Part 2

“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.