, vol. i. p. 11. Perhaps it may not be undeserving notice, that even to the beginning of the eighteenth Century, almost all red wine was, in this country, called Claret.

Honey and Mead, constituted a part of the mixture of the royal Norman Claret, and for several ages Claret was considered as belonging to the Materia Medica; and formed a part of the old English Apothecaries store of Medicines, preserved in white glazed earthern pitchers, with labelled inscriptions burnt in large blue letters in the ware; several of which are still preserved.

Several other Monasteries and Abbeys, had remarkable Vineyards, as well as Rochester; particularly that of St. Edmund’s Bury; that at Ely; that at Peterborough; and even that at Darley Abbey, in Derbyshire; And indeed most of the original Vineyards mentioned are found to have belonged to Abbeys. It is a curious circumstance, and elucidating the prices of the age, that in the time of Henry the third, a Dolium. or cask of the best wine, sold for forty shillings, and sometimes even for twenty.

For an enlarged account of Vineyards in England see Archæologia, vol. i. p. 821.; and vol. iii. p. 53. and 67.]

Walnuts.—The Romans had soft shelled, and hard shelled, as we have. In the golden age, when men lived upon acorns, the gods lived upon Walnuts, hence the name Juglans, that is Jovis glans.[1]

As a matter of curiosity, it has been deemed expedient, to add a list of the fruits cultivated in our English Gardens in the year 1573. This list is taken from Tusser’s Five hundred points of good Husbandry.

Thomas Tusser, who had received a liberal education at Eton school, and at Trinity hall, Cambridge, lived many years as a farmer in Suffolk and Norfolk. He afterwards removed to London, where he published in 1557, the first edition of his work, under the title of “One hundred points of good husbandry.”

In his fourth edition, from which this list is taken, he first introduced the subject of Gardening, and has given us not only a list of the fruits, but also of all the plants then cultivated in our gardens, either for pleasure or profit, under the following heads:—

“Seedes and herbes for the kychen, herbes and roots for sallets and sauce, herbes and rootes to boyle or to butter, strewing herbes of all sorts, herbes, branches, and flowers for windowes and pots, herbs to still in summer, necessarie herbes to grow in the gardens for physick not reherst before.”

This list consists of more than 150 species besides the following fruits:—

Apple Trees of all sorts—Apricots

Barberries—Bullass, black and white

Cherries, red and black—Chesnuts—Cornet Plums[2]

Damsons, white and black

Filberds, red and white

Gooseberries—Grapes, white and red—Green or Grass Plums.

Hurtle Berries.[3]

Medlars or Merles—Mulberries.

Peaches, white and red[4]—Pears of all sorts. Pear Plums, black and yellow.

Quince Trees.

Rasps—Raisins.[5]

Small Nuts—Strawberries, red and white—Service Trees.

Wardons, white and red—Walnuts—Wheat Plums.

PEACOCKS.

India, says Mr. Pennant, gave us Peacocks, and we are assured by Knox, in his History of Ceylon, that they are still found in the wild state, in vast flocks, in that island and in Java. So beautiful a bird could not be permitted to be a stranger in the more distant parts; for so early as the days of Solomon (1 Kings, x. 22.) we find among the articles imported in his Tarshish navies, Apes and Peacocks. A monarch so conversant in all branches of natural history, would certainly not neglect furnishing his officers with instructions for collecting every curiosity in the country to which they made voyages, which gave him a knowledge that distinguished him from all the princes of his time. Ælian relates that they were brought into Greece from some barbarous country, and that they were held in such high estimation, that a male and female were valued at Athens at 1000 drachmæ, or £32. 5s. 10d. Their next step might be to Samos; where they were preserved about the temple of Juno, being the birds sacred to that goddess; and Gellius in his Noctes Allicæ commends the excellency of the Samian Peacocks. It is therefore probable that they were brought there originally for the purposes of superstition, and afterwards cultivated for the uses of luxury. We are also told, when Alexander was in India, he found vast numbers of wild ones on the banks of the Hyarotis, and was so struck with their beauty, as to appoint a severe punishment on any person that killed them.

Peacocks’ crests, in ancient times were among the ornaments of the kings of England. Ernald de Aclent (Acland) paid a fine to king John in a hundred and forty palfries, with sackbuts, lorains, gilt spurs and peacock’s crests, such as would be for his credit.—Some of our regiments of cavalry bear on their helmets, at present, the figure of a peacock.

ANCIENT LIBRARIES.

Many events have contributed to deprive us of a great part of the literary treasures of antiquity. A very fatal blow was given to literature by the destruction of the Phœnician temples and the Egyptian colleges, when those kingdoms and the countries adjacent, were conquered by the Persians, about 350 years before Christ. The Persians had a great dislike to the religion of the Phœnicians and the Egyptians, and this was one reason for destroying their books, of which Eusebius says they had a great number.

The first celebrated library of antiquity was at Alexandria, and called from thence the Alexandrian library; it owed its foundation to Ptolemy Soter, king of Egypt, though his Son Ptolemy Philadelphus enjoys the reputation of being its founder. This was about 284 years before the Christian æra.

The palace of Ptolemy Philadelphus was the asylum of learned men whom he admired and patronized. He paid particular attention to Euclid, Theocritus, Callimachus, and Lycophron, and by increasing the library, of which his father had laid the foundation, he shewed his taste for learning and wish to encourage genius. This celebrated library at his death contained 200,000 volumes of the best and choicest books, and it was afterwards increased to 700,000 volumes. The method adopted for making this collection was the seizing of all the books that were brought by the Greeks or other foreigners into Egypt, and sending them to Ptolemy, who had them transcribed by persons employed for that purpose. The transcripts were then delivered to the proprietors, and the originals laid up in the library. Ptolemy Euergetes, for instance, borrowed of the Athenians the works of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æschylus, and only returned them the copies, which he caused to be transcribed in as beautiful a manner as possible; the originals he retained for his own library, presenting the Athenians with fifteen talents for the exchange, that is, with upwards of £3,000 sterling. As the Alexandrian academy was at first in the quarter of the city called Bruchion, the library was placed there, but when the number of books amounted to 400,000 volumes, another library within the Serapeum was erected, by way of supplement to it, and on that account called the daughter of the former. The books lodged in the Serapeum increased to the number of 300,000, and these two made up the number of 700,000 volumes, of which the royal libraries of the Ptolemys were said to consist.

In the war which Julius Cæsar waged with the inhabitants of Alexandria, the library of Bruchion was accidentally, but unfortunately, burned; but the library in the Serapeum still remained. The whole was magnificently repaired by Cleopatra, who deposited there the 200,000 volumes, forming the library of the kings of Pergamus, with which she had been presented by Antony. These, and others added to them from time to time, rendered the new library of Alexandria more numerous and considerable than the former, and though it was plundered more than once during the revolutions which happened in the Roman empire, yet it was as frequently supplied with the same number of books, and continued for many ages to be of great fame and use, until it was burnt by the Saracens, in the year 642 of the Christian æra.

There was a building adjoining to this library, called the Museum, for the accommodation of a college or society of learned men, who were supported there at the public expense, and where there were covered walks and seats where they might carry on disputations.

The next library of antiquity was that founded at Pergamus, by Eumenes, and considerably increased by the literary taste of his wealthy and learned successors, at whose court merit and virtue were always sure of finding an honorable patronage. This library which consisted of 200,000 volumes, was given by Antony to Cleopatra, as has been already mentioned.—Parchment was first invented and made use of at Pergamus to transcribe books upon, as Ptolemy had forbidden the exportation of Papyrus from Egypt, in order to prevent Eumenes from making a library as valuable and choice as that of Alexandria.

The first public library at Rome, and in the world, as Pliny observes, was erected by Asinius Pollio, in the Atrium of the Temple of Liberty on Mount Aventine. Augustus founded a Greek and Latin library in the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Hill, and another in the name of his sister Octavia, adjoining to the Theatre of Marcellus.

Among the ancient libraries that of Lucullus is mentioned by Plutarch in terms of the highest praise. The number of volumes was immense, and they were written in elegant hands. The use he made of them was still more honorable to him than the possession of so much literary treasure. The library of Lucullus was open to all; the Greeks who were at Rome repaired with pleasure to his galleries and porticos, as to the retreat of the muses, and there spent whole days in conversation upon subjects of literature, delighted to retire to such a scene from other pursuits. Lucullus himself, who was a perfect master of the Greek language often joined and conferred with these learned men in their walks.

There were several other libraries at Rome, the chief of which was the Ulpian library, instituted by Trajan, which Dioclesian annexed as an ornament to his baths. One of the most elegant was that of Serenus Samonicus, preceptor of the Emperor Gordian. It is said to have contained not less than 60,000 volumes, and that the room in which they were deposited was paved with gilded marble. The walls were ornamented with glass and ivory; and the shelves, cases, presses, and desks, made of ebony and silver. There were libraries in the capital, in the Temple of Peace, and in the house of Tiberius. Many private persons had good libraries particularly in their country villas. The Roman libraries were in general adorned with statues and pictures, particularly of ingenious and learned men.

Learning and the arts received a fatal blow by the destruction of the heathen temples, in the reign of Constantine. The devastations then committed, are depicted in the strongest and most lively colours by Mr. Gibbon, in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Many valuable libraries perished by the Barbarians of the north, who invaded Italy in the fourth and fifth centuries. By these rude hands perished the library of Perseus, king of Macedon, which Paulus Æmilius brought to Rome with its captive owner; as did also that noble library, just mentioned, established for the use of the public by Asinius Pollio, which was collected from the spoils of all the enemies he had subdued, and was much enriched by him at a great expense. The libraries of Cicero and Lucullus met with the same fate, and those of Julius Cæsar, of Augustus, Vespasian, and Trajan also perished, together with that of the Emperor Gordian.

KING CHARLES THE FIRST.

The Journey of Prince Charles (afterwards Charles the First) and the Duke of Buckingham to Spain, was considered at the time to be such a piece of knight-errantry as scarcely any age could parallel. Spanheim in his history of Louisa-Juliana, Electress Palatine, mother of the king of Bohemia, says “that never Prince was more obliged to a sister, than king Charles I. was to the queen of Bohemia; since it was only the consideration of her and her children, who were then the next heirs after him to the Crown of England, that prevailed with the Court of Spain to permit him ever to see England again.”

Charles the First, though of abstemious habits kept a splendid and hospitable table, at the beginning of his reign. Of this trait in his character, hitherto unnoticed, the following account affords a sufficient proof.

There were daily in his court eighty six tables, well furnished each meal, whereof the king’s table had twenty-eight dishes; the queen’s twenty-four; four other tables sixteen dishes each; three other ten dishes each; twelve other had seven dishes each; seventeen other tables had each of them five dishes; three other had four each; thirty-two other tables had each three dishes; and thirteen other had each two dishes; in all about five hundred dishes each meal, with bread, beer, wine, and all other things necessary. All which was provided, mostly by the several purveyors, who, by commission, legally and regularly authorized, did receive those provisions at a moderate price, such as had been formerly agreed upon in the several counties of England, which price, (by reason of the value of money much altered) was become low, yet a very inconsiderable burthen to the kingdom in general, but thereby was greatly supported the royal dignity in the eyes of strangers as well as subjects.

The English nobility and gentry, according to the king’s example, were excited to keep a proportionable hospitality in their several country mansions, the husbandmen encouraged to breed cattle, all tradesmen to a cheerful industry; and there was then a free circulation of money throughout the whole body of the kingdom. There was spent yearly in the king’s house of gross meat fifteen hundred oxen, seven thousand sheep, twelve hundred veals, three hundred porkers, four hundred storks or young beefs, six thousand eight hundred lambs, three hundred flitches of bacon, and twenty-six hams; also one hundred and forty dozen of geese, two hundred and fifty dozen of capons, four hundred and seventy dozen of hens, seven hundred and fifty dozen of pullets, one thousand four hundred and seventy dozen of chickens; for bread three thousand six hundred bushels of wheat: and for drink six hundred tuns of wine, and one thousand seven hundred tuns of beer; moreover of butter forty six thousand six hundred and forty pounds, together with fish and fowl, venison, fruit and spice proportionably.

THE FAIR GERALDINE AND THE EARL OF SURREY.

The “Fair Geraldine” the general object of Lord Surrey’s empassioned sonnets, is commonly said to have lived at Florence, and to have been of the family of the Geraldi, of that city. This is however, a misapprehension of an expression in one of our poet’s Odes, and of a passage in Drayton’s Heroic Epistles. This lady was Elizabeth, third daughter of Gerald Fitzgerald, ninth Earl of Kildare. She appears to have received her education at Hunsdon House, with the Princesses Mary and Elizabeth. It was here she was first seen by the Earl of Surrey, and she immediately became the object of his fervent but fruitless devotion. She was married first to Sir Anthony Browne, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and secondly to Edward Clinton, Earl of Lincoln, surviving by many years her noble and unfortunate admirer. There is a Portrait of the “Fair Geraldine” in the Woburn collection.

It is not precisely known at what period the Earl of Surrey began his travels. They have the air of a romance. He made the tour of Europe in the true spirit of chivalry, and with the ideas of an Amadis; he proclaimed the unparalleled charms of his Mistress, and prepared to defend the cause of her beauty with the weapons of Knight-errantry; nor was this adventurous journey performed without the intervention of an enchanter. The first city in Italy which he proposed to visit was Florence, the capital of Tuscany, and the original seat of the ancestors of his Geraldine.

In his way thither he passed a few days at the Emperor’s court; where he became acquainted with Cornelius Agrippa, a celebrated adept in natural magic. This visionary Philosopher shewed our hero in a mirror of glass, a representation of Geraldine, reclining on a couch, sick, and reading one of his most tender sonnets by a waxen taper. His imagination, which wanted not the flattering representations and artificial incentives of illusion, was heated anew by this interesting and affecting spectacle. Inflamed with every enthusiasm of the most romantic passion, he hastened to Florence; and on his arrival, immediately published a defiance against any person who could handle a lance and was in love, whether Christian, Jew, Turk, Saracen, or Cannibal, who should presume to dispute the superiority of Geraldine’s beauty. As the lady was pretended to be of Tuscan extraction, the pride of the Florentines was flattered on this occasion; and the Grand Duke of Tuscany permitted a general and unmolested ingress into his dominions of the combatants of all countries, until this important trial should be decided. The challenge was accepted, and the Earl proved victorious. The shield which was presented to him by the Duke of Tuscany before the tournament began, is exhibited in Vertue’s valuable print of the Arundel family, and was actually in the possession of one of the late Dukes of Norfolk.

These heroic vanities did not, however, so totally engross the time which the Earl of Surrey spent in Italy, as to alienate his mind from letters; he studied with the greatest success a critical knowledge of the Italian tongue; and that he might give new lustre to the name of Geraldine, attained a just taste for the peculiar graces of the Italian poetry.

He was recalled to England for some idle reason by the king, much sooner than he expected; and he returned home the most elegant traveller, the most polite lover, the most learned nobleman, and the most accomplished gentleman of his age. Dexterity in tilting and gracefulness in managing a horse under arms, were excellencies now viewed with a critical eye, and practised with a high degree of emulation. In 1540 at a tournament held in the presence of the Court at Westminster, and in which some of the principal nobility were engaged, Surrey was distinguished above the rest for his address in the use and exercise of arms.

But all these accomplishments, and the popularity that attended them, laid the foundation of a fatal death for this illustrious nobleman. They excited the jealousy of his capricious monarch Henry VIII. Lord Orford says “The unwieldy king growing distempered and froward, and apprehensive for the tranquillity of his boy-successor, easily conceived or admitted jealousies infused into him by the Earl of Hertford and the Protestant party, though one of the last acts of his fickle life was to found a convent.” Treason was therefore objected to the Earl of Surrey upon the most frivolous pretences; of which the principal was, his quartering the arms of Edward the Confessor with those of Howard, though even this insignificant fact had been justified by the practice of his family, and the sanction of the heralds. He was arraigned in the Guildhall, London, found guilty by a jury, and judgment of death being given, he was beheaded on Tower Hill, in January, 1547.

The Earl of Surrey was professedly a man of gallantry and pleasure, possessing a highly cultivated mind, and excelling in all the polite and elegant accomplishments of the age in which he lived. The flattery which has been bestowed upon his character by Poets, Heralds, and Genealogists, has not ceased to flow from his death to the present hour. A recent genealogical writer has been superlatively lavish of his panegyrics upon the excellencies and even upon the morals of the gallant Earl. There is, however, one extraordinary circumstance in the life of this nobleman which has been entirely overlooked by all his encomiasts. This is, that while his father urged him to connect himself in marriage with one lady; while the king was jealous of his designs upon a second; and while he himself as may be collected from his poem “To a Lady who refused to dance with him,” made proposals of marriage to a third, he was during all this time married to the lady Frances,[6] daughter of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, by whom he had five children, namely, two sons and three daughters. The sons were Thomas, afterwards fourth Duke of Norfolk, and Henry, created Earl of Northampton, by king James the First. To this lady the Earl of Surrey was united at the age of fifteen, and several years after his premature death, we find her bearing the title of Countess of Surrey, and possessing the guardianship of his children, therefore it is apparent they were never divorced. Can it be supposed that the example of a lustful king had instructed his courtiers, among their other accomplishments, to find pretexts for the dissolution of the marriage tie, whenever interest or their guilty passions prompted them to such baseness? Yet this is the man whose moral, as well as poetical and literary character, we are told “it is delightful to contemplate.”

The Earl of Surrey had one sister, Mary, who was married to Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, natural son of Henry VIII. who died in 1536 at the age of seventeen without issue. There is a most beautiful portrait of this lady in Chamberlaine’s collection of the Holbein Heads. Mr. Lodge exclaims pathetically “Would that her story had died with her; and that we might have been at liberty to fancy the character of so fair a creature as fair as her countenance. But the truth must be told. At the iniquitous trial of her brother in 1547, this lady was called on as a witness and brought forward a body of evidence against him so keenly pointed, and so full of secrets, which from their nature must have been voluntarily disclosed by her, that we cannot but suspect her conduct of a degree of rancour, unpardonable in any case, but in this unnatural.”

JEWS IN ENGLAND.

William the Conqueror permitted great numbers of Jews to come over from Rouen, and to settle in England in the last year of his reign. Their number soon increased, and they spread themselves throughout most of the cities and capital towns in England where they built synagogues. There were fifteen hundred at York about the year 1189. At Bury, in Suffolk, is a very complete remain of a Jewish synagogue of stone in the Norman style, large and magnificent. Hence it was that many of the learned English Ecclesiastics of those times became acquainted with their books and language. In the reign of William Rufus, the Jews were remarkably numerous at Oxford, and had acquired considerable property; and some of their Rabbis were permitted to open a school in the university, where they instructed not only their own people, but many Christian students, in Hebrew literature, about the year 1094. Within 200 years after their admission or establishment by the Conqueror, they were banished the kingdom. This circumstance was highly favourable to the circulation of their learning in England. The suddenness of their dismission obliged them for present subsistence, and other reasons, to sell their moveable goods of all kinds, among which were large quantities of of Rabbinical books. The monks in various parts availed themselves of the distribution of these treasures. At Huntingdon and Stamford there was a prodigious sale of their effects, containing immense stores of Hebrew manuscripts, which were immediately purchased by Gregory of Huntingdon, prior of the abbey of Ramsey. Gregory speedily became an adept in the Hebrew, by means of these valuable acquisitions, which he bequeathed to his monastery about the year 1250. Other members of the same convent, in consequence of these advantages, are said to have been equal proficients in the same language, soon after the death of Prior Gregory, among whom were Robert Dodford, Librarian of Ramsey, and Laurence Holbech, who compiled a Hebrew Lexicon. At Oxford a great number of their books fell into the hands of Roger Bacon, or were bought by his brethren the Franciscan friars of that university.

THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

The first translation of any part of the Holy Scriptures into English that was committed to the press, was The New Testament, translated from the Greek, by William Tyndale, with the assistance of John Foye and William Roye, and printed first in 1526, in octavo.

Tyndale published afterwards, in 1530, a translation of the Five Books of Moses, and of Jonah, in 1531, in octavo. An English translation of the Psalter, done from the Latin of Martin Bucer, was also published at Strasburgh in 1530, by Francis Foye, octavo. And the same book together with Jeremiah, and the Song of Moses, were likewise published in 1534, in duodecimo, by George Joye, sometime fellow of Peter-House in Cambridge.

The first time the whole Bible appeared in English, was in the year 1535 in folio. The translator and publisher was Miles Coverdale, afterwards Bishop of Exeter, who revised Tyndale’s version, compared it with the original, and supplied what had been left untranslated by Tyndale. It was printed at Zurich, and dedicated to King Henry the Eighth. This was the Bible, which by Cromwell’s injunction of September, 1536, was ordered to be laid in Churches.

LUXURY OF ANCIENT ROME.

The most remote countries of the ancient world were ransacked to supply the pomp and delicacy of Rome. The forests of Scythia afforded some valuable furs. Amber was brought overland from the shores of the Baltic to the Danube; and the Barbarians were astonished at the price which they received in exchange for so useless a commodity. Pliny has observed with some humour that even fashion had not found out the use of amber. Nero sent a Roman knight to purchase great quantities on the spot where it was produced. There was a considerable demand for Babylonian carpets and other manufactures of the East; but the most important and unpopular branch of foreign trade was carried on with Arabia and India. Every year about the time of the summer solstice, a fleet of a hundred and twenty vessels sailed from Myoshormos, a port of Egypt on the Red Sea. By the periodical assistance of the monsoons, they traversed the ocean in about forty days. The coast of Malabar, or the island of Ceylon, was the usual limit of their navigation, and it was in those markets that the merchants from the more remote countries of Asia expected their arrival. The return of the fleet of Egypt was fixed to the months of December or January; and as soon as their rich cargo had been transported on the backs of camels, from the Red Sea to the Nile, and had descended that river as far as Alexandria, it was poured without delay, into the capital of the empire. The objects of oriental traffic were splendid and trifling; silk, a pound of which was esteemed not inferior in value to a pound of gold; precious stones, among which the pearl claimed the first rank after the diamond: and a variety of aromatics, that were consumed in religious worship and the pomp of funerals. The labour and risk of the voyage was rewarded with almost incredible profit; but the profit was made upon Roman subjects, and a few individuals were enriched at the expense of the public. As the natives of Arabia and India were contented with the productions and manufactures of their own country, silver, on the side of the Romans, was the principal, if not the only instrument of commerce. It was a complaint worthy of the gravity of the senate, that in the pursuit of female ornaments, the wealth of the state was irrecoverably given away to foreign and hostile nations. The annual loss is computed by a writer of an inquisitive, but censorious temper, at upwards of eight hundred thousand pounds sterling.[7]

RHYME.

Every language has powers, and graces, and music peculiar to itself; and what is becoming in one, would be ridiculous in another. Rhyme was barbarous in Latin and Greek verse, because these languages by the sonorousness of their words, by their liberty of transposition and inversion, by their fixed quantities and musical pronunciation, could carry on the melody of verse without its aid; and an attempt to construct English verses after the form of hexameters, and pentameters, and sapphics, is as barbarous among us. It is not true that rhyme is merely a monkish invention. On the contrary, it has obtained under different forms in the versification of most known nations. It is found in the ancient poetry of the northern nations of Europe; it is said to be found among the Arabs, the Persians, the Indians, and the Americans. This shews that there is something in the return of similar sounds, which is grateful to the ears of most part of mankind.

The present form of our English heroic rhyme in couplets, is a modern species of versification. The measure generally used in the days of queen Elizabeth, king James, and king Charles I. was the stanza of eight lines, such as Spenser employs, borrowed from the Italian, a measure very constrained and artificial. Waller was the first who brought couplets into vogue;[8] and Dryden afterwards established the usage. Waller first smoothed our verse; Dryden perfected it. Pope’s versification has a peculiar character. It is flowing and smooth in the highest degree; far more laboured and correct than that of any who went before him. He introduced one considerable change into heroic verse, by almost throwing aside the triplets, or three lines rhyming together, in which Dryden abounded. Dryden’s versification, however, has very great merit; and like all his productions, has much spirit, mixed with carelessness. If not so smooth and correct as Pope’s, it is however more varied and easy. He subjects himself less to the rule of closing the sense with the couplet; and frequently takes the liberty of making his couplets run into one another, with somewhat of the freedom of blank verse.

M. COQUEBERT DE MONTBRET.

This gentleman was one of the commercial commissioners from France to England during the short peace which took place after the treaty of Amiens. In March, 1803, I was in company with M. de Montbret, who expressed his dissatisfaction in very angry terms, because he was not able to procure specimens of the different clays made use of by Mr. Wedgwood in his manufacture of earthen ware in Staffordshire. He urged with much vehemence the politeness and attention that were shewn to Mr. Thomas Wedgwood in France the preceding summer, when on a visit to that country, and who it appeared had made something like a promise that he would send to France specimens of the various clays made use of in the potteries. In answer to Monsieur de Montbret it was observed, that Mr. Thomas Wedgwood had no concern whatever in the potteries, and that his brother, Mr. Josiah Wedgwood, who was the proprietor, would never give his consent that specimens of the clays should be sent to France, but on the contrary always strongly resisted every application for that purpose. M. de Montbret replied, that as clay was a natural production, if there was not that particular sort in France, it would be impossible to form it by any artificial means—besides, he only wished to have those things as specimens of English earths, merely with a view of forming a collection of the earths and minerals of this country.

Dr. THOMAS PIERCE.

Dr. Pierce, Dean of Sarum, a perpetual controversialist, and to whom it was dangerous to refuse a request, lest it might raise a controversy, asked Dr. Ward, bishop of Salisbury, for a Prebend for his son. He was refused; and studying revenge, he opened a controversy with the bishop, maintaining that the king had the right of bestowing every dignity in all the Cathedral Churches of the kingdom, and not the bishops. This required a reply from the bishop, who had formerly been an active controversialist himself. Dean Pierce renewed his attack with a folio volume, entitled “A vindication of the king’s sovereign right, &c.” Thus it proceeded, and the web thickened round the bishop in replies and rejoinders. It cost him many tedious journeys to London, through bad roads, fretting at “the king’s sovereign right” all the way; and in the words of a witness, “in unseasonable times and weather, that by degrees his spirits were exhausted, his memory quite gone, and he was totally unfitted for business.” Such was the fatal disturbance occasioned by Dean Pierce’s folio of “The king’s sovereign right.”

WRITING AMONG THE GREEKS.

As a proof of the simplicity of the times described by Homer, it is a great doubt if his kings and heroes could write or read; at least when the Grecian leaders cast lots who should engage Hector in single combat, in the seventh Iliad, they only made their marks, for when the lot signed by Ajax fell out of the helmet, and was carried round by the herald, none of the chiefs knew to whom it belonged till it was brought to Ajax himself.

The learned Mr. Wood in his Essay on the original genius and writings of Homer, after observing that neither in the Iliad nor Odyssey is there any thing that conveys the idea of letters or reading, nor any allusion to literal writing, adds, “As to symbolical, hieroglyphical, or picture-like description, something of that kind was, no doubt, known to Homer, of which the letter (as it is called) which Bellerophon carried to the king of Lycia is a proof.” This letter was sent from Prœtus; (Iliad, vi. line, 168, &c.)

“To Lycia the devoted youth he sent,

With marks, expressive of his dire intent

Grav’d on a tablet, that the Prince should die.”

The probability that Homer lived much nearer the times he described than is usually supposed, has been shewn by Mr. Mitford (Hist. of Greece, Appx. to ch. 4.) with all the clearness of which so distant an event is capable.

To this account of the ignorance of the Greeks in literal writing may be added that the Mexicans, though a civilized people, had no alphabet; the art of writing was no farther advanced among them than the using of figures composed of painted feathers, by which they made a shift to communicate some simple thoughts; and in that manner was the Emperor Montezuma informed of the landing of the Spaniards in his territories.

ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTORIA, OR WRITING ROOMS IN THE MONASTERIES OF ENGLAND.

It would be in vain to attempt to trace the state of learning among the Anglo-Saxons before their conversion to Christianity, sometime after which event, schools and seminaries of learning were established in the kingdom of Kent, and soon after the year 635, in that of the East Angles. Previously to this period of our history, the two principal scholars of the Britons were Gildas and Nennius, the first of whom flourished towards the latter end of the sixth century, and the latter in the beginning of the seventh. To Gildas we owe the first lights which are cast upon the troublesome times of the Britons, and of the miseries those wretched people suffered by the invasion and conquests of the Saxons. He has left a short history of Britain and an epistle, in which he heavily accuses the British princes and clergy who were contemporary with him.[9]

To Nennius we owe also a short history of the Britons, and their wars with the Saxons, but the whole is so concise, and so many miracles are crowded into it, that it is no easy matter to separate truth from fiction.

Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, who came into Britain at the latter end of the seventh century, contributed greatly to the improvement of learning. About the same time flourished Aldhelm, a near relation of Ina, king of the West Saxons; he was Abbot of Malmesbury, which monastery himself had founded, and he was afterwards Bishop of Sherborne, where he died in the year 709. Besides other works he left a book on the prosody of the Latin tongue in which he was very expert, being the first Anglo-Saxon that ever wrote in that language both in prose and verse.

On the establishment of Monasteries and Religious Houses in this kingdom, there was a room called the Scriptorium, allotted in all the greater Abbeys, or else some portion of the cloister was appropriately fitted up for the same purpose, where their music and missals, the works of the fathers and other religious books, the latin classics, and such literary works as the monks could obtain, were copied. In the old library in Worcester Cathedral, and in the remaining libraries of some other Cathedral churches, may still be seen the manner of writing music, before the invention of the present notes, and some of the old copies of books.

By means of these Scriptoria, or writing rooms, the monks compiled and preserved, the first annals of Saxon History; without which, however strange the composition of some of them may appear at this time, this would now have been a land of darkness, as to any account of what passed therein, during former ages.

The custom of making this one good use of monasteries and of christian societies, was derived from very early days. About the year 220, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, built a library there, for preserving the epistles of learned ecclesiastical persons, written one to another; and their commentaries on the holy scriptures. And in what manner Origen was aided to write his admirable works, we learn from Eusebius, who tells us that he had more than seven notaries appointed for him, who, every one in his turn, wrote that which he uttered; and as many more scriveners, together with maidens, well exercised and practised in penmanship, who were to write copies. (Eccl. Hist. of Eusebius Pamphilus, lib. 6. cap. 20 and 21.)

The preservation and progress of science by means of monasteries, is a very curious fact, and the precious estimation in which books were held, when few could read them, is still more so. Some few learned men existed in different parts of Europe throughout those times of darkness and ignorance. Our countryman the Venerable Bede was well versed both in sacred and profane history, as his numerous works testify.

St. Egbert, Archbishop of York, was a disciple of Venerable Bede; he was a man of great learning, and founded a noble library at York about 735, which was casually burnt in the reign of king Stephen, with the cathedral, the monastery of St. Mary, and several other religious houses.

Alcuin, called also Albinus Flaccus, was born in Northumberland; he was the disciple of Archbishop Egbert, whom he succeeded in the charge of the famous school, which that prelate had opened at York. Alcuin was in all respects the most learned man of the age in which he lived; he was an orator, historian, poet, mathematician, and divine. The fame of his learning induced Charlemagne to invite him to his court; and by his assistance that Emperor, founded, enriched, and instructed, the universities of Tours and Paris. In 794 Alcuin was one of the fathers of the synod of Frankfort, and died at his abbey at Tours, in 804. In his epistle to Charlemagne he mentions with great respect his master Egbert, and the noble library which he had founded at York. Towards the latter end of the same century flourished our great king Alfred, who engaged the learned Grimbald, and other foreigners of distinguished abilities in his service.

Eadfrid, who was bishop of Lindisfarne in the year 698, was one of the most learned men of his time. He translated the gospels into latin, which work after his death was highly decorated by his successor with gold and jewels. Bilfrid, a hermit, illuminated it with various paintings and rich devices; and Adred a priest, interlined it with a Saxon version. Before each gospel is prefixed a painting of the evangelist who wrote it, and the opposite page is full of beautiful ornaments, enriched with various colours; then follows the commencement of the gospel, the first page of which is most elaborately ornamented with letters of a peculiar form, and very large, which displays at once the zeal of the writer, and the taste of the age in which the book was written.[10] This curious work is now among the Cottonian manuscripts in the British Museum. It was lost in the sea during the removal of the body of St. Cuthbert in those troublesome times, about the year 876, when the Danes were laying waste the whole country, but it was afterwards found washed up on the shore without suffering any injury. (Hutchinson’s History of Durham, 1. p. 57.) It was under the patronage of the same learned prelate Eadfrid, that the Venerable Bede[11] wrote the life of St. Cuthbert.

The books which Fergus the second, king of Scotland, who assisted Alaric the Goth, had brought with him as a part of the plunder from Rome, had been deposited in the monastery in the island of Iona. From thence they were, by degrees, copied for the use of other monasteries; and besides these, other books were obtained afterwards by means of various journeys to Rome. Benedict Biscop, the founder of the monastery of Weremouth, and the friend of Archbishop Wilfrid, made no fewer than five journeys to Rome to purchase copies of books. These books became deposited in various monasteries. Some such were at Canterbury, where also were books that had been brought from Rome, both by Augustine and Theodore. And the letter of Aldhelm, the very person who founded the monastery of Malmesbury, containing an account of his studies, and progress at Canterbury by the help of such books, is one of the most curious fragments of antiquity. (Angl. Sacra. tom. 2. p. 6.)

The price of these books was at various times enormous. Aldfred, king of Northumberland, gave eight hides of land, that is, as much as eight ploughs could till, for one volume of cosmography; and on this occasion it perhaps ought not to be forgotten, that there is still preserved in the library of Hereford cathedral, an ancient map on parchment, for the illustration of cosmography as known at the period of its being drawn. In the reign of William the Conqueror books were extremely scarce. Grace, Countess of Anjou, paid for a collection of homilies, two hundred sheep, a quarter of wheat, another of rye, and a third of millet, besides a number of martin skins. (Kaimes’s Sketches, 1. 136.)

In these conventual Scriptoria were copied the writings of the fathers and the abstruse works of the first schoolmen; here also were copied little works of genius, sometimes the effusion of fancy and imagination. The fables of Æsop were so much in repute, that we are told king Alfred himself made a translation of them from the Greek. The fanciful devices on the friezes and mouldings of some of our ecclesiastical structures, which have an allusion to Æsop’s Fables, had their first origin amongst pious and ingenious persons, in the peaceful retirement of their conventual retreats. This remark is much confirmed by a curious observation which has been lately made, that even many of the fables themselves that now pass for Æsop’s, seem to have had their real invention and origin in the abodes of the religious. In a very curious memoir concerning the works of Mary, an Anglo-Norman poetess, born in France, who wrote in the French language in the reign of king Henry the third of England, and who among other things translated the fables of Æsop, it is made to appear that there were indeed but few of Æsop’s original fables in her collection, and even those she had borrowed entirely from England, and the greater part, from several allusions in them, evidently shew, that they must have been composed in monasteries, before her time. (See Hume’s Hist. of Eng. vol. 1. 4to. p. 68.—King’s Munimenta Ant. vol. 4. p. 113.—and Archæologia, vol. 13. p. 36-67.)

It is an interesting circumstance, deserving to be mentioned on this occasion, that before the time of Venerable Bede, there lived an Anglo-Saxon poet, of the name of Cædman, or Kedman, of the wondrous powers of whose mind Bede speaks in the highest terms, (Bede’s Eccles. Hist. book 4. ch. 24.) and says he sung of the creation of the world, of the origin of mankind, and of the whole history of the book of Genesis. He died about the year 680, and therefore must have been contemporary with Etheldreda, who founded the monastery of Ely. And it is a very curious fact, little known, that Lye, the author of the Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, translated this poem, and that therein it was found had been introduced, almost exactly, the same idea of the fallen angels, and even the peculiarity of the nine days falling, and of Satan’s assembling his Thanes, on their rousing themselves, which was afterwards introduced by Milton into his Paradise Lost. This account, Mr. King says, he received from Dr. Percy, bishop of Dromore, who had several manuscripts of Lye’s bequeathed to him; and who was well qualified to investigate such curious matters of ancient literature.

It should not be forgotten with regard to manuscripts, the productions of these industrious penmen in their Scriptoria, that king Alfred is said by the Saxon writers, to have first received his eagerness for erudition, in an age when he himself complained of the general ignorance even of the clergy, from his mother’s shewing him a book of Saxon poems, beautifully written, and illuminated, and promising to give it to which ever of her sons should soonest learn to read it.

Until the eleventh century, musical notes were expressed only by letters of the alphabet; and till the fourteenth century they were expressed only by large lozenge-shaped black dots or points, placed on different lines, one above another, and then first named ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la, to which si was afterwards added; and they were all expressed without any distinction as to length of time; and without any such things as breves, semi-breves, minims, crotchets, or quavers, &c. The old psalters in many cathedral churches are found thus written; and in consequence of this it was, that the Scriptoria in some other places, as well as at Gloucester, are found so contrived, as to have long ranges of seats, or benches, one beyond another, for the copyists; so that a master or person standing at one end, and naming each note, it might quickly be copied out by all, naming it in succession from one end to the other. Hence the psalters were more easily copied than any other books, and it is not a little remarkable that in the library at Worcester, there is a copy of St. Matthew’s gospel, set to music throughout, with these sort of notes.

In foreign monasteries, the boys and novices were chiefly occupied in these labours, but the missals and bibles were ordered to be written by monks of mature age and discretion. The Scriptorium of St. Albans’s abbey was built by Abbot Paulin, a Norman, who ordered many volumes to be written there, about the year 1080. Archbishop Lanfranc furnished the copies. Estates were often granted for the support of the Scriptorium; that at St. Edmundsbury was endowed with two mills, and in the year 1171, the tithes of a rectory were appropriated to the cathedral convent of St. Swithin at Winchester, ad Libros transcribendos. Many instances of this species of benefaction occur from the tenth century. Nigel, in the year 1160, gave the monks of Ely two churches, ad libros faciendos.

This employment of copying manuscripts appears to have been diligently practised at Croyland; for Ingulphus relates, that when the library of that convent was burned in the year 1091, seven hundred volumes were consumed. Fifty-eight volumes were transcribed at Glastonbury, during the government of one abbot, about the year 1300. And in the library of this monastery, the richest in England, there were upwards of four hundred volumes in the year 1248. More than eighty books were thus transcribed for St. Alban’s abbey, by Abbot Whethamstede, who died about 1400. At the foundation of Winchester college, by William of Wykeham, about 1393, one or more transcribers were hired and employed by the founder to make books for the library. They transcribed and took their commons within the college, as appears by computations of expenses on their account now remaining.

In the monastery of Ely, the Precentor, or Chantor, was the chief librarian, and had within his Office, the Scriptorium, where writers were employed in transcribing books for the library, and missals and other books used in divine service. This officer furnished the vellum, parchment, paper, ink, colours, gums, and other necessaries for limners, used in illuminating their books; and leather, and other implements for binding, and keeping them in repair.

Some of the Roman classics were copied in the English monasteries at a very early period. Henry, a Benedictine monk of Hyde abbey, near Winchester, transcribed in the year 1178, Terence, Boethius, Suetonius, and Claudian. Of these he formed one volume, illuminating the initials, and forming the brazen bosses of the covers with his own hands; but this abbot had more devotion than taste, for he exchanged this manuscript a few years afterwards for four missals, the legend of St. Christopher, and St. Gregory’s Pastoral Care, with the Prior of the neighbouring cathedral convent. Benedict, abbot of Peterborough, author of the latin chronicle of king Henry the second, amongst a great variety of scholastic and theological treatises, transcribed Seneca’s epistles and tragedies, Terence, Martial, and Claudian, to which may be added Gesta Alexandri, about the year 1180.

In a catalogue of the books of the library of Glastonbury, we find Livy, Sallust, Seneca, Tully de Senectute and Amicitia, Virgil, Persius, and Claudian, in the year 1248. Among the royal manuscripts of the British Museum, is one of the twelve books of Statius’s Thebaid, supposed to have been written in the tenth century, which once belonged to the cathedral convent of Rochester. And another of Virgil’s Æneid, written in the thirteenth, which came from the library of St. Austin’s, Canterbury. Wallingford, abbot of St. Alban’s, gave or sold from the library of that monastery to Richard de Bury, bishop of Durham, author of the “Philobiblion,” and a great collector of books, Terence, Virgil, Quintilian, and Jerome against Rufinus, together with thirty-two other volumes, valued at fifty pounds of silver. The scarcity of parchment undoubtedly prevented the transcription of many other books in these societies. About the year 1120, one Master Hugh, being appointed by the convent of St. Edmundsbury in Suffolk, to write and illuminate a grand copy of the bible for their library, could procure no parchment for this purpose in England. It is to this scarcity of parchment that we owe the loss and destruction of many valuable manuscripts of the ancients, which otherwise might have been preserved to us. The venerable fathers who employed themselves in erasing the writing of some of the best works of the most eminent Greek or Latin authors for the purpose of transcribing upon the obliterated parchment or vellum the lives of saints, or legendary tales, possibly mistook these lamentable depredations for works of piety. The ancient fragment of the 91st book of Livy, discovered by Mr. Burns in the Vatican, in 1772, was found to be much defaced in this respect by the pious labours of some well-intentioned monk.

The monks of Durham having begun to build a college for their novices at Oxford, about the year 1290, Richard de Bury, bishop of Durham, not only assisted, but also partly endowed it. At his decease, in 1345, he left to this college, then called Durham, and since Trinity, college, all his books, which were more in number than all the bishops in England then possessed, in order that the students of that college, and of the University, might, under certain conditions make use of them. After the college came into possession of these books, they were, for many years, kept in chests, under the custody of several scholars deputed for that purpose, and a library being built in the reign of king Henry the fourth, these books were put into pews or studies, and chained to them. They continued in this manner till the college was dissolved by king Henry the eighth, when they were conveyed away, some to Duke Humphrey’s library, where they remained till the reign of king Edward the sixth, and others to the library of Baliol college. Some which remained came into the hands of Dr. George Owen, a physician of Godstow, who purchased Trinity college of Edward the sixth.

The bishop of Durham wrote a treatise containing rules for the management of the library above-mentioned, describing how the books were to be preserved, and upon what conditions they were to be lent out to scholars, and appointed five keepers, to whom he granted yearly salaries. This treatise he called “Philobiblion,” from whence he himself came to be called by the same name, “a lover of books,” and this very justly, if, as he says himself in the preface to it, his love of them was so violent that it put him into a kind of rapture, and made him neglect all his other affairs. He finished it at Auckland, the 24th of January, 1345, being then just 63 years of age. It was printed at Spires in 1483; at Paris, by Badius Ascensius, in 1500; by the learned Thomas James, at Oxford, in 1599, in quarto; and at Leipsic, in 1674, at the end of Philologicarum Epistolarum Centuria una, ex Bibliotheca Melch. Hamingfeldii. It appears also in manuscript in the Cottonian library, in the royal library, and in other libraries in Oxford and Cambridge.

The “Philobiblion,” is written in very indifferent Latin, and in a declamatory style. It is divided into twenty chapters. In chapter 1. the author praises wisdom, and books in which it is contained. 2. That books are to be preferred to riches and pleasure. 3. That they ought to be always bought. 4. How much good arises from books, and that they are misused only by ignorant people. 5. That good monks write books, but the bad ones are otherwise employed. 6. The praise of the ancient begging friars, with a reproof of the modern ones. 7. He bewails the loss of books by fire and wars. 8. He shews what fine opportunities he had had of collecting books, whilst he was chancellor and treasurer, as well as during his embassies. 9. That the ancients outdid the moderns in hard studying. 10. That learning is by degrees arrived at perfection, and that he had procured a Greek and Hebrew grammar. 11. That the law and law books are not properly learning. 12. The usefulness and necessity of grammar. 13. An apology for poetry, and the usefulness of it. 14. Who ought to love books. 15. The manifold advantages of learning. 16. Of writing new books and mending the old. 17. Of using books well, and how to place them. 18. An answer to his calumniators. 19. Upon what conditions books are to be lent to strangers. 20. Conclusion.

In the “Philobiblion” the bishop apologizes for admitting the poets into his collection; quare non negleximus Fabulas Poetarum. But he is more complaisant to the prejudices of his age, where he says, that the laity are unworthy to be admitted to any commerce with books: Laici omnium librorum communione sunt indigni. He prefers books of the liberal arts to treatises of the law. He laments that good literature had entirely ceased in the university of Paris. He admits Panfletos exiguos into his library. He employed Stationarios and Librarios, not only in England, but in France, Italy, and Germany. He regrets the total ignorance of the greek language; but adds that he has provided for the students of his library both Greek and Hebrew grammars. He calls Paris the “paradise of the world,” and says that he purchased there a variety of invaluable volumes in all sciences, which yet were neglected and perishing. While he was Chancellor and Treasurer of England, instead of the usual presents and new year’s gifts appendant to his office, he chose to receive those perquisites in books. By the favour of king Edward the third, he gained access to the libraries of the principal monasteries, where he shook off the dust from various volumes preserved in chests and presses, which had not been opened for many ages.

There were several collections of manuscripts in England before the general restoration of science in Europe, which had at different times been brought hither by those who had travelled into foreign countries; these were chiefly preserved in the two Universities, in the cathedral churches, and in religious houses, but in the fifteenth and sixteenth century several valuable libraries were formed in England.

In the reign of king Henry the sixth, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, fourth and youngest son of king Henry the fourth, was a singular promoter of literature, just at the dawning of science and learning. However unqualified this eminent personage was for political intrigue, and to contend with his malicious and powerful enemies, among whom the Cardinal Beaufort was the principal, he was nevertheless the common friend and patron of all the scholars of his time. A sketch of his character and pursuits, as being closely connected with the progress of English literature, cannot fail of proving interesting, more especially as they are peculiarly associated with the subject of the present inquiry.

About the year 1440, the Duke gave to the University of Oxford a library, containing six hundred volumes, one hundred and twenty only of which were valued at more than one thousand pounds of the money of that day. These books, it need not be observed, were all in manuscript, the art of printing not having then been discovered; they are called Novi Tractatus, or New Treatises, in the University Register, and are said to be admirandi apparatus. They were the most splendid and costly copies that could be procured, finely written on vellum, and elegantly embellished with miniatures and illuminations. Among the rest was a translation into French of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Only a single specimen of these valuable volumes was suffered to remain; it is a beautiful manuscript, in folio, of Valerius Maximus, enriched with the most elegant decorations, and written in Duke Humphrey’s age, evidently with a design of being placed in this sumptuous collection. All the rest of the books, which, like this, being highly ornamented, looked like missals, were destroyed or removed by the pious visitors of the University, in the reign of king Edward the sixth, whose zeal was equalled only by their ignorance, or perhaps by their avarice. A great number of classics, in this grand work of reformation, were condemned as anti-christian, and some of the books, in this library, had even been before this, either stolen or mutilated. In the library of Oriel College, at Oxford, we find a manuscript Commentary on Genesis, written by John Capgrave, a monk, belonging to the monastery of St. Austin, at Canterbury, a learned theologist of the fifteenth century. In it is the author’s autograph, and the work is dedicated to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. In the superb initial letter of the dedicatory epistle, is a curious illumination of the author Capgrave, humbly presenting his book to his patron, the Duke, who is seated, and covered with a sort of hat. At the end of the volume is this entry, in the hand-writing of Duke Humphrey “C’est Livre est a moy Humfrey, Duc de Gloucestre, du don de Frere Jehan Capgrave, quy le me fist presenter a mon manoyr de Pensherst le jour ... de l’an MCCCCXXXVIII.” This is one of the books which Humphrey gave to his new library at Oxford, destroyed or dispersed by the active reformers of the young Edward. He also gave to the same library Capgrave Super Exodum et Regum Libros.

John Whethamstede, a learned abbot of St. Alban’s, and a lover of scholars, but accused by his monks of neglecting their affairs, while he was too deeply engaged in studious employments, and in procuring transcripts of useful books, notwithstanding his unwearied assiduity in beautifying and enriching their monastery, was in high favour with this munificent prince. The Duke was fond of visiting this monastery, and employed Abbot Whethamstede to collect valuable books for him. Some of Whethamstede’s tracts, manuscript copies of which often occur in our libraries, are dedicated to the Duke, who presented many of them, particularly a fine copy of Whethamstede’s Granarium, an immense work, which Leland calls ingens volumen to the new library. The copy of Valerius Maximus, mentioned before, has a curious table or index, made by Whethamstede. Many other Abbots paid their court to the Duke, by sending him presents of books, the margins of which were adorned with the most exquisite paintings.

Gilbert Kymer, physician to king Henry the sixth, and holding, among other ecclesiastical preferments, the Deanery of Salisbury and Chancellorship of the University of Oxford; the latter dignity by the recommendatory letters of the Duke, inscribed to the Duke of Gloucester his famous medical system—Diætarium de Sanitatis Custodia—in the year 1424.

Lydgate,[12] one of the early English poets, translated Boccacio’s book, De Casibus Virorum illustrium, at the recommendation and command, and under the protection and superintendance, of Duke Humphrey, whose condescension in conversing with learned ecclesiastics, and diligence in study, the translator displays at large, and in the strongest expressions of panegyric. He compares the Duke to Julius Cæsar, who, amidst the weightier cares of state, was not ashamed to enter the rhetorical school of Cicero at Rome. Nor was his patronage confined only to English scholars. His favour was solicited by the most celebrated writers of France and Italy, many of whom he bountifully rewarded. Leonard Aretin,[13] one of the first restorers of the Greek tongue in Italy, (which language he learned of Emanuel Chrysoloras,[14]) and of polite literature in general, dedicates to this universal patron his elegant Latin translation of Aristotle’s Politics. The copy presented to the Duke by the translator, most elegantly illuminated, is now in the Bodleian library.

To the same noble encourager of learning, Petrus Candidus, the friend of Laurentius Valla,[15] and secretary to the great Cosmo, Duke of Milan, inscribed by the advice of the Archbishop of Milan, a Latin version of Plato’s Republic. An illuminated manuscript of this translation is in the British Museum, perhaps the copy presented, with two epistles from the Duke to Petrus Candidus.

Petrus de Monte, another learned Italian of Venice, in the dedication of his treatise—De Virtutum et Vitiorum differentia—to the Duke of Gloucester, mentions the latter’s ardent attachment to books of all kinds, and the singular avidity with which he pursued every species of literature.

A tract entitled Comparatio Studiorum et Rei Militaris, written by Lopus de Castellione, a Florentine civilian, and a great translator into Latin of the Greek classics, is also inscribed to the Duke at the desire of Zeno, archbishop of Bayeux. It must not be forgotten that our illustrious Duke invited into England the learned Tito Livio of Foro-Juli, whom he naturalized and constituted his poet and orator. He also retained learned foreigners in his service, for the purpose of transcribing, and of translating from Greek into Latin. One of these was Antonio de Beccaria, a Veronese, who translated into Latin prose the Greek poem of Dionysius Afer de Situ Orbis; whom the Duke also employed to translate into Latin six tracts of Athanasius. This translation, inscribed to the Duke, is now among the royal manuscripts in the British Museum, and at the end, in his own hand-writing, is the following insertion:—“C’est Livre est a moi Homphrey Duc le Gloucestre: le quel je fis translater de grec en latin par un de mes secretaires Antoyne de Beccara ne de Verone.”

An astronomical tract, entitled, by Leland, Fabulæ Directionum, is erroneously supposed to have been written by Duke Humphrey. But it was compiled at the Duke’s instance, and according to tables which he had himself constructed, called by the anonymous author in his preface, Tabulas illustrissimi principis et nobilissimi Domini mei, Humfredi, &c. In the library of Gresham College, however, there is a scheme of calculations in astronomy, which bears his name. Astronomy was then a favourite science; nor is it to be doubted that he was intimately acquainted with the politer branches of knowledge which now began to acquire estimation, and which his liberal and judicious attention greatly contributed to restore.

King Edward the fourth and Henry the seventh greatly assisted the cause of learning, by the encouragement they gave to the art of printing in England, and by purchasing such books as were printed in other countries. William Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, purchased many valuable Greek manuscripts which had been brought hither by the prelates and others after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks.

King Henry the eighth may justly be called the founder of the royal library, which was enriched with the manuscripts selected from the scriptoria and libraries of the principal monasteries, by that indefatigable antiquary John Leland.

Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, enriched the library of the college of Corpus Christi, with a great number of ancient and curious manuscripts.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Sir Thomas Bodley greatly increased the public library at Oxford, which is now called by his name. This great benefactor to the literature of his country, quitted the court, and applied himself wholly to the purchasing of books and manuscripts both at home and abroad. By these means he had the satisfaction of furnishing that library with 1294 manuscripts, which by the subsequent liberality of many great and illustrious persons, has been since increased to more than eight thousand volumes, including the manuscripts given by Tanner, Bishop of Norwich, and the valuable library bequeathed by the will of Dr. Richard Rawlinson.

Considerable augmentations were made to the libraries of the several colleges in the two universities, as also to those of our cathedral churches, the palace at Lambeth, the Inns of Court, the College of Arms, and others; catalogues of which were published at Oxford in 1697 under the title of Catalogus Manuscriptorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ.

Bodley’s great contemporary, Sir Robert Cotton, is also entitled to the gratitude of posterity for his diligence in collecting the Cottonian library; he was engaged in the pursuit of manuscripts and records upwards of forty years, during which time he spared neither trouble nor expense.

The noble manuscript library founded by Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, and greatly enriched by his son Edward, who inherited his father’s love of science, claims a distinguished place in every account which may be given of the literary treasures of antiquity in general, and of this country in particular. Posterity will ever be indebted to her grace the Duchess Dowager of Portland, for securing this inestimable treasure of learning to the public, by authority of Parliament, under the guardianship of the most distinguished persons of the realm, both for rank and abilities, whose excellent regulations have made this library, as also the Royal, Cottonian, Sloanian, and others, now deposited in the British Museum, easy of access, and consequently of real use to the philosopher, the statesman, the historian, the scholar, and the artist.[16]

TORTURE IN ENGLAND.[17]

In the reign of King Henry the Sixth, the Rack or Brake, was placed in the Tower of London, by the Duke of Exeter, when he and the Earl of Suffolk had formed the design of introducing the Civil Law into England. It was called “Exeter’s daughter,” and remained afterwards in the Tower, “where it was occasionally used as an Engine of State, more than once in the reign of Elizabeth.”

Though the use of the Rack does not appear to have been known in this country until the 26th year of Henry the Sixth, and though it was never authorized by the law, yet to borrow the expression of Mr. Justice Blackstone, it was occasionally used as an “Engine of State,” to extort confession from State Prisoners confined in the Tower, from the time of its introduction, until finally laid aside in consequence of the decision of the judges in Felton’s case. One Hawkins was tortured[18] in the reign of Henry the Sixth; and the case of Anne Askew,[19] in that of Henry the Eighth,[20] cannot escape the recollection of every reader of English history. The Lord Chancellor Wriothesely (I blush for the honour and humanity of an English Judge while I write his name) went to the Tower to take her examination, and upon the Lieutenant’s refusing to draw the cords tighter, drew them himself till every limb was dislocated, and her body nearly torn asunder. In Mary’s reign several persons were racked in order to extort confessions, which was upon account of Sir Thomas Wyat’s rebellion. And Barrington mentions that in Oldmixon’s History of England (p. 284,) one Simpson is said to have been tortured in 1558, and a confession extorted.

In the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth,[21] the Rack was used upon offenders against the State, and among others, upon Francis Throgmorton; in 1571, upon Charles Baillie an attendant upon the Bishop of Ross, Mary’s ambassador, and upon Banastre, one of the Duke of Norfolk’s servants; and Barker, another of his servants was brought to confess by extreme fear of it. In 1581, Campion, the Jesuit, was put upon the rack,[22] and in 1585, Thomas Morgan writes to the Queen of Scots, that he has heard D. Atslow was racked in the Tower, twice about the Earl of Arundel. This is the last instance of the actual application of torture to extort confession.

For the greater part of this reign the application of torture in the examination of State offenders seems to have been in common use, and its legality not disputed. Mr. Daines Barrington says,[23] that among the manuscript papers of Lord Ellesmere, is a copy of instructions to him, as Lord President of the Marches, to use the torture on the taking of some examinations at Ludlow; and Sir Edward Coke himself,[24] in the year 1600, (the 43d of Elizabeth’s reign) then being Attorney General, at the trials of the Earls of Essex and Southampton, boasted of the clemency of the Queen, because, though the rebellious attempts were so exceedingly heinous, yet out of her princely mercy “no person was racked, tortured, or pressed to speak any thing further than of their own accord.” And in the Countess of Shrewsbury’s case (10 James 1st) when Sir Edward was Chief Justice, in enumerating the privileges of the nobility, he mentions as one, that their bodies were not subject to torture in causa criminis læsæ majestatis. Barrington justly observes[25] there was a regular establishment for torture, for at his trial,[26] in the first year of James the first, Sir Walter Raleigh stated that Kemish had been threatened with the rack, and the keeper of the instrument sent for. Sir William Wade, who, with the Solicitor General had taken his examination, denied it, but admitted they had told him he deserved it, and Lord Howard declared, “Kemish was never on the rack, the king gave charge that no rigour should be used.”

Barrington mentions[27] that Sir John Hayward, the historian, was threatened with the rack, which Dr. Granger confirms; and the former also remarks that it is stated in King James’s works, that the rack was shewn to Guy Faukes when under examination.

Down to this period we do not find the legality of the practice questioned, though it has been said by high authority, as will be stated presently, that some doubts had been suggested to Queen Elizabeth. State Prisoners were confined usually in the Tower, and commissioners, attended by the law officers of the crown, were sent to examine them, who applied the rack at their own discretion, or according to the order of the privy council, or the king’s, without any objection being made to their authority.

In the third year of King Charles the first, Felton was threatened with the rack by the Earl of Dorset in the Tower, and Laud, then bishop of London, repeated the threats in council, but the king insisted upon the judges being consulted as to the legality of the application, and they being unanimously of opinion that it was illegal, it was never attempted afterwards. The answer which Felton made to Laud’s threats, is well worthy of attention; when Laud told him “if he would not confess he must go to the rack,” he replied “if it must be so, he could not tell whom he might nominate in the extremity of torture, and if what he should say then was to go for truth, he could not tell whether his Lordship (meaning the bishop of London) or which of their Lordships he might name, for torture might draw unexpected things from him.”

In the year 1680 (32 Charles 2d) Elizabeth Collier was tried at the Old Bailey,[28] before Mr. Baron Weston, for the publication of a libel, in which many circumstances were related for the purpose of inducing a belief that Prance, when a prisoner in Newgate, had been tortured there, and he was produced to prove the falsehood of the publication. The learned judge in summing up the evidence to the jury said, “But you must first know the laws of the land do not admit a torture, and since Queen Elizabeth’s time there hath been nothing of that kind ever done. The truth is indeed, in the twentieth year of her reign, Campion was just stretched upon the rack, but yet not so but he could walk; but when she was told it was against the law of the land to have any of her subjects racked (though that was an extraordinary case, a world of seminaries being sent over to contrive her death, and she lived in continual danger) yet it was never done after to any one, neither in her reign, who reigned twenty-five years, nor in king James’s reign, who reigned twenty-two years after, nor in king Charles the first’s reign, who reigned twenty-four years after; and God in Heaven knows there hath been no such thing offered in this king’s reign; for I think we may say we have lived under as lawful and merciful a government as any people whatsoever, and have as little blood shed, and sanguinary executions as any nation under heaven.”

The learned judge may have been mistaken when stating Campion to be the last person racked, for in Murden’s state papers, one Atslow, as before observed, is mentioned to have been tortured four years afterwards. Mr. Baron Weston states that upon a suggestion made to Queen Elizabeth of the illegality of the practice, it was discontinued in her reign, and thus we may account for Campion being racked with so little severity, as to be able to walk afterwards, and to manage the conferences with protestant doctors during his confinement in prison.

In the Jurisprudence of the Romans the deceitful and dangerous experiment of the criminal quæstion, as it is emphatically styled, was admitted, rather than approved. The Roman government applied this sanguinary mode of examination only to servile bodies, whose sufferings were seldom weighed by those haughty Republicans in the scale of justice or humanity; but they would never consent to violate the sacred person of a citizen, till they possessed the clearest evidence of his guilt.[29] The annals of tyranny, from the reign of Tiberius to that of Domitian, circumstantially relate the executions of many innocent victims; but as long as the faintest remembrance was kept alive of the national freedom and honour, the last hours of a Roman were secure from the danger of ignominious torture. The conduct of the provincial magistrates was not, however, regulated by the practice of the city, or the strict maxims of the Civilians. They found the use of torture established not only among the slaves of oriental despotism, but among the Macedonians, who obeyed a limited monarch; among the Rhodians, who flourished by the liberty of commerce; and even among the sage Athenians, who had asserted and adorned the dignity of human nature.[30] The acquiescence of the people in the provinces encouraged their governors to acquire or perhaps to usurp, a discretionary power of employing the Rack, to extort from vagrants or plebeian criminals the confession of their guilt, till they insensibly proceeded to confound the distinctions of rank, and to disregard the privileges of Roman citizens. The apprehensions of the subjects urged them to solicit, and the interest of the Sovereign engaged him to grant, a variety of special exemptions, which tacitly allowed, and even authorized, the general use of torture. They protected all persons of illustrious or honourable rank, bishops and their presbyters, professors of the liberal arts, soldiers and their families, municipal officers, and their posterity to the third generation, and all children under the age of puberty. But a fatal maxim was introduced into the new jurisprudence of the Empire, that in the case of treason, which included every offence that the subtlety of lawyers could derive from an hostile intention towards the prince or republic, all privileges were suspended and all conditions were reduced to the same ignominious level. As the safety of the Emperor was avowedly preferred to every consideration of justice or humanity, the dignity of age, and the tenderness of youth were alike exposed to the most cruel tortures; and the terrors of a malicious information, which might select them as the accomplices, or even as the witnesses, perhaps, of an imaginary crime, perpetually hung over the heads of the principal citizens of the Roman world.[31]

Dr. JOHNSON’S CONVERSATION WITH THE LATE KING.

In February, 1767, there happened one of the most remarkable incidents of Johnson’s life, which gratified his monarchical enthusiasm, and which he loved to relate with all its circumstances, when requested by his friends. This was his being honoured by a private conversation with his late Majesty, in the Library at the Queen’s house. He had frequently visited those splendid rooms, and noble collection of books, which he used to say was more numerous and curious than he supposed any person could have made in the time which the king had employed. Mr. Barnard the Librarian, took care that he should have every accommodation that could contribute to his ease and convenience, while indulging his literary taste in that place, so that he had here a very agreeable resource at leisure hours.

His Majesty having been informed of his occasional visits, was pleased to signify a desire that he should be told when Dr. Johnson came next to the library. Accordingly the next time that Johnson did come, as soon as he was fairly engaged with a book, on which, while he sat by the fire he seemed quite intent, Mr. Barnard stole round to the apartment where the king was, and, in obedience to his Majesty’s commands, mentioned that Dr. Johnson was then in the library. His Majesty said he was at leisure and would go to him; upon which Mr. Barnard took one of the candles that stood on the king’s table, and lighted his Majesty through a suite of rooms till they came to a private door into the library, of which his Majesty had the key. Being entered, Mr. Barnard stepped forward hastily to Dr. Johnson, who was still in a profound study, and whispered him, “Sir, here is the king.” Johnson started up, and stood still. His Majesty approached him, and at once was courteously easy.

His Majesty began by observing, that he understood he came sometimes to the library; and then mentioned his having heard that the Doctor had been lately at Oxford, asked him if he was not fond of going thither. To which Johnson answered, that he was indeed fond of going to Oxford sometimes, but was likewise glad to come back again. The king then asked him what they were doing at Oxford. Johnson answered he could not much commend their diligence, but that in some respects they were mended, for they had put their press under better regulations, and were at that time printing Polybius. He was then asked whether there were better libraries at Oxford or Cambridge; he answered, he believed the Bodleian was larger than any they had at Cambridge; at the same time adding, “I hope whether we have more books or not than they have at Cambridge, we shall make as good use of them as they do.” Being asked whether All-Souls or Christ Church library was the largest, he answered, “All-Souls library is the largest we have except the Bodleian.” “Aye, (said the king) that is the public library.”

His Majesty enquired if he was then writing any thing, he answered, he was not, for he had pretty well told the world what he knew, and must now read to acquire more knowledge. The king as it should seem with a view to urge him to rely on his own stores as an original writer, and to continue his labours, then said, “I do not think you borrow much from any body.” Johnson said he thought he had already done his part as a writer. “I should have thought so too,” said the king, “if you had not written so well.”—Johnson observed to me, says Boswell, that “No man could have paid a handsomer compliment; and it was fit for a king to pay. It was decisive.” When asked by another friend at Sir Joshua Reynolds’s, whether he made any reply to this high compliment, he answered, “No, Sir. When the king had said it, it was to be so. It was not for me to bandy civilities with my Sovereign.” Perhaps no man who had spent his whole life in courts could have shewn a more nice and dignified sense of true politeness than Johnson did in this instance.

“His Majesty having observed to him, that he supposed he must have read a great deal, Johnson answered, that he thought more than he read; that he had read a great deal in the early part of his life, but having fallen into ill health, he had not been able to read much compared with others; for instance he said he had not read much, compared with Dr. Warburton. Upon which the king said, that he heard Dr. Warburton was a man of such general knowledge, that you could scarce talk with him on any subject on which he was not qualified to speak, and that his learning resembled Garrick’s acting in its universality. The king observed that Pope made Warburton a bishop; ‘True, Sir,’ said Johnson, ‘but Warburton did more for Pope, he made him a Christian;’ alluding no doubt, to his ingenious comments on the ‘Essay on Man.’ His Majesty then talked of the controversy between Warburton and Lowth, which he seemed to have read, and asked Johnson what he thought of it. Johnson answered, ‘Warburton has most general, most scholastic learning; Lowth is the more correct scholar. I do not know which of them calls names best.’ The king was pleased to say he was of the same opinion; adding, ‘You do not think then, Dr. Johnson, that there was much argument in the case.’ Johnson said he did not think there was. ‘Why, truly,’ said the king, ‘when once it comes to calling names, argument is pretty well at an end.’“

His Majesty then asked him what he thought of Lord Lyttelton’s history, which was just then published. Johnson said, he thought his style pretty good, but that he had blamed Henry the Second rather too much. “Why, said the king, they seldom do these things by halves.” “No, Sir, answered Johnson, not to kings.” But fearing to be misunderstood, he proceeded to explain himself, and immediately subjoined, “That for those who spoke worse of kings than they deserved, he could find no excuse; but that he could more easily conceive how some might speak better of them than they deserved, without any ill intention; for, as kings had much in their power to give, those who were favoured by them would frequently, from gratitude, exaggerate their praises; and as this proceeded from a good motive, it was certainty excusable, as far as error could be excusable.”

The king then asked him what he thought of Dr. Hill. Johnson answered, that he was an ingenious man, but had no veracity; and immediately mentioned, as an instance of it, an assertion of that writer, that he had seen objects magnified to a much greater degree by using three or four microscopes at a time than by using one. “Now,” added Johnson, “every one acquainted with microscopes knows, that the more of them he looks through, the less the object will appear.” “Why,” replied the king, “this is not only telling an untruth, but telling it clumsily; for, if that be the case, every one who can look through a microscope will be able to detect him.”

I now, (said Johnson to his friends, when relating what had passed) began to consider that I was depreciating this man in the estimation of his Sovereign, and thought it was time for me to say something that might be more favourable. He added, therefore, that Dr. Hill was, notwithstanding, a very curious observer; and if he would have been contented to tell the world no more than he knew, he might have been a very considerable man, and needed not to have recourse to such mean expedients to raise his reputation.

The king then talked of Literary Journals, mentioned particularly the Journal des Savans, and asked Johnson if it was well done. Johnson said it was formerly very well done, and gave some account of the persons who began it, and carried it on for some years; enlarging at the same time, on the nature and use of such works. The king asked him if it was well done now. Johnson answered, he had no reason to think that it was. The king then asked him if there were any other Literary Journals published in this kingdom, except the Monthly and Critical Reviews; and on being answered there were no other, his Majesty asked which of them was the best; Johnson answered, that the Monthly Review was done with most care, the Critical upon the best principles; adding that the authors of the Monthly Review were enemies to the church. This the king said he was sorry to hear.

The conversation next turned on the Philosophical Transactions, when Johnson observed that they had now a better method of arranging their materials than formerly. “Aye, said the king, they are obliged to Dr. Johnson for that”; for his Majesty had heard and remembered the circumstance, which Johnson himself had forgot.

His Majesty expressed a desire to have the literary biography of this country ably executed, and proposed to Dr. Johnson to undertake it. Johnson signified his readiness to comply with his Majesty’s wishes.

During the whole of this interview, Johnson talked to his Majesty with profound respect, but still in his firm manly manner, with a sonorous voice, and never in that subdued tone which is commonly used at the levee and in the drawing-room. After the king withdrew, Johnson shewed himself highly pleased with his Majesty’s conversation, and gracious behaviour. He said to Mr. Barnard, “Sir, they may talk of the king as they will; but he is the finest gentleman I have ever seen.” And he afterwards observed to Mr. Langton, “Sir, his manners are those of as fine a gentleman as we may suppose Lewis the fourteenth, or Charles the second.”

Dr. BEATTIE’S CONVERSATION WITH THE LATE KING AND QUEEN.

Dr. Beattie had been informed by Dr. Majendie, who lived at Kew, and was often at the palace, that the king having asked some questions of the doctor respecting him, and being told that he sometimes visited Dr. Majendie there, his Majesty had desired to be informed the next time Dr. Beattie was to be at Kew. What his Majesty’s intentions were, Dr. Majendie said he did not know; but supposed the king intended to admit him to a private audience. A day was therefore fixed, on which Dr. Beattie was to be at Dr. Majendie’s house early in the morning, of which the Doctor was to give notice to his Majesty. Of this interesting event, so honourable to Dr. Beattie, I shall transcribe in his own words, says Sir William Forbes, the account he has given in his diary:—

“Tuesday, 24th August, (1773) set out for Dr. Majendie’s at Kew Green. The Doctor told me that he had not seen the king yesterday, but had left a note in writing, to intimate, that I was to be at his house to-day; and that one of the king’s pages had come to him this morning, to say, ‘that his Majesty would see me a little after twelve.’ At twelve, the Doctor and I went to the king’s house at Kew. We had been only a few minutes in the hall, when the king and queen came in from an airing; and as they passed through the hall, the king called to me by name, and asked how long it was since I came from town? I answered about an hour. ‘I shall see you,’ says he, ‘in a little.’ The Doctor and I waited a considerable time, for the king was busy, and then we were called into a large room, furnished as a library, where the king was walking about, and the queen sitting in a chair. We were received in the most gracious manner possible, by both their Majesties. I had the honour of a conversation with them, nobody else being present but Dr. Majendie, for upwards of an hour on a great variety of topics; in which both the king and queen joined, with a degree of cheerfulness, affability, and ease, that was to me surprising, and soon dissipated the embarrassment which I felt at the beginning of the conference. They both complimented me in the highest terms on my ‘Essay,’ which they said was a book they always kept by them; and the king said he had one copy of it at Kew, and another in town, and immediately went and took it down from a shelf. I found it was the second edition. ‘I never stole a book, but one,’ said his Majesty, ‘and that was your’s (speaking to me) I stole it from the queen, to give it to Lord Hertford to read.’ He had heard that the sale of Hume’s ‘Essays’ had failed, since my book was published; and I told him what Mr. Strahan had told me, in regard to that matter. He had even heard of my being in Edinburgh last summer, and how Mr. Hume was offended on the score of my book. He asked many questions about the second part of the ‘Essay,’ and when it would be ready for the press. I gave him, in a short speech, an account of the plan of it; and said my health was so precarious, I could not tell when it might be ready, as I had many books to consult before I could finish it; but, that if my health were good, I thought I might bring it to a conclusion in two or three years. He asked how long I had been in composing my Essay? praised the caution with which it was written; and said he did not wonder that it had employed me five or six years. He asked, about my Poems. I said there was only one poem of my own, on which I set any value (meaning the ‘Minstrel’) and that it was first published about the same time with the ‘Essay.’ My other poems, I said were incorrect, being but juvenile pieces, and of little consequence, even in my own opinion. We had much conversation on moral subjects; from which both their Majesties let it appear, that they were warm friends to Christianity; and so little inclined to infidelity, that they could hardly believe that any thinking man could really be an Atheist, unless he could bring himself to believe, that he made himself; a thought which pleased the king exceedingly; and he repeated it several times to the queen. He asked whether any thing had been written against me. I spoke of the late pamphlet, of which I gave an account, telling him, that I had never met with any man who had read it, except one quaker. This brought on some discourse about the quakers, whose moderation, and mild behaviour the king and queen commended. I was asked many questions about the Scots Universities: the revenues of the Scots Clergy; their mode of praying and preaching; the medical college of Edinburgh; Dr. Gregory, of whom I gave a particular character, and Dr. Cullen; the length of our vacation at Aberdeen, and the closeness of our attendance during the winter; the number of students that attend my lectures; my mode of lecturing, whether from notes, or completely written lectures; about Mr. Hume, and Dr. Robertson, and Lord Kinnoul, and the Archbishop of York, &c. &c.

His Majesty asked what I thought of my new acquaintance, Lord Dartmouth? I said there was something in his air and manner, which I thought not only agreeable, but enchanting, and that he seemed to me to be one of the best of men; a sentiment in which both their Majesties heartily joined. “They say that Lord Dartmouth is an enthusiast,” said the king, “but surely he says nothing on the subject of religion, but what every Christian may, and ought to say.” He asked whether I did not think the English language on the decline at present; I answered in the affirmative; and the king agreed, and named the “Spectator” as one of the best standards of the language. When I told him that the Scots clergy sometimes prayed a quarter, or even half an hour at a time, he asked, whether that did not lead them into repetitions? I said it often did. “That” said he, “I don’t like in prayers; and excellent as our liturgy is, I think it somewhat faulty in that respect.” “Your Majesty knows,” said I, “that three services are joined in one, in the ordinary church service, which is one cause of those repetitions.” “True,” he replied, “and that circumstance also makes the service too long.” From this he took occasion to speak of the composition of the church liturgy; on which he very justly bestowed the highest commendation. “Observe,” his Majesty said, “how flat those occasional prayers are, that are now composed, in comparison with the old ones.” When I mentioned the smallness of the church livings in Scotland, he said, “he wondered how men of liberal education would chuse to become clergymen there,” and asked, “whether in the remote parts of the country, the clergy, in general were not very ignorant?” I answered, no, for that education was very cheap in Scotland, and that the clergy, in general, were men of good sense, and competent learning. He asked whether we had any good preachers at Aberdeen? I said, yes, and named Campbell and Gerard, with whose names, however, I did not find that he was acquainted. Dr. Majendie mentioned Dr. Oswald’s “Appeal,” with commendation; I praised it too and the queen took down the name, with a view to send for it. I was asked, whether I knew Dr. Oswald? I answered, I did not; and said that my book was published before I read his; that Dr. Oswald was well known to Lord Kinnoul, who had often proposed to make us acquainted. We discussed a great many other topics; for the conversation, as before observed, lasted for upwards of an hour, without any intermission. The queen bore a large share in it. Both the king and her Majesty showed a great deal of good sense, acuteness, and knowledge, as well as of good nature and affability. At last, the king took out his watch (for it was now almost three o’clock, his hour of dinner) which Dr. Majendie and I took as a signal to withdraw. We accordingly bowed to their Majesties, and I addressed the king in these words: “I hope, Sir, your Majesty will pardon me, if I take this opportunity to return you my humble and most grateful acknowledgments for the honour you have been pleased to confer upon me.” He immediately answered, “I think I could do no less for a man, who has done so much service to the cause of Christianity. I shall always be glad of an opportunity to show the good opinion I have of you.” The queen sate all the while, and the king stood, sometimes walking about a little. Her Majesty speaks the English language with surprising elegance, and little or nothing of a foreign accent. There is something wonderfully captivating in her manner; so that if she were only of the rank of a private gentlewoman, one could not help taking notice of her as one of the most agreeable women in the world. Her face is much more pleasing than any of her pictures; and in the expression of her eyes, and in her smile, there is something peculiarly engaging.

When the Doctor and I came out, “Pray,” said I, “how did I behave? Tell me honestly, for I am not accustomed to conversations of this kind.” “Why perfectly well,” answered he, “and just as you ought to do.”—“Are you sure of that?” said I.—“As sure,” he replied, “as of my own existence; and you may be assured of it too, when I tell you, that if there had been any thing in your manner or conversation, which was not perfectly agreeable, your conference would have been at an end in eight or ten minutes at most.” The Doctor afterwards told me that it was a most uncommon thing for a private man, and a commoner, to be honoured with so long an audience. I dined with Dr. and Mrs. Majendie and their family, and returned to town in the evening, very much pleased with the occurrences of the day.

SACRED GARDENS.

The origin of sacred gardens among the heathen nations may be traced up to the garden of Eden. The gardens of the Hesperides, of Adonis, of Flora, were famous among the Greeks and Romans. “The garden of Flora,” says Mr. Spence, (Polymetis, p. 251) “I take to have been the Paradise in the Roman Mythology. The traditions and traces of Paradise among the ancients must be expected to have grown fainter and fainter in every transfusion from one people to another. The Romans probably derived their notions of it from the Greeks, among whom this idea seems to have been shadowed out under the stories of the gardens of Alcinous. In Africa they had the gardens of the Hesperides, and in the East those of Adonis, or the Horti Adonis, as Pliny calls them. The term Horti Adonides was used by the ancients to signify gardens of pleasure, which answers to the very name of Paradise, or the garden of Eden, as Horti Adonis does to the garden of the Lord.”

SIR THOMAS WYAT.
[DIED 1541.]

The story of this eminent person, probably one of the principal ornaments of an age unable to discern his merits, or unwilling to record them, has been very imperfectly related. He was born at Allington Castle, in Kent, the ancient seat of his family, in 1503, and was the son of Sir Henry Wyat. He may be said to have finished his education in the society of that eminent character Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, with whom he travelled abroad, and with whom he “tasted in Italy,” says Wood, “the sweet and stately measures of the Italian poesy.” These, as far as the rude state of our language, and the still ruder taste of the times, would allow, he applied to English verse. His poems were printed at London in 1565, and have since been frequently republished, in conjunction with those of his noble friend; but here, as in other points of view, we have but glimpses of him; for through the ignorance or carelessness of the original editor, his pieces are so confusedly blended with the Earl’s, that not many of them can be positively ascertained.[32]

Having been introduced at Court, where his endowments both of body and mind, recommended him to the favour of king Henry the Eighth, he was employed in several foreign embassies, which he discharged with great ability. His influence with the king was proverbial. Lloyd tells us that “when a man was newly preferred, they said he had been in Sir Thomas Wyat’s closet.”

We are informed by Wood (Athen. Oxon.) that Sir Thomas was sent by the king to Falmouth, for the purpose of conducting a Spanish Minister from thence to London. Being desirous of making great expedition, he fatigued himself so much that he was thrown into a fever, and was obliged to stop at Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, where he died a few days after, in the 38th year of his age, “to the great reluctancy,” says Wood, “of the king, kingdom, his friends, and all that knew the great worth and virtues of the person.” He was buried in Sherborne Church.[33]

He left behind him a son of the same name, who lost his head for exciting a rebellion in the reign of queen Mary, from whom our poet is commonly distinguished by the appellation of Sir Thomas Wyat the elder.

THE HAND A SYMBOL OF POWER.

In Parkhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon we have the following remarks on the Hand as an emblem of strength and power. “The hand was used by the Jews, as a trophy or monument of victory, and placed on the top of a pillar. Thus Saul, after smiting the Amalekites, in the pride of his heart erected to or for himself (not for Jehovah) a hand, 1 Samuel xv. 12. And David smote Hadadezer, king of Zobah, when he was going to erect his hand or trophy, by the river Euphrates, 2 Sam. viii. 3, and 1 Chronicles, xviii. 3.—And this appears to be the most ancient use of these memorial hands; whence Absalom seems to have taken the hint of erecting one, merely to keep his name in remembrance, 2 Sam. xviii. 18, where it may be observed that this monument is expressly called not only a hand, but a pillar, which shews that the hand was wont to be put on a pillar.

“Neibuhr (Voyage in Arabia, tom. 2. p. 211. French edition) speaking of Ali’s mosque at Mesched Ali, says, that ‘at the top of the dome’ where one generally sees on the Turkish mosques a crescent, or only a pole, there is here a hand stretched out, to represent that of Ali.” And another writer informs us, that at the Alhambra, or red palace of the Moorish kings in Granada, “on the key-stone of the outward arch [of the present principal entrance] is sculptured the figure of an arm, the symbol of strength and dominion.”

“It may not be amiss to observe, that to this day in the East Indies the picture of a hand is the emblem of power or authority. Thus I am assured, says Parkhurst, by a gentleman of undoubted veracity, who resided many years on the coast of Coromandel, that when the Nabob of Arcot, who in his time was governor of five provinces, appeared on public occasions, several small flags, with each a hand painted upon them, and one of a large size with five hands, were solemnly carried before him.”

The hand was used as an ensign of royalty by the kings of France and England. In Sandford’s Genealogical History, there is the following note on the counter-seal of king Edward the third: “In the margin of this counter-seal, near the point of the king’s sword, is represented the hand of justice, being an ensign of royalty peculiar only to the kings of France, for though they in common with other princes carry in their right hand a sceptre of gold, yet in the other they bear the hand of justice, being a short rod, and having on the top of it a left hand, wide open, made of ivory, on account of the elephant being the only quadruped observable for his devotion, love of his governors, and for his equity. The left hand it is said, is preferred to the right for this purpose, because not being employed in working so many wicked actions as the right, it became more proper than the other to represent the symbol of justice. This hand is also placed in the counter-seals of his successors Richard the second, and Henry the fourth; king Henry the fifth omitted it in his seal, and conquering France both placed that crown on the head, and the French sceptre and hand of justice in the hands of his son, king Henry the sixth.”

Queen Elizabeth used the hand as one of her mint marks.

HENRIETTA MARIA,
QUEEN OF CHARLES THE FIRST.

“Our royal martyr,” says Dr. Kennet, “by taking a consort from the Bourbon family, did apparently bring over some evils and mischiefs that disturbed his whole reign. For within less than one year, the French servants of that queen grew so imperious and insolent, that the king was forced to discharge them, and to humble them by a return into their own country.”

“A very sad doom it was certainly to the French,” says L’Estrange in his annals of king Charles, “but as the animadversion was extremely severe, so their offences were in like degree heinous. The bishop of Mende, the queen’s almoner, stood charged for putting intolerable scorn upon, and making religion itself do penance, by enjoining her Majesty, under the notion of penance, to go barefoot, to spin, and to wait upon her family servants at their ordinary repasts, to walk on foot in the mire on a rainy morning, from Somerset House to St. James’s; her confessor, mean while, like Lucifer himself, riding by her in his coach; but, which is worst of all, to make a progress to Tyburn, there to present her devotions for the departed souls of the Papists, who had been executed at that place, on account of the Gunpowder Treason, and other enormous crimes. A most impious piaculary, whereof the king said acutely, that the action can have no greater invective than the relation. The other sex were accused of crimes of another nature, whereof Madam St. George was, as in dignity of office, so in guilt, the principal; culpable she was in many particulars, but her most notorious and unpardonable fault was, her being an accursed instrument of some unkindness between the king and queen. These incendiaries were cashiered, the queen, who formerly shewed so much waspish protervity, soon fell into a mode of loving compliance. But though this renvoy of her Majesty’s servants, imported domestic peace, yet was it attended with an ill aspect from France, though our king, studying to preserve fair correspondence with his brother, sent the Lord Carleton with instructions to represent a true account of the action, with all the motives to it; but his reception was very coarse, being never admitted to audience. Louis despatched Monsieur the Marshal de Bassompierre, as Extraordinary Ambassador to our king, to demand the restitution of the queen’s domesticks: which he at last obtained for most of them.”

“It was this match,” adds Dr. Kennet, “that began to corrupt our nation with French modes and vanities; which gave occasion to Mr. Prynne to write that severe invective, called Histriomastix, against stage plays; to betray our councils to the French court; to weaken the poor Protestants in France, by rendering ineffectual the relief of Rochelle; nay, and to lessen our own trade and navigation. These ill effects, beyond the king’s intention, raised such a jealousy, and spread such a damp upon the English subjects, that it was unhappily turned into one of the unjust occasions of civil war, which indeed began more out of hatred to that party, than out of any disaffection to the king. The people thought themselves too much under French counsels, and a French ministry, or else, they could never have been drawn aside into that great rebellion. This interest when suspected to prevail, brought the king into urgent difficulties; and in the midst of them the aid and assistance, which that interest offered him, did but the more effectually weaken him. On this side the water the French services betrayed him; and on the other side, the French policies were at work to betray him.”

And, indeed, as queen Henrietta had a mighty, if not a supreme sway over King Charles’s councils, so did her mother, Mary de Medicis, who came over by her invitation, administer great cause of jealousy to this nation. “The people,” says L’Estrange, “were generally malecontent at her coming, and wished her farther off. For they did not like her train and followers, which had often been observed to be the sword of pestilence, so that she was beheld as some meteor of evil signification. Nor was one of these calamities thought more the effect of her fortune than inclination; for her restless and unconstant spirit was prone to embroil all wheresoever she came. And besides, as queen Henrietta was extraordinary active in raising money among the Roman Catholics of this kingdom, to enable King Charles to make war against his subjects of Scotland, so was she extreme busy in fomenting the unhappy differences between his Majesty and his English Parliament.”

Sir John Reresby, in his Memoirs, asserts that queen Henrietta Maria was married after the king’s death to Lord St. Alban’s. “The abbess of an English college in Paris, whither the queen used to retire, would tell me,” says Sir John, “that Lord Jermyn, since St. Alban’s, had the queen greatly in awe of him, and indeed it was obvious that he had great interest with her concerns; but that he was married to her, or had children by her, as some have reported, I did not then believe, though the thing was certainly so.”

Madame Baviere, in her letters, says, “Charles the First’s widow made a clandestine marriage, with her Chevalier d’ Honneur, Lord St. Alban’s, who treated her extremely ill, so that whilst she had not a faggot to warm herself, he had in his apartment a good fire, and a sumptuous table. He never gave the queen a kind word, and when she spoke to him, he used to say, Que me veut cette femme?”

To what a miserable state the queen was reduced may be seen in the following extract from De Retz’s Memoirs, (vol. 1. p. 261.) “Four or five days before the king removed from Paris, I went to visit the queen of England, whom I found in her daughter’s chamber, who hath been since Duchess of Orleans. At my coming in she said, ‘You see I am come to keep Henrietta company. The poor child could not rise to-day for want of a fire.’ The truth is, that the cardinal for six months together had not ordered her any money towards her pension; that no trades-people would trust her for any thing; and that there was not at her lodgings in the Louvre one single billet. You will do me the justice to suppose that the princess of England did not keep her bed the next day for want of a faggot; but it was not this which the Princess of Conde meant in her letter. What she spoke about was, that some days after my visiting the queen of England, I remembered the condition I had found her in, and had strongly represented the shame of abandoning her in that manner, which caused the Parliament to send 40,000 livres to her Majesty. Posterity will hardly believe that a Princess of England, grand-daughter of Henry the Great, hath wanted a faggot in the month of January, to get out of bed in the Louvre, and in the eyes of a French court. We read in histories, with horror, of baseness less monstrous than this; and the little concern I have met with about it in most people’s minds, has obliged me to make, I believe, a thousand times this reflection—that examples of times past move men beyond comparison more than those of their own times. We accustom ourselves to what we see; and I have sometimes told you, that I doubted whether Caligula’s horse being made a consul would have surprized us so much as we imagine.”

As for the relative situations of the king (Charles II.) and Lord Jermyn, (afterwards St. Alban’s) Lord Clarendon (Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. 3. p. 2) says that the “Marquis of Ormond was compelled to put himself in prison, with other gentlemen, at a pistole a week for his diet, and to walk the streets a-foot, which was no honourable custom in Paris, whilst the Lord Jermyn kept an excellent table for those who courted him, and had a coach of his own, and all other accommodations incident to the most full fortune; and if the king had the most urgent occasion for the use but of twenty pistoles, as sometimes he had, he could not find credit to borrow it, which he often had experiment of.”

The Lord St. Alban’s above mentioned was Henry Jermyn, second son of Thomas Jermyn, of Rushbrooke, near Bury St. Edmund’s, in Suffolk. In 1644 he was created Lord Jermyn, with limitation of the honour to the heirs male of his elder brother Thomas. In 1660 he was further advanced to the dignity of Earl of St. Alban’s, and Baron of St. Edmund’s Bury, but on his death in 1683, the earldom became extinct. The barony of Jermyn devolved on Thomas (son of his elder brother Thomas) who became second Lord Jermyn: he died unmarried in 1703.—Lord St. Alban’s was master of the horse to Queen Henrietta Maria, and one of the privy council to Charles the second. In July 1660 he was sent ambassador to the court of France, and in 1671 was made Lord Chamberlain of his majesty’s household.—“He was a man of no great genius,” says Grammont, “he raised himself a considerable fortune from nothing, and by losing at play, and keeping a great table, made it appear greater than it was.” “It is well known what a table the good man kept at Paris, while the king his master was starving at Brussels, and the queen dowager his mistress, lived not over well in France.”

This earl lived in London at Jermyn house, which stood at the head of St. Alban’s-street, Pallmall, which street and Jermyn-street had their names from him.

LAST MOMENTS OF PHILIP MELANCTHON.[34]

The nineteenth of April, 1560, was the last day of the mortal existence of this great reformer and pious christian. After the usual medical inquiries of the morning, he adverted to the calamitous state of the church of Christ, but intimated his hope that the genuine doctrine of the gospel would ultimately prevail, exclaiming, “If God be for us who can be against us.” After this he presented fervent supplications to heaven for the welfare of the church, and in the intervals of sleep conversed principally upon this subject with several of his visiting friends.

Soon after eight in the morning awaking from a tranquil sleep, he distinctly, though with a feeble voice, repeated a form of prayer which he had written for his own daily use. An interval of repose having elapsed after repeating this prayer, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and turning to his son-in-law, he said, “I have been in the power of death, but the Lord has graciously delivered me.” This was supposed to refer to some deep conflicts of mind, as he repeated the expression to others. When one of the persons who visited him said, “There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” he soon added, “Christ is made to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” “Let him that glorieth glory in the Lord.”

The coldness of death was now creeping over him, but his mental faculties continued unimpaired to the very last breath of mortal existence. Having expressed a wish to hear some passages from the Old and New Testaments, his ministerial attendants read the 24th, 25th and 26th Psalms: the 53d chapter of Isaiah; the 7th chapter of John, the 5th of the Romans, and many other passages. The saying of John respecting the son of God, he said was perpetually in his mind, “the world knew him not ... but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”

Upon being asked by his son-in-law if he would have any thing else, he replied in these emphatic Words, “NOTHING ELSE—BUT HEAVEN!” and requested that he might not be any further interrupted. Soon afterwards he made a similar request, begging those around him, who were endeavouring with officious kindness to adjust his clothes, “not to disturb his delightful repose.” After some time his friends united with the Minister present in solemn prayer, and several passages of scripture, in which he was known always to have expressed peculiar pleasure were read, such as “Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in God, believe also in me.”—“In my Father’s house are many mansions.”—“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;” particularly the fifth chapter of Romans, and the triumphant close of the eighth chapter, commencing “If God be for us, who can be against us?” Many other parts of scripture were recited, and the last word he uttered was the German particle of affirmation, Ia, in reply to one of his friends, who had inquired if he understood him while reading. The last motion which his friends who surrounded him to the number of at least twenty, could discern, was a slight motion of the countenance which was peculiar to him when deeply affected with religious joy!—“Mark the perfect man and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace!”

At length, “in the midst of solemn vows and supplications,” at a quarter before seven, in the evening, at the age of sixty-three, he gently breathed his last. No distractions of mind, no foreboding terrors of conscience agitated this attractive scene. His chamber was “privileged beyond the common walks of virtuous life—quite in the verge of heaven”—and he expired, like a wave scarcely undulating to the evening zephyr of an unclouded summer sky. It was a “DEPARTURE”—a “SLEEP”—“the earthly house of this tabernacle was dissolved.”

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

A considerable number of treatises were written in the middle and latter end of the seventeenth century, and a few in the beginning of the eighteenth, respecting the period at which the House of Commons asserted that independence which it is so material to the security and happiness of the country it should possess, and obtained that share in the legislature it now enjoys; but the writers on both sides,[35] eager in the maintenance of the cause they espoused, and taking advantage of the scanty means the public had of knowing what was contained in the early Rolls of Parliament[36] and other ancient records, suppressed from partiality and interested zeal, much of the information themselves possessed, which rendered of little use to the public an inquiry that might otherwise have been attended with considerable advantage.

It might be supposed indeed, that when men so remarkable for diligence and learning, as Prynne and Petyt, (who were both keepers of the records in the Tower, among which are most of the Rolls of Parliament, and all the Claus Rolls) took opposite sides of the controversy, about the time when the Commons first formed a part of the legislature, whatever could have made for or against either side of the question would have been produced. And yet with all their opportunities and their eagerness for research, those who have attentively looked through the Rolls of Parliament, will find amongst them much matter of importance respecting the questions those writers discussed at different periods, to which neither of them referred, either in support of his own, or in contradiction to his opponent’s argument. Rymer was equally zealous in supporting the side he took, in the beginning of the last century. Any thing therefore having been brought to light by the publication of the Rolls of Parliament, which appears to have escaped the industry and research of such men, is a strong proof of the utility of printing those valuable documents.

As early as the 46th of Edward the third, a statute was made, ordaining that all persons should be entitled to search for, and have exemplifications of records, as well such as proved contrary to the interest of the king, as such as were favourable to it.

Great and eminent men, however, not more distinguished by their high stations, than for their talents and research, stated opinions, some on points of magnitude, in the pursuit of mere legal investigations, different from those which are probably entertained by such as have carefully perused the Parliamentary Records, which were printed during the reign of his late Majesty.

In corroboration of this assertion, it may be sufficient to mention two opinions of Lord Coke’s.

The first that the Lords and Commons sat together late in the reign of king Edward the third[37] and until the Commons had a perpetual Speaker. The direct contrary of this opinion it is thought is evident from the Rolls of Parliament. It does not appear from any Records that the two Houses ever sat for deliberation in the same assembly, from the time the Commons were regularly summoned in their representative capacity to Parliament.

On the contrary, so early as the 18th of Edward the first,[38] (Rolls of Par. vol. 1. p. 25, a. the earliest Roll extant) there is a Grant[39] to the king for the marriage of his eldest daughter, by several Peers named, “et cæteri Magnates et Proceres tunc in Parliamento existentes, pro se et Communitate totius Regni Angliæ quantum in ipsis est;” that is, “and other Lords and Nobles for themselves and the Community of the whole kingdom of England, as much as they were able.” In the 19th of Edward the second (p. 351. a.) there is a grant to the king for carrying on the war with Scotland, by the Citizens, Burgesses, and Knights for counties, of a fifteenth of the moveables of the Citizens, Burgesses, and men of the counties, cities, and towns.

In the 14th of Edward the second (p. 371.) complaint was made by the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of felonies for which they besought a remedy: and the Record concludes “Et Concordatum est per Dominum Regem de Consilio Prelatorum, Comitum, Baronum, et aliorum Peritorum, in dicto Parliamento existentium quod,” &c. that is, “and it was agreed between our Lord the king and the council of Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great men in the said Parliament assembled, &c.”

The Entries in the sixth of Edward the third, 1331, (to the Parliament Rolls of which year Lord Coke particularly refers for proof of the Lords and Commons then sitting together) which appear to bear on the point in question, are in vol. ii. p. 66. At the first meeting at Westminster, the Prelates by themselves, and the Knights for counties by themselves, deliberated on the business opened to them at the beginning of the Parliament, and answered by advising the king not to go in person to Ireland to quell the rebellion there. And in the third meeting in that year at York, when a statement was made by Geoffrey le Scroop, in the presence of the king, and “de touz les Grantz en plein Parlement,” of all the Lords in full Parliament; and afterwards it was agreed by the king and the whole in full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers named, should meet on the business in discussion by themselves, the other Prelates, Earls and Barons, and the Proxies by themselves; and the Knights of the shire and Commons by themselves. The business was discussed accordingly during some days; after which the Commons had leave to return to their counties, and the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, were to remain till the day following.

In the 13th of Edward the third (vol. 2. p. 104.) a grant was made to the king, “par les Grantz,” of a tenth of the grain of their demesne lands, and of their fleeces, with certain reservations. The Commons, however, after representing their having heard the statement of the king’s necessities, the extent of which they were aware of, and were willing to relieve as they had always done; said, that as the aid must be a great one they dared not assent to it without consulting with “les Communes de leur Pais,” the Commons of their counties. And they desired another Parliament to be summoned. At which subsequent meeting, in the same year, (p. 107. b.) the occasion of summoning the Parliament was explained to the Commons, on which they said they would deliberate. They afterwards proposed to grant 30,000 sacks of wool on certain conditions, which if not agreed to by the king, the aid was to be withheld. The Earls and Barons the same day granted for themselves and the Peers of the land who held by Barony, the tenth sheaf, the tenth fleece, and the tenth lamb.

In the 14th of Edward the third, (p. 112, a.) grants were made by the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, for themselves and all their tenants, and by the Knights of shires for themselves, and for the commons of the land, of the ninth sheaf, the ninth fleece, and the ninth lamb; and by the Citizens and Burgesses of a real ninth of their property; and merchants not inhabiting cities and towns, and other people who reside in forests and wastes, and who do not live by their gains or their flocks, a fifteenth of all their property according to the true value.

In the 15th of Edward the third (p. 127, a.) on occasion of a Grant made to the king in a former Parliament, to enable him to purchase friends and allies for the recovery of his rights, having not been as available as it ought to have been, it was proposed that consideration should be had, “par touz les Grantz et Communes,” “by all the Lords and Commons,” how the grant should be made most profitable to the king, and least burthensome to the people, “les Grantz de par eux, et les Chivalers des Counteez, Citeyens, et Burgeys de par eux,” that is, “the Lords by themselves, and the Knights for counties, Citizens and Burgesses by themselves.”

In the 17th of Edward the third, (p. 136, a.) “les ditz Prelatz et Grantz assemblez en la Chambre Blanche (the court of requests) responderent,” &c. (p. 136, 6.) “Et pour vindrent les Chivalers des Counteez et les Communes et responderent par Monsieur William Trussell en la dite Chambre Blanche qi’ en Presence de nostre Signeur le Roi et les ditz Prelates,” &c. that is, “on which day the said Prelates and Lords assembled in the Chambre Blanche, answered,” &c. “And then came the Knights for counties, and the Commons, and answered by Monsieur William Trussell in the said Chambre Blanche, and in the presence of our Lord the king, and the said Prelates,” &c.

There can be little doubt but that this William Trussell was Speaker of the House of Commons. He is styled by Higden, who wrote in the reign of Edward the third, in his “Polychronicon,” “Procurator of the Parliament,” when he, in the name of all the men in the land of England, renounced allegiance to king Edward the second, in the last year of that king’s reign.

The Speaker of the Commons was indeed styled “Parlour and Procurator,” so late as the first of Henry the fourth. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 3. p. 424, b.)

In the 18th of Edward the third, when the king was going-to France for the recovery of his rights, the grants by the Lords and Commons were quite distinct; the former to accompany him in the war, “les ditz grantz granterent de passer et lour aventurer ovesque lui;” the Commons granted, for the same cause, two fifteenths of the commonalty, and two tenths of the cities and boroughs. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 2. p. 150, b.)

There are other grants in this reign by the Commons; 20th of Edward the third, (p. 159, b.) and 21st of Edward the third, (p. 166.) In the 22d of Edward the third, (p. 200.) the Commons grant an aid, after several days consideration, but under certain conditions. In the 29th of Edward the third, (p. 265, b.) there is a separate grant by the Commons.

In the 40th of Edward the third, after the occasion of summoning the Parliament had been explained, the Lords and Commons were directed to depart, and to meet again on the day following, the Lords “en la Chambre Blanche,” and the Commons in the painted Chamber. (Vol. 2. p. 289.)

In the 42d of Edward the third (p. 227, a.) a Petition of the Commons, and the answers thereto, were read in the Court of Requests, in the presence of the King, Lords, and Commons; and a statement was made to the king in this Parliament “par les Grantz et Communes,” by the Lords and Commons, all the former and many of the latter having dined with the king; after which John de la Lee was put on his defence before them in the said place.

In the 50th of Edward the third, (p. 283.) the Commons profess the utmost loyalty and goodwill to the king; but add, that if he had faithful ministers about him, he must be rich enough to do without subsidies, especially considering the sums of money brought into the kingdom by the ransoms of the king of France, the king of Scotland, &c. They then proceed to the impeachment of a considerable number of persons.

And in the 51st of Edward the third, (p. 363.) on the opening of the Parliament, the Commons were directed by the king to retire to their ancient place of meeting, in the Chapter House of the abbey of Westminster. To this record Lord Coke himself refers.

It will be seen in the note p. 146, that Sir Thomas Hungerford is mentioned as Speaker of the House of Commons; and in the first of Richard the second, that Peter de la Mare was Speaker of the Commons.

The second opinion of Lord Coke’s to which allusion has already been made, is, that if an act mentions only that the king enacts, and the Lords assent, without naming the Commons, the omission cannot be supplied by any intendment. Lord Coke expressly says, if an act be penned, that “the king with the assent of the Lords,” or “with the assent of the Commons,” it is no act of Parliament, for three ought to assent to it, the King, the Lords, and the Commons; or otherwise it is not an act of Parliament; and by the record of the act it is expressed which of them gave their assent; and that excludes all other intendments that any other gave their assent. (Lord Coke, 8th Report, p. 20, b.)

How dangerous it would be to decide on the validity of our statutes, on such ground, will be seen by a single instance.

The act of the first of Edward the sixth against exporting horses without a licence, after the recital in the preamble, runs thus; “For remedy whereof, be it therefore enacted by our sovereign lord the king, and by the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,”—the Lords being not once mentioned in the statute, which is accurately printed from the original act.

Now it appears by the Lords’ Journals, (vol. 1. p. 303, a,) that this act had not only the assent of the House of Lords, but that it had its origin in that House, where it passed unanimously, (p. 306, a.) was returned from the Commons with a proviso, which was agreed to by the Lords, (p. 312, a.) and is in the Journals among the acts passed that session. (p. 313, a.)

There has not been found in the Records, the slightest foundation for an opinion, that there was any election of representatives of the Commons earlier than the 49th of Henry the third, 1265, except in the entry respecting the borough of St. Alban’s, so often referred to by different writers. It is, however, certain that those who held in capite of the king, were a necessary part of the great council, as early as king John’s time, when aids and escuage were to be granted to the sovereign.

In the 52d of Henry the third, 1268, a parliament, or more properly a great council, of Barons only, was held at Marlborough, where the great charter was confirmed. The members of this parliament or council were such of the great Barons and Tenants in capite, as the king pleased to summon thereto.

King Edward the first, at Easter, 1276, held a parliament at Westminster, of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and Commons, wherein many excellent laws were made, called the Statutes of Westminster the first. It is proper to mention that the Commons here spoken of, were not Knights of shires, or Burgesses, but the smaller Tenants who held in chief of the king, or Tenants in capite.

It is generally said by our Historians, that the first time that any Citizens, or Burgesses were summoned to parliament by the king’s authority, was in the 23d year of king Edward the first, 1294, but the editors of the Parliamentary History (vol. 1. p. 87,) have shewn that the same king, in the eleventh year of his reign, 1283, called a parliament to be holden at Shrewsbury, on occasion of taking prisoner, David, brother of Llewellyn, prince of Wales, the latter having lately been killed in battle.

The king in summoning this Parliament was more explicit than he had ever been before. The writs of summons are still extant. The first is directed to the Barons to meet the king at Shrewsbury, on the 30th of September. The second writ is directed to the sheriffs of every county in England, to cause to be chosen two Knights for the commonalty of the county, as also a third directed to the several cities and boroughs mentioned, and a fourth writ to the Judges.

Mr. Tyrrell observes, that “neither Prynne nor Dr. Brady, with all their diligence, have taken any notice of these writs to summon this Parliament.

“The writs were directed to all the Earls and Barons by name, to the number of 110; but the writs to the cities and boroughs are more remarkable, especially as they are the first upon record, requiring the attendance of the Knights of the shire, Citizens, and Burgesses, except those issued in the name of the late king Henry the third.”

The cities and boroughs to which these writs were directed were the following:—Bristol, Canterbury, Carlisle, Colchester, Chester, Exeter, Grimsby, Hereford, Lynn, Lincoln, Newcastle (Tyne,) Norwich, Northampton, Nottingham, Scarborough, Shrewsbury, Winchester, Worcester, Yarmouth, (Norfolk) and York.

In the 23d of Edward the third, 1294, a Parliament was summoned to meet at Westminster, and writs were sent to the several sheriffs of England to cause to be elected two Knights for each county, two Citizens for each city, and two Burgesses for each borough, to be at the said Parliament, to consent and agree to such things, as the Earls, Barons, and Peers of the Realm should ordain; and from this year is to be dated the first regular general summons of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to Parliament. It is proper to observe that in this Parliament, the Earls, Barons, and Knights of the several counties, sat, treated, and consulted altogether, and gave the king an eleventh part of all their moveable goods; the Citizens and Burgesses acted separately, and granted a seventh part of all their moveables.

In the more early period of the history of the House of Commons, when the Parliament frequently sat only for a single day, the whole business being to grant the king a subsidy, it is probable that the Speaker might with more propriety be called the chairman, for sometimes one of the members was appointed to the chair, and sometimes another; some resolutions were ordered to be made by one member, and others to be reported by another.

In the 19th of Edward the second, 1325, William Trussell was in the chair, when Hugh Spenser the younger was accused of Treason, in Parliament.

In the 6th of Edward the First, the Commons made answer to the king by Sir Geoffrey le Scroop, and it was agreed by the king, and the whole in full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers named, should meet on the business in discussion by themselves; the other Prelates, Earls, and Barons, and the Proxies[40] by themselves; and the Knights of the shires and Commons by themselves. In the fifty first of the same king Sir Thomas Hungerfore was Speaker of the Commons.

In the first of Richard the Second, 1377, Sir Peter de la Mare, knight of the shire for the county of Hereford, was Speaker of the Commons, as he had been in the last Parliament but one of Edward the Third. In the fifth of the former king, 1382, Sir Richard Waldegrave was chosen by the Commons to be their Speaker, who made an excuse, and desired to be discharged. He is the first Speaker that appears upon record to have made an excuse, but the king commanded him, upon his allegiance, to accept the office, seeing he had been chosen by the Commons.

In the fifth of Henry the fourth, 1404, Sir Arnold Savage being chosen Speaker, after making an excuse, requested the king, in the name of the Commons, that they might freely make complaint of any thing amiss in the government, and that the king would not by the sinister information of any person take offence at that of which they should complain, which petition was granted by the king.

In the seventh year of the same king, 1406, Sir John Tiptoft being chosen Speaker, made an excuse on account of his youth, which not being accepted, he requested that if any writing was delivered by the Commons, and they should desire to have it again, to amend or alter any thing therein, it might be restored to them, which was granted. Whilst he was Speaker, he signed and sealed in the name of the Commons the deed which entailed the crown upon Henry the fourth. This young Speaker is said to have taken more upon him, and to have spoken more boldly and freely to the King and the Lords, than any before him, insomuch that his example being followed, the king gave a check to it, when Thomas Chaucer, Esq. was chosen Speaker in his room.

In the 20th of Henry the sixth, 1450, the Commons presented Sir John Popham to the king as their Speaker, who making an excuse, it was received, and he was discharged, on which the Commons presented William Tresham, who had twice before been Speaker, who was accepted.

In the 31st of the same king, 1453, Thomas Thorpe, Esq. Speaker of the House of Commons was arrested in execution at the suit of the Duke of York during the vacation between two sessions, and the opinion of the judges being demanded by the Lords, they refused to judge of the liberties of Parliament as not belonging to their jurisdiction, whereupon the Lords without their advice adjudged that the Speaker was not entitled to any privilege, which, on being-signified to the Commons, and also the king’s pleasure being made known to them that they should choose another Speaker, they chose Sir Thomas Charleton.

In the 15th of Henry the eighth, 1523, Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. He made the usual protestation for himself, and prayed that if any member should in debate speak more largely than he ought, that he might be pardoned by the king, which was granted.

In the first year of queen Elizabeth, 1559, Sir Thomas Gargrave was chosen Speaker; in his speech to the queen he made four requests, namely first, free access to her majesty; secondly, for liberty of speech; thirdly, privilege from arrests; and fourthly, that his mistakes might not prejudice the house.

In Scotland the system of representation was not adopted till the reign of James the first, of that kingdom, in 1427. By an act of that year it was enacted, that “the king with consent of the whole council generally has statute and ordained that the small Barons and free Tenants need not to come to Parliaments nor general councils, so that of each sheriffdom there be sent, chosen at the head court of the sheriffdom, two or more wise men after the largeness of the sheriffdom, &c.”—Scottish Acts printed in 1682, p. 30.

In Scotland the Lords and Commons unquestionably sat in the same House till the Union of the two kingdoms, and the Commissioner who represented the sovereign, debated with them from the throne, although he had the power, which he sometimes used, of adjourning the assembly when he pleased.

MOSAIC PAINTING.

Mosaic is a representation of painting by means of small pebbles, or shells of sundry colours, and, of late years, with pieces of glass coloured at pleasure; it is an ornament of much beauty, and lasts for ages, and is mostly used in pavements and floors.

The term Mosaic is derived from the latin musivum, and ought to be pronounced musaic. It is odd enough that many persons have really fancied they could trace the etymology of this word to the name of the great Jewish legislator. It is well observed by Wotton that Mosaic has “long life;” and we have much to lament that, the art was not practised in ancient Rome with the perfection it has attained in modern Rome. Had Mosaic been applied to exact imitations of the pictures of Apelles, Zeuxis, and the great artists of ancient times, we should still have been the contemporaries of every fine genius, and a new polish had renewed their fading beauties, and restored them to immortal youth.

Pliny has proved that the Greeks first practised Mosaic, and notices a curious work of the kind which was called “the unswept piece.” This singular performance exhibited to the eye, crumbs of bread and other things which fall from a table, so naturally imitated, that the eye was perfectly deceived, and it looked as if the pavement had never been swept; it was formed of small shells, painted of different colours.

There were several pieces of Mosaic found in Herculaneum; one much resembled a Turkey carpet. The ancients probably gave in Mosaic some historical subjects, for there was also discovered the Rape of Europa, composed of small flints.

Mosaic has been practised in Italy two thousand years; the manner of working it in that country is by copying in very small pieces of marble of different colours, every thing which a picture can be expected to imitate. Instead of common stones, too difficult to collect for so great a work, or which would require too much time to prepare and polish, the Italian artists sometimes have recourse to paste, that is to a composition of glass and enamel, which after passing through a crucible takes a brilliant colour. All these pieces are inlaid, and very thin, and their length is proportioned to their slenderness. They sometimes inlay a piece not thicker than a hair, and the artist afterwards arranges these pieces according to the colours and design of the picture before him. They are easily fixed in the stucco or plaster of Paris placed to receive them which soon hardens and dries. Such works are so solid that they are capable of resisting the assaults of time through ages. The Mosaic of St. Mark at Venice has existed above 900 years in perfect splendour and beauty.

Several fine pieces of Roman Mosaic work have been discovered in England in the last and preceding centuries, particularly at Woodchester in Gloucestershire, and at Horkstow, in Lincolnshire, both of which have been elaborately described and engraved by the late Samuel Lysons, Esq. Others have been found at Winterton, Roxby, Scampton, and Denton, in the county of Lincoln; in Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, &c. &c.

Sir Christopher Wren intended to have beautified the inside of the Cupola of St. Paul’s Cathedral, instead of painting it in the manner in which it now appears, with the more durable ornament of Mosaic work, as is nobly executed in the Cupola of St. Peter’s at Rome. For this purpose he intended to have procured from Italy four of the most eminent artists in that profession; but as this art was a great novelty in England, and not generally understood, the plan did not receive the encouragement it deserved. It was thought also that the expense would prove too great, and the time very long in the execution; but though these and all other objections were fully answered, yet this excellent design was no further pursued.

KING EGBERT.

It is a generally received opinion, sanctioned by nearly every modern historian, that Egbert king of the West Saxons, having dissolved the Heptarchy, about the year 828, became the first sole monarch of England. This is, however, one of those historical points which it is more easy to assert than to confirm. There were undoubtedly many chief monarchs of the heptarchy, both before and after the time of Egbert, that sovereign himself having been one of those chief monarchs, but some of those petty kingdoms subsisted for nearly one hundred and twenty years after Egbert’s death. That this was the fact is proved both by their coins and their laws. Several of their coins are still to be found in the cabinets of the curious. Thus we find that in the kingdom of the East Angles, king Edmund, called the Saint, and Ethelstan, (Guthrun the Danish general being so named by Alfred at his baptism,) coined money, the first in 857, and the latter in 878. The kings of Mercia coined money until A. D. 874, and the kings of Northumberland till A. D. 950. In the last mentioned year, the kingdom of Northumberland, which included all the country north of the Humber, terminated, and England became one kingdom. It was again divided by Edwy, who began to reign in 959, so that Edgar may more justly be regarded as commencing the series of kings of all England. It may be proper here to remark that two kingdoms of the Heptarchy never coined any money; these were the kingdoms of the East Saxons and the South Saxons.

Alfred was the first king that made a code of laws which was common to the whole kingdom. There were very few legislators among the Saxon Monarchs. The laws of Ethelbert, who died in 617, are the most ancient that we have. The next are those of Lothaire, 673; Edric, 684; and Wightred, 694; all of them kings of Kent. Ina, king of the West Saxons, 688, and Offa king of the Mercians, 757, were the only other kings of the Heptarchy who formed any laws which have been preserved by historians. If it be objected that the people of the other kingdoms could not subsist without laws suited to the situation of their affairs, we may observe that the monarchs of those kingdoms received into their states and adopted the laws of the kings already mentioned. The laws of Ina were received by the other kings of the Heptarchy, and in one of the great councils held by Offa, king of Mercia, there were present the king of the East Saxons, the king of the West Saxons, the king of Kent, the king of Northumberland, and three kings of Wales.

Alfred having conquered the Danes at Edington, and Guthrun their general and his principal officers having been baptized in the church of Aller, near Langport, in Somersetshire, Alfred concluded a treaty of peace with Guthrun, and gave him the kingdoms of East Anglia and Northumberland for himself and his Danes, appointing the boundaries of his dominions and giving him laws which were agreed to and confirmed by Alfred’s and Guthrun’s nobles. In all cases which were not provided for by this treaty, Guthrun consented that the Danes should observe the general laws of Alfred. This treaty was afterwards confirmed and enlarged by Edward the Elder, Alfred’s son, with the consent and approbation of his and Guthrun’s nobles.

THE LATIN LANGUAGE.

So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners, that it was their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the latin tongue. The ancient dialects of Italy, the Sabine, the Etruscan, and the Venetian, sunk into oblivion; but the eastern were less docile than the western provinces to the voice of its victorious preceptors. This obvious difference marked the two portions of the empire with a distinction of character, which, though it was in some degree concealed during the meridian splendour of prosperity, became gradually more visible, as the shades of night descended upon the Roman world. The western countries were civilized by the same hands which subdued them. As soon as the barbarians were reconciled to obedience, their minds were opened to any new impressions of knowledge and politeness. The language of Virgil and Cicero, though with some inevitable mixture of corruption, was so universally adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain and Pannonia, that the faint traces of the Punic or Celtic idioms were preserved only in the mountains or among the peasants. The Celtic was indeed preserved in the mountains of Wales, Cornwall, and Armorica; and it may here be observed that Apuleius reproaches an African youth, who lived among the populace, with the use of the Punic, whilst he had almost forgot Greek, and neither could nor would speak Latin. The greater part of St. Austin’s congregations were strangers to the Punic. Education and study insensibly inspired the natives of the countries just mentioned with the sentiments of Romans; and Italy gave fashions, as well as laws, to her latin provincials. They solicited with more ardour, and obtained with more facility, the freedom and honours of the state; supported the national dignity in letters and in arms; and at length in the person of Trajan, produced an Emperor whom the Scipios would not have disowned for their countryman. Spain alone produced Columella, the Senecas, Lucan, Martial, and Quinctilian.

The situation of the Greeks was very different from that of the barbarians. The former had been long since civilized and corrupted. They had too much taste to relinquish their language, and too much vanity to adopt any foreign institutions. Still preserving the prejudices, after they had lost the virtues of their ancestors, they affected to despise the unpolished manners of the Roman conquerors, whilst they were compelled to respect their superior wisdom and power. The Greeks seemed to be entirely ignorant that the Romans had any good writers; and it is believed that there is not a single Greek critic, from Dionysius to Libanius, who mentions Virgil or Horace. Nor was the influence of the Grecian language and sentiments confined to the narrow limits of that once celebrated country. Their empire, by the progress of colonies and conquests, had been diffused from the Adriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile. Asia was covered with Greek cities, and the long reign of the Macedonian kings, had introduced a silent revolution into Syria and Egypt. In their pompous courts, those princes united the elegance of Athens with the luxury of the East, and the example of the court was imitated, at an humble distance, by the higher ranks of their subjects. Such was the general division of the Roman empire into the Latin and Greek languages.

To these we may add a third distinction for the body of the natives in Syria, and especially in Egypt. The use of their ancient dialects, by secluding them from the commerce of mankind, checked the improvements of those barbarians. The slothful effeminacy of the former, exposed them to the contempt; the sullen ferociousness of the latter, excited the aversion of the conquerors. Those nations had submitted to the Roman power, but they seldom desired or deserved the freedom of the city; and it was remarked, that more than two hundred and thirty years elapsed after the ruin of the Ptolemys, before an Egyptian was admitted into the Senate of Rome, the first instance of which happened under the reign of Septimius Severus.

Dr. HERSCHEL.

In the History of Doncaster, written by Dr. Miller, we find the following account of the early years of this eminent astronomer:—

“It will ever be a gratifying reflection to me,” says Dr. Miller, “that I was the first person by whose means this extraordinary genius was drawn from a state of obscurity. About the year 1760, as I was dining with the officers of the Durham militia, at Pontefract, one of them informed me, that they had a young German in their band, as a performer on the hautboy, who had been only a few months in this country, and yet spoke English almost as well as a native; that exclusively of the hautboy, he was an excellent performer on the violin, and if I chose to repair to another room, he should entertain me with a solo. I did so, and Mr. Herschel executed a solo of Giordani’s in a manner that surprised me. Afterwards I took an opportunity to have a little private conversation with him, and requested to know if he had engaged himself to the Durham militia for any long period? he answered, ‘No, only from month to month.’ Leave them then, said I, and come and live with me; I am a single man, and think we shall be happy together; doubtless your merit will soon entitle you to a more eligible situation. He consented to my request, and came to Doncaster. It is true, at that time, my humble mansion consisted but of two rooms; however, poor as I was, my cottage contained a small library of well chosen books; and it must appear singular, that a young German, who had been so short a time in England, should understand even the peculiarities of our language so well, as to adopt Dean Swift for his favourite author. I took an early opportunity of introducing him at Mr. Copley’s concert; and he presently began

“Untwisting all the charms that tie

”The hidden soul of harmony.”

For never before had we heard the concertos of Corelli, Geminiani, and Avison, or the overtures of Handel, performed more chastely, or more according to the original intention of the composers, than by Mr. Herschel. I soon lost my companion; his fame was presently spread abroad, he had the offer of scholars, and was solicited to lead the public concerts at Wakefield and Halifax.

“About this time a new organ, for the parish church of Halifax, was built by Snetzler; which was opened with an oratorio, by the late well-known Joah Bates. Mr. Herschel, and six others, were candidates for the organist’s place. They drew lots how they were to perform in rotation. Herschel drew the third lot—the second performer was Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Wainwright, of Manchester, whose finger was so rapid, that old Snetzler, the organ builder, ran about the church exclaiming:—‘Te tevil, te tevil, he run over te keys like one cat, he will not give my pipes room for to shpeak!’ During Mr. Wainwright’s performance, I was standing in the middle aile with Herschel;—What chance have you, said I, to follow this man? He replied, ‘I do not know, I am sure fingers will not do.’ On which he ascended the loft, and produced from the organ such an uncommon fullness, such a volume of slow, solemn harmony, that I could by no means account for the effect. After this short extemporary effusion, he finished with the old hundredth psalm, which he played better than his opponent. ‘Aye, aye,’ cried old Snetzler, ‘tish is very goot, very goot inteet; I will luf tish man, for he gives my pipes room for to shpeak!’ Having afterwards asked Herschel by what means, in the beginning of his performance he produced such an uncommon effect? he replied, ‘I told you fingers would not do,’ and producing two pieces of lead from his pocket, ‘one of these,’ said he, ‘I placed on the lowest key of the organ, and the other upon the octave above; thus by accommodating the harmony, I produced the effect of four hands instead of two. However, as my leading the concert on the violin, is their principal object, they will give me the place in preference to a better performer on the organ; but I shall not stay long here, for I have the offer of a superior situation at Bath, which offer I shall accept.’“

PARODIES.

The present use of this word is strictly consonant with that of the ancients, who applied it to the giving a ridiculous turn to passages in Homer and the tragic Poets. There are many in Aristophanes. One of the happiest modern instances is the parody of the speech of Sarpedon to Glaucus in the Rape of the Lock. The genealogy of Agamemnon’s sceptre is also parodied in the same poem, canto 5, v. 87.

MOURNING FOR THE DEAD.

In the Mosaic law the Israelites were commanded not to cut themselves for the dead. The original Hebrew has, however a more extensive meaning than cutting, and includes all assaults on their own persons, arising from immoderate grief, such as beating the breasts, tearing the hair, &c. which were commonly practised by the heathen, who had no hope of a resurrection, particularly by the Egyptians, which might afford a particular reason for the Mosaic prohibition. We may also observe, that among the Romans, it was ordained by one of the laws of the twelve tables, “Let not women tear their faces, or make lamentations at funerals,” which proves that this was the custom with the Romans, previously to making this law. No doubt the law itself was immediately borrowed from the Athenian code, of which it is a literal translation.

The Priests of Baal, (1 Kings, ch. 18, v. 28.) assaulted themselves with knives and lances, which was indeed equivalent to cutting themselves. Nor was this frantic custom confined to the Priests of Baal; the Galli, and other devotees of the Syrian goddess, cut their arms, and scourged each others backs, according to Lucian. “Baal’s Priests”, says Dr. Leland, “were wont to cut and slash themselves with knives and lances. The same thing was practised in the worship of Isis, according to Herodotus, and of Bellona, as Lucan mentions. Many authors take notice of the solemnities of Cybele, the mother of the gods, whose priests in their sacred processions, made hideous noises and howlings, cutting themselves till the blood gushed out, as they went along.”

GARRICK.

The genius of Garrick seems to have been particularly calculated to introduce Shakespeare on the stage. He knew how to alter him so as to fit him for the audience of the present day, without divesting him of any of his excellencies, and the few additions he has ventured are in the spirit of the original. These Plays, so altered, are likely to keep possession of the theatre, while every other attempt at change or improvement are forgotten, except Cibber’s Richard the Third, and Tate’s Lear, which, with some correction of Garrick’s, are still acted, though the alteration of the last is directly in opposition to the precepts of Aristotle and Mr. Addison.

Cibber, though versed in the province of the drama, which is perhaps essential to make a good dramatic writer, since the knowledge of stage effect is of great consequence, possessed a genius not above mediocrity; and Tate was a very indifferent poet. Yet there is a line in Cibber’s Richard, written by himself, so characteristic of the manner of his archetype, that it has often been cited as one of Shakespeare’s beauties. I mean the exclamation of Richard, on Buckingham’s being taken,

“Off with his head! so much for Buckingham.”

And I heard, says Mr. Pye, (Comment. on Aristotle,) Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, quote the following verse of Tate’s, in the House of Commons, undoubtedly taking it for Shakespeare’s,

“Where the gor’d battle bleeds in every vein.”

The tragedy of Hamlet was, by order of Mrs. Garrick, thrown into Garrick’s grave. Though he was undoubtedly great in that character, he was equally so in many of Shakespeare’s characters, and superior in Lear. The comic characters it is presumed were thought too light for so solemn an occasion. If by burying that tragedy with Garrick it was meant to infer that it was lost to the stage with him, a complete edition of Shakespeare might, with the utmost propriety have been interred with that inimitable actor.

LEMONS.

Theophrastus, who studied under Plato and Aristotle, says of lemons, that they were cultivated for their fragrance, not for their taste; that the peel was laid up with garments, to preserve them from moths; and that the juice was administered by physicians medicinally.

Virgil in his second Georgic, describes agreeably the Lemon-tree. Pliny mentions the lemon-juice as an antidote; but says that the fruit, from its austere taste, was not eaten.

Plutarch, who nourished within a generation of Pliny, witnessed the introduction of lemons at the Roman tables. Juba, king of Mauritania, was the first who exhibited them at his dinners. And Athenæus introduces Democritus as not wondering that old people made wry mouths at the taste of lemons; for, adds he, in my grandfather’s time, they were never set upon the table. And to this day the Chinese, who grow the fruit, do not apply it to culinary purposes.

The great use of lemons began with the introduction of sugar, which is said to have resulted from the conquest of Sicily, by the Arabs, in the ninth century. Sestini, in his letters from Sicily and Turkey, thinks that the best sorts of lemons, and the best sorts of sherbet, were derived from Florence, by the Sicilians. Probably Rome continued, even in the dark ages, to be the chief seat of luxury and refinement; and had domesticated the art of making lemonade, before either Messina or Florence.

In Madagascar slices of lemon are boiled, and eaten with salt.

Pomet, in his History of Drugs, gives the preference over all others to the lemons of Madeira; but according to Ferrarius, there grows at the Cape a sweet lemon, to which he gives the name incomparabilis.

ORIGIN OF THE POINT OF HONOUR.

We meet with inexplicable enigmas in the codes of the laws of the barbarians. The law of the Frisians allowed only about the value of a farthing, by way of compensation, to a person who had been beaten with a stick; and yet for ever such a small wound it allows more. By the Salic law, if a freeman gave three blows with a stick to another freeman, he paid about three halfpence; if he drew blood, he was punished as if he had wounded him with steel, and he paid about seven-pence halfpenny; thus the punishment was proportioned to the greatness of the wound. The law of the Lombards established different compensations for one, two, three, four blows, and so on. At present a single blow is equivalent to a hundred thousand.

The constitution of Charlemagne, inserted in the law of the Lombards, ordains, that those who were allowed the trial by combat, should fight with clubs. Perhaps this was out of regard to the clergy; or, probably, as the usage of legal duels gained ground, they wanted to render them less sanguinary. The capitulary of Louis the Pious, added to the Salic law in 819, allows the liberty of chusing to fight either with the sword or club. In process of time none but bondmen or slaves fought with the club.

Here may be seen the first rise and formation of the particular articles of our point of honour. The accuser began with declaring, in the presence of the judge, that such a person had committed such an action, and the accused made answer that, he lied; upon which the judge gave orders for the duel. It became then an established rule, that whenever a person had the lie given him, it was incumbent on him to fight.

Upon a man’s declaring he would fight, he could not afterwards depart from his word; if he did, he was condemned to a penalty. Hence this rule followed, that whenever a person had engaged his word, honour forbade him to recal it.

Gentlemen fought one another on horseback, armed at all points; villans fought on foot, and with clubs.[41] Hence it followed, that the club was looked upon as the instrument of insults and affronts,[42] because to strike a man with it, was treating him like a villan.

No one but villans fought with their faces uncovered;[43] so that none but they could receive a blow on the face. Therefore a box on the ear, became an injury that must be expiated with blood, because the person who received it, had been treated as a villan.

The several people of Germany were not less sensible of the point of honour. The most distant relations took a very considerable share to themselves in every affront, and on this all their codes are founded. The law of the Lombards ordains, that whoever goes attended with servants to beat a man by surprize, in order to load him thereby with shame, and to render him ridiculous, should pay half the compensation, which he would owe if he had killed him; and if through the same motive he tied or bound him, he should pay three fourths of the same compensation.

GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH.

Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first person, after the conquest, who attempted to write any thing concerning the ancient history of Britain. Although the century, in which he lived, is known, yet neither his family, the time of his birth, nor the place of his education has been ascertained. We are only informed that he was born at Monmouth, and became archdeacon of that place, and that he was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, in 1152, which he resigned to live in the monastery of Abingdon. By some writers he is called a monk of the Dominican order, but, according to Leland, without sufficient authority. Warton says that he was a Benedictine monk.

The history which has made his name celebrated, is entitled Chronicon sive Historia Britonum. This history, written in the British or Armorican language, was brought into England by Walter Mapes, otherwise Calenius, archdeacon of Oxford, a learned man, and a diligent collector of histories. Travelling through France, about the year 1100, he procured in Armorica, this ancient chronicle, and, on his return, communicated it to Geoffrey, who, according to Warton, (History of English Poetry,) was an elegant Latin writer, and admirably skilled in the British tongue. Geoffrey, at the request and recommendation of Walter, translated this British chronicle into Latin, executing the translation with some degree of purity, and fidelity, insomuch that Matthew Paris speaking of him with reference to this history, says that he approved himself Interpres verus. With whatever fidelity the translation might be made, Geoffrey, however, was guilty of several interpolations, for he confesses that he took some part of his account of king Arthur’s achievements, from the mouth of his friend Walter, the archdeacon. He also owns that the account of Merlin’s prophecies was not in the Armorican original. The speeches and letters were his own forgeries, and in the description of battles, he has not scrupled to make frequent variations and additions.

Geoffrey dedicated his translation to Robert, Earl of Gloucester, natural son of king Henry the first; this, however, did not protect him from the lash even of his contemporaries, for his fables, it appears, were soon discovered, and William Neubrigensis, who lived about the same time, in the beginning of the history which he wrote, thus speaks of him; “In these days a certain writer is risen, who has devised many foolish fictions of the Britons; he is named Geoffrey, and with what little shame, and great confidence does he frame his falsehoods.” William himself, however, did not escape censure for thus animadverting upon Geoffrey.

It is difficult to ascertain at what period the original of Geoffrey’s history was compiled. The subject of it, when divested of its romantic embellishments, is a deduction of the Welsh princes, from the Trojan Brutus to Cadwallader, who reigned in the seventh century; and this notion of their extraction from the Trojans, had so infatuated the Welsh, that even so late as the year 1284, archbishop Peckham, in his injunctions to the diocese of St. Asaph, orders the people to abstain from giving credit to idle dreams and visions, a superstition which they had contracted from their belief in the dream of their founder Brutus, in the temple of Diana, concerning his arrival in Britain. The archbishop very seriously, advises them to boast no more of their relation to the conquered and fugitive Trojans, but to glory in the victorious cross of Christ.

The Welsh were not singular in being desirous of tracing their descent from the Trojans, for several European nations were anciently fond of being considered as the offspring of that people. A French historian of the sixth century ascribes the origin of his countrymen to Francio, a son of Priam, and so universal was this humour, and to such an absurd excess of extravagance was it carried, that under the reign of Justinian, even the Greeks themselves were ambitious of being thought to be descended from their ancient enemies the Trojans. The most rational mode of accounting for this predilection, is to suppose, that the revival of Virgil’s Æneid, about the sixth or seventh century, which represents the Trojans as the founders of Rome, the capital of the supreme Pontiff, and a city on various other accounts in the early ages of christianity, highly reverenced and distinguished, occasioned an emulation in many other European nations of claiming an alliance to the same celebrated original. In the mean time it is not quite improbable, that as most of the European nations had become provinces of the Roman empire, those who fancied themselves to be of Trojan extraction might have imbibed this notion, or at least have acquired a general knowledge of the Trojan story from their conquerors, more especially the Britons, who continued so long under the Roman Government.

Geoffrey produces Homer in attestation of a fact asserted in his history; but in such a manner as shews that he knew little more than Homer’s name, and was but imperfectly acquainted with Homer’s subject. Geoffrey says that Brutus having ravaged the province of Aquitaine with fire and sword, came to a place where the city of Tours now stands, as Homer testifies.

This fable of the descent of the Britons from the Trojans was solemnly alleged as an authentic and undeniable proof in a controversy of great national importance by king Edward the first, and his nobility, without the least objection from the opposite party. It was in the famous dispute concerning the subjection of the crown of Scotland to that of England, about the year 1301. The allegations are contained in a letter to Pope Boniface, signed and sealed by the king and his lords. This is a curious instance of the implicit faith with which this tradition continued to be believed, even in a more enlightened age; and an evidence that it was equally credited in Scotland.

As to the story of Brutus in particular, Geoffrey’s hero, it may be presumed, that his legend was not contrived, nor the history of his successors invented, until after the ninth century; for Nennius,[44] who lived about the middle of that century, not only speaks of Brutus with great obscurity and inconsistency, but seems totally uninformed as to every circumstance of the British affairs which preceded Cæsar’s invasion. There are other proofs that this piece could not have existed before the ninth century. Alfred’s Saxon translation of the Mercian law is mentioned; and Charlemagne’s twelve peers, by an anachronism not uncommon in romance, are said to be present at king Arthur’s magnificent coronation, in the city of Caerleon. It were easy to produce instances, that Geoffrey’s chronicle was, undoubtedly, framed after the legend of St. Ursula, the acts of St. Lucius, and the historical writings of Venerable Bede, had procured a considerable circulation in the neighbouring countries. At the same time it contains many passages which incline us to determine, that some parts of it, at least, were written after or about the eleventh century.

Warton, (Hist. of Eng. Poetry, Dis. 1.) in order to prove these positions, says, that he will not insist on that passage, in which the title of legate of the apostolic see is attributed to Dubricius, in the character of the primate of Britain, as it appears for obvious reasons, to have been an artful interpolation of Geoffrey, who, it will be remembered, was an ecclesiastic. Other arguments present themselves, possessing more efficiency; Canute’s forest, or Cannock Wood, in Staffordshire, occurs, and Canute died in the year 1036.

At the ideal coronation of king Arthur, just mentioned, a tournament is described, as exhibited in its highest splendour. “Many knights,” says this Armoric chronicler, “famous for feats of chivalry, were present, with apparel and arms of the same colour and fashion. They formed a species of diversion, in imitation of a fight on horseback, and the ladies being placed on the walls of the castles, darted amorous glances on the combatants. None of these ladies esteemed any knight worthy of her love, but such as had given proof of his gallantry, in three several encounters.” Here is the practice of chivalry, under the combined ideas of love and military prowess, as they seem to have subsisted after the feudal constitution had acquired greater degrees, not only of stability, but of splendour and refinement. And, although a species of tournament was exhibited in France, at the reconciliation of the sons of Lewis the Feeble, at the close of the ninth century, and at the beginning of the tenth, the coronation of the emperor Henry, was solemnized with martial entertainments, in which many parties were introduced fighting on horseback, yet it was long afterwards that these games were accompanied with the peculiar formalities, and ceremonious usages here described. In the mean time, we cannot answer for the innovations of a translator, in such a description. The burial of Hengist, the Saxon chief, who is said to have been interred not after the Pagan fashion, as Geoffrey renders the words of the original, but after the manner of the Soldans, is partly an argument, that our romance was composed about the time of the Crusades. It was not till those memorable campaigns of mistaken devotion, had infatuated the western world, that the Soldans, or sultans of Babylon, of Egypt, of Iconium, and other eastern kingdoms, became familiar in Europe. Not that the notion of this piece, being written so late as the crusades, in the least invalidates the doctrine here delivered. Not even if we suppose that Geoffrey was its original composer. That notion rather tends to confirm, and establish this system.

On the whole it may be affirmed, that Geoffrey’s chronicle, which is supposed to contain the ideas of the Welsh bards, entirely consists of Arabian inventions. And in this view no difference is made, whether it was compiled about the tenth century, at which time, if not before, the Arabians, from their settlements in Spain, must have communicated their romantic fables to other parts of Europe, especially to the French; or whether it first appeared in the eleventh century, after the crusades had multiplied these fables to an excessive degree, and made them universally popular. And although the general cast of the inventions, contained in this romance, is alone sufficient to point out the source from whence they were derived, yet it is thought proper to prove to a demonstration what is here advanced, by producing and examining some particular passages.

The books of the Arabians and Persians abound with extravagant traditions about the giants Gog and Magog. These they call Jagiouge and Magiouge; and the Caucasian Wall, said to be built by Alexander the Great from the Caspian to the Black Sea, in order to cover the frontiers of his dominion, and to prevent the incursions of the Scythians, is called by the orientals the Wall of Gog and Magog. One of the most formidable giants, according to our Armorican Romance, who opposed the landing of Brutus in Britain, was Goemagot. He was twelve cubits high, and would uproot an oak as easily as a hazel wand; but after a most obstinate encounter with Corinæus, he was tumbled into the sea from the summit of a steep cliff on the rocky shores of Cornwall, and dashed in pieces against the huge crags of the declivity. The place where he fell, adds our historian, taking its name from the giants fall, is called Sam Goemagot, or Goemagot’s leap to this day. A no less monstrous giant, whom king Arthur slew on St. Michael’s mount in Cornwall, is said by this fabler to have come from Spain. Here the origin of these stories is evidently betrayed. The Arabians, or Saracens, as has been before hinted, had conquered Spain, and were settled there. Arthur having killed this redoubted giant, declares, that he had combated with none of equal strength and prowess, since he overcame the mighty giant, Rytho, on the mountain Arabius, who had made himself a robe of the beards of the kings whom he had killed. A magician brought from Spain is called to the assistance of Edwin a prince of Northumberland, educated under Solomon king of the Armoricans. In the prophecy of Merlin, delivered to Vortigern, after the battle of the Dragons, forged perhaps by the translator Geoffrey, yet apparently in the spirit and manner of the rest, we have the Arabians named, and their situations in Spain and Africa. “From Conan shall come forth a wild boar, whose tusks shall destroy the oaks of the forests of France. The Arabians and Africans shall dread him; and he shall continue his rapid course into the most distant parts of Spain.” This is king Arthur. In the same prophecy, mention is made of the “Woods of Africa.” In another place Gormund, king of the Africans occurs. In a battle which Arthur fights against the Romans, some of the principal leaders in the Roman army are Alifantinam, king of Spain; Pandrasus, king of Egypt; Broccus, king of the Medes; Evander, king of Syria; Micipsa, king of Babylon; and a Duke of Phrygia.

The old fictions about Stonehenge were derived from the same inexhaustible source of extravagant imagination. We are told in this Romance, that the giants conveyed the stones which compose this miraculous monument from the farthest coasts of Africa. Every one of these stones is supposed to be mystical, and to maintain a medicinal virtue; an idea drawn from the medical skill of the Arabians, and more particularly from the Arabian doctrine of attributing healing qualities, and other occult properties to stones. Merlin’s transformation of Uther into Gorlois, and of Ulfin into Bricel, by the power of some medical preparation is a species of Arabian magic, which professed to work the most wonderful deceptions of this kind. The attributing of prophetical language to birds was common among the Orientals, and an eagle is supposed to speak at building the walls of the city of Paladur, now Shaftesbury.

The Arabians cultivated the study of Philosophy, particularly Astronomy, with amazing ardour. Hence arose the tradition, reported by our historian, that in king Arthur’s reign, there subsisted at Carleon in Glamorganshire, a college of two hundred philosophers, who studied astronomy and other sciences; and who were particularly employed in watching the courses of the stars, and predicting events to the king from their observations. Edwin’s Spanish magician above mentioned, by his knowledge of the flight of birds, and the courses of the stars, is said to fortel future disasters. In the same strain, Merlin prognosticates Uther’s success in battle by the appearance of a comet. The same Enchanter’s wonderful skill in mechanical powers, by which he removes the Giant’s Dance, or Stonehenge, from Ireland into England, and the notion that this stupendous structure was raised by a PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MECHANICAL ARTS, are founded on the Arabian literature. To which we may add king Bladud’s magical operations. Dragons are a sure mark of orientalism. One of these in our Romance is a “terrible dragon flying from the west, breathing fire, and illuminating all the country with the brightness of his eyes.” In another place we have a giant mounted on a winged dragon; the dragon erects his scaly tail, and wafts his rider to the clouds with great rapidity.

Arthur and Charlemagne are the first and original heroes of Romance. And as Geoffrey’s history is the grand repository of the acts of Arthur, so a fabulous history ascribed to Turpin is the ground work of all the chimerical legends which have been related concerning the conquests of Charlemagne and his twelve Peers. In these two fabulous chronicles the foundations of romance seem to be laid. The principal characters, the leading subjects, and the fundamental fictions which have supplied such ample matter to this singular species of composition, are here first displayed. And although the long continuance of the Crusades imported innumerable inventions of a similar complexion, and substituted the achievements of new champions, and the wonders of other countries, yet the tales of Arthur and Charlemagne, diversified indeed, or enlarged with additional embellishments, still continued to prevail, and to be the favourite topics; and this, partly from their early popularity, partly from the quantity and the beauty of the fictions with which they were at first supported, and especially because the design of the Crusades had made those subjects so fashionable in which Christians fought with Infidels. In a word these volumes are the first specimens extant in this mode of writing. No European history before these has mentioned giants, enchanters, dragons, and the like monstrous and arbitrary fictions. And the reason is obvious; they were written at a time when a new and unnatural mode of thinking took place in Europe, introduced by our communication with the East.

Geoffrey, in his chronicle, gives a genealogy of the kings of Britain, from the days of Brutus, including a list of seventy monarchs, who governed this island, previously to the invasion of Julius Cæsar. This list is very distinct and plain, but bears so many marks of invention, either of himself, or of the author, from whom he translated his chronicle, that it has long since been treated as a mere fiction. With respect to the story of Brutus, the bishop of St. Asaph is of opinion, that this forgery was intended to pass off the English kings, as being as nobly descended as the kings of other nations, by drawing their descent from the Trojans, according to the belief of the age in which the author lived. Sir William Temple, in his introduction to the History of England, (p. 19.) accounts the story of Brutus, as a fabulous invention.

Bishop Nicolson (Hist. Libr. p. 37.) says, that the best defence that can be made for Geoffrey’s history, is that which was written by Sir John Price, and published at London, in quarto, in 1573, under the title of Historiæ Britannicæ Defensio. This was dedicated by the author, to Lord Burleigh. (See Herbert’s Ames, vol. 2. p. 935, 1056.)

The chronicle of Geoffrey of Monmouth, has occasioned a long controversy, and divided the learned world as much as any other work given to the public. By some it has been treated as a forgery imposed upon the world by Geoffrey himself, whilst by others the ground work is considered as true, although the history, like most monkish writings, is mixed with childish fables and legendary tales.

The controversy has now been some time finally decided, and the best Welsh critics allow that Geoffrey’s work was a vitiated translation of the history of the British kings, written by Tyssilio, or St. Telian, bishop of St. Asaph, who flourished in the seventh century. Geoffrey in his work omitted many parts, made considerable alterations, additions, and interpolations, latinised many of the British appellations, and in the opinion of a learned Welshman,[45] (Lewis Morris) metaphorically murdered Tyssillio. We may therefore conclude that Geoffrey ought not to be cited as historical authority any more than Amadis de Gaul, or the Seven Champions of Christendom.

Geoffrey’s historical Romance, however, has not only been versified by monkish writers, but has supplied some of our best poets with materials for their sublime compositions. Spenser in the second book of his “Fairie Queene” has given

“A Chronicle of Briton kings

”From Brute to Arthur’s rayne;“

in which he has adorned the genealogy with poetical images, and introduces it with a sublime address to queen Elizabeth, who was proud of tracing her descent from the British line.

In this historical romance is also to be found, the affecting history of Leir, king of Britain, the eleventh in succession after Brutus, who divided his kingdom between Goneriller and Regan, his two elder daughters, and disinherited his younger daughter, Cordeilla. Being ungratefully treated by his elder daughters, he was restored to the crown by Cordeilla, who espoused Aganippus, king of the Franks. From this account Shakespeare selected his incomparable tragedy of king Lear; but improved the pathos by making the death of Cordeilla, which name he softened after the example of Spenser into Cordelia, precede that of Lear, whilst in the original story, the aged father is restored to his kingdom, and survived by Cordeilla.

Milton seems to have been particularly fond of Geoffrey’s tales,[46] to which he was indebted for the beautiful fiction of Sabrina in the mask of Comus. In his youth he even formed the design of making the early period of the British history, from Brutus to Arthur, the subject of an Epic Poem. The poetical language of Milton was peculiarly suited to this species of romance; he would have exalted the legends of Geoffrey, and enriched with the finest imagery the incantations and prophecies of Merlin, the heroic deeds of Vortimer, Aurelius, and Uther Pendragon.

The fables of Geoffrey have been clothed in rhyme by Robert of Gloucester, a monk of the abbey of Gloucester. He has left a poem of considerable length, which is a history of England in verse, from Brutus to the reign of Edward the first. His rhyming chronicle is, however, destitute either of art or imagination, and Geoffrey’s prose, frequently has a more poetical air than this author’s verses. It was evidently written after the year 1278, as the poet mentions king Arthur’s sumptuous tomb, erected in that year, before the high altar of Glastonbury abbey, and he declares himself a living witness of the remarkably dismal weather which distinguished the day on which the battle of Evesham was fought in the year 1265. From these and other circumstances this piece appears to have been composed about the year 1280. It is full of Saxonisms, which indeed abound more or less, in every writer before Gower and Chaucer.

Geoffrey was also copied by an old French poet, called Maister Wace, or Gasse, from which Robert de Brunne in his metrical chronicle of England translated that part which extends from Æneas to the death of Cadwallader. Wace’s poem is commonly called Roman de Rois d’Angleterre, and is esteemed one of the oldest of the French Romances.

With respect to the materials this chronicle has afforded to other writers, I will here give an instance or two.

Tyrrel, in his history of England, acknowledges that his first book is an epitome of Geoffrey’s pretended history; but at the same time says that if it had not been more for the diversion of the younger sort of readers, and that the work would have been thought to be imperfect without it, he should have been much better satisfied in wholly omitting it.

In the preface to Stow’s chronicle, (folio, 1631) the editor observes that Neubrigensis had written several invectives against Geoffrey, but more out of spleen than judgment. He charges that writer with maliciously endeavouring to destroy the credit of Geoffrey, because he himself having been a supplicant for the bishoprick of St. Asaph, had been rejected by the Prince of Wales, and had thus become the opponent of the Welsh history. His observations, Stow says, have been confuted by Sir John Price, Dr. Powel, and also by Lambard, in his perambulations of Kent. Stow then mentions John of Whethamsted, Polydore Virgil, and others, who have written against Geoffrey, and afterwards enumerates a long list of writers, as having uniformly supported him, or in other words, who have copied his history into their own chronicles.—Hume occasionally refers to Geoffrey, as an authority for some matters respecting the Saxon period of his history.

The History of Geoffrey was printed at Paris, in quarto, in 1508, and again in the same size, by Ascensius, in 1517. It was also printed with five other British historians, in folio, at Leyden, in 1587. Ponticus Virunnius, an Italian author, made an abridgment of it, in six books, which was printed at London, by Powel, in 1585, and also in the edition just mentioned.

A translation of Geoffrey’s chronicle was made by Aaron Thompson, and published at London in 1718, to which was prefixed a long preface, relating to the authority of the history. Thompson’s vindication of his author is elaborately written, and he defends him with great skill and learning; but after refuting the charge of forgery, he has failed in his attempt to establish Geoffrey’s work as an historical performance, for he himself invalidates its authority, by acknowledging that it was only such an irregular account, as the Britons were able to preserve in those times of destruction and confusion, with the addition of some romantic tales, which indeed might be traditions among the Welsh, and such as Geoffrey might think entertaining stories for the credulity of the times.

Thompson, in his preface, says that in making his translation, he used two editions of Geoffrey. The first was the Paris edition of Ascensius, 1517, which abounds with abbreviations of words, sometimes rendering their reading ambiguous. The other was the edition of Commeline, printed in the year 1587, which is much the most correct. These two were printed from different manuscripts, and there is a considerable variation between them, especially in the orthography of persons and places. This observation extends to the several ancient abridgments of Geoffrey, by Alfred of Beverley, Ralph Diceto, Matthew of Westminster, Ralph Higden, and Ponticus Virunnius.

LIFTING UP THE HAND IN SWEARING.

We find this significant ceremony of lifting up the hand in swearing, practised by the Greeks and Trojans. Thus Agamemnon swears in Homer, (Iliad, 7, 412)

“To all the gods his sceptre he uplifts.”

And Dolon requiring an oath of Hector, (Iliad, 10, 321)

“But first exalt thy sceptre to the skies,

”And swear——“

So in Virgil, (Æn. 12, 196) we find Latinus, when swearing, looking up to heaven, and stretching his right hand to the stars.

And we even meet with traditionary traces of their gods swearing in like manner. Thus Apollo, in Pindar, orders Lachesis, one of the Fates, to lift up her hands and not violate the great oath of the gods.

Giving one’s hand under, or to another was a token of submission. It was acknowledging his own power subject to that of the other. In this manner all the princes submitted to Solomon, (1 Chron. 29, 24) and Hezekiah commands the children of Israel, (2 Chron. 30, 8) to give the hand to Jehovah, that is to submit themselves and ascribe the power and the glory to him.

Homage is still performed in many places by the homager’s kneeling down and putting his hands between those of his lord, then taking an oath of fealty to him; after which they kiss each other’s cheek, in token of friendship and fidelity.

Giving the hand, was also a token of promising; it was a kind of staking their active powers for the performance of some promise or engagement. (See Ezra, 10, 19.)

The joining or taking of hands, among the ancients, betokened confederacy, or confirmation of some promise. This is illustrated by Homer’s expression, (Iliad, 21, 286) where Neptune and Minerva appear to Achilles, in a human shape, and confirm their promise, by taking his hand in their’s. So (Iliad, 6, 233) Glaucus and Diomed took hold of each other’s hands, and plighted their faith. On which line, Eustathius remarks, they plighted their faith to each other, by the accustomed ceremony of joining their right hands.[47]

We observe the same mode of joining hands in our marriage ceremony; and the custom of shaking hands, has also reference to some engagement for the future, as well as being a token of friendship and amity.

VILLIERS, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

A treaty of marriage between Charles, prince of Wales, (afterwards Charles I.) and the Infanta of Spain, having been a long time in agitation, Buckingham, in 1623, persuaded Prince Charles to make a journey into Spain, and to fetch home his mistress, the Infanta, by representing to him, how brave and gallant an action it would be, and how soon it would put an end to those formalities, which, though all substantial matters were already agreed upon, might yet retard her voyage to England many months. It is suggested by Lord Clarendon, that Buckingham’s motive for this journey, was an unwillingness that the Earl of Bristol, the ambassador in Spain, should have the sole honour of concluding the treaty of marriage. However, the king was vehemently against this journey, and indeed with good reason; but the solicitations of the prince, and the impetuosity of Buckingham, prevailed.

It appears that Buckingham, during his stay in Spain, behaved with great insolence to the Earl of Bristol, the English ambassador at that court. In a letter, written by the Earl to king James, we have the following particulars:—“Let your Majesty call some certain men unto you, and sift out of them the opinion of the more moderate parliament-men; and enquire of those that come out of Spain, who did give the first cause of falling out? Whether the Duke of Buckingham did not many things against the authority and reverence due to the Prince? Whether he was not wont to be sitting, whilst the Prince stood, and was in presence; and also to have his feet resting upon another seat, after an indecent manner? Whether, when the Prince was uncovered whilst the Queen and Infanta looked out at the window, he uncovered his head or not? Whether, sitting; at table with the prince, he did not behave himself unreverently? Whether he were not wont to come into the prince’s chamber, with his clothes half on, so that the doors could not be opened to them that came to visit the prince from the king of Spain, the door-keepers refusing to go in for modesty sake? Whether he did not call the prince by ridiculous names? Whether he did not dishonour and profane the king’s palace with base and contemptible women? Whether he did not divers obscene things, and used not immodest gesticulations, and wanton tricks with players in the presence of the prince? Whether he did not violate his faith to the Duke d’Olivarez, the Spanish prime minister? Whether he did not presently communicate his discontents, offences, and complaints, to the ambassadors of other princes? Whether in doing of his business, he did not use frequent threatenings unto the catholic king’s ministers, and to apostolical nuncios? Whether he did not affect to sit at plays presented in the king’s palace, after the manner and example of the king and prince, being not contented with the honour that is ordinarily given to the high steward or major-domo of the king’s house?”

There is sufficient reason for believing, that most of these queries may be answered in the affirmative.

KING ARTHUR.

In a century (A.D. 400 to A.D. 500) of perpetual, or at least implacable war, much courage, and some skill, must have been exerted for the defence of Britain, on the departure of the Roman legions, against the Saxon invaders. Yet if the memory of its champions is almost buried in oblivion, we need not repine; since every age, however destitute of science or virtue, sufficiently abounds with acts of blood and military renown. The tomb of Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, was erected on the margin of the sea-shore, as a landmark formidable to the Saxons, whom he had thrice vanquished in the fields of Kent. Ambrosius Aurelian was descended from a noble family of Romans, his modesty was equal to his valour, and his valour, till the last fatal action, was crowned with splendid success. But every British name is effaced by the illustrious name of Arthur, the hereditary prince of the Silures, who inhabited South Wales, and the elective king or general of the nation. According to the most rational accounts, he defeated, in twelve successive battles, the Angles of the North, and the Saxons of the West; but the declining age of the hero was embittered by popular ingratitude and domestic misfortunes. The events of his life are less interesting, than the singular revolutions of his fame. During a period of five hundred years the tradition of his exploits was preserved, and rudely embellished, by the obscure bards of Wales and Armorica, who were odious to the Saxons, and unknown to the rest of mankind. The pride and curiosity of the Norman conquerors, prompted them to enquire into the ancient history of Britain; they listened with fond credulity to the tale of Arthur, and eagerly applauded the merit of a prince, who had triumphed over the Saxons, their common enemies. His romance, transcribed in the latin of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and afterwards translated into the fashionable idiom of the times, was enriched with the various, though incoherent ornaments, which were familiar to the experience, the learning, or the fancy of the twelfth century. The progress of a Phrygian colony from the Tyber to the Thames, was easily engrafted on the fable of the Æneid; and the royal ancestors of Arthur derived their origin from Troy, and claimed their alliance with the Cæsars, His trophies were decorated with captive provinces and imperial titles; and his Danish victories avenged the recent injuries of his country. The gallantry and superstition of the British hero, his feasts and tournaments, and the memorable institution of his knights of the round table, were faithfully copied from the reigning manners of chivalry, and the fabulous exploits of Uther’s son, appear less incredible than the adventures which were achieved by the enterprising valour of the Normans. Pilgrimage and the holy wars, introduced into Europe the specious miracles of Arabian magic. Fairies and giants, flying dragons, and enchanted palaces, were blended with the more simple fictions of the west; and the fate of Britain depended on the art, or the predictions of Merlin. Every nation embraced and adorned the popular romance of Arthur and the knights of the round table: their names were celebrated in Greece and Italy; and the voluminous tales of Sir Lancelot and Sir Tristram were devoutly studied by the princes and nobles, who disregarded the genuine heroes and historians of antiquity. At length the light of science and reason was rekindled; the talisman was broken; the visionary fabric melted into air, and by a natural, though unjust reverse of the public opinion, the severity of the present age is inclined to question even the existence of Arthur.

ALCHEMY.

About the year 296, the Emperor Diocletian published a very remarkable edict which instead of being condemned as the effect of jealous tyranny, deserves to be applauded as an act of prudence and humanity. He caused a diligent enquiry to be made for all the ancient books which treated of the art of making gold and silver, and without pity committed them to the flames; apprehensive, it is remarked, lest the opulence of the Egyptians should inspire them with confidence to rebel against the empire. But if Diocletian had been convinced of the reality of that valuable art, far from extinguishing the memoirs, he would have converted the operation of it to the benefit of the public revenue. It is much more likely, that his good sense discovered to him the folly of such magnificent pretensions, and that he was desirous of preserving the reason and fortunes of his subjects from the mischievous pursuit. It may be remarked that these ancient books, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The Greeks were inattentive either to the use or to the abuse of chemistry. In that immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries, the arts, and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the transmutation of metals, and the persecution of Diocletian is the first authentic event in the history of Alchemy. The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with equal eagerness, and with equal success. The darkness of the middle ages ensured a favourable reception to every tale of wonder, and the revival of learning gave new vigour to hope, and suggested more specious arts of deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length banished the study of alchemy; and the present age, however desirous of riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and industry.

ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL NOBLE FAMILIES IN ENGLAND WHO OWE THEIR ELEVATION TO THE PEERAGE TO THEIR ANCESTORS HAVING BEEN ENGAGED IN TRADE.

It is a striking and peculiar feature in the constitution of England, that men who render themselves eminent in the liberal sciences, in the arts, or in commerce, frequently find their pursuits conduct them to a high degree of rank and estimation in the state; and the sovereign has, in numerous instances, conferred the honour of the Peerage on certain individuals, who have contributed by their abilities to enlarge and promote the manufactures and commerce of the nation. Among the families whose ancestors have deserved well of their country, and who owe their elevation to the Peerage to their forefathers having been engaged in trade, the following are honourable instances.

The Earls of Coventry are descended from John Coventry, son of William Coventry, of the city of that name. The former was an opulent mercer, and resided in London, of which city he was Lord Mayor in 1425, and one of the executors of the celebrated Whittington. He was a resolute and determined magistrate, and was highly commended for his spirited interference in the dreadful quarrel between Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, and the insolent Cardinal Beaufort, which he successfully quelled.

The family of Rich, Earls of Warwick and Holland, arose from Richard Rich, an opulent mercer, sheriff of London in the year 1441. His descendant, Richard, was distinguished by his knowledge of the law; became Solicitor General in the reign of king Henry the eighth, and treacherously effected the ruin of Sir Thomas More; was created a baron of the realm in the reign of Edward the sixth, and became Lord Chancellor by the favour of the same monarch.

The Holles’s, Earls of Clare, and afterwards Dukes of Newcastle, sprung from Sir William Holles, Lord Mayor of London in 1540, son of William Holles, citizen and baker. His great-grandson was the first who was called to the House of Peers, in the reign of James the first, by the title of Lord Haughton, and soon after was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Clare. The fourth peer of that title was created by king William, Duke of Newcastle; but the title became extinct in his name in 1711.

Sir Thomas Leigh, Lord Mayor of London, in 1558, furnished the Peerage with the addition of two. He was the son of Roger Leigh, of Wellington, in Shropshire. Sir Thomas’s grandson, Francis, was created by Charles the first, Lord Dunsmore, and afterwards Earl of Chichester; and Sir Thomas’s second son, Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneleigh, had the honour of being called to the House of Peers by the title of Lord Leigh, of Stoneleigh.

The Pleydell-Bouveries, Earls of Radnor, descend from Edward De Bouverie, an opulent Turkey merchant, who died in 1694.

Ducie, Lord Ducie, is descended from Sir Robert Ducie, who belonged to the company of merchant tailors, and was sheriff of London in 1621, and Lord Mayor in 1631. He was immensely rich, and was made banker to king Charles the first, and on the breaking out of the rebellion, lost £80,000, owing to him by his Majesty. Nevertheless he is said to have left at the time of his death, property in land, money, &c. to his four sons, to the amount of £400,000.

Paul Bayning, sheriff of London in 1593, had a son of the same name, who was first created a baronet, and in the third of Charles the first, a baron of the realm, by the title of Baron Bayning, and soon after a viscount, by the title of Viscount Bayning of Sudbury. He was buried in the paternal tomb, in the church of St. Olave’s. His house was in Mark-lane. After the fire of London, the business of the custom house was transacted in that which went under the name of Lord Bayning’s.

The Cranfields, Earls of Middlesex, rose from Lionel Cranfield, a citizen of London, bred up in the custom house. He became, in 1620, Lord Treasurer of England. The Duke of Dorset is descended from Frances, sister and heir of the third Earl of Middlesex, married to Richard, Earl of Dorset.

The noble family of Ingram, Viscount Irwin, was raised in the reign of queen Elizabeth, by Hugh Irwin, citizen, merchant, and tallow-chandler, who died in 1612. He left a large fortune between two sons; of whom Sir Arthur, the younger, settled in Yorkshire, and purchased a considerable estate, the foundation of the good fortune afterwards enjoyed by the family. The present Marchioness of Hertford is the representative of the Ingrams, being the daughter and co-heir of the last Viscount Irwin.

Sir Stephen Brown, son of John Brown, of Newcastle, Lord Mayor of London, in 1438, and again in 1448, was a grocer, and added another peer, in the person of Sir Anthony Brown, created Viscount Montagu, by Philip and Mary, in 1554.

The Legges rose to be Earls of Dartmouth.—The first who was raised to the peerage was that loyal and gallant naval officer, George Legge, created Baron of Dartmouth in 1682. He was descended from an ancestor who filled the Pretorian Chair of London in the years 1347 and 1354, having by his industry in the trade of a skinner, attained great wealth.

Sir Geoffrey Bullen, Lord Mayor in 1458, was grandfather of Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire, father of Anna Bullen, and grandfather of queen Elizabeth, the highest genealogical honour the city of London ever possessed.

Sir Baptist Hicks was a great mercer at the accession of James the first, and made a large fortune, by supplying the court with silks. He was first knighted, and afterwards created Viscount Campden. It is said he left his two daughters one hundred thousand pounds each. He built a large house in St. John’s street, for the justices of Middlesex to hold their sessions in, which (till its demolition a few years ago, upon the erection of a new sessions house on Clerkenwell Green,) retained the name of Hicks’ Hall.

The Capels, Earls of Essex, are descended from Sir William Capel, draper, Lord Mayor in 1503. He first set up a cage in every ward of London, for the punishment of idle people. It is probable that he had his mansion on the site of the present Stock Exchange, in Capel Court, so called after him.

Michael Dormer, mercer, Mayor in 1542, was the ancestor of the Lords Dormer.

Edward Osborne, was apprentice to Sir William Hewet, clothworker. About the year 1536, when his master lived in one of those tremendous houses on London bridge, a servant maid was playing with his only daughter in her arms, in a window over the water, and accidentally dropped the child. Young Osborne, who was witness to the misfortune, instantly sprung into the river, and beyond all expectations brought her safe to her terrified family. When she was marriageable, several persons of rank paid their addresses to her, and among others the Earl of Shrewsbury; but Sir William gratefully declined in favour of Osborne.—“Osborne saved her,” said he, “and Osborne shall enjoy her.” In her right he possessed a most ample fortune. He became sheriff of London in 1575, and Lord Mayor in 1583, and from his loins sprung the Dukes of Leeds.

From Sir William Craven, merchant tailor, Mayor in 1611, sprung the gallant Earl Craven, who was his eldest son, and was greatly distinguished by his actions in the service of the unfortunate Elector Palatine, by his attachment to the Dowager, and his marriage with that illustrious Princess.

Lord Viscount Dudley and Ward is descended from William Ward, a wealthy goldsmith in London, and jeweller to Henrietta Maria, queen of Charles the first. His son Humble Ward, married Frances, grand-daughter of Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley; who, on the death of her grand-father, became Baroness Dudley; and he himself was created in 1643, Lord Ward of Birmingham.

LAST MOMENTS OF QUEEN CAROLINE.

A little before the Queen died she asked the physician who was in attendance, “How long can this last?” And on his answering “Your majesty will soon be eased of your pains;” she replied “The sooner the better!” The queen then repeated a prayer of her own composing, in which there was such a flow of natural eloquence, as demonstrated the vigour of a great and good mind. When her speech began to falter, and she seemed expiring, she desired to be raised up in her bed, and fearing that nature would not hold out long enough without artificial support she called to have water sprinkled upon her, and a little after desired it might be repeated. She then with the greatest composure and presence of mind, requested her weeping relations to kneel down and pray for her. Whilst they were reading some prayers, she exclaimed “Pray aloud, that I may hear,” and after the Lord’s prayer was concluded, in which she joined as well as she was able, said “So,” and waving her hand, lay down and expired.

THE BRITONS, ACCORDING TO THE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS.

Strabo observes in his Geography, that “the woods are their towns; for having fenced round a wide circular space with trees hewn down, they there place their huts, and fix stalls for their cattle; but not of long duration. They have dwellings of a round form, constructed of poles and wattled work, with very high pointed coverings of beams united at a point.”

Diodorus Siculus asserts, that “they inhabit very wretched dwellings, composed for the most part of reeds (or straw) and wood.”

Cæsar thus describes, not Londinium, but the capital of Cassivellaunus: “The Britons call a place, a town, when they have fortified thick impassable woods, by means of a vallum and fosse, or a high bank and a ditch; in which sort of a place they are accustomed to assemble together, to avoid the invasion of enemies.”

Tacitus describing the strong holds, to which Caractacus resorted, observes: “They then fortified themselves on steep mountains; and, where-ever there was any possibility of access in any part, he constructed a great bank of stones, like a vallum.”

The curious reader is referred to the first volume of King’s Munimenta Antiqua, for prints and plans, both of the Welsh houses and fortresses, of which some are yet entire and others in ruins, in every part of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. No book, either in our tongue, or in any of the European languages, is so complete and satisfactory on this interesting and domestic subject: the prints are excellent.

Diodorus Siculus also notices that the Britons laid up their corn in subterranean repositories, whence they used to take a portion every day; and having bruised and dried the grain, made a kind of food from it of immediate use. Martin in his description of the Western Isles, (p. 204.) describes this sort of diet, and the quick mode of preparing it, as yet continued. King, in the 48th and following pages of his first volume, has detected, and delineated these rude monuments of our ancestors.

It is highly curious to trace the appearance of the persons of our forefathers and their manners. Cæsar remarks that they painted themselves with vitrum, or woad; and Herodian, that some of them on the sea-coast punctured or tattooed[48] their bodies with figures resembling various kinds of animals; in consequence of which they also went without garments, that they might not cover, nor conceal, these marks. The other natives were, in general, clad with skins. They had long lank hair, but were shorn in every part of the body, except the head and upper lip.

A wretched substitute for salt was obtained merely by pouring sea-water on the embers of burning wood.

The Irish drank the blood of animals and even of their enemies.

King, in the latter half of the first volume, (Munim. Ant.) gives prints of the altars, or Cromlechs, yet entire, in many situations in Ireland, the Highlands, and England, on which human victims were cruelly murdered.

The Druids were richly clad; some of them even wore golden chains, or collars, about their necks and arms; and had their garments dyed with various colours, and adorned with gold. Chains also both of iron and gold, were worn by some of the chieftains and nobler ranks. These facts will appear so incredible, that the reader must be informed, that in most of the tumuli, or old British graves, described by King, these ornaments are found in our days. It is a remarkable omission in Mr. King, that he did not quote the three verses from the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah so descriptive of the Babylonian regal tumuli, similar to the British: “All the kings of the nations lie down in glory, each in his own sepulchre: To meet thee, O Sennacherib, Hades rouseth his mighty dead: he maketh them rise up from their thrones. All of them shall accost thee, and shall say unto thee, Art thou become weak as we? Art thou made like unto us? Is then thy pride brought down to the grave? Is the vermin become thy couch, and the earth-worm thy covering?”

Strabo, at the end of his third book, says, that “the Cassiterides, or Islands of Tin, were inhabited by men dressed in black garments, in tunics descending to the feet, a girdle around their breast; walking erect with a staff in their hand; and permitting the beard to grow like that of a goat. They subsist on their cattle, in general spending an erratic pastoral life.”

Some of the common order of Britons wore, instead of the skins of beasts, very thick coarse wrappers made of wool; a sort of blanket or rug, fastened about the neck with a piece of sharp pointed stick. They used also a coarse, slit, short vest, with sleeves; it barely reached down to the knees.

As armour, the Britons had a long two-handed sword, hanging by a chain on the right hand side; a great long wooden shield as tall as a man; long spears; and a sort of missile wooden instrument, like a javelin, longer than an arrow, which they darted merely by the hand: modern writers call these two last mentioned, Celts, fixed on the end of staves and sticks. Some of them used slings for stones, others had breast plates, made of plates of iron, with hooks, or with wreathed chains: some had helmets of different forms. Many went to battle nearly naked, and some wound chains of iron around their necks and loins.

They generally lay and reposed themselves on the bare ground, yet most of them ate their food sitting on seats. A very beautiful print is given by Mr. King of their various dresses. The plaid seems to be derived from them. The coins of the old British, which are engraven in Speed, in Borlase’s Cornwall, in Gough’s edition of Camden’s Britannia, and in Plot’s History of Oxfordshire, will explain these descriptions of the classics. Even Julius Cæsar had noticed that the Britons used either brass money, or iron circular coins reduced to a standard weight. In the scale of civilization, therefore, the ancient Britons were as advanced in the era of Cæsar, as the Romans themselves at the expulsion of their kings; as the Grecians in the age of Homer; as the Mexicans at the Spanish conquest; and as the modern Tartars.[49]

THE SEVEN SLEEPERS.

Among the insipid legends of ecclesiastical history, one of the most memorable is that of the Seven Sleepers, whose imaginary date corresponds with the reign of the younger Theodosius and the conquest of Africa by the Vandals, or sometime about the year 440. When the Emperor Decius persecuted the Christians, seven noble youths of Ephesus concealed themselves in a spacious cavern in the side of an adjacent mountain; where they were doomed to perish by the tyrant, who gave orders that the entrance should be firmly secured with a pile of huge stones. They immediately fell into a deep slumber, which was miraculously prolonged, without injuring the powers of life, during a period of one hundred and eighty seven years. At the end of that time, the slaves of Adolius, to whom the inheritance of the mountain had descended, removed the stones to supply materials for some rustic edifice; the light of the sun darted into the cavern, and the Seven Sleepers were permitted to awake. After a slumber, as they thought of a few hours, they were pressed by the calls of hunger; and resolved that Jamblichus, one of their number, should secretly return to the city, to purchase bread for the use of his companions. The youth, if we may still employ that appellation, could no longer recognise the once familiar aspect of his native country; and his surprize was increased by the appearance of a large cross triumphantly erected over the principal gate of Ephesus. His singular dress and obsolete language, confounded the baker, to whom he offered an ancient medal of Decius as the current coin of the empire; and Jamblichus, on the suspicion of a secret treasure, was dragged before the judge. Their mutual enquiries produced the amazing discovery that two centuries were almost elapsed since Jamblichus and his friends had escaped from the rage of a Pagan tyrant. The Bishop of Ephesus, the clergy, the magistrates, the people, and as it is said, the Emperor Theodosius himself, hastened to visit the cavern of the Seven Sleepers, who bestowed their benediction, related their story, and at the same instant peaceably expired. The origin of this marvellous fable cannot be ascribed to the pious fraud and credulity of the modern Greeks, since the authentic tradition may be traced within half a century of the supposed miracle. James of Sarug, a Syrian bishop, who was born only two years after the death of the younger Theodosius, has devoted one of his two hundred and thirty homilies to the praise of the young men of Ephesus. Their legend, before the end of the sixth century, was translated from the Syriac into the Latin language, by the care of Gregory of Tours. The hostile communions of the East preserve their memory with equal reverence; and their names are honourably inscribed in the Roman, the Abyssinian, and the Russian Calendar. Nor has their reputation been confined to the Christian world. This popular tale, which Mahomet might learn when he drove his camels to the fairs of Syria, is introduced as a divine revelation, into the Koran. The story of the Seven Sleepers has been adopted, and adorned, by the nations, from Bengal to Africa, who profess the Mahometan religion; and some vestiges of a similar tradition have been discovered in the remote extremities of Scandinavia.

JOHN RAY, THE NATURALIST.

Ray was the son of a blacksmith, at Black Notley, in Essex, where he was born in 1628. He received his education at Braintree school, at Catharine Hall, and afterwards at Trinity College, Cambridge. His intense studies, requiring country air and exercise, occasioned his predilection for botany; his first rambles in search of plants were confined in extent, but subsequently diverged throughout England and Wales; and at length passing the channel he visited many parts of Europe. His books of instruction were the works of Johnson and Parkinson, and the Phytologia Britannica. His friend and companion, Francis Willoughby,[50] was a gentleman as amiable as scientific, their souls seeming to be blended together. Ray having been ordained, did not chuse to accept of the emoluments of the church, with which he did not entirely unite; but just before his death, when it was too late to gain, he became reconciled to it. Mr. Willoughby, who died in 1672, left him an annuity of sixty pounds, but it does not appear what other property he possessed, except his fellowship of Trinity. Though the generations which have followed him have produced a Linnæus, a Buffon, and a Pennant, yet Ray’s fame is too well established ever to be supplanted. He was a wise, a learned, as well as a pious and modest man, and ever ready to impart that knowledge which he had taken so much pains to acquire. He died in 1705 with a devout humility that had ever distinguished him, wishing that he had spent much more of his life in the immediate service of his Creator. There was no task too arduous for Ray; if Lister, a contemporary naturalist, would have gone to the bottom of the ocean for a shell, Ray would have climbed to the extreme point of the Alps for a new plant. In the church-yard of Black Notley, his native place, there is a long and elegant inscription to the memory of this great man, and in the library of Trinity College, there is a fine marble bust of him, in company with Bacon and other splendid ornaments of that magnificent foundation.

LONDON BANKERS, AND THEIR ORIGIN.

The company of Goldsmiths, in London, appeared as a fraternity, as early as 1180, but it was in the reign of Edward the third, that they were first incorporated. They became, in time, the bankers of the capital. The Lombards were the first and greatest, and most of the money contracts, in old times, passed through their hands. Many of our monarchs were obliged to them for money.—The three blue balls, now used by pawnbrokers, but converted by them into golden ones, are, in reality, the arms of the Lombards.

Lombard-street, in the metropolis, took its name from being the residence of the Lombards, the great money-changers and usurers of early times. They came out of Italy into this kingdom before the year 1274; at length their extortions became so great, that Edward the third seized on their estates; perhaps the necessity of furnishing himself with money for his Flemish expedition, might have urged him to this step. They seem quickly to have repaired their loss; for complaint was soon after made against them, for persisting in their practices. They were so opulent in the days of Henry the fourth, as to be able to furnish him with money, but they took care to get the customs mortgaged to them, by way of security.

They continued in Lombard-street till the reign of queen Elizabeth, and to this day it is filled with the shops of eminent bankers. The shop of the great Sir Thomas Gresham stood in Lombard-street; it is now occupied by Messrs. Martin and Stone, bankers, who are still in possession of the original sign of that illustrious person, the Grasshopper.

The business of goldsmiths was confined to the buying and selling of plate, and foreign coins of gold and silver, melting them, and coining others at the mint. The banking was accidental and foreign to their institution.

Regular banking by private persons resulted in 1643 from the calamity of the times, when a seditious spirit was incited by the acts of the parliamentary leaders. The merchants and tradesmen who before trusted their cash to their servants and apprentices found that mode no longer safe; neither did they dare to leave it in the mint at the tower, by reason of the distresses of majesty itself, which before was a place of public deposit. In the year 1645, they first placed their cash in the hands of goldsmiths, who then began publicly to exercise the two professions of goldsmiths and bankers. Even of late years there were several very eminent bankers who kept the goldsmith’s shop; but they were more frequently separated.

The first regular banker was Mr. Francis Child, goldsmith, who began business after the restoration. He was the father of the profession, a person of large fortune, of most respectable character, and he was knighted by the king. He lived in Fleet-street, in the house adjoining Temple-bar, where the banking business is still carried on in the same firm, though by different persons. Granger, in his Biographical History, mentions that Mr. Child succeeded Mr. Backwell,[51] a banker in the time of Charles the second, noted for his integrity, abilities, and industry; who was ruined by the shutting up of the Exchequer in 1672.[52] His books were placed in the hands of Mr. Child, and still remain in the family.

The next ancient shop was that possessed at present by Messrs. Snow and Co. in the Strand, a few doors westward of Mr. Child’s, who were goldsmiths of consequence in the latter part of the same reign. Mr. Gay celebrates the predecessor of these gentlemen, for his sagacity in escaping the ruin of the fatal year 1720, in his epistle to Mr. Thomas Snow, goldsmith, near Temple-bar:—

O thou whose penetrative wisdom found

The South Sea rocks and shelves where thousands drown’d,

When credit sunk and commerce gasping lay,

Thou stoodst; nor sent’st one bill unpaid away.

To the westward of Temple-bar the only other house was that of Messrs. Middleton and Campbell, goldsmiths, who flourished in 1692, and is now continued with great credit by Mr. Coutts. From thence to the extremity of the west end of the town there were none till the year 1756, when the respectable name of Backwell rose again, conjoined with those of Darel, Hart, and Croft, who with great reputation opened their shop (afterwards the house of Devaynes, Noble, and Co.) in Pallmall.

ELUCIDATION OF THE ORNAMENTS WITH WHICH THE GREEKS AND ROMANS ADORNED THE HUMAN HEAD ON COINS AND MEDALS.

THE DIADEM.

The chief of these ornaments is the diadem, or vitta, which was a ribband worn about the head, and tied in a floating knot behind. This was anciently the simple, but superlative badge of kingly power. It is observable upon the Greek monarchical medals, from the earliest ages, to the last, without any other ornament, and is almost an infallible sign of kingly power, and that the portrait, if there be no other characteristic, is that of a prince. In the Roman coins it is seen on the Consular ones with Numa and Ancus; but never afterwards till the time of Licinius. So great an aversion had the Romans to this kingly distinction, that their emperors had for more than two centuries worn the radiated crown, peculiar to the gods, before they dared to assume the diadem, which was considered as the symbol of tyranny. In the family of Constantine, the diadem becomes common, though not with the ancient simplicity, being ornamented on either edge with a row of pearls, and various other decorations.

The Greek queens used the diadem, but the Roman empresses never appear with it; however, the variety of their head dresses more than compensates for the want of this ornament.

THE RADIATED CROWN.

The radiated crown was, at first, as on the posthumous coins of Augustus, a mark of deification, and in little more than a century after, was put upon most of the emperors’ heads on their several medals.

THE CROWN OF LAUREL.

The crown of laurel was at first the honorary prize of conquerors, but was afterwards commonly worn, at least on their medals, by all the Roman emperors, from Julius Cæsar, who was permitted by the senate to wear it always, to hide the baldness of his forehead. This perhaps gave rise to the first emperors always appearing with it on their coins, a circumstance continued even to our times, and looking at its origin is now a little laughable. The laurel employed by the ancients in forming their crowns, is apparently what we term the Alexandrian laurel, a most beautiful evergreen, of a fine tender verdure. In the lower empire the laurel is often held by a hand above the head as a mark of piety.

THE ROSTRAL CROWN.

Agrippa appears on his coins with the rostral crown, a sign of naval victory or command, being made of gold, in resemblance of prows of ships, tied together.

THE MURAL CROWN.

Agrippa is likewise seen with the mural or turretted crown, the prize of first ascending the walls of an enemy’s city.

THE CIVIC CROWN.

The oaken or civic crown is frequent on reverses, as of Galba and others; and was the badge of having saved the life of a citizen, or of many citizens.

THE HELMET.

The helmet appears on coins; as in those of Macedon under the Romans, which have a head of Alexander, sometimes covered with a helmet. Probus also has often the helmet on his coins; and Constantine the first, has helmets of different forms curiously ornamented.

THE NIMBUS OR GLORY.

The nimbus or glory, now peculiar to the saints, was formerly applied to emperors. A nimbus appears round the head of Constantine the second, in a gold coin of that prince; and of Flavia Maxima Fausta, in a gold medallion; and of Justinian in another. But the idea is as ancient as the reign of Augustus, and is found in Roman authors, before it appeared on coins. Oiselius gives a coin of Antoninus Pius, with the nimbus, but this however is doubtful, and may have been some flaw in the coin from which he engraved his representation.

OTHER ORNAMENTS OF THE HEAD.

Besides the diadem, the Greek princes sometimes appear with the laurel crown. The Arsacidæ, or kings of Parthia, wear a kind of sash round the head, with their hair in rows of curls like a wig. Tigranes and the kings of Armenia, wear the tiara, a singular kind of cap, but the well known badge of imperial power in the ancient eastern world. Xerxes, a petty prince of Armenia, appears in a coin extant of him in a conical cap, with a diadem around it. Juba, the father, has a singular crown, like a conical cap, all hung with pearls.

The successors of Alexander assumed by way of distinction, different symbols of the Deity, to be observed on the busts of their medals, such as the lion’s skin of Hercules, which surrounds the head of the first Seleucus; the horn placed behind the ear, an image of their strength and power, or of their being the successors of Alexander, called the son of Jupiter Ammon; the wing placed in like manner behind the ear, symbolic of the rapidity of their conquests, or of their being descendants from the god Mercury.

Some authors, however, have doubted if all these heads be not of gods, except those with the horn. Eckhel observes, that even the horn and diadem belong to Bacchus, as on a coin of Nuceria Alfaterna. Bacchus, according to Diodorus Siculus, invented the diadem, to cure his head-aches, and was horned like his father Jupiter Ammon. The only king who appears on coins, according to Eckhel, with the horn, is Lysimachus. Pyrrhus had a crest of goats’ horns to his helmet, as we are informed by Plutarch, in his life, and the goat was the symbol of Macedon. It is likely that the successors of Alexander took this badge of the horn in consequence.

Besides the distinctions of supreme power, or honorary reward, there are other symbolic ornaments of the head, observable on some Roman coins. Such is the veil, or, more properly, the toga drawn over the head, to be seen on the busts of Julius Cæsar, when Pontifex Maximus, and others. This shews that the person bore the pontificate or the augurship; the augurs having a particular gown, called laena, with which they covered their heads, when employed in observing omens. Latterly the veil is only a mark of consecration, and is common in coins of empresses, as Faustina, Mariniana, and others. In the coins of Claudius Gothicus we first find it as a mark of the consecration of an emperor; and it continued in those of Constantius the first, Maximian the first, and Constantine the first.

The remarkable part of the Roman head dress among the ladies, was the sphendona, or sling, on the crown of the head; answering to the modern hair cushion. But it was of gold, and so prominent as to be even remarkable in a coin. The hair appears in many fashions, as now. Sometimes the bust of an empress is supported by a crescent, to imply that she was the moon, as her husband was the sun of the state.

Generally, only the bust is given on ancient coins; but sometimes half the body or more. In the latter case the hands often appear, with tokens of majesty in them. Such is the globe, said to have been introduced by Augustus, to express possession of the world. The sceptre, sometimes confounded with the consular staff. The roll of parchment, symbolic of legislative power; and the handkerchief expressing that of the public games, where the emperor gave the signal. Some princes even hold the thunderbolt, shewing that their power was equal to that of Jupiter in heaven. Others hold an image of victory.

Most queens of Egypt, on their coins, have the sceptre. It appears at the top of their head; and would seem part of the dress, were it not that in other coins, it passes beneath the neck transversely, so that both ends appear.

The victors, at the sacred games among the ancients, had bound round the head, an ornament called anadema, which has sometimes been confounded with the diadem worn by the ancient Persian kings.

THE TRADESCANTS.

The Tradescants, father and son, were among the first eminent gardeners, and were the very first collectors of natural history in this kingdom. John Tradescant the elder was, according to Anthony Wood, a Fleming, or a Dutchman. We are informed by Parkinson, that he had travelled into most parts of Europe, and into Barbary, and from some emblems remaining upon his monument in Lambeth church-yard, it appears that he had visited Greece, Egypt, and other Eastern countries.

In his travels, he is supposed to have collected not only plants and seeds, but most of those curiosities of every sort which formed his collection, which afterwards became celebrated, and is now the Ashmolean museum, at Oxford.

When he first settled in this kingdom, cannot at this distance of time, be ascertained; perhaps it was towards the latter end of the reign of queen Elizabeth, or the beginning of that of king James the first. His portrait, engraven by Hollar, before the year 1656, represents him as a person very far advanced in years, and seems to countenance this opinion.

He lived in a large house at South Lambeth, where, there is reason to think, his museum was frequently visited by persons of rank, who became benefactors thereto; among these were king Charles the first, to whom he was gardener, Henrietta Maria, his queen, Archbishop Laud, George, Duke of Buckingham, Robert and William Cecil, Earls of Salisbury, and many other persons of distinction.

John Tradescant may, therefore, justly be considered as the earliest collector in this kingdom,[53] of every thing that was curious in natural history, namely, minerals, birds, fishes, insects, &c. &c. He had also a good collection of coins and medals, besides a great variety of extraordinary rarities. Some of the plants which grew in his garden are, if not totally extinct in this country, at least become very uncommon.

This able man, by his great industry, made it manifest, in the very infancy of botany, as a science, that there is scarcely any plant existing in the known world, that will not, with proper care, thrive in this kingdom. The time of his death cannot be ascertained, no mention being made of it in the register of Lambeth church.

John Tradescant the son, and his wife, joined in a deed of gift, by which their friend Elias Ashmole was entitled to this collection after the decease of the former. On that event taking place, in 1662, it was accordingly claimed by him, but the widow Tradescant refusing to deliver it, was compelled so to do by a decree of the court of Chancery. She was, a few years after, found drowned, in a pond, in her own garden.

His house at South Lambeth, then called Tradescant’s Ark,[54] thus coming into the possession of Ashmole, he came to reside there in 1674, and added a noble room to it, adorning the chimney with his arms, impaling those of Sir William Dugdale, whose daughter was his third wife. Ashmole was much respected by his contemporaries, and was frequently visited at South Lambeth by persons of very exalted rank, particularly by the ambassadors of foreign princes, to whom he had presented his book on the Order of the Garter.

It is well known that Tradescant’s collection was given by Ashmole to the University of Oxford, where it forms the principal part of the museum that goes by his name, the house, in which it is contained, having been built for its reception.[55]

A monument was erected in the south east part of Lambeth church-yard, in 1662, by Hester, the relict of John Tradescant, the son, to the memory of her husband, and the other members of his family.

This, once beautiful monument has suffered so much by the weather, that no just idea can now, on inspection, be formed of the north and south sides; but this defect is supplied from very fine drawings[56] in the Pepysian library, at Cambridge. On the east side is Tradescant’s arms; on the west a hydra, and under it a skull; on the south, broken columns, Corinthian capitals, &c. supposed to be ruins in Greece, or some other Eastern country; and on the north, a crocodile, shells, &c. and a view of some Egyptian buildings; various figures of trees, &c. in relievo, adorn the four corners of the monument.

In a visit made by Sir W. Watson and Dr. Mitchell to Tradescant’s garden, in 1749, an account of which, is inserted in Philos. Trans. vol. xlvi. p. 160, it appears that it had been many years totally neglected, and the house belonging to it empty and ruined, but though the garden was quite covered with weeds, there remained among them manifest footsteps of its founder.[57] They found there the Borago latifolia sempervirens of Caspar Bauhine; Polygonatum vulgare latifolium, C. B; Aristolochia clematitis recta, C. B. and Dracontium of Dodoens. There were then remaining two trees of the Arbutus, which from their being so long used to our winters, did not suffer by the severe cold of 1739-40, when most of their kind were killed in England. In the orchard there was a tree of the Rhamnus catharticus, about 20 feet high, and nearly a foot in diameter. There are at present no traces of this garden remaining.

The Tradescants were usually called Tradeskin by their contemporaries, and the name is uniformly so spelled in the parish register of Lambeth, and by Flatman the painter, who in a poem mentions Tradescant’s collection;

“Thus John Tradeskin starves our wond’ring eyes,

”By boxing up his new-found rarities.“

The following is a list of the portraits of the Tradescant family now in the Ashmolean Museum; both father and son are in these portraits called Sir John, though it does not appear that either of them were ever knighted.

1. Sir John Tradescant, sen. a three quarters piece, ornamented with fruit, flowers, and garden roots.

2. The same, after his decease.

3. The same, a small three-quarters piece, in water colours.

4. A large painting of his wife, son and daughter, quarter-length.

5. Sir John Tradescant, junior, in his garden, with a spade in his hand, half length.

6. The same with his wife, half length.

7. The same, with his friend Zythepsa of Lambeth, a collection of shells, &c. upon a table before them.

8. A large quarter piece inscribed Sir John Tradescant’s second wife and son.

These pictures have neither date nor painter’s name. They are esteemed to be good portraits, but who the person was, who is called Zythepsa is not known. He is painted as if entering the room, and Sir John is shaking him by the hand.

Hollar engraved two portraits of the Tradescants, father and son, which are placed as frontispieces to the little volume, mentioned in the preceding note.

Granger (2. 370) says he saw a picture at a gentleman’s house in Wiltshire, which was not unlike that of the deceased Tradescant, and the inscription was applicable to it:—

Mortuus haud alio quam quo pater ore quiesti

Quam facili frueris nunc quoque nocte doces.

ORANGE TREES.

The first orange trees seen in England, are said to have been planted by Sir Francis Carew, at Beddington, in Surrey. Sir Francis died in 1607, aged 81. Aubrey says they were brought from Italy by Sir Francis, but the editors of the Biographia Britannica speaking from a tradition preserved in the family, tell us that they were raised by him from the seeds of the first oranges which were imported into England by Sir Walter Raleigh, who had married his niece. The trees were planted in the open ground, and were preserved in the winter by a moveable shed. They flourished about a century and a half, being destroyed by the hard frost in 1739-40.

In the transactions of the Linnæan Society there are some notices relating to the progress of botany in England, written by the late eminent naturalist, Peter Collinson. Speaking of the orange trees at Beddington be says—“In the reign of queen Elizabeth the first orange and lemon trees were introduced into England by two curious gentlemen, one of them Sir Nicholas Carew, at Beddington. They were planted in the natural ground, but against every winter an artificial covering was raised for their protection. I have seen them some years ago[58] in great perfection. But this apparatus going to decay, without due consideration a green-house of brick work was built all round them, and left on the top uncovered in the summer. I visited them a year or two after in their new habitation, and to my great concern found some dyeing, and all declining; for although there were windows on the south side, they did not thrive in their confinement; but being kept damp, with the rains, and wanting a free, airy, full sun, all the growing months of summer, they languished, and at last all died.

“A better fate has attended the other fine parcel of orange trees, &c. brought over at the same time, by Sir Robert Mansell, at Margam in South Wales. My nephew counted 80 trees of citrons, limes, burgamots, Seville and China orange-trees, planted in great cases all ranged in a row before the green-house. This is the finest sight of its kind in England. He had the curiosity to measure one of them. A China orange measured in the extent of its branches fourteen feet. A Seville orange-tree was fourteen feet high, the case included, and the stem twenty one inches round. A China orange-tree twenty two inches and a half in girt.

“I visited the orangery at Margam, in the year 1766, in company with Mr. Lewis Thomas, a very sensible and attentive man, who told me that the orange-trees, &c. in that garden were intended as a present from the king of Spain to the king of Denmark; and that the vessel in which they were shipped, being taken in the channel, the trees were made a present of to Sir Robert Mansell.”

ARTICLES OF USE AND LUXURY INTRODUCED INTO EUROPE BY THE ROMANS.

Whatever evils either reason or declamation have imputed to extensive empire, the power of Rome was attended with some beneficial consequences to mankind; and the same freedom of intercourse which extended the vices, diffused likewise the improvements of social life. In the more remote ages of antiquity, the world was unequally divided. The east was in the immemorial possession of arts and luxury; whilst the west was inhabited by rude and warlike barbarians, who either disdained agriculture, or to whom it was totally unknown. Under the protection of an established government, the productions of happier climates, and the industry of more civilized nations were gradually introduced into the western countries of Europe, and the natives were encouraged, by an open and profitable commerce, to multiply the former, as well as to improve the latter. It would be almost impossible to enumerate all the articles, either of the animal or vegetable kingdoms which were successively imported into Europe from Asia and Egypt; it is only intended here to touch on a few of the principal heads. It is also not improbable that the Greeks and Phœnicians introduced some new arts and productions into the neighbourhood of Marseilles and Cadiz.

1. Almost all the flowers, the herbs, and the fruits, that grow in our European gardens, are of foreign extraction, which in many cases, is betrayed even by their names; the apple was a native of Italy, and when the Romans had tasted the richer flavour of the apricot, the peach, the pomegranate, the citron, and the orange, they contented themselves with applying to all these new fruits the common denomination of apple, discriminating them from each other by the additional epithet of their country.

2. In the time of Homer, the vine grew wild in the island of Sicily, and most probably in the adjacent continent; but it was not improved by the skill, nor did it afford a liquor grateful to the taste, of the savage inhabitants. A thousand years afterwards, Italy could boast, that of the fourscore most generous and celebrated wines, more than two thirds were produced from her soil. The blessing was soon communicated to the Narbonnese province of Gaul; but so intense was the cold to the north of the Cevennes, that in the time of Strabo, it was thought impossible to ripen the grapes in those parts of Gaul. The intense cold of a Gallic winter was even proverbial among the ancients. This difficulty, however, was gradually vanquished; and there is some reason to believe that the vineyards of Burgundy are as old as the age of the Antonines. In the beginning of the fourth century, the orator Eumenius speaks of the vines in the territory of Autun, which were decayed through age, and the first plantation of which was totally unknown.

3. The olive, in the western world, followed the progress of peace, of which it was considered as the symbol. Two centuries after the foundation of Rome, both Italy and Africa were strangers to that useful plant; it was naturalized in those countries; and at length carried into the heart of Spain and Gaul. The timid errors of the ancients, that it required a certain degree of heat, and could only flourish in the neighbourhood of the sea, were insensibly exploded by industry and experience.

4. The cultivation of flax was transported from Egypt to Gaul, and enriched the whole country, however it might impoverish the particular lands on which it was sown.

5. The use of artificial grasses became familiar to the farmers both of Italy and the provinces, particularly the lucerne, which derived its name and origin from Media. The assured supply of wholesome and plentiful food for the cattle during winter, multiplied the number of the flocks and herds, which, in their turn, contributed to the fertility of the soil.

To all these improvements may be added an assiduous attention to mines and fisheries, which by employing a multitude of laborious hands, serves to increase the pleasures of the rich, and the subsistence of the poor. The elegant treatise of Columella describes the advanced state of the Spanish husbandry, under the reign of Tiberius; and it may be observed, that those famines, which so frequently afflicted the infant republic, were seldom or never experienced by the extensive empire of Rome. The accidental scarcity, in any single province, was immediately relieved by the plenty of its more fortunate neighbours.

ACCOUNT OF THE ESCAPE OF THE EARL OF NITHSDALE, FROM THE TOWER, IN THE YEAR, 1716.

Lord Nithsdale was one of the Scottish noblemen who were concerned in the rebellion headed by the Earl of Mar, in the year 1715. The House of Commons preferred articles of impeachment against him, and several others, who all, except the Earl of Wintoun, pleaded guilty, and on the 9th of February, 1716, received judgment of death. The countess of Nithsdale and lady Nairne threw themselves at the king’s feet as he passed through the apartments of the palace, and implored his mercy in behalf of their husbands; but their tears and entreaties were of no avail. The countess finding that nothing would appease the king but the death of her husband and the other lords, planned the earl’s escape from the tower in woman’s apparel, which she safely effected. The letter, of which the following is a copy, written by herself and addressed to her sister lady Lucy Herbert, abbess of the Augustine nunnery at Bruges, giving an account of that transaction is still preserved in the family, and was in the possession of the late Marmaduke Constable Maxwell, Esq. of Everingham in Yorkshire.

”Palais Royal de Rome, 18th April, 1718.

“Dear Sister,

“My Lord’s escape is now such an old story, that I have almost forgotten it; but since you desire me to give you a circumstantial account of it, I will endeavour to recal it to my memory, and be as exact in the narration as I possibly can; for I owe you too many obligations to refuse you any thing that lies in my power.

“I think I owe myself the justice to set out with the motives which influenced me to undertake so hazardous an attempt, which I despaired of thoroughly accomplishing, foreseeing a thousand obstacles, which never could be surmounted but by the most particular interposition of Divine Providence. I confided in the Almighty God, and trusted that he would not abandon me, even when all human succours failed me.

“I first came to London upon hearing that my Lord was committed to the Tower, I was at the same time informed that he had expressed the greatest anxiety to see me, having, as he afterwards told me, nobody to console him till I arrived. I rode to Newcastle, and from thence took the stage to York. When I arrived there the snow was so deep that the stage could not set out for London. The season was so severe, and the roads so extremely bad, that the post itself was stopt; however, I took horses, and rode to London through the snow, which was generally above the horse’s girth, and arrived safe and sound without any accident.

“On my arrival I went immediately to make what interest I could amongst those who were in place. No one gave me any hopes; but all to the contrary, assured me, that although some of the prisoners were to be pardoned, yet my lord would certainly not be of the number. When I enquired into the reason of this distinction, I could obtain no other answer, than that they would not flatter me; but I soon perceived the reasons which they declined alleging to me. A roman catholic, upon the frontiers of Scotland, who headed a very considerable party—a man whose family had always signalized itself by its loyalty to the royal house of Stuart, and who was the only support of the catholics against the inveteracy of the Whigs, who were very numerous in that part of Scotland, would become an agreeable sacrifice to the opposite party. They still retained a lively remembrance of his grandfather, who defended his own castle of Carlaverock to the very last extremity, and surrendered it up only by the express command of his royal master. Now having his grandson in their power, they were determined not to let him escape from their hands.

“Upon this I formed the resolution to attempt his escape, but opened my intentions to nobody but my dear Evans. In order to concert measures I strongly solicited to be permitted to see my lord, which they refused to grant me, unless I would remain confined with him in the Tower. This I would not submit to, and alleged for excuse, that my health would not permit me to undergo the confinement. The real reason of my refusal was, not to put it out of my power to accomplish my design; however, by bribing the guards, I often contrived to see my lord, till the day upon which the prisoners were condemned; after that we were allowed for the last week to see and take our leave of them.

“By the help of Evans, I had prepared every thing necessary to disguise my lord, but had the utmost difficulty to prevail upon him to make use of them; however, I at length succeeded by the help of Almighty God.

“On the 22d of February, which fell on a Thursday, our petition was to be presented to the House of Lords, the purport of which was to intreat the lords to intercede with his majesty to pardon the prisoners. We were, however, disappointed the day before the petition was to be presented; for the Duke of St. Alban’s, who had promised my Lady Derwentwater to present it, when it came to the point, failed in his word: however, as she was the only English countess concerned, it was incumbent upon her to have it presented. We had one day left before the execution, and the duke still promised to present the petition; but, for fear he should fail, I engaged the Duke of Montrose to secure its being done by the one or the other. I then went in company of most of the ladies of quality who were then in town, to solicit the interest of the lords, as they were going to the house. They all behaved to me with great civility, but particularly my Lord Pembroke, who, though he desired me not to speak to him, yet promised to employ his interest in our favour, and honourably kept his word; for he spoke in the house very strongly in our behalf. The subject of the debate was, whether the king had the power to pardon those who had been condemned by parliament? And it was chiefly owing to Lord Pembroke’s speech, that it passed in the affirmative: however, one of the lords stood up and said, that the house would only intercede for those of the prisoners who should approve themselves worthy of their intercession, but not for all of them indiscriminately. This salvo quite blasted all my hopes; for I was assured it aimed at the exclusion of those who should refuse to subscribe to the petition, which was a thing I knew my lord would never submit to; nor, in fact, could I wish to preserve his life on such terms.

“As the motion had passed generally, I thought I could draw some advantage in favour of my design. Accordingly, I immediately left the House of Lords, and hastened to the Tower, where, affecting an air of joy and satisfaction, I told all the guards I passed by, that I came to bring joyful tidings to the prisoners. I desired them to lay aside their fears, for the petition had passed the house in their favour. I then gave them some money to drink to the lords and his majesty, though it was but trifling; for I thought that if I were too liberal on the occasion, they might suspect my designs, and that giving them something would gain their good humour and services for the next day, which was the eve of the execution.

“The next morning I could not go to the Tower, having so many things in my hands to put in readiness; but in the evening when all was ready, I sent for Mrs. Mills, with whom I lodged, and acquainted her with my design of attempting my lord’s escape, as there was no prospect of his being pardoned; and this was the last night before the execution. I told her that I had every thing in readiness, and I trusted that she would not refuse to accompany me, that my lord might pass for her. I pressed her to come immediately, as we had no time to lose. At the same time I sent for Mrs. Morgan, then usually known by the name of Hilton, to whose acquaintance my dear Evans had introduced me, which I looked upon as a very singular happiness. I immediately communicated my resolution to her. She was of a very tall and slender make, so I begged her to put under her own riding-hood, one that I had prepared for Mrs. Mills, as she was to lend her’s to my Lord, that in coming out he might be taken for her. Mrs. Mills was then with child; so that she was not only of the same height, but nearly of the same size as my lord. When they were in the coach, I never ceased talking, that they might have no leisure to reflect. Their surprise and astonishment, when I first opened my design to them, had made them consent, without ever thinking of the consequences. On our arrival at the Tower, the first I introduced was Mrs. Morgan; for I was only allowed to take in one at a time. She brought in the clothes that were to serve Mrs. Mills, when she left her own behind her. When Mrs. Morgan had taken off what she had brought for my purpose, I conducted her back to the staircase; and in going I begged her to send me in my maid to dress me; that I was afraid of being too late to present my last petition that night, if she did not come immediately. I despatched her safe, and went partly down stairs to meet Mrs. Mills, who had the precaution to hold her handkerchief to her face, as was very natural for a woman to do when she was going to bid her last farewell to a friend on the eve of his execution. I had indeed desired her to do it, that my lord might go out in the same manner. Her eyebrows were rather inclined to be sandy, and my lords were dark and very thick; however, I had prepared some paint of the colour of her’s, to disguise his with. I also brought an artificial head-dress of the same coloured hair as her’s; and I painted his face with white and his cheeks with rouge, to hide his long beard, as he had not time to shave. All this provision I had before left in the Tower.

The poor guards, whom my slight liberality the day before had endeared to me, let me go quietly with my company, and were not so strictly on the watch as they usually had been; and the more so, as they were persuaded, from what I had told them the day before, that the prisoners would obtain their pardon. I made Mrs. Mills take off her own hood, and put on that which I had brought for her; I then took her by the hand and led her out of my lord’s chamber; and in passing through the next room, in which there were several people, with all the concern imaginable, I said, “My dear Mrs. Catherines, go in all haste, and send me my waiting maid; she certainly cannot reflect how late it is; she forgets that I am to present a petition to-night, and if I let slip this opportunity I am undone, for to-morrow will be too late. Hasten her as much as possible, for I shall be on thorns till she comes.” Every body in the room, who were chiefly the guards’ wives and daughters, seemed to compassionate me exceedingly, and the sentinel very officiously opened the door to me. When I had seen her out I returned back to my lord, and finished dressing him. I had taken care that Mrs. Mills did not go out crying as she came in, that my lord might the better pass for the lady who came in crying and afflicted, and the more so, because he had the same dress she wore. When I had almost finished dressing my lord in all my petticoats excepting one, I perceived that it was growing dark, and was afraid that the light of the candles might betray us, so I resolved to set off; I went out leading him by the hand, and he held his handkerchief to his eyes; I spoke to him in the most piteous and afflicted tone of voice, bewailing bitterly the negligence of Evans, who had ruined me by her delay. Then, said I, “My dear Mrs. Betty, for the love of God run quickly, and bring her with you; you know my lodging, and if ever you made despatch in your life, do it at present, I am almost distracted with this disappointment.” The guards opened the doors, and I went down stairs with him, still conjuring him to make all possible despatch. As soon as he had cleared the door I made him walk before me, for fear the sentinel should take notice of his walk, but I still continued to press him to make all the despatch he possibly could. At the bottom of the stairs I met my dear Evans, into whose hands I confided him. I had before engaged Mr. Mills to be in readiness, before the Tower, to conduct him to some place of safety, in case we succeeded. He looked upon the affair so very improbable to succeed, that his astonishment, when he saw us, threw him into such consternation, that he was almost out of himself, which Evans perceiving, with the greatest presence of mind, without telling him any thing, lest he should mistrust them, conducted him to some of her own friends, on whom she could rely, and so secured him, without which we should have been undone. When she had conducted him, and left him with them, she returned to find Mr. Mills, who, by this time, had recovered himself from his astonishment. They went home together, and having found a place of security, they conducted him to it.

In the mean while, as I had pretended to have sent the young lady on a message, I was obliged to return up stairs and go back to my lord’s room, in the same feigned anxiety of being too late, so that every body seemed sincerely to sympathize with my distress. When I was in the room, I talked to him, as if he had been really present, and answered my own questions in my lord’s voice, as nearly as I could imitate it. I walked up and down, as if we were conversing together, till I thought they had time enough thoroughly to clear themselves of the guards. I then thought proper to make off also. I opened the door, and stood half in it, that those in the outward chamber might hear what I said, but held it so close, that they could not look in. I bid my lord a formal farewell, for that night, and added that something more than usual must have happened to make Evans negligent on this important occasion, who had always been so punctual in the smallest trifles; that I saw no other remedy than to go in person; that if the Tower were still open when I finished my business, I would return that night; but that he might be assured I would be with him as early in the morning as I could gain admittance into the Tower, and I flattered myself I should bring favourable news. Then, before I shut the door, I pulled through the string of the latch, so that it could only be opened on the inside. I then shut it with some degree of force, that I might be sure of its being well shut. I said to the servant as I passed by, that he need not carry in candles to his master till my lord sent for him, as he desired to finish some prayers first. I went down stairs, and called a coach. As there were several on the stand, I drove home to my lodgings, where poor Mr. Mackenzie had been waiting to carry the petition, in case my attempt had failed. I told him there was no need of any petition, as my lord was safe out of the Tower, and out of the hands of his enemies, as I hoped; but that I did not know where he was.

I discharged the coach, and sent for a sedan chair, and went to the Duchess of Buccleugh, who expected me about that time, as I had begged of her to present the petition for me, having taken my precautions against all events, and asked if she was at home; and they answered, that she expected me, and had another duchess with her. I refused to go up stairs, as she had company with her, and I was not in a condition to see any other company. I begged to be shewn into a chamber below stairs, and that they would have the goodness to send her grace’s maid to me, having something to say to her. I had discharged the chair, lest I might be pursued and watched. When the maid came in, I desired her to present my most humble respects to her grace, who they told me had company with her, and to acquaint her that this was my only reason for not coming up stairs. I also charged her with my sincerest thanks for the kind offer to accompany me when I went to present my petition. I added, that she might spare herself any further trouble, as it was now judged more advisable to present one general petition in the name of all; however, that I should never be unmindful of my particular obligations to her grace, which I would return very soon to acknowledge in person.

I then desired one of the servants to call a chair, and I went to the duchess of Montrose, who had always borne a part in my distress. When I arrived, she left her company to deny herself, not being able to see me under the affliction which she judged me to be in. By mistake I was, however admitted; so there was no remedy. She came to me; and as my heart was in extasy of joy, I expressed it in my countenance as she entered the room. I ran up to her in a transport of joy. She appeared to be extremely shocked and frightened; and has since confessed to me that she apprehended my trouble had thrown me out of myself, till I communicated my happiness to her. She then advised me to retire to some place of security; for that the king was highly displeased, and even enraged at the petition that I had presented to him, and had complained of it severely. I sent for another chair, for I always discharged them immediately, lest I might be pursued. Her grace said she would go to court to see how the news of my lord’s escape was received. When the news was brought to the king he flew into an excess of passion, and said he was betrayed; for it could not have been done without some confederacy. He instantly despatched two persons to the Tower to see that the other prisoners were well secured, lest they should follow the example. Some threw the blame upon one, some upon another. The duchess was the only one at court who knew it.

When I left the duchess I went to a house which Evans had found out for me, and where she promised to acquaint me where my lord was; she got thither some few minutes after me, and told me that when she had seen him secure, she went in search of Mr. Mills, who, by this time, had recovered himself from his astonishment; that he had returned to her house, where she found him, and that he had removed my lord from the first place, where she had desired him to wait, to the house of a poor woman, directly opposite to the guard-house; she had but one small room up one pair of stairs, and a very small bed in it.—We threw ourselves upon the bed, that we might not be heard walking up and down. She left us a bottle of wine and some bread; and Mrs. Mills brought us some more in her pocket the next day. We subsisted on this provision from Thursday till Saturday night, when Mrs. Mills came and conducted my lord to the Venetian ambassador’s.

We did not communicate the affair to his excellency; but one of his servants concealed him in his own room till Wednesday, on which day the ambassador’s coach and six was to go down to Dover to meet his brother. My lord put on a livery, and went down in the retinue, without the least suspicion, to Dover, where Mr. Mitchell (which was the name of the ambassador’s servant) hired a small vessel, and immediately set sail for Calais. The passage was so remarkably short, that the captain threw out this reflection, that the wind could not have served better if his passengers had been flying for their lives, little thinking it to be really the case. Mr. Mitchell might have easily returned without being suspected of being concerned in my lord’s escape; but my lord seemed inclined to have him continue with him, which he did, and has at present a good place under our young master.

This is as exact and full an account of this affair, and of the persons concerned in it, as I could possibly give you, to the best of my memory, and you may rely on the truth of it. I am, with the strongest attachment, my dear sister, your’s most affectionately,

WINIFRED NITHSDALE.

ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST RISE OF FAIRS IN ENGLAND, AND THE MANNER OF LIVING IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES.

Before the necessaries or ornaments of life from the convenience of communication and the increase of provincial intercourse could be procured in towns, through the medium of shops, goods and commodities of every kind were chiefly sold at fairs, to which, as to one universal mart, the people resorted periodically, and supplied most of their wants for the ensuing year.

Fairs and markets were at first held near the castles of the great barons, and near the cathedrals and principal churches in the cities and great towns, not only to prevent frauds in the king’s duties or customs, but also as they were esteemed places where the laws of the land were observed, and as such had a very particular privilege.

The display of merchandize and the conflux of customers at these principal and only emporia of domestic commerce were prodigious, and they were, therefore, often held on open and extensive plains.

It appears from a curious record containing the establishment and expenses of the Earl of Northumberland in the year 1512, that the stores of his lordship’s house at Wressle, for the whole year were laid in from fairs; “He that stands charged with my lord’s house for the whole year, if he may possible, shall be at all fairs, where the gross emptions (that is the principal articles) shall be bought for the house for the whole year, as wine, wax, beeves, muttons, wheat and malt.”

This quotation is a proof that fairs were at that time the principal marts for purchasing necessaries in large quantities, which now are supplied by trading towns, and the mention of buying beeves and muttons, (oxen and sheep) shews that at so late a period they knew but little of breeding cattle.

The great increase of shops in the retail trade in all the towns and villages through the kingdom since the commencement of the eighteenth century, by means of which the inhabitants are supplied with every article necessary for subsistence as well as for luxury, has in a great measure rendered useless the purposes for which fairs were originally established. This change in the domestic trade of the country may be attributed partly to the facility of payment given by the notes of the bank of England and inland bills of exchange, and partly to the more speedy and certain intercourse which has been produced by the regularity of the post office. The latter may be looked upon as the cause and the former the effect of this change which has so completely altered the state of fairs throughout the kingdom.

Connected with fairs as furnishing the necessaries of life may be given an account of the living of the people in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

From the household book of the Earl of Northumberland above-mentioned it appears, that his family, during winter, lived mostly on salted meat and salt fish, and on that account there was an order for providing 180 gallons of mustard. On flesh days through the year, breakfast for the earl and his lady was a loaf of bread, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, half a chine of mutton, or a chine of beef boiled. On meagre days, a loaf of bread, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, a dish of butter, a piece of salt fish, or a dish of buttered eggs. During Lent, a loaf of bread, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, two pieces of salt fish, six baconed herrings, or a dish of sprats. The other meals had as little variety, except on festival days.

At that time capons, chickens, hens, pigeons, rabbits, plovers, woodcocks, quails, snipes, partridges, and pheasants, were accounted such delicacies as to be prohibited except at the earl’s table.

From the same book it appears that the earl had only two cooks for dressing victuals for his household which consisted of 229 persons.

Hollinshed, who wrote about 1577, observes that white meats, i. e. milk, butter and cheese, formerly the chief food of the English people, were in his time degraded to be the food of the lowest sort, and that the wealthy fed upon flesh and fish.

Feasts in those times were carried beyond all bounds of moderation. There is preserved an account of a feast given by Archbishop Nevill at his installation, 1466, in which are mentioned, among a great variety of others, the following articles, viz. wheat 300 quarters, ale 300 tuns, 80 oxen, 6 wild bulls, 1000 sheep, 300 calves, 300 swine called porks, 2000 pigs, 200 kids, 4000 rabbits, upwards of 400 harts, bucks and roes, 3000 geese, 2300 capons, 2000 chickens, 4000 pigeons, 100 peacocks, 200 cranes, 4000 mallards and teals, 500 partridges, 400 woodcocks; 1500 hot, and 4000 cold venison pasties, 2000 hot custards, and 4000 cold ones. On the tables at this feast it is mentioned there were 4 porpoises and 8 seals.

There were 62 cooks and 515 servants to assist them, and not less than 3000 persons in all were at this feast.

At the above period there was not discovered in society, any pleasure but that of crouding together in hunting and feasting. The delicate pleasures of conversation, in communicating opinions, sentiments and desires, were wholly unknown.

About the year 1512 the breakfast hour was eight, and at ten they sat down to dinner; at three in the afternoon they had a drinking, and four was the hour for supper. The gates of the Earl of Northumberland’s castles were shut at nine in the evening throughout the year, “to the intent that no servant shall come in at the said gate, that ought to be within, who are out of the house at that hour.”

By a household establishment of Lord Fairfax’s, about 1650, it appears that eleven had then become the hour of dining, and towards the end of that century the hour was twelve, but from the beginning of the last century it has gradually grown later to the present times, when seven has become the fashionable hour in noblemen’s houses.

In the country, and in moderate families in the metropolis, one and two are the more general hours for dining.

From the Percy household book it may be observed, that several dishes were then in use which have been long banished from our tables; among these may be reckoned cranes, herons, sea-gulls, bitterns and kirlews, and at archbishop Nevill’s feast, porpoises and seals were served up.

After the accession of Henry the seventh to the throne, the nation began to rest from the scenes of war and blood which for several years had subsisted between the Houses of York and Lancaster, and in the next reign the people turned their attention more to trade and the arts of peace, so that we find the mode of living considerably changed, for luxury being ever the attendant of extended commerce, this brought us acquainted with the produce of foreign countries till then unknown in England.

Previously to 1509 the principal vegetables used at the tables of the great were imported from the Netherlands, so that when Catherine, queen of Henry the eighth wanted a sallad, she was obliged to despatch a messenger to Flanders. Asparagus and artichokes were introduced into England about 1578, and cauliflowers somewhat later. Celery was not introduced into England till after 1709, when Marshal Tallard being made prisoner at the battle of Malplaquet, and brought into England, first introduced this plant on the English tables.

There is an article in the Percy household book which says, “That from henceforth there be no herbs bought, seeing that the cooks may have herbs enough in my lord’s gardens.”

Since the introduction of tea into England at the close of the seventeenth century the living of all classes of the people has experienced a total change, but it was not till about 1740 that tea came to be generally used in the country, for previously to that time those who made use of it got it by stealth, each being afraid of being known to be in possession of what was then termed a great luxury.

Waller has a poem addressed to the queen Maria d’Este, wife of James the second in 1683, “On Tea commended by her Majesty,” whereby it seems it was even then a new thing, though Mr. Hanway in his Essay on Tea says that Lord Arlington and Lord Ossory introduced it into England in 1666, and that it was then admired as a new thing. Their ladies introduced it among the women of quality, and its price was then £3 per pound, and continued the same till 1707. In 1715 green tea began to be used, and the practice of drinking tea descended to the middling classes of the people.

In the Tatler (No. 86, Oct. 27, 1709) the author mentions inviting his friends, seemingly as though tea was common, to drink a dish of tea, which they refused, saying they never drank tea in the morning.

The same author observes, that dinner had in his memory, crept by degrees from twelve o’clock to three, and in the Spectator it is said that coffee houses were frequented by shopkeepers from six in the morning, and that the students at law made their appearance in them in their night gowns about eight. A lady who sends her journal to the Spectator represents herself as taking chocolate in bed, and sleeping after it till ten, and drinking her Bohea from that hour till eleven. Her dinner hour was from three to four, and she did not sit up later at a card party than twelve. A citizen out of trade, in the same work, describes himself as rising at eight, dining at two, and going to bed at ten if not kept up at the club he frequented.

The history of Taverns in this country may be traced back to the time of king Henry the fourth, for so ancient is that of the Boar’s Head in East Cheap, London, the rendezvous of prince Henry and his riotous companions. Of little less antiquity is the White Hart without Bishopsgate, which now bears in the front of it, the date of its erection, 1480.

SIR RICHARD CLOUGH.

Sir Richard Clough was a man of distinguished character, who raised himself by his merit, from a poor boy at Denbigh to be one of the greatest merchants of his time. He was first a chorister at Chester, then had the good fortune to become apprentice to the famous Sir Thomas Gresham, and afterwards his partner, with whom he may be considered as joint founder of the Royal Exchange, having contributed several thousand pounds towards that noble design. His residence was chiefly at Antwerp, where after his death his body was interred; his heart at Whitchurch, in the vicinity of Denbigh. He is said to have made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and to have been a knight of the holy sepulchre; and he accordingly assumed the five crosses, the badge of that order, for his arms. His wealth was so great, that his name became proverbial, and the Welsh have a saying, on any person’s attaining great riches, that he is become a Clough. Sir Richard left two daughters, but it is probable that they enjoyed but an inconsiderable part of his wealth, which is said to have gone to Sir Thomas Gresham, according to an agreement in case of survivorship. Sir Richard died first, but the time is unknown. Sir Thomas survived till the year 1579.

The original hint of the Royal Exchange was given to Sir Thomas Gresham by Sir Richard Clough, who in the year 1561, had been advanced by the former, to be his correspondent and agent in the then emporium of the world, Antwerp. Clough wrote to his master, to blame the citizens of London for neglecting so necessary a thing; bluntly saying that “they studied nothing else but their own private profit; that they were content to walk about in the rain, more like pedlars than merchants, and that there was no kind of people but had their place to transact business in, in other countries.” Thus stimulated, Sir Thomas, in 1566, laid the foundation, and the next year completed what was then called the Bourse, which three years after on being visited by queen Elizabeth, was dignified by her with the title of Royal Exchange.

An original picture of Sir Richard Clough is preserved at Llanywern, the seat of Sir Thomas Salusbury, Bart. It is a half length extremely well painted on board, his hair is very short, and of a dark brown. He is dressed in a short close jacket, black, striped with white, and great white breeches. In his right hand a glove; his left on his sword; on his right side is a dagger. The arms of the holy sepulchre, which he had assumed, are on one side of the picture. It was probably painted at Antwerp, which at this period abounded with artists of the first merit.

ROYAL CLEMENCY.

Lewis the thirteenth of France being desirous to sit as judge at the trial of the Duke de la Vallette, assembled, in his cabinet, some members of the Parliament, together with some counsellors of state, to consult on the propriety of such a step. Upon their being compelled by the king to give their opinions concerning the decree for his arrest, the president, De Believre, said, “That he found it very strange that a prince should pass sentence upon one of his subjects; that kings had reserved to themselves the power of pardoning, and left that of condemning to their officers; that his majesty wanted to see before him at the bar, a person, who by his decision was to be hurried away in an hour’s time into another world. That this is what a prince’s countenance, from whence favours flow, should never bear; that his presence alone removed ecclesiastical censures; and that subjects ought not to go away dissatisfied from their prince.” When sentence was passed, the same president said, “This is an unprecedented judgment, and contrary to the example of past ages, to see a king of France, in the quality of a judge, condemning a gentleman to death.”—It may be proper to add, that the sentence was afterwards revoked.

It has always been urged against king James the second, as a proof of the inveterate cruelty of his disposition, that he should have ordered the Duke of Monmouth into his presence, and not pardoned him. Welwood, in his Memoirs, says, that James, in this instance, made an exception to a general rule observed inviolably by kings, “never to allow a criminal, under sentence of death, the sight of his prince’s face, without a design to pardon him.”

The custom of pardoning criminals, by admitting them into the presence of the sovereign, is of very ancient date. When Agag, king of the Amalekites, had been taken prisoner by Saul (1 Sam., xv. 20-33) and his life spared by that monarch, contrary to the divine command, and was afterwards brought into the presence of Samuel, he exclaimed “Surely the bitterness of death is past,” evidently in allusion to this custom. But Samuel executed the command of God, by putting Agag to death, which ought to have been done by Saul, on taking him prisoner.

LOTTERIES.

As a source of revenue, this is only a modern invention; and it is evident, were it not for the monopoly of this species of gambling, which the government insists on enjoying, that it could not possibly prove of any material advantage; for individuals would soon set up private lotteries, could afford to carry them on with less profit, and would soon draw all the benefit of such speculations to themselves.

The Romans had lotteries, particularly whilst they were under the government of the emperors. The tickets were distributed gratis among those guests who attended their entertainments, and all of them gained some prize. Heliogabalus took pleasure in making the prizes of very disproportionate value. Some of the prizes were ten camels, others ten flies, some ten pounds of gold, ten eggs, and the like. The plays which Nero gave, were concluded by lotteries, consisting of prizes of wheat, wine, stuffs, gold, silver, slaves, ships, houses, and lands.

In England, lotteries certainly took place in the reign of queen Elizabeth. According to Raynal, the two American companies in her reign, were favoured with the first lottery that ever was drawn in her dominions. The first however, of which we have any regular account was drawn in the year 1569. It consisted of 400,000 lots, at ten shillings each; the prizes were plate, and the profits were to go towards repairing the havens of this kingdom. It was drawn at the west door of St. Paul’s Cathedral. The drawing began on the 11th of January, 1569, and continued incessantly, day and night, until the sixth of May, following. There were then only three lottery offices in London. It was at first intended to have been drawn at the house of Mr. Derricke, the queen’s jeweller, but was afterwards drawn as above mentioned.

The proposals for this lottery were published in the years 1567 and 1568. Dr. Rawlinson shewed the Society of Antiquaries in 1748, “A proposal for a very rich lottery, general, without any blanks, containing a great number of good prizes, as well of ready money as of plate and certain sorts of merchandizes, having been valued and prized by the commandment of the queen’s most excellent majesty’s order, to the intent that such commodities as may chance to arise thereof, after the charges borne, may be converted towards the reparations of the havens, and strength of the realm, and towards such other public good works. The number of lots shall be 400,000 and no more, and every lot shall be the sum of ten shillings sterling and no more. To be filled by the feast of St. Bartholomew. The shew of prizes are to be seen in Cheapside, at the sign of the Queen’s Arms, the house of Mr. Derricke, goldsmith, servant to the queen.”

In the year 1612, king James in special favour for the plantation of English colonies in Virginia, granted a lottery to be held at the west end of St. Paul’s, whereof one Thomas Sharplys, a tailor of London, had the chief prize, which was 4000 crowns in plate.

Lotteries were revived in the reign of William the third, and as all our evils were then attributed to Dutch counsels, the blame of lotteries, those banes of industry, frugality, and virtue, was ascribed to an imitation of the example of Holland, and a wish in the natives of that country to ruin our morals, as well as to cramp our trade.

In the reign of queen Anne it was thought necessary to suppress lotteries as nuisances to the public. They have, however, been revived of late years, and are now carried forward in a more extensive manner than at any former period.

HERCULANEUM MANUSCRIPTS.

The following account of the ancient rolls of Papyrus, discovered at Herculaneum, and the method employed to unroll them, is extracted from a letter written in 1802, by the Hon. Henry Grey Bennett, addressed to the late Rev. Samuel Henley, D. D.

“The papyrus of the Greeks and Romans was the inside coating of a plant of the same name; which was formerly common in various parts of Sicily; a small river now choaked up near Palermo was called the Papyrus, probably from the number of that species of plant which grew in its bed; the same name was also given to various rivulets in the island. It is however most common in the neighbourhood of Syracuse, where a Sicilian a few years ago established a manufactory of that article, more indeed to gratify the wishes of the curious, than to reap any immediate profit. The texture is not so fine as in the Egyptian or eastern manuscripts, which exist in the libraries of Paris. This may be owing probably to the method of preparation, and not to any difference in the plant.

“The papyri are joined together, and form one roll, on each sheet of which, the characters are painted, standing out in a species of bas relief, and singly to be read with the greatest ease. As there are no stops, a difficulty is found in joining the letters, in making out the words, and in discovering the sense of the phrase. The manuscripts were found in a chamber of an excavated house, in the ancient Herculaneum, to the number of about 1800, a considerable part of which were in a state to be unrolled. That city was buried for the most part under a shower of hot ashes, and the manuscripts were reduced by the heat to a state of tinder, or to speak more properly, resembled paper which has been burnt. Where the baking has not been complete, and where any part of the vegetable juice has remained it is almost impossible to unroll them, the sheets towards the centre, being so closely united. In the others as you approach to the centre, or conclusion, the manuscripts become smoother, and the work proceeds with greater rapidity. A manuscript, by Epicurus, was unrolled in March, 1802, twenty seven sheets of which were taken off, not indeed so well as could have been hoped, but a great part sufficiently intelligible, to judge of the style of the author, and the nature of its contents. It unfortunately fell to the lot of a young beginner, who in his hurry to conclude, spoiled much more than he saved.

“The papyri are very rough on the outside, and in some there are great holes. All the inequalities are made smooth, previous to unrolling them, with facility; in consequence much must inevitably be lost. Great care, however, is taken to preserve all the pieces, and when broken off, they are placed in the same sheet, preserving their original position.

“When first Mr. Hayter began this process, there was one man tolerably expert, and three only who had ever seen the manner of it; consequently, all were to be taught. This may serve as a reason why, as yet, so little has been done. One Latin manuscript was found, but it was in too bad a state to promise any chance of success. They are of different sizes, some containing only a few sheets, as a single play, others some hundreds, and a few, perhaps, two thousand. We may hope from the first, Menander, and from the others, the histories of Livy and Diodorus Siculus, perhaps the Doric poetry of the Sicilian muse, or the philosophy of the schools of Agrigentum and of Syracuse. We are led from the nature of the manuscripts to trust, that the indefatigable labours, the attention, and industry of Mr. Hayter will not be thrown away, and that the assistance to be derived from the English minister, Mr. Drummond, as well on account of his classical knowledge, and his love of literature, as the advantages arising from his situation, may command ultimate success, and secure to those who are engaged in this business, the protection of the Neapolitan government, and the thanks of the literary world.”

WOLVES IN ENGLAND.

King Edward the first commissioned Peter Corbet to destroy the wolves in the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Salop, and Stafford, and ordered John Gilford to hunt them in all the forests of England.

The forest of Chiltern was infested by wolves and wild bulls in the time of Edward the Confessor. William the Conqueror granted the lordship of Riddesdale, in Northumberland, to Robert de Umfraville, on condition of defending that part of the country against enemies and wolves. King John gave a premium of ten shillings for catching two wolves.

In the reign of king Henry the third Vitalis de Engaine held the manors of Laxton and Pitchley, in the county of Northampton, by the service of hunting the wolf, whenever the king should command him. In the reign of Edward the first, it was found by inquisition that John de Engaine, held the manor of Great Gidding in the county of Huntingdon by the service of hunting the hare, fox, wild cat, and wolf, within the counties of Huntingdon, Northampton, Buckingham, Oxford, and Rutland. In the reign of Edward the third, Thomas de Engaine, held certain manors by the service of finding at his own proper cost, certain dogs for the destruction of wolves, foxes, martins, and wild cats, in the counties of Northampton, Rutland, Oxford, Essex, and Buckingham.

PROFESSOR PORSON.

This eminent scholar and acute critic was born at East Ruston, in the county of Norfolk, on the 25th of December, 1759. At a very early period he displayed talents which gave promise of future excellence, and some gentlemen who admired his acquirements in learning, sent him to Eton, from whence he was afterwards entered of Trinity College, Cambridge. The following account of Mr. Porson, when an Eton boy, is extracted from the evidence of Dr. Goodall, the present Provost of Eton, given before the Education Committee of the House of Commons.

Dr. Goodall being asked if he was acquainted with what happened to the late Professor Porson to prevent his election to King’s College, replied as follows:—

“Every account that I have read about him, in relation to that circumstance is incorrect. When he came to the school he was placed rather higher by the reputation of his abilities, than perhaps he ought to have been, in consequence of his actual attainments; and I can only say that many of the statements in the life of Porson are not founded in truth. With respect to prosody, he knew but little, and as to Greek he had made comparatively but little progress when he came to Eton. The very ingenious and learned editor of one account of him, has been misinformed in most particulars; and many of the incidents which he relates, I can venture from my own knowledge to assert, are distorted or exaggerated. Even Person’s compositions, at an early period, though eminently correct, fell far short of excellence; still we all looked up to him in consequence of his great abilities and variety of information, though much of that information was confined to the knowledge of his schoolfellows, and could not easily fall under the notice of his instructors. He always undervalued school exercises, and generally wrote his exercises fair at once, without study. I should be sorry to detract from the merit of an individual whom I loved, esteemed, and admired; but I speak of him when he had only given the promise of his future excellence; and in point of school exercises, I think he was very inferior to more than one of his contemporaries; I would name the present Marquis Wellesley as infinitely superior to him in composition.

“On being asked whether he wrote the same beautiful hand as he did afterwards, Dr. Goodall replied he did, nor was there any doubt of his general scholarship.

“To a question whether he made great progress during the time he was at Eton, or after he left? Dr. Goodall said he was advanced as far as he could be with propriety, but there were certainly some there who would not have been afraid to challenge Porson as a school-boy, though they would have shunned all idea of competition with him at Cambridge. The first book that Porson ever studied, as he often told me, was Chambers’s Cyclopædia; he read the whole of that dictionary through, and in a great degree made himself master of the algebraic part of that work entirely by the force of his understanding.

“Dr. Goodall was then asked if he considered there was any ground for complaint on the part of Porson, in not having been sent to Cambridge, to which he answered no; he was placed as high in the school as he well could be; as a proof however of his merits, when he left Eton, contributions were readily supplied by Etonians in aid of Sir George Baker’s proposal, to secure the funds for his maintenance at the university.”

In the year 1793, Mr. Porson was elected professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, that office being then vacant by the death of professor Cooke. The following letter relating to this election from Mr. Porson to the Rev. Dr. Postlethwayte, master of Trinity College, is now first printed:—

“Essex Court, Temple, 6th October, 1792.

“Sir,—When I first received the favour of your letter I must own that I felt rather vexation and chagrin than hope and satisfaction. I had looked upon myself so completely in the light of an outcast from Alma Mater, that I had made up my mind to have no farther connection with the place. The prospect you held out to me gave me more uneasiness than pleasure. When I was younger than I now am, and my disposition more sanguine than it is at present, I was in daily expectation of Mr. Cooke’s resignation, and I flattered myself with the hope of succeeding to the honour he was going to quit. As hope and ambition are great castle-builders, I had laid a scheme, partly as I was willing to think, for the joint credit, partly for the mutual advantage, of myself and the university. I had projected a plan of reading lectures, and I persuaded myself that I should easily obtain a grace, permitting me to exact a certain sum from every person who attended. But seven years’ waiting will tire out the most patient temper, and all my ambition of this sort was long ago laid asleep. The sudden news of the vacant professorship put me in mind of poor Jacob, who having served seven years in hopes of being rewarded with Rachel, awoke, and behold it was Leah.

“Such, sir, I confess were the first ideas that took possession of my mind. But after a little reflection, I resolved to refer a matter of this importance to my friends. This circumstance has caused the delay, for which I ought before now to have apologized. My friends unanimously exhorted me to embrace the good fortune which they conceived to be within my grasp. Their advice, therefore, joined to the expectation I had entertained of doing some small good by my exertions in the employment, together with the pardonable vanity which the honour annexed to the office inspired, determined me; and I was on the point of troubling you, sir, and the other electors with notice of my intentions to profess myself a candidate, when an objection which had escaped me in the hurry of my thoughts, now occurred to my recollection.

“The same reason which hindered me from keeping my fellowship by the method you obligingly pointed out to me, would, I am greatly afraid, prevent me from being Greek professor. Whatever concern this may give me for myself, it gives me none for the public. I trust there are at least twenty or thirty in the university, equally able and willing to undertake the office; possessed, many of talents superior to mine, and all of a more complying conscience. This I speak upon the supposition that the next Greek professor will be compelled to read lectures; but if the place remains a sinecure, the number of qualified persons will be greatly increased. And though it was even granted that my industry and attention might possibly produce some benefit to the interests of learning and the credit of the university, that trifling gain would be as much exceeded by keeping the professorship a sinecure, and bestowing it on a sound believer, as temporal considerations are outweighed by spiritual. Having only a strong persuasion, not an absolute certainty, that such a subscription is required of the professor elect; if I am mistaken, I hereby offer myself as a candidate, but if I am right in my opinion, I shall beg of you to order my name to be erased from the boards, and I shall esteem it a favour conferred on, Sir,

Your obliged humble servant,

R. PORSON.”

Letter from the Rev. Joseph Goodall, D. D. Upper Master (now Provost) of Eton College, to Mr. Porson.

“Eton, Nov. 16th, 1806.

“Dear Porson,—The bishop of Rochester [Dr. Dampier] has written to me requesting my assistance on the following subject. ‘On summing up matters the Oxford people find no account of the Eton MS of Strabo, of which use has been made, and want one for their preface.’ Now the said bishop, urged by his brother of Oxford [Dr. Randolph] at the same time he hints that you have examined the MS in question, and advises me to enter upon the subject with you, which I most gladly do, praying for such information as you may be disposed to give me, being fully persuaded that you are not likely to forget what you have once seen.

“I write to the bishop by this post to acknowledge my incompetence. How glad should Mrs. Goodall and myself be, if you would take the trouble of once more inspecting the MS and dating your kind communication from the Eton library. Should you be a prisoner in——street will you suffer me to bring the MS to town about the middle of December, and then give me your opinion of its value, age, &c. The master of the Charter-House, [Dr. Raine] whom I hope soon to greet by some other title, will I am sure, have the goodness to forward this petition to you.

“Charles Hayes, who, with his wife is now on a visit to us, desires his kindest remembrance. Mrs. Goodall is fatigued to death with nursing a sick nephew and niece, and I am sorry to add that I am on the invalid list myself, but we hope to be all well in the course of a few days. She unites in every good wish with

Dear Porson,

Yours most faithfully,

J. GOODALL.”

From Mr. William Laing of Edinburgh to Mr. Porson.

“Edinburgh, 3d of Jan. 1807.

“Sir,—The edition of Herodotus being now compleated after the plan you proceeded on, I have taken the liberty of dedicating to you, which I hope will meet your approbation. Mr. Dunbar who has succeeded poor Mr. Dalzel has paid the utmost attention to it. I shall order Cuthell to forward a copy for your use. A selection has been made of the best notes from Wesseling; which with his Index Rerum, will make it very compleat. I return you my best thanks for the trouble you voluntarily undertook in promoting this speculation. I hope soon to see you in town, and shall personally repeat my obligations.

“I am about to print a new and elegant edition of Pindar in two volumes from Heyne’s—You see there is still some spirit for enterprize existing here.

“I hope all my little editions will possess beauty and correctness. I believe you have still a volume of Herodotus which belongs to a person here who wants it. Please deliver it to my son who will call for it.

I remain with the highest respect,

Sir, your very obedient servant,

WILLIAM LAING.”

From Dr. Charles Burney to Mr. Porson.

“Greenwich, June 20th, 1808.

“My dear Porson,—My friends at Cambridge direct me to request you will go down as speedily as may be, to vote, and collect votes, for a degree of M. A. to be conferred on me. Now though I know your objections to expeditions of such a nature, yet I cannot help intreating you, if you have not sound reasons against it to go down and aid my cause.

“Kaye tells me that no time is to be lost. So if you can, pack up a small portion of wardrobe and visit alma mater, so will you greatly oblige and favor

C. BURNEY.”

From Dr. Davy, Master of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, to Mr. Porson.

“Caius Coll. Tuesday 21st June, 1808.

“My dear Porson—I take the liberty of telling you, in case it should affect any of your movements, that Dr. Burney’s mandamus will be voted for on Friday next, at 2 o’clock precisely. Every thing seems in his favour.

Your’s most truly,

M. DAVY.”

From Thomas Tyrwhitt, Esq. to Mr. James Perry, Morning Chronicle office, Strand.

“Carlton House, Feb. 12th, 1805.

“Dear Sir,—Do pray at your convenience inform me of the address of Mr. Porson, as some papers have been found in the collection of the late Sir William Hamilton respecting the Papiri, which are very interesting; and several MSS so clearly written out, as to be ready for the opinion of Mr. Porson, the only person in my opinion fit to inspect them in the whole kingdom.

Your very faithful and obedient servant,

THOMAS TYRWHITT.”

HISTORY OF SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS.

In the early ages of Christianity the honour of being deposited within the walls of the church was reserved to martyrs; and it was the request of the emperor Constantine in imitation of this holy mode of interment, that after his death, his remains might be allowed to lie in the porch of the basilica of the Apostles, which he himself had erected in Constantinople. Hence the eloquent Chrysostom, when speaking of the triumphs of Christianity, exultingly observes, in allusion to this circumstance, that the Cæsars, subdued by the humble fishermen whom they had persecuted, now appeared as suppliants before them, and gloried in occupying the place of porters at the doors of their sepulchres. Bishops and priests distinguished by their learning, zeal, and sanctity, were gradually permitted to share the honours of the martyrs, and to repose with them within the sanctuary itself. A pious wish in some to be deposited in the neighbourhood of such holy persons, and to rest under the shadow of the altars; in others an absurd love of distinction even beyond the grave; to which may be added, that the clergy, by making such a distinction expensive, rendered it enviable; so that by degrees, all the wholesome restrictions of antiquity were broken through, and at length the noblest public edifices, the temples of the Eternal, the seats of holiness and purity, were converted into so many dormitories of the dead.

Our present business is to investigate the antiquity and variety of sepulchral monuments, which have been erected as memorials of the illustrious dead, in the cathedral, conventual, and parish churches of this island. During the time of our Saxon ancestors, it is probable, that few or no monuments of this kind were erected; at least, being usually placed in the churches belonging to the greater abbeys, they felt the stroke of the general dissolution, and it is believed there are now scarcely any extant. Those we meet with for the kings of that race, such as Ina at Wells;[59] Osric, at Gloucester; Sebba and Ethelbert, which were in Old St. Paul’s, or where-ever else they may occur, are undoubtedly cenotaphs, erected in later ages by the several abbeys and convents of which these royal personages were the founders, in gratitude to such generous benefactors.

The period immediately after the conquest was not a time for people to think of such memorials for themselves, or friends. Few could then tell how long the lands they enjoyed would remain their own; and most indeed were put into the hands of new possessors, who, frequently, as we find in Domesday Book, held thirty or forty manors, or more, at a time. All then above the degree of servants, were soldiers, the sword alone made the gentleman, and accordingly on a strict inquiry, we shall meet with few or no monuments of that age, except for the kings, royal family, or some few of the chief nobility and leaders, among which, those for the Veres, Earls of Oxford, at Earl’s Colne, in Essex, are some of the most ancient. It is probable that this state of things, so far as regards sepulchral monuments, continued through the troublesome reign of Stephen, and during the confusion which prevailed while the barons’ wars subsisted, and until the ninth year of king Henry the third, 1224.

In that year Magna Charta being confirmed, and every man’s security better established, property became more dispersed, manors were in more divided hands, and the lords of them began to settle on their possessions in the country. In that age many parish churches were built, and it is not improbable that the care of a resting-place for their bodies, and monuments to preserve their memories, became more general and diffused.

In country parish churches, the ancient monuments are usually found either in the chancel, or in small chapels, or side aisles, which have been built by the lords of manors, and patrons of the churches, (which for the most part went together,) and being designed for burying places for their families, were frequently endowed with chantries, in which priests officiated, and offered up prayers for the souls of their founder and his progenitors.

The tracing out, therefore, of such founders, will frequently help us to the knowledge of an ancient tomb which is found placed near the altar of such chantries. If there are more than one, they are, probably, for succeeding lords, and where there have been found ancient monuments in the church, also, besides what are in such chapels or aisles, they may be supposed to have been erected in memory of lords, prior to the foundation of the buildings.

CROSS-LEGGED MONUMENTS.

The first species of monument, of which I propose to give the history, is that denominated cross-legged, from its having the recumbent effigy of the deceased upon it, represented in armour, with the legs crossed. During the Norman period of our history, the holy war, and vows of pilgrimage to Palestine, were esteemed highly meritorious. The religious order of laymen, the knights templars, were received, cherished, and enriched throughout Europe, and the individuals of that community, after death, being usually buried cross-legged, in token of the banner under which they fought, and completely armed in regard to their being soldiers, this sort of monument grew much in fashion, and though all the effigies with which we meet in that shape are commonly called knights templars, yet it is certain that many of them do not represent persons of that order; and Mr. Lethieullier says (Archæologia, vol. 2. p. 292) that he had rarely found any of these monuments which he could with certainty say had been erected to the memory of persons who had belonged to that community.

The order of knights templars had its rise but in the year 1118, and in 1134, we find Robert duke of Normandy, son of William the conqueror, represented in this manner on his tomb in Gloucester cathedral.[60]—Henry Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was represented thus on his fine tomb, which was in St. Paul’s cathedral, before the fire of London. And in the Temple church there still remain the cross-legged effigies of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, who died in 1219; William his son, who died in 1231; and Gilbert, another son, who died in 1241; none of whom it is believed were of the order of Templars.

If these monuments were designed to denote at least, that the persons, to whose memory they were erected, had been in the Holy Land, yet all who had been there did not follow this fashion, for Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, second son of king Henry the third, had been there, and yet, as appears by his monument, still in being in Westminster-abbey, he is not represented cross-legged.[61] However, it seems to have been a prevailing fashion till the sixth year of Edward the second, 1312, when the order of Templars coming to destruction, and into the highest contempt, their fashions of all kinds seem to have been totally abolished.

By this it may be determined that all those effigies, either of wood or stone, which we find in country churches, whether in niches in the walls or on table tombs, and represented in complete armour, with a shield on the left arm, and the right hand grasping the sword, cross-legged, and a lion, talbot, or some animal couchant at the feet, have been set up between the ninth of Henry the third, 1224, and the seventh of Edward the second, 1313, and what corroborates this opinion is, that whenever any such figures are certainly known, either by the arms on the shield, or by uninterrupted tradition, they have always been found to fall within that period, and whenever, says Mr. Lethieullier in the before mentioned paper, I have met with such monument, totally forgotten, I have, on searching for the owners of the church and manor, found some person or other, of especial note, who lived in that age, and left little room to doubt but it was his memory which was intended to be preserved.

It must, however, be acknowledged that this sort of monument did not entirely cease after the year 1312, for there is one in the church of Leekhampton, in Gloucestershire, which, by tradition, is said to be for Sir John Gifford, who died possessed of that manor, in the third of king Edward the third, 1328.

The Rev. Dr. Nash, in his History of Worcester, has the following observations on this sort of monument:—“It is an opinion which universally prevails, with regard to the cross-legged monuments, that they were all erected to the memory of knights templars; now, to me, it is very evident that not one of them belonged to that order, but as Mr. Habingdon, in describing those at Alvechurch, hath justly expressed it, to ‘Knights of the Holy Voyage,’ for the order of knights templars followed the rule of the canons regular of St. Augustin, and as such were under a vow of celibacy. Now there is scarcely any one of these monuments which is certainly known for whom it was erected, but it is as certain that the person it represents was a married man.

“The knights templars always wore a white habit, with a red cross on the left shoulder. I believe not a single instance can be produced of either the mantle or cross being carved on any of these monuments, which surely would not have been omitted, as by it they were distinguished from all other orders, had these been really designed to represent knights templars.

“Lastly, this order was not confined to England only, but dispersed itself all over Europe, yet it will be very difficult to find one cross-legged monument any where out of England; whereas no doubt they would have abounded in France, Italy, and elsewhere, had it been a fashion peculiar to that famous order.

“But though for these reasons I cannot allow the cross-legged monuments to have been erected for knights templars, yet they have some relation to them; being memorials of those zealous devotees, who had either been in Palestine, personally engaged in what is called the Holy War, or had laid themselves under a vow to go thither, though perhaps they were prevented from it by death; some few indeed might possibly be erected to the memory of persons who had made pilgrimages thither, merely out of devotion; among the latter probably was the lady of the family of Metham, of Metham in Yorkshire, to whose memory a cross-legged monument was placed in a chapel adjoining the once collegiate church of Howden, in Yorkshire, and is at this day remaining, together with that of her husband on the same tomb.

“As this religious madness lasted no longer than the reign of our Henry the third, (the seventh and last crusade being published in the year 1268) and the whole order of knights templars dissolved in the seventh of Edward the second; military expeditions to the Holy Land, as well as devout pilgrimages thither had their period by the year 1312, consequently none of those cross-legged monuments are of a later date than the reign of Edward the second, or the beginning of Edward the third, nor of an earlier than that of king Stephen, when those expeditions first took place in this kingdom.”

THE FOLLOWING RULES WERE OBSERVED BY ANCIENT SCULPTORS IN ERECTING SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS.[62]

Kings and princes, in what part, or by what means soever, they died, were represented upon their tombs clothed with their coats of arms, their shield, bourlet or pad, crown, crest, supporters, lambrequins or mantlings, orders, and devices, upon their effigies, and round about their tombs.

Knights and gentlemen might not be represented with their coats of arms, unless they had lost their lives in some battle, single combat or rencontre with the prince himself, or in his service, unless they died and were buried within their own manors and lordships; and then to shew they died a natural death in their beds, they were represented with their coat of armour, ungirded, without a helmet, bareheaded, their eyes closed, their feet resting against the back of a greyhound, and without any sword.

Those who died on the day of battle, or in any mortal conflict on the side of the victorious party, were to be represented with a drawn sword in their right hand, the shield in their left, their helmet on their head, (which some think ought to be closed and the vizor let down, as a sign that they fell fighting against their enemies) having their coats of arms girded over their armour, and their feet resting on a lion.

Those who died in captivity, or before they had paid their ransom, were figured on their tombs without spurs or helmets, without coats of arms, and without swords, the scabbard thereof only girded to, and hanging at their side.

Those who fell on the side of the vanquished in a rencontre or battle were to be represented without coats of arms, the sword at their side and in the scabbard, the vizor raised and open, their hands joined before their breasts, and their feet resting against the back of a dead and overthrown lion.

Those who had been vanquished and slain in the lists in a combat of honour were to be placed on their tomb armed at all points, their battle-axe lying by them, the left arm crossed over the right.

Those who were victorious in the lists were exhibited on their tombs armed at all points, their battle-axe in their arms, the right arm crossed over the left.

It was customary to represent ecclesiastical persons on their tombs clothed in their respective sacerdotal habits. The canons with the surplice, square cap, and aumasse or amice, that is the undermost part of the priest’s habit.

The abbots were represented with their mitres and crosiers turned to the left.

The bishops, with their great copes, their gloves in their hands, holding their crosiers with their left hands and seeming to give their benediction with the right, their mitres on their heads and their armorial bearings round their tombs supported by angels.

The popes, cardinals, patriarchs, and archbishops were likewise all represented in their official habits.

The editors of the Antiquarian Repertory (vol. 2. p. 226.) have given the following additional particulars relating to these monuments:—

“Although the figures represented on tombs with their legs crossed, are commonly stiled Knights Templars, there are divers circumstances which intitled other persons to be so represented. The first, having served personally, though for hire in the Holy Land. Secondly, having made a vow to go thither, though prevented by sickness or death. Thirdly, the having contributed to the fitting out of soldiers or ships for that service. Fourthly, having been born with the army in Palestine. And lastly, by having been considerable benefactors to the order of Knights Templars, persons were rendered partakers of the merits and honours of that fraternity, and buried with their distinctions, an idea which has been more recently adopted abroad by many great personages, who have been interred in the habits of Capuchins. Indeed the admission of laymen to the fraternity of a religious order was no uncommon circumstance in former days.

“So long as the Knights Templars remained in estimation it is probable that persons availed themselves of that privileged distinction, but as at its dissolution the Knights were accused of divers enormous crimes, it is not likely any one would chuse to claim brotherhood with them, or hand themselves or friends to posterity as members of a society held in detestation all over Europe, so that cross-legged figures, or monuments, may pretty safely be estimated as prior to the year 1312, when that dissolution took place, or at most they cannot exceed it by above sixty or seventy years, as persons of sufficient age to be benefactors before that event, would not, according to the common age of man, outlive them more than that term.”

CROSS-LEGGED MONUMENTS IN THE TEMPLE CHURCH.[63]

Geoffrey de Magnaville, first Earl of Essex.

(1148.)

He is represented in mail with a surcoat, and round helmet flatted on the top, with a nose piece, which was of iron to defend the nose from swords. His head rests on a cushion placed lozenge fashion, his right hand on his breast, a long sword at his right side, and on his left arm a long pointed shield, charged with an escarbuncle on a diapered field. This is the first instance in England of arms on a sepulchral figure.

This Earl, driven to despair by the confiscation of his estates by king Stephen, indulged in every act of violence, and making an attack on the castle of Burwell, was there mortally wounded, and was carried off by the Templars, who as he died under sentence of excommunication, declined giving him Christian burial, but wrapping his body up in lead, hung it on a crooked tree in the orchard of the Old Temple, London. William, prior of Walden, having obtained absolution for him of the Pope, made application for his body, for the purpose of burying it at Walden, upon which the Templars took it down, and deposited it in the cemetery of the New Temple.

William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke.

This monument represents a knight in mail with a surcoat, his helmet more completely rounded than the adjoining one, and the cushion as in all the rest laid straiter under his head. He is drawing his short dagger or broken sword with his right hand, and on his left arm has a short pointed shield, on which are his arms, per pale, or and vert, a lion rampant, gules, armed and langued, gules, below his knees are bands or garters, as if to separate the cuisses from the greaves; his legs are crossed, and under his feet is a lion couchant.

The first account of this William is in the 28th of Henry the second, when Henry son of that prince, who had behaved himself rebelliously against his father, lying on his death bed, with great penitence delivered to him, as to his most intimate friend, his cross to carry to Jerusalem. He obtained from Richard the first on his first coming to England after his father’s death, Isabel, daughter and heiress of Richard, Earl of Pembroke, in marriage, and with her that earldom. He died advanced in years at his manor of Caversham, near Reading, in 1219. His body was carried first to Reading abbey, then to Westminster, and last to the Temple church, where it was solemnly interred.

Robert Lord Ros of Hamlake.

The most elegant of all the figures in the Temple church represents a comely young knight, in mail, and a flowing mantle, with a kind of cowl; his hair neatly curled at the sides, and his crown appearing to be shaven. His hands are elevated in a praying posture, and on his left arm is a short pointed shield, charged with three water-bougets, the arms of the family of Ros. He has at his left side a long sword, and the armour of his legs, which are crossed, has a ridge or seam up the front, continued over the knee, and forming a kind of garter below the knee: at his feet a lion.

This Robert Lord Ros was surnamed Fursan, and incurred the displeasure of king Richard the first, but for what offence is not said. He was one of the chief barons who undertook to compel king John’s observance of the great charter. At the close of his life he took upon him the order of the Templars, and died in their habit. He was buried in this church in 1227.

William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke.

The next figure but one to that of the Earl of Pembroke, may be for William Marshall, eldest son of that Earl. It is a cross-legged knight in mail, with a surcoat, his helmet round, surmounted with a kind of round cap, and the mouth piece up, his hands folded on his breast, his shield long and pointed, and now plain: a very long sword at his right side; the belt from which his shield hangs studded with quatre-foils, and that of his sword with lozenges.

This William Marshall died without issue in 1231, and was buried in this church near the grave of his father.

Uncertain Monuments in the Temple Church.

The five figures in the north group of this church are not ascertained absolutely to whom they belong. Camden and Weever ascribe one of them to Gilbert Marshall, third son of the first William, who on the death of his brother succeeded to the whole of the paternal inheritance, and lost his life at a tournament at Ware in 1241. His bowels were buried before the high altar of the church of our Lady at Hertford, and his body in the Temple Church, London, near his father and brother.

In the present state of these monuments it is almost impossible to ascertain the property of more than one of the Marshall family. The two effigies whose belts have the same ornaments were it is probable of one family.

It may be observed that Magnaville, William Marshall, jun. and the last figure in the north groupe have their legs crossed in an unusual manner. They lie on their backs and yet cross their legs as if they lay on their sides. So were those of Henry Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, 1312, in old St. Paul’s.

The spurs of all are remarkably short, and seem rather straps with rowels. Not above two or three have the long pointed shoe, and two have their surcoats exactly reaching to the knee, whereas the others are of different lengths and fall more easily.

Weever informs us that sepulture in this church was much affected by Henry the third and his nobility. Stowe has determined that four of the cross-legged figures belong to the three earls of Pembroke and Robert Ros: “and these are all,” says he, “that I can remember to have read of.”

Mr. Gough relates, (he says from good authority,) that a Hertfordshire baronet applied for some of these cross-legged knights to grace his newly erected parochial chapel, but the society of Benchers, discovered their good sense, as well as regard to antiquity, by refusing their compliance.

TABLE TOMB.

To the cross-legged monument it is highly probable, says Mr. Lethieullier, succeeded the table tomb, with figures recumbent upon it, with their hands joined in a praying posture, sometimes with a rich canopy of stone over them, sometimes without such canopy, and again, some very plain without any figures. Round the edge of these for the most part were inscriptions on brass plates, which are now too frequently destroyed.

The table monument, however, came in more early than Mr. L. supposes.

The most ancient monument of this kind that is extant, in England at least, of the sovereigns of this kingdom, is that of king John, in the choir of Worcester Cathedral.[64] His effigy lies on the tomb, crowned; in his right hand he holds the sceptre, in his left a sword, the point of which is received into the mouth of a lion couchant at his feet. The figure is as large as life. On each side of the head are cumbent images, in small, of the bishops St. Oswald and St. Wulstan, represented as censing him.—This monarch died in the year 1216. His bowels were buried in Croxton abbey, and his body, which was conveyed to Worcester from Newark, was according to his desire, buried in that Cathedral.

GRAVE STONES.

At the same time came in common use the humble grave stone laid flat with the pavement, sometimes with an inscription cut round the border of the stone, sometimes enriched with costly plates of brass, as every person who has examined our cathedral and parish churches cannot fail to have observed. But either avarice, or an over zealous aversion to some words in the inscription, has robbed most of these stones of the brass which adorned them, and left the less room for certainty when this fashion began. Earlier than the fourteenth century very few have been met with, and even towards the beginning of that century it is thought they were but rare. Mr. Lethieullier says that one was produced at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries, dated 1300.[65] Weever mentions one in St. Paul’s for Richard Newport, anno 1317, and gives another at Berkhampstead in Hertfordshire, which he by mistake dates 1306, the true date being 1356. Upon the whole, where we have not a positive date, it is hardly probable that any brass plate met with on grave stones can be older than 1350, and few so old, but from about 1380 they grew into common use and remained so even to the time of king James the first. Only after the reign of Edward the sixth we find the old gothic square letter changed into the roman round hand and the phrase Orate pro anima universally omitted.

Towards the latter end of the fourteenth century a custom prevailed likewise of putting the inscription in French and not in Latin. These inscriptions are generally from 1350 to 1400, and very rarely afterwards. John Stow has indeed preserved two, which were in St. Martin’s in the Vintry, dated 1310, and 1311.

The late editor of the Antiquities of Westminster affirms (from what authority he does not say) that stone coffins were never or rarely used after the thirteenth century.[66] If this assertion had been correct we should have had an æra from whence to go upwards in search of any of those monuments where the stone coffin appears, as it frequently does, but there is reason to doubt the accuracy of this author’s statement.

As Grecian architecture had a little dawning in Edward the sixth’s time, and made a further progress in the three succeeding reigns, we find, in the great number of monuments which were then erected, the small column introduced with its base and capital, sometimes supporting an arch, sometimes an architrave, but every where mixed with them, may be observed a great deal of the Gothic ornaments retained, as small spires, ill carved images, small square roses and other foliage, painted and gilt, which sufficiently denote the age which made them, though no inscriptions are left.

HERALDIC SYMBOLS.

Some knowledge of heraldry is very necessary in monumental researches, a coat of arms, device, or rebus, very often remains where not the least word of an inscription appears, and where indeed very probably there never was any.

Armorial bearings seem to have taken their rise in this kingdom in the reign of king Richard the first, and by little and little to have become hereditary; it was accounted most honourable to carry those arms which the bearers had displayed in the Holy Land, against the professed enemies of Christianity, but they were not fully established until the latter end of the reign of king Henry the third.

King Richard the first after his return from his captivity in Austria, had a new great seal made, on which seal he first bore three lions passant guardant for his arms, which from this time became the hereditary arms of the kings of England.

The arms assigned or attributed to the kings of the Norman dynasty, namely gules, two lions passant guardant, or, Mr. Sandford, in his Genealogical History of England, says he could not find had ever been used by those Princes, either on monuments, coins, or seals, but that historians had assigned or fixed them upon the Norman line to distinguish it from that of their successors the Plantagenets, who bore gules, three lions passant guardant, or.[67] According to the opinion of modern genealogists, king Henry the second, who bore two lions for his arms, in the manner before mentioned, added, on his marriage with Eleanor of Aquitaine, the arms of that dutchy, namely gules, a lion, or, to his own, and so was the first king of England who bore three lions; but for this there is no better proof than for those assigned to the Norman dynasty, for the arms of king Henry the second upon his monument at Fontevraud in Normandy, are on a shield of a modern form, and on the same monument are escutcheons with both impalements and quarterings which were not used till a hundred years after his death.

King Edward the first was the first son of a king of England that differenced his arms with a file, and the first king of England that bore his arms on the caparisons of his horse.

Margaret of France, second wife of king Edward the first, was the first queen of England that bore her arms dimidiated with her husband’s in one escutcheon, that is, both escutcheons being parted by a perpendicular line, or per pale, the dexter side of the husband’s shield, is joined to the sinister side of the wife’s, which kind of bearing is more ancient than the impaling of the entire coats of arms.

King Edward the third, in the year 1339, having taken upon him the title of king of France, was the first of our kings who quartered arms, bearing those of France and England, quarterly, and so careful were the kings, his successors, in marshalling the arms of both kingdoms in the same shield, that when Charles the sixth, king of France, changed the semée of fleurs de lys into three, our king Henry the fifth did the like,[68] and so it continued till the union of Great Britain with Ireland in 1801, when the arms of France were relinquished.

The first example of the quartering of arms, is found in Spain, when the kingdoms of Castile and Leon were united under Ferdinand the third, and was afterwards imitated, as above described, by king Edward the third. Eleanor of Castile, his queen, introduced this mode of bearing arms into England, in which she was followed by the king, her husband.

Until the time of king Edward the third, we find no coronets round the heads of peers. The figure upon the monument of John of Eltham, second son of king Edward the third, who died in 1334, and is buried in Westminster abbey, is adorned with a diadem, composed of a circle of greater and less leaves or flowers, and is the most ancient portraiture of an earl, says Sandford, that has a coronet. For the effigies of Henry Lacy, earl of Lincoln, on his tomb in Old St. Paul’s, had the head encompassed with a circle only, and that of William de Valence, earl of Pembroke, half brother of king John, who died in 1304, and is buried in St. Edmund’s chapel, in Westminster abbey, has only a circle, enriched and embellished with stones of several colours, but without either points, rays, or leaves.

John Hastings, earl of Pembroke, who died in 1375, was the first subject who bore two coats quarterly.

Richard the second was the first of the English kings, who used supporters to his arms.

Henry the sixth was the first of our kings who wore an arched crown, which has been ever since continued by his successors.[69]

Henry the eighth was the first king of England that added to his shield, the garter and the crown, in imitation of which, the knights of the garter, in the latter end of his reign, caused their escutcheons on their stalls at Windsor, to be encompassed with the garter, and those who were dukes, marquesses, or earls, had their coronets placed on their shields, which has been so practised ever since.

Queen Elizabeth was the first sovereign who used in her arms, a harp crowned, as an ensign for the kingdom of Ireland.

King James the first was the first of our monarchs, who quartered the arms of England, Scotland, and Ireland in one shield.

The number of princes of the blood royal of the houses of York and Lancaster, may easily be distinguished, by the labels on their coats of arms, which are different for each, and very often their devices are added.

Where the figure of a woman is found with arms both on her kirtle and mantle, those on the kirtle are always her own family’s, and those on the mantle, her husband’s.

The first instance of arms on sepulchral monuments, in England, are those on the tomb of Geoffrey de Magnaville, first Earl of Essex, (so created in 1148,) in the Temple church, in London. Armorial bearings were used in France, on monuments, forty years before we find them in England.

Very intimately connected with the ornaments and devices upon sepulchral monuments are the figures and dresses of our early monarchs found on their great seals, and of the principal nobility of those times on their seals. King Henry the third was the first English sovereign who wore upon his helmet a crown, and he is also the first king who is depicted upon his great seal as wearing rowels in his spurs in the manner in which they are now used, all the former kings using spurs with a single point or spike from the heel.

Sandford, in his Genealogical History of England, says, that the arms upon the seal of John, Earl of Morton, (afterwards king John,) namely, two lions passant, are the first which he had seen upon any seal of the royal family. This was in the reign of king Henry the second.

MONUMENTS FOR ECCLESIASTICS.

As to monuments for the several degrees of churchmen, as bishops, abbots, priors, monks, &c. or of religious women, they are easily to be distinguished from other persons, but equally difficult to assign to their true owners. Among these, as among the before-mentioned monuments, for the most part the stone effigies are the oldest, with the mitre, crosier, and other proper insignia, and very often wider at the head than feet, having, indeed, been the cover to the stone coffins in which the body was deposited.

When brass plates came in fashion they were likewise much used by bishops, &c. many of whose grave stones remain at this day, very richly adorned, and in many, the indented marble shews that they have been so. In Salisbury cathedral, says Mr. Lethieullier, I found two very ancient stone figures of bishops, which were brought from Old Sarum, and are consequently older than the time of king Henry the third. In that church, likewise, the pompous marble which lies over Nicholas Longespee, bishop of that see, and son of the, Earl of Salisbury, who died in the year 1297, appears to have been richly plated, though the brass is now quite gone, and is one of the most early of that kind which has been met with. Frequently, where there are no effigies, crosiers or crosses denote an ecclesiastic. The latter have been met with, but with little difference in their form, for every order from a bishop to a parish priest.

THE SKELETON MONUMENT.

One sort of monument more may be mentioned, which is somewhat peculiar; this is the representation of a skeleton in a shroud, lying either under or upon, but generally under a table tomb. A monument of this kind is to be met with in almost all the cathedral and conventual churches throughout England, and scarcely ever more than one, but to what age the unknown ones are to be attributed, we have no clue to guide us, since there is one in York cathedral for Robert Claget, treasurer of that church, as ancient as 1241, and in Bristol cathedral, Paul Bush, the first bishop of that see, who died so late as 1558, is represented in the same manner, and some of these figures may be found in every age between.

These skeleton monuments represent the figure of a man emaciated by extreme sickness, or taken immediately after death; they are usually of ecclesiastics, and placed with another figure of the same prelate, as a contrast to his pride, in pontificals. The art of the sculptor is more apparent in the first mentioned, because much anatomical accuracy was required.

One of the earliest monuments of a warrior so contrasted is that of John de Arundel, slain in the French wars, under the Duke of Bedford. It remains in the sepulchral chapel of that noble family at Arundel, and is finely sculptured in white marble. The dead figure, is indeed a masterly performance, and has every appearance of having been originally modelled from nature.

In Exeter Cathedral there is an altar tomb, upon which lies the effigy of bishop Marshall, who died in 1203, dressed in his episcopal robes, with a mitre on his head, his right hand lying upon his breast, with the palm upwards, the fore finger, ring finger, and thumb extended, and the other fingers closed. Near this monument in a low niche, lies the figure of a skeleton, cut in free stone, with the following inscription over it:—“Ista figura docet nos omnes premeditari qualiter ipsa nocet mors quando venit dominari.”

The tomb of bishop Beckington in Wells Cathedral, who died in 1464, has his effigy in alabaster, habited in his episcopal robes; and underneath is a representation of his skeleton.

FINIS.

Footnotes

1.  This article is taken from the first volume of the Transactions of the Horticultural Society, and was communicated by the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Banks, Bart.—The additions, within brackets, are by the Editor.

2.  Probably the fruit of Cornus Mascula, commonly called Cornelian Cherry.

3.  Hurtleberries, the fruit of Vaccinium vitis idea, though no longer cultivated in our gardens, are still esteemed and served up at the tables of opulent people in the counties that produce them naturally. They are every year brought to London from the rocky country, near Leath Tower in Surrey, where they meet with so ready a sale among the middle classes of the people, that the richer classes scarcely know that they are to be bought.—They also grow very plentifully on some of the hills and heaths in the counties of Somerset and Devon.

4.  The Yellow fleshed Peach, now uncommon in our gardens, but which was frequent 40 years ago, under the name of the Orange Peach, was called by our ancestors Melicoton.

5.  By Raisins it is probable that Currants are meant; the imported fruit of that name of which we make puddings and pies was called by our ancestors Raisin de Corance.—In the Percy Household Book it is said that 200 pounds of Raisins de Corance should be purchased for the use of the Earl of Northumberland’s family, which were to serve one year.

6.  There is a portrait of this lady among the Holbein Heads, published by Mr. Chamberlaine.

7.  Pliny, Hist. Nat. xii. 18.

8.  Shakespeare, occasionally, in his plays, uses couplets.

9.  Gildas, called Badonicus, because said to be born at Bath, was, for his singular prudence and the severity of his morals, surnamed the WISE; he was a monk of Bangor, and his “Description of the state of Britain,” above alluded to, is the only one of his writings extant, as we are assured by Archbishop Usher. Gildas wrote this work in Latin, in a style, according to that age, harsh and perplexed enough. The first printed edition of it was published by Polydore Virgil, in octavo, London, 1525, and dedicated to Cuthbert Tunstal, Bishop of Durham, which, however, was from an incorrect copy. It was reprinted at Basil, in 12mo, in 1541; and at London, 1548, though Bishop Nicolson says 1568. It was again printed at London, in 12mo, in 1638, translated by Thomas Habingdon, of Henlip, in Worcestershire. John Josseline, secretary to Archbishop Parker, reprinted Gildas more correctly from two new manuscripts, Basil, 1568, 12mo; and Paris 1576; but these are little more perfect than the first.—The latest and best copy of Gildas is in Dr. Gale’s collection of Ancient English Historians, 2 vols. folio, Oxford, 1687 and 1691; who had the advantage of a more ancient and better copy, as Bishop Nicolson observes. Besides Habingdons’s translation above mentioned, there was another printed during the Cromwell rebellion, in 1652, for the mere purpose, it has been said, of retailing Gildas’s sharp reproofs of Kings and Priests.—For an account of this edition, see Oldys’s British Librarian, and Savage’s Librarian, vol. 1. p. 117.

10.  Strutt, in his “Chronicle of England” has given a plate representing a page of this manuscript, and in Astle’s “History of Writing,” there is a plate of the same page, coloured, in imitation of the original.

11.  Bede, commonly called the Venerable Bede, was the most learned man of the age in which he lived; he was born at Weremouth, in Northumberland, in the year 672. Both ancient and modern authors have bestowed the highest encomiums upon the learning of this extraordinary man. His works are many, making eight large volumes, in folio, the principal of which is his Ecclesiastical History of the Anglo-Saxons, consisting of five books, from whence the more perfect part of our early history is formed; his other works are the Lives of Saints, Treatises on the Holy Scriptures, and Philosophical Tracts. This great man died at his cell at Jarrow, in the year 735, aged 63.

12.  Lydgate was commonly called the Monk of Bury, because born at that place, about the year 1380. After some time spent in the English Universities, he travelled through France and Italy, in which countries he greatly improved himself. In addition to his poetical talents, he is described as being an eloquent rhetorician, an expert mathematician, an acute philosopher, and no mean divine. He is said to have been so much admired by his contemporaries, that they said of him, that his wit was fashioned by the Muses themselves. After his return from France and Italy, he became tutor to the sons of several of the nobility, and for his excellent endowments, was much esteemed and reverenced by them. He wrote a poem, called The Life and Death of Hector, some satires, eulogies, and odes, and other learned works in prose. He died in 1440, aged sixty, and was buried in his own convent at Bury. Lydgate is said to have been a disciple of Chaucer.

13.  Leonard Aretin, the disciple of Chrysoloras, was a linguist, an orator, and an historian; the secretary of four successive Popes; and Chancellor of the Republic of Florence, where he died in 1444, aged seventy-five. He added a Supplement to Livy on the Punic War, and wrote the History of Italy, with other valuable works.

14.  Emanuel Chrysoloras was one of the envoys sent by the Greek Emperor Manuel, at the end of the fourteenth century, to implore the compassion of the Western Princes. He was not only conspicuous for the nobleness of his birth but also for the extent of his learning. After visiting the courts of France and England, in furtherance of his mission, he was invited to assume the office of a Professor, and Florence had the honour of this invitation, as it had had a few years previously that of the first Greek Professor Leo Pilatus, whose mind was stored with a treasure of Greek learning, with whom history and fable, philosophy and grammar, were alike familiar, and who first read the Poems of Homer in the Schools of Florence. Chrysoloras may be considered as the founder of the Greek language in Italy, and his knowledge not only of the Greek, but of the Latin tongue, surpassed the expectation of the Florentine republic. At the same time and place, the Latin classics were explained by John of Ravenna, the domestic pupil of the celebrated Petrarch. The Italians, who illustrated their age and country, were formed in this double school, and Florence became the fruitful seminary of Greek and Roman erudition. Chrysoloras was recalled by the Emperor from the college to the court, but he afterwards taught at Pavia and Rome with equal industry and applause. He died at Constance on a public mission from the Emperor to the council. Gibbon’s Hist. vol. 12. p. 126.

15.  Laurentius Valla, was a native of Placenza, where he was born in 1415; he revived the Latin language from gothic barbarity, but he was a rigorous critic. He fell under the displeasure of the Church of Rome, for the freedom with which he hazarded his opinions respecting some of its doctrines, and he was condemned to be burnt, but was saved by Alphonsus, king of Naples. Pope Nicholas the fifth, who was himself one of the greatest encouragers of learning of his time, and who highly respected the talents of Valla, invited him to Rome, and gave him a pension.—This Pope, whose pursuits were in direct association with our present subject, from a plebeian origin, raised himself by his virtue and his learning to the highest honours of the Church. The character of the man prevailed over the interest of the Pontiff, and he sharpened those weapons which were soon pointed against the religion of Rome. He had been the friend of the most eminent scholars of the age, and after his elevation to the chair of St. Peter, he became their patron. Under Pope Nicholas, the influence of the Holy See pervaded Christendom, and he exerted that influence in the search, not of benefices, but of books. From the ruins of the Byzantine libraries, from the darkest monasteries of Germany and Britain, he collected the dusty manuscripts of the writers of antiquity; and whenever the original could not be removed, a faithful copy was transcribed and transmitted for his use. The Vatican was daily replenished with precious furniture, and such was his industry, that in a reign of eight years, he formed a library of five thousand volumes. To his munificence the Latin world was indebted for the versions of Xenophon, Diodorus, Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Appian; of Strabo’s Geography, of the Iliad, of the more valuable works of Plato and Aristotle, of Ptolemy, and Theophrastus, and of the Fathers of the Greek Church.

16.  For an account of the following Manuscript Libraries in England, see Savage’s Librarian, 3 vols. London, 1808-1810—namely, that of the British Museum, in vol. 1. p. 26; of the Royal Society, p. 71; of the Heralds Office, p. 73; of the Society of Antiquaries, p. 129; of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s at Lambeth Palace, p. 133; of Lincoln’s Inn, p. 183, 225; of the Middle Temple, p. 273; of the Inner Temple, vol. 2. p. 131; of the Lansdown Collection of Manuscripts, vol. 1. p. 34, and vol. 3. p. 27, and of the Cottonian Manuscripts, vol. 3. p. 31.

The curious reader who is interested in the history of the public records of his country, will find in the same volumes, the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the State of the Records, in vol. 1. p. 17, &c.—an account of the Records in the Tower of London, vol. 2. p. 34, &c. of those in the Rolls Chapel, ibid. p. 185, &c. and of those in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey, vol. 3. p. 41, &c.

17.  Vide Serjeant Heywood’s Vindication of Mr. Fox’s History of James the Second, p. 397.

18.  Fuller’s Worthies, p. 317.

19.  There is a small book, printed in black letter, containing an account of the treatment and trial of Anne Askew, which contains many curious particulars.—She was the daughter of Sir William Askew, of Kelsay, in the county of Lincoln, where she was born about 1520. She had a learned education, and while young was married to a person of the name of Kyme, much against her inclination. On account of some harsh treatment from her husband, she went to the Court of Henry the Eighth to sue for a separation, where she was greatly taken notice of by those ladies who were attached to the Reformation; in consequence of which, she was arrested, and having confessed her religious principles, was committed to Newgate. She was first racked with savage cruelty in the Tower, and then burnt in Smithfield, in 1546, in company with her tutor, and two other persons of the same faith. From her letters and other pieces in Fox and Strype, it appears she was an accomplished, as well as a pious, woman.

20.  Burnet’s Reformation, vol. 1. p. 325; vol. 2. p. 382.

21.  Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 2. p. 591.—Murden’s State Papers, p. 9, 101.

22.  Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 2. p. 139.—Murden’s State Papers, p. 452.

23.  Observations on Ancient Statutes, p. 496, note.

24.  State Trials, vol. 1. p. 199.

25.  Observations on Statutes, p. 495.

26.  State Trials, vol. 1. p. 221.

27.  Observations on Statutes, p. 92.

28.  State Trials, vol. 3. p. 99.

29.  The Pandects (1. xlviii. tit. xviii.) contain the sentiments of the most celebrated civilians on the subject of torture. They strictly confine it to slaves.

30.  The Citizens of Athens could not be put to the rack, unless it was for high treason. The torture was used within thirty days after condemnation. There was no preparatory torture. In regard to the Romans, the third and fourth law de Majestate, by Julius Cæsar, shews that birth, dignity, and the military profession exempted people from the rack, except in cases of high treason.—Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, vol. 1. p. 132.

31.  Archadius Charisius is the oldest lawyer quoted in the Pandects to justify the universal practice of torture in all cases of treason; but this maxim of tyranny, which is admitted by Ammianus with the most respectful terror, is enforced by several laws of the successors of Constantine.—Gibbon’s Rom. Hist. vol. 3. p. 81.

32.  There is an engraving of Sir Thomas in the collection of Holbein Heads, published by Mr. Chamberlaine.

An original picture of him, which has been frequently copied, is in the collection of the Earl of Romney. It is nearly a profile, and bears a strong resemblance to Holbein’s drawing.

There is a print of Sir Thomas Wyat, from an engraving on wood, after a painting by Holbein; it is the frontispiece to the book of verses, written on his death, by Leland, entitled “Næniæ in Mortem Thomæ Viati Equitis incomparabilis,” an Elegy on the death of Sir Thomas Wyat, Knt. London, 1542, quarto. This book was reprinted by Hearne, at the beginning of the second volume of Leland’s Itinerary. Under the head is the following inscription:—

“Holbenus nitida pingendi maximus arte,

”Effigiem expressit graphice, sed nullus Apelles

“Exprimet ingenium felix, animumque Viati.”

This print has been copied by Michael Burghers and Mr. Tyson. Granger i. 110.

33.  The first printed Poetical Miscellany, in the English language, is the Collection of Poems, edited and published by Tottel, entitled “Songes and Sonnettes of Surrey, Wyat, and of uncertain Auctors, London, 1557.”—Another edition, 1565—others in 1574, 1585, 1587. The last edition was edited by Dr. George Sewell, in 1717.—This Dr. Sewell was a physician in London; he received his early education at Eton, which he afterwards completed at Cambridge, where he took the degree of Bachelor of Physic in 1709. From thence he went to Leyden, where he studied under the celebrated Boerhaave. Not being successful in the metropolis, he removed to Hampstead, where he died on the 8th of February, 1726. As an author he possessed a considerable share of genius, and wrote in concert with several of his contemporaries, particularly in the Spectator and Tatler; he was principally concerned in the ninth volume of the former, and in the fifth of the latter, as he was also in a translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and an edition of Shakespeare’s Poems. He was the author of a Tragedy, entitled “Sir Walter Raleigh,” published at London in 1719, and also of another, which he left unfinished, entitled “King Richard the First,” the fragments of which were printed in 1728.

34.  Melancthon was born at Brette, a village of the Palatinate, on the 16th of February, 1497. In his childhood he made an astonishing progress in the acquisition of languages. Luther, and his doctrines, appeared about this time, and Melancthon stood forward as one of their most strenuous supporters; indeed the Lutheran system was in a great measure planned by him, and the famous instrument by which it was publicly declared, called the Confession of Augsburg, was the production of his pen. Melancthon was the intimate friend of Erasmus, and Erasmus the patron of Holbein. This connection will account for his appearance in a Collection of Portraits, drawn by Holbein, of the principal personages in the Court of Henry the Eighth, though Melancthon never was in this country. An engraving of him is among the Holbein Heads, published by Mr. Chamberlaine, and there is a full-length portrait of this great Reformer, with a fac-simile of his writing, in his Life, published by the Rev. F. A. Cox, London, 1815, 8vo.

35.  Several of these were men remarkable for their talents and learning: among whom were Petyt, Tyrrel, Sir Robert Filmer, Dr. Brady, Prynne, Rymer, &c. &c.

Petyt and Prynne were keepers of the Records in the Tower; and Rymer, who was the king’s Historiographer, had a warrant not only to search the Records in every office in the kingdom, but to make copies of such as he should select for publication. How diligent he was in using this authority is evident from the invaluable collection of Records, &c. published by him, and from a large collection of others in manuscript, now in the Museum.

Petyt makes a direct charge, and not unfounded, against Prynne, for an intended omission of a reference to the Rolls of Parliament (2d Hen. V. p. 2. No. 10.) in the Abridgment of the Rolls made by Sir Robert Cotton, and printed by Prynne.

Even Sir Robert Atkyns, a man eminently distinguished for his integrity and learning, as well as for his deep research into the ancient History of Parliament, who had been a Judge of the Common Pleas, and was afterwards Chief Baron of the Exchequer and Speaker of the House of Lords, in his learned and elaborate argument in the year 1680, in the case of an information by the Attorney General against Williams, Speaker of the House of Commons, in asserting the antiquity of that House, fell into some mistakes, from not having resorted to the original records. He states, and insists much on it, that the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas Hungerford, 51 Edward III. was Speaker of the Parliament; whereas the words in the Record are, “Monsieur Thomas de Hungerford, Chivaler, q’i avoit les Paroles pur les Communes d’ Engleterre.” Rolls of Parl. vol. ii. p. 374, a. In the first of Richard the Second, the Speaker, Sir Robert says again, was termed the Speaker of the Parliament; the words in the Record are, “Mons. Pere de la Mare Chivaler q’avoit les Paroles de Par la Commune.”—Vol. iii. p. 5, 6.

The same with respect to Sir John Bussey, 20 Richard II. The words in the Record are, “les Communes presenterent Mons. John Bussey pour leur Parlour.”—Page 338, a.—339, b.

36.  In 1766, the late Thomas Astle, Esq. was consulted by the Sub-Committee of the House of Lords, concerning the printing of the Rolls of Parliament, and in 1768, on the death of Mr. Blyke, Mr. Astle introduced his father-in-law, the Rev. Philip Morant, author of the History of Essex, to succeed that gentleman in preparing the Rolls for the press. Mr. Morant died in November, 1770, after proceeding in them as far as the 16th of Henry the fourth, when Mr. Astle was appointed by the House of Lords to carry on the work, which he completed in 1775. They are printed in six volumes, folio.

37.  Some reliance was placed by his Lordship on the Treatise “de Modo tenendi Parliamentum;” the authority of which, if not entirely destroyed by Prynne, will not at least in future have much weight.—Prynne’s Animadversions on 4 Inst. p. 1. to p. 8. and p. 331.

38.  In the Parliament of the 18th of Edward the first there were no Citizens or Burgesses. There is a bundle of writs yet extant, by which this Parliament was summoned. They are directed to the sheriffs of several or most of the counties of England, by which two or three Knights were directed to be chosen for each county, and accordingly the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon, and Cumberland returned each of them three Knights, and the other counties two each. This Parliament gave the King a fifteenth of all their moveables as appears by the account of the same which is entered upon the Great Roll of the 23d of that king, in which account we have the style of this Parliament, namely, “The account of the fifteenth, granted to the king in his 18th year, by the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and all others of the kingdom, assessed, collected, and levied,” &c.

We may here observe that the two or three Knights, chosen by the several counties, did represent those counties, and according to the form of the writ, consulted upon and consented to this grant of a fifteenth.

So also in the 22d Edward the First there were neither Citizens nor Burgesses summoned to the Parliament of that year. On the 8th of October the king issued writs directed to every sheriff in England to cause two discreet Knights to be chosen for each county, with full powers, “so that for defect of such powers, the business might not remain undone.” And on the following day the king issued other writs to the sheriffs to cause to be elected two knights more, to be added to the former two, making four for each county, and these four Knights for each county, and the Earls, Barons, and Great Men, on the day of their meeting gave the king a tenth part of all their goods.

39.  This was only a grant of forty shillings for every Knight’s fee.—See Rolls of Parliament, vol. 2, p. 112, a. hereinafter referred to in 14 of Edward III.

40.  Proxies in Parliament is a privilege appropriated to the Lords only; the first instance of a Proxy that occurs in the History of the English Parliament, is in the reign of Edward the first.

In a Parliament at Westminster in the reign of Edward the second, the bishops of Durham and Carlisle were allowed to send their Proxies to Parliament.

In the early period of the History of Parliament, the Lords were not obliged to make Barons only their Proxies as the custom now is; the Bishops and Parliamentary Abbots usually gave their letters of proxy to Prebendaries, Parsons, and Canons; but since the first year of king Henry the eighth, there appear in the journals no Proxies but such as were Lords of Parliament.

In the 35th of king Edward the third, 1360, the following Peeres were summoned by writ to Parliament, to appear there by their Proxies, namely, Mary, Countess of Norfolk; Eleanor, Countess of Ormond; Anna, Baroness Despenser; Philippa, Countess of March; Joanna, Baroness Fitzwalter; Agneta, Countess of Pembroke; Mary de St. Paul, Countess of Pembroke; Margaret, Baroness de Roos; Matilda, Countess of Oxford; Catherine, Countess of Athol. These ladies were called ad colloquium et tractatum by their Proxies.

41.  The club was in use at the Norman Conquest, and in the succeeding ages. St. Louis had a band of Guards armed with clubs, and was himself very dextrous in the use of it.

Pennant, in describing the customs of the ancient Bards and Minstrels of Wales, says, that the lowest of the musical tribe was the Datceiniad pen pastwn, or he that sung to the sound of his club, being ignorant of every other kind of instrument. When he was permitted to be introduced, he was obliged to stand in the middle of the hall, and sing his cowydd or awdl, beating time, and playing the symphony with his pastwn or club; but if there was a professor of music present, his leave must be first obtained before he presumed to entertain the company with this species of melody. Wherever he came he must act as a menial servant to the bard or minstrel.

42.  Among the Romans it was not infamous to be beaten with a stick.

43.  They had only the club and buckler.

44.  Nennius lived in the ninth century, and is said to have left behind him several treatises, of which all that has been published is the history, which was printed for the first time in Dr. Gale’s Collection of British Historians, published at Oxford in 1687 and 1691, in 2 vols. folio. Leland mentions an ancient copy of Nennius’s history, which he says he borrowed from Thomas Solme, Secretary for the French language to king Henry the eighth, in the margin of which were the additions of Sam. Beaulanius, or Britannus. He has transcribed several of these marginal annotations, which as it appears, were afterwards inserted in the body of the history, and were printed in that manner by Dr. Gale. The Doctor in his notes, mentions Beaulanius as the Scholiast on the copy which he used, but Leland has a great many other things, as extracts out of Beaulanius, which Dr. Gale does not mention to be only in the Scholion. There is also in the Bodleian Library a manuscript of Nennius apparently nearly 600 years old, in which the prefaces and all the interpolations, which Leland says are by Beaulanius, are wanting.

Professor Bertram, of Copenhagen, published in the year 1757, “Britannicarum gentium Historiæ Antiquæ Scriptores tres; Ricardus Corinensis, Gildas Badonicus, Nennius Banchorensis: recensuit, notisque et indice auxit Carolus Bertramus, S. A. Lond. Soc. &c. Havniæ, 1757.” 8vo. The Professor followed Dr. Gale’s edition of Gildas and Nennius, but in the latter he has distinguished the interpolations of Beaulanius from the genuine text. Mr. Gough, (Brit. Topogr. vol. 1. p. 15.) mentions Mr. Evan Evans having been long preparing a new edition of Nennius, from the Bodleian and other manuscripts.

45.  Cambrian Register, 1795, p. 947.

46.  In 1670, Milton published his History of England, comprising the whole fable of Geoffrey, and continued to the Norman Invasion. Why he should have given the first part, which he seems not to have believed, and which is universally rejected, it is difficult to conjecture. The style is harsh, but it has something of rough vigour, which perhaps may often strike, though it cannot please. On this history, the licenser fixed his claws, and before he would transmit it to the press, tore out several parts. Some censures of the Saxon Monks were taken away, lest they should be applied to the modern Clergy; and a character of the Long Parliament and Assembly of Divines, was excluded; of which the Author gave a copy to the Earl of Anglesea, and which being afterwards published, has been since inserted in its proper place.—Johnson’s Lives of the Poets, Art. Milton.

47.  Parkhurst’s Heb. Lex. 271.

48.  The practice of tattooing is of great antiquity, and has been common to numerous nations in Turkey, Asia, the Southern parts of Europe, and perhaps to a great portion of the inhabitants of the earth. It is still retained among some of the Moorish tribes, who are, probably, descendants of those who, formerly, were subjected to the Christians of Africa, and who to avoid paying taxes, like the Moors, thus imprinted crosses upon their skins, that they might pass for Christians. This custom, which originally might serve to distinguish tribes by their religion, or from each other, became afterwards a mode of decoration that was habitually retained, when all remembrance of its origin was effaced.

It may be inferred that the Canaanites and the other nations of the East, were in the habit of tattooing their skins, because Moses, (Levit. xix, 28.) expressly enjoins the Israelites not to imprint any marks upon their bodies, in imitation of the heathens.

The ancient inhabitants of the British Islands, painted their skins in various grotesque figures, with the juice of woad. This custom of tattooing was in use both by the Britons and their first invaders, the Belgæ, and I believe it will be found, that the warriors of all those nations which practised tattooing, invariably threw off their garments in the hour of battle. The name of Picts, is said, though erroneously, to have been given by the Romans to the Caledonians, who possessed the East coast of Scotland, from their painting their bodies. This circumstance has made some imagine that the Picts were of British extraction, and a different race of men from the Scots. That more of the Britons who fled northward, from the oppression and tyranny of the Romans, settled in the low lands of Scotland, than among the Scots of the mountains, may be easily imagined, from the very nature of the country. It was these people who introduced painting among the Picts, From this circumstance, some antiquaries affirm, proceeded the name of the latter, to distinguish them from the Scots, who never had that art among them, and from the Britons, who discontinued the practice of tattooing after the Roman conquest.

The inhabitants of the South Sea Islands, at this day, paint upon their bodies various grotesque figures, for the purpose of striking terror into their enemies, in the day of battle. J. S.

49.  From the Classical Journal.

50.  This eminent naturalist and excellent man, was justly admired both at home and abroad for his virtues and knowledge in every branch of human learning, more particularly in natural history. He was the son of Sir Francis Willoughby, Knt. of Wollaton Hall in the county of Nottingham. Observing in the busy and inquisitive age in which he lived, that the history of animated nature had in a great measure been neglected, he made the study and illustration thereof his unceasing object. For the promotion of this branch of science he went abroad with Mr. Ray, for the purpose of searching out and describing the several species and productions of nature. He travelled over most parts of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, in all which countries he was so diligent and successful, that not many sorts of animals described by others escaped his observation. He drew them with a pencil, and they were afterwards engraven on copper-plates, at the expense of his widow. His labours were printed in latin under the title of “Ornithologiæ libri tres, &c. London, 1676,“ folio. This work was afterwards translated into English by Mr. Ray, with an appendix, and printed at London, in 1678. Mr. Willoughby also wrote the “History of Fishes,” which was published by Mr. Ray, at London, in 1686, in folio. He likewise printed several papers in the Philosophical Transactions. Mr. Willoughby died on the third of July, 1672, leaving issue by his wife, Emma, daughter and co-heir of Sir Henry Bernard, Knt. two Sons, Francis and Thomas, and one daughter Cassandra, married to the Duke of Chandos. The second son Thomas was in 1712 created Lord Middleton, from whom is descended the present peer of that title.

51.  He was an alderman of London, and after the Exchequer was shut retired to Holland, where he died, and was brought over to be interred in the church of Tyringham, in Buckinghamshire, where he lies embalmed. A glass is placed over his face, so that it is likely he may even be seen at this time. There is a small portrait of him at Tyringham House, in which he is represented in long hair and a flowered gown, with a table by him.

52.  A part of the national debt, amounting to £664,263, is as old as this iniquitous transaction of Charles the second and his ministers. This sum was all that those persons received, who had placed their property and their confidence in that monarch, for the loss of £1,328,526, and 26 years interest thereon at 6 per cent. about £2,100,000 more.

53.  Tradescant was the first English collector of curiosities in a private rank. Thoresby was the second. Gough’s Topogr.

54.  The late James West, Esq. told Mr. Bull, that one of the family of Roelans, of which there are four or five prints by Hollar, lived a long while at Lambeth, in the house that afterwards belonged to Tradescant, to whom Roelans sold it. Granger’s B. II. 2. 371.

55.  In the year 1656 the younger Tradescant, published a small volume, entitled “Museum Tradescantianum, or a Collection of Rarities preserved at South Lambeth. London, 1656, small octavo.” This book is divided into two parts, the first containing a catalogue of the museum, and the second an enumeration of the plants, shrubs, and trees, growing in the garden at South Lambeth. Among the natural curiosities here preserved are “a dragon’s egg—the claw of the bird Rock, which, as authors report, is able to trusse an elephant,” &c. &c.

56.  These drawings are engraven in the Philosophical Trans. vol. 63, p. 88; and printed from the same plates, in Bibl. Topogr. Brit. vol. 2. in Dr. Ducarel’s Hist. of Lambeth.

57.  Tradescant’s was the next botanical garden in England after Gerard’s.

Gerard seems to have been the first that cultivated a botanical garden. He had a large one near his house in Holborn, London, where he raised nearly eleven hundred different trees and plants. He published his history of plants in 1597 under the patronage of Lord Burleigh. His herbal was republished in 1636 by Johnson.

58.  This was written in the year 1754.

59.  In the centre of the nave of Wells Cathedral there is a large stone that had formerly upon it an effigy in brass, which was generally ascribed to king Ina, the founder of that church.

60.  This is one of the earliest specimens we have of the cross-legged monument. It is made of Irish oak, as well the table part, as the effigy. On the pannels are the arms of several of the worthies, and at the foot the arms of France and England, quarterly, which shews these escutcheons to have been painted since the reign of king Henry the fourth. This monument stood entire until the parliamentary army, during the Cromwell usurpation, having garrisoned the city of Gloucester against the king, the soldiers tore it to pieces, which being about to be burned, were bought of them by Sir Humphrey Tracy, of Stanway, and privately laid up until the Restoration, when the pieces were put together, repaired, and ornamented, and again placed in their former situation by Sir Humphrey, who also added a wire screen for their future preservation. There is an engraving of this monument in Sandford’s Genealogical History, page 16, which Rudder, (History of Gloucester, p. 126.) calls a noble representation of it.

Gibbon has left us the following account of this prince, (Rom. Hist. vol. 11. p. 32)—“Robert, Duke of Normandy, one of the chiefs of the first crusade, on his father’s death was deprived of the kingdom of England, by his own indolence and the activity of his brother Rufus. The worth of Robert was degraded by an excessive levity and easiness of temper; his cheerfulness seduced him to the indulgence of pleasure, his profuse liberality impoverished the prince and people; his indiscriminate clemency multiplied the number of offenders; and the amiable qualities of a private man, became the essential defects of a sovereign. For the trifling sum of ten thousand marks (the one hundredth part of its present yearly revenue) he mortgaged Normandy during his absence in the first crusade, to the English usurper; but his behaviour in the Holy War, announced in Robert, a reformation of manners, and restored him in some degree to the public esteem.”

There is an engraving of Robert, Duke of Normandy, in Ducarel’s Anglo-Norman Antiq. Plate 5.

The monument of William, Earl of Flanders, son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, as also two of his seals, are engraven in Sandford’s Genealogical Hist. p. 17.

61.  The monument of Edmund Crouchback has been very lofty; it was painted, gilt, and inlaid with stained glass. The inside of the canopy has represented the sky with stars, but, by age, is changed into a dull red. On the base, towards the area are the remains of ten knights, armed, with banners, surcoats of armour, and cross-belted, representing, undoubtedly, his expedition to the Holy Land, the number exactly corresponding with what Matthew Paris reports, namely, Edmund and his elder brother, four earls and four knights, of whom some are still discoverable, particularly the Lord Roger Clifford, as were formerly in Waverly’s time, William de Valence and Thomas de Clare.

62.  These rules are extracted from the Antiquarian Repertory, vol. ii. p. 124; and from the Introduction to Gough’s “History of Sepulchral Monuments,” p. 115.

63.  This account of these monuments is extracted from Gough’s “History of Sepulchral Monuments.”

64.  This monument was asserted by Green, in his History of Worcester, to have been a cenotaph, and accordingly the Dean and Chapter had determined on its removal, intending to place it over the supposed remains of the king in the lady chapel. But on opening the tomb on Monday, July the 17th, 1797, the royal remains were found therein in a stone coffin, the internal measure of which from the feet to the top of the excavation hollowed out for the head, was 5 feet 6 inches and a half. The body was doubtless originally placed in the coffin, nearly in the same form, and arrayed in such a robe as the figure on the tomb, with his sword in his left hand, and booted, but it was so much deranged as evidently to shew that it had been disturbed, and that perhaps at its removal from the place of its first interment in the lady chapel, if ever that event had taken place, which seems to have been a controverted point with historians. The most perfect part of the body seemed to be the toes, on some of which the nails were still distinguishable, but of what the dress had originally been composed, could be only matter of conjecture. The influx of people, eager to see the royal remains after an interment of nearly 600 years, was so great as to be the cause of the tomb being closed on the following day.

65.  The monument of Walter de Langton, Dean of York, who died in 1279, was the first in that Cathedral that had an inscription upon it. It was destroyed by the Puritans during the Cromwell Usurpation.

66.  Coffins formed of a single stone, hollowed with a chissel, are an improvement which has been attributed to the Romans. Sometimes they were of marble. Some contained two or more bodies, others only one, in which case, it was not unusual for them to be made to fit the body, with cavities for the reception of the head and arms, and other protuberances.

The solid stone or marble coffin, often curiously wrought, was in use among the first christians in England, who, in all probability, copied the customs of the Romans, after those conquerors had quitted our island.—Stone coffins were disused in the fifteenth century. None but opulent persons were interred in coffins of this description; the body was wrapped in fine linen, attired in the most honourable vestments, and laid in spices. The coffin was placed no deeper in the ground, than the thickness of a marble slab, or stone to be laid over it, even with the surface of the pavement. The coffin shaped stones which are frequently seen in churches at the present day, have, in general, been the covers of stone coffins.

The leaden coffin was also in use among the Romans, not only for the reception of the body, but in many instances, for the ashes and bones. It was adopted by the christians, and continues in frequent use to the present time, among the more opulent.

Alexander was buried in a golden coffin, by his successor Ptolemy; and glass coffins have been found in England.

The oldest instance, on record, among us, of a coffin made of wood, is that of king Arthur, who was buried in an entire trunk of oak.

It was not till the latter end of the seventeenth or the beginning of the eighteenth century, that coffins became in general use in England. Before that time, there was, in every parish church, a common coffin, in which the corpse was placed and conveyed on a bier, from the residence of the deceased, to the grave; it was then taken out of the coffin and interred. Some of these common coffins yet remain in country churches.

67.  The gold noble, or half mark, struck by king Edward the third, in the seventeenth year of his reign, is the first money on which the arms of England appear, namely, three lions passant guardant.

68.  The three fleurs de lys were used, on some occasions, much earlier than this, both in France and England. There is an angel of Philip de Valois, coined in 1340, with the three fleurs de lys, which was probably done for the sake of variation, king Edward having then lately taken the arms semée de lys. Le Blanc mentions a charter of Philip, in 1355, with a seal of the arms in like manner. There is also a groat of king John of France, with only three fleurs de lys, though he used them likewise semée. But Charles the sixth, who began his reign in 1380, constantly bore the three lys for the arms of France, as they have been continued ever since. As the English kings altered the arms of France, in imitation of the French king, it is most likely that our Henry the fourth who was contemporary with Charles the sixth, began this practice. He did indeed bear the fleurs de lys semée, upon his great seal, because it was his predecessor’s, but that he bore the three lys upon other occasions is most likely, for so they are seen at the head of his monument, at Canterbury, and his son Henry, afterwards Henry the fifth, in like manner, bore the three fleurs de lys upon his seal, annexed to an indenture, so early as the sixth year of his father’s reign.

69.  The coins of king Henry the sixth, both gold and silver, are supposed to be distinguished from his father’s, by the arched crown, surmounted with the orb and cross, being the first of our kings who appears with an arched crown upon his coins; but upon his great seal he has an open crown, fleuri, with small pearls, upon points, between. This is likewise the first time we see the orb with the cross upon the money, though it had been used upon other occasions, by almost all our kings, down from Edward the Confessor. The arched, or close crown, is not of ancient use, except in the empire, and thence, perhaps, called imperial. Some think Edward the third first used it, because he was vicar-general of the empire, and it is said that Henry the fifth had an imperial crown made, but Henry the sixth had certainly the best pretence to it, of any prince in Europe, of his time, being crowned king both of France and England. But why he did not bear it upon his great seal, as well as upon his coin, is not easily resolved any more than that his successor should bear it upon his great seal, and not upon his coins.

- Transcriber’s Notes:

- Footnotes have been collected at the end of the text, and are linked for ease of reference.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MEMORABILIA; OR RECOLLECTIONS, HISTORICAL, BIOGRAPHICAL, AND ANTIQUARIAN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

MEMORABILIA.

ADVERTISEMENT.

CONTENTS.

Dr. KENNICOTT.

REMARKABLE HISTORICAL COINCIDENCES.

CHARLES XII. OF SWEDEN.

BRITISH PEARLS.

PILLARS OF COMMEMORATION.

MASON THE POET.

BISHOPS OF SODOR AND MAN.

THE TABLE.

CLOCKS.

ALDUS MANUTIUS. [DIED 1516.]

BOTTLES OF SKIN.

ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE.

OLIVER CROMWELL’S WIFE.

SHAKESPEARE.

UNIVERSITY DEGREES.

GUY CARLETON, LORD DORCHESTER.

FIGS.

FRUITS, CULTIVATED AT ROME IN THE TIME OF PLINY, THAT ARE NOW GROWN IN OUR ENGLISH GARDENS.

PEACOCKS.

ANCIENT LIBRARIES.

KING CHARLES THE FIRST.

THE FAIR GERALDINE AND THE EARL OF SURREY.

JEWS IN ENGLAND.

THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

LUXURY OF ANCIENT ROME.

RHYME.

M. COQUEBERT DE MONTBRET.

Dr. THOMAS PIERCE.

WRITING AMONG THE GREEKS.

ACCOUNT OF THE SCRIPTORIA, OR WRITING ROOMS IN THE MONASTERIES OF ENGLAND.

TORTURE IN ENGLAND.[17]

Dr. JOHNSON’S CONVERSATION WITH THE LATE KING.

Dr. BEATTIE’S CONVERSATION WITH THE LATE KING AND QUEEN.

SACRED GARDENS.

SIR THOMAS WYAT. [DIED 1541.]

THE HAND A SYMBOL OF POWER.

HENRIETTA MARIA, QUEEN OF CHARLES THE FIRST.

LAST MOMENTS OF PHILIP MELANCTHON.[34]

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MOSAIC PAINTING.

KING EGBERT.

THE LATIN LANGUAGE.

Dr. HERSCHEL.

PARODIES.

MOURNING FOR THE DEAD.

GARRICK.

LEMONS.

ORIGIN OF THE POINT OF HONOUR.

GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH.

LIFTING UP THE HAND IN SWEARING.

VILLIERS, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

KING ARTHUR.

ALCHEMY.

ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL NOBLE FAMILIES IN ENGLAND WHO OWE THEIR ELEVATION TO THE PEERAGE TO THEIR ANCESTORS HAVING BEEN ENGAGED IN TRADE.

LAST MOMENTS OF QUEEN CAROLINE.

THE BRITONS, ACCORDING TO THE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS.

THE SEVEN SLEEPERS.

JOHN RAY, THE NATURALIST.

LONDON BANKERS, AND THEIR ORIGIN.

ELUCIDATION OF THE ORNAMENTS WITH WHICH THE GREEKS AND ROMANS ADORNED THE HUMAN HEAD ON COINS AND MEDALS.

- THE DIADEM.

- THE RADIATED CROWN.

- THE CROWN OF LAUREL.

- THE ROSTRAL CROWN.

- THE MURAL CROWN.

- THE CIVIC CROWN.

- THE HELMET.

- THE NIMBUS OR GLORY.

- OTHER ORNAMENTS OF THE HEAD.

THE TRADESCANTS.

ORANGE TREES.

ARTICLES OF USE AND LUXURY INTRODUCED INTO EUROPE BY THE ROMANS.

ACCOUNT OF THE ESCAPE OF THE EARL OF NITHSDALE, FROM THE TOWER, IN THE YEAR, 1716.

ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST RISE OF FAIRS IN ENGLAND, AND THE MANNER OF LIVING IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES.

SIR RICHARD CLOUGH.

ROYAL CLEMENCY.

LOTTERIES.

HERCULANEUM MANUSCRIPTS.

WOLVES IN ENGLAND.

PROFESSOR PORSON.

HISTORY OF SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS.

- CROSS-LEGGED MONUMENTS.

- THE FOLLOWING RULES WERE OBSERVED BY ANCIENT SCULPTORS IN ERECTING SEPULCHRAL MONUMENTS.[62]

- CROSS-LEGGED MONUMENTS IN THE TEMPLE CHURCH.[63]

- TABLE TOMB.

- GRAVE STONES.

- HERALDIC SYMBOLS.

- MONUMENTS FOR ECCLESIASTICS.

- THE SKELETON MONUMENT.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE