Chapter 3

[Brand quotes Vallancey and Leo Modena for the use of the marriage ring among the Jews (_Popular Antiq._, vol. ii. p. 103. edit. 1849). Wheatly, however, has given the most detailed account of its origin:--"The reason," he says, "why a ring was pitched upon for the pledge rather than anything else was, because anciently the ring was a _seal_, by which all orders were signed, and things of value secured (Gen. xxxviii. 18., Esther iii. 10. 12., 1 Maccab. vi. 15.); and therefore the delivery of it was a sign that the person to whom {333} it was given was admitted into the highest friendship and trust (Gen. xli. 42.). For which reason it was adopted as a ceremony in marriage to denote that the wife, in consideration of her being espoused to the man, was admitted as a sharer in her husband's counsels, and a joint-partner in his honour and estate: and therefore we find that not only the _ring_, but the _keys_ also were in former times delivered to her at the marriage. That the ring was in use among the old Romans, we have several undoubted testimonies (Juvenal, _Sat._ vi. ver. 26, 27.; Plin. _Hist. Nat._, lib. iii. c. i.; Tertull. _Apol._, c. vi. p. 7. A.). Pliny, indeed, tells us, that in his time the Romans used an iron ring without any jewel; but Tertullian hints, that in the former ages it was a ring of gold."--_Rational Illustration of the Common Prayer_, p. 390. edit. 1759.]

_Amusive._--Is this word peculiar to Thomson, or is it made use of by other poets? Its meaning does not appear to be very definite. In the _Spring_ it is applied to the rooks, with their "ceaseless caws amusive;" in the _Summer_ to the thistledown, which "amusive floats;" and in the _Autumn_, the theory of the supposed cause of mountain springs is called an "amusive dream." Thomson seems to have been partial to these kind of adjectives, "effusive," "diffusive," "prelusive," &c.

CUTHBERT BEDE, B.A.

[A reference to Richardson's _Dictionary_ will show that, however fond Thomson may have been of this word, it is not one peculiar to him. Whitehead says:

"To me 'twas given to wake _th' amusive_ reed,"

and Chandler, in his _Travels in Greece_, speaks of the wind "murmuring _amusively_ among the pines."]

_Belfry Towers separate from the Body of the Church._--At Mylor, near Falmouth, there is an old tower for the bells (where they are rung every Sunday), separate from the church itself, which has a very low tower. Are there many other instances of this? I do not remember to have seen any.

J. S. A.

[If our correspondent will refer to the last edition of the _Glossary of Architecture_, s. v. _Campanile_, he will learn that though bell towers are generally attached to the church, they are sometimes unconnected with it, as at Chichester cathedral, and are sometimes united merely by a covered passage, as at Lapworth, Warwickshire. There are several examples of detached bell-towers still remaining, as at Evesham, Worcestershire; Berkeley, Gloucestershire; Walton, Norfolk; Ledbury, Herefordshire; and a very curious one entirely of timber, with the frame for the bells springing from the ground, at Pembridge, Herefordshire. At Salisbury a fine early English detached campanile, 200 feet in height, surmounted by a timber turret and spire, stood near the north-west corner of the cathedral, but was destroyed by Wyatt.]

_An Easter-day Sun._--In that verse of Sir John Suckling's famous _Ballad upon a Wedding_, wherein occurs the simile of the "little mice," what is the meaning of the allusion to the Easter-day sun?--

"But oh! she dances such a way, No sun upon an Easter-day Is half so fine a sight!"

CUTHBERT BEDE, B.A.

[It was formerly a common belief that the sun danced on Easter-day: see Brand's _Popular Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 161. _et seq._ So general was it, that Sir Thomas Browne treats on it in his _Vulgar Errors_, vol. ii. p. 87. ed. Bohn.]

* * * * *

Replies.

HAMILTON QUERIES.

(Vol. vii., p. 285.)

On reference to the Peerages of Sir Harris Nicolas and Wood, I feel no doubt that the father of Lord Spencer Hamilton, as TEE BEE remarks, was the fifth Duke of Hamilton, and not the third, as Collins (edition Brydges) states, who misled me. Perhaps the perplexity, if any, arose from Anne Duchess of Hamilton, the inheritress of the ducal honours by virtue of the patent of 1643, after the deaths of her father and uncle _s. p. m._, having obtained a _life dukedom_ for her husband, William Earl of Selkirk, and, subsequently to his decease, having surrendered all her titles in favour of their eldest son, James Earl of Arran, who was in 1698 made Duke of Hamilton, with the same precedency of the original creation of 1643, as if he had succeeded thereto.

Sir William Hamilton, the ambassador, married first, Jan. 25, 1752, the only child of Hugh Barlow, Esq., of Lawrenny in Pembrokeshire, with whom he got a large estate: she died at Naples, Aug. 25, 1782, and was buried in Wales. His second lady was Emma Harte, a native of Hawarden in Flintshire; where her brother, then a bricklayer working for the late Sir Stephen Glynne, was pointed out to me forty years ago. In Wood's _Peerage_ it is stated that Sir W. Hamilton's second marriage took place at London, Sept. 6, 1794: he died in April, 1803, and was buried in Slebech Church.

I well remember Single-speech Hamilton, who was a fried of the family, dining with my father when I was a little boy; and I still retain the impression of his having been a tall and thin old gentleman, very much out of health. He left a treatise called _Parliamentary Logick_, published in 1808. The brief memoir of the author prefixed to the work, makes no mention of him as a member of the House of Hamilton; but it is said that he derived his name of Gerard from his god-mother Elizabeth, daughter of Digby, Lord Gerard of Bromley, widow of James, fourth Duke of Hamilton, who fell in the duel with Lord Mohun, which looks as if some affinity was recognised. {334} The same authority tells us that William Gerard Hamilton was the only child of a Scotch advocate, William Hamilton, by Hannah Hay, one of the sisters of David Bruce, the Abyssinian traveller; and that he removed to London, and practised with some reputation at the English bar. Mr. W. G. Hamilton died, unmarried, in July, 1796, æt. sixty-eight.

BRAYBROOKE.

TEE BEE has, by his Queries about Sir W. Hamilton, recalled some most painful reminiscences connected with our great naval hero. According to the statement in the _New General Biographical Dictionary_, Sir William Hamilton was married to _his first wife_ in the year 1755; but although it is asserted that she brought her husband 5000l. a-year, her name is not given. She died in 1782, and in 1791 "he married Emma Harte, the fascinating, mischievous, and worthless Lady Hamilton." Pettigrew, in his _Memoirs of Nelson_, says, that this marriage took place at St. George's, Hanover Square, _on the 6th of September_, 1791. TEE BEE will find a full account of Lady H. in the above-mentioned work of Pettigrew.

F. S. B.

* * * * *

THE WOOD OF THE CROSS.

(Vol. vii., p. 177.)

I never heard of our Lord's cross having been made of _elder_ wood. The common idea, legend, or tradition, that prevailed formerly was, that the upright beam of the cross was made of _cedar_, the cross-beam of _cypress_, the piece on which the inscription was written of _olive_, and the piece for the feet of palm.

The legend concerning the wood of the cross is very curious, and may be analysed as follows:--When Adam fell sick, he sent his son Seth to the gate of the garden of Eden to beg of the angel some drops of the oil of mercy that distilled from the tree of life. The angel replied that none could receive this favour till five thousand years had passed away. He gave him, however, a cutting from the tree, and it was planted upon Adam's grave. It grew into a tree with three branches. The rod of Moses was afterwards cut from this tree. Solomon had it cut down to make of it a pillar for his palace. The Queen of Sheba, when she went to visit Solomon, would not pass by it, as she said it would one day cause the destruction of the Jews. Solomon then ordered it to be removed and buried. The spot where it was buried was afterwards dug for the pool of Bethsaida, and the mysterious tree communicated the power of healing to the waters. As the time of the Passion of Christ approached, the wood floated on the surface of the water, and was taken for the upright beam of the cross. See this curious legend at greater length in the _Gospel of Nicodemus_; the _Legenda Aurea_ at the feasts of the Discovery and Exaltation of the Cross; Curzon's _Monasteries of the Levant_, p. 163.; and Didron's _Iconography_, p. 367., Bohn's edition.

I think, however, that I can explain the origin of the question put to RUBI by his poor parishioner as to the cross having been made of _elder_ wood. His question may have sprung from a corruption of an old tradition or legend regarding not our Saviour, but Judas his betrayer. Judas is said to have hanged himself on an _elder_ tree. Sir John Maundeville, in his description of Jerusalem, after speaking of the Pool of Siloe, adds,

"And fast by is still the elder tree on which Judas hanged himself for despair, when he sold and betrayed our Lord."--P. 175., Bohn's edit.

To return to the wood of the cross. In Sir John Maundeville's time a spot was pointed out at Jerusalem as the spot where the tree grew:

"To the west of Jerusalem is a fair church, where the tree of the cross grew."--P. 175.

and he speaks of the wood of this tree as having once been used as a bridge over the brook Cedron (p. 176.). Henry Maundrell describes a Greek convent that he visited, about half an hour's distance from Jerusalem:

"That which most deserves to be noted in it, is the reason of its name and foundation. It is because there is the earth that nourished the root, that bore the tree, that yielded the timber, that made the cross. Under the high altar you are shown a hole in the ground where the stump of the tree stood."--P. 462.

These are some of the legendary traditions regarding the history and site of the wood of the cross, up to the time of the Passion of Christ.

CEYREP.

* * * * *

EDMUND CHALONER.

(Vol. vi., p. 292.)

I have been waiting for several months in expectation of seeing some satisfactory reply to URSULA'S Query. It seems, however, that, in common with myself, your numerous correspondents are quite at a nonplus. Wood, in his _Athenæ Oxoniensis_, vol. ii. p. 163., mentions this Edmund Chaloner as being about nineteen (URSULA says twenty-one) years old at the death of his father, James Chaloner, in 1660. Wood, Granger, as also Burke in his _Extinct Baronetage_, represent James as being the fourth son of Sir Thomas Chaloner of Gisborough, in the county of York, and this appears to be the general impression as to his parentage. In a _History of Cheshire_, however, written, I believe, by Cowdray, and published in 1791, the author claims him as a native of that county, and makes him to be of much {335} humbler birth and descent than any of his other biographers. Hear him in his own words:

"Our succeeding (Cheshire) collectors form a family harmonic trio, a father, son, and grandson, of the surname of Chaloner, and of the several Christian names, Thomas, Jacob, and _James_. Thomas was an arms-painter in Chester about 1594; he knew the value of learning sufficiently to give his son a better education than he received himself. And this son followed the same occupation in Chester, and made collections, about the year 1620. But it was _James_, the grandson, who reflected the greatest credit upon his family, by a very concise, accurate, and sensible account of the Isle of Man, printed at the end of King's _Vale Royal_, in 1656. He laid the foundation of a learned education in our much honoured college (Brazennoze); and when the parliament invested Lord Fairfax with the Seignory of Man, he was one of his lordship's three commissioners for settling the affairs of that island. The antiquarian collections of all the three Chaloners are valuable."

Without specially binding myself to either one of these conflicting testimonies, I may be allowed to suggest that, apart from any proof to the contrary, the inference that he was a native of Chester is a perfectly fair and legitimate one. His _Short Treatise of the Isle of Man_, which was the only work he ever sent to press, was printed at the end of that famous Cheshire work, the _Vale Royal of England_, in 1656, and was illustrated with engravings by Daniel King, the editor of that work, himself a Cheshire man. Independent of this, his biographer Wood informs us that he was "a singular lover of antiquities," and that he "made collections of arms, monuments, &c., in Staffordshire, Salop, and _Chester_," the which collections are now, I believe, in the British Museum.* He made no collections for Yorkshire, nor yet for London, where he is stated by Wood to have been born. One thing is certain, James Chaloner of Chester was living at the time this treatise was written, and was, moreover, a famous antiquary, and a collector for this, his native county; but whether he was, _de facto_, the regicide, or merely his cotemporary, I leave it to older and wiser heads to determine.

T. HUGHES.

Chester.

*[In the _Harleian Collection_, No. 1927., will be found "A paper Book in 8vo., wherein are contained, Poems, Impreses, and other Collections in Prose and Verse; written by Thomas Chaloner and Randle Holme, senior, both Armes-Painters in Chester, with other Notes of less value."--ED.]

* * * * *

"ANYWHEN" AND "SELDOM-WHEN:" UNOBSERVED INSTANCES OF SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF THE LATTER.

(Vol. vii., p. 38.)

MR. FRASER'S remark about the word _anywhen_ has brought to my mind two passages in Shakspeare which have been always hitherto rendered obscure by wrong printing and wrong pointing. The first occurs in _Measure for Measure_, Act IV. Sc. 2., where the Duke says:

"This is a gentle provost: _seldom-when_ The steeled gaoler is the friend of men."

Here the compound word, signifying _rarely_, _not often_, has been always printed as two words; and MR. COLLIER, following others, has even placed a comma between _seldom_ and _when_.

The other passage occurs in the Second Part of _King Henry IV._, Act IV. Sc. 4.; where Worcester endeavours to persuade the king that Prince Henry will leave his wild courses. King Henry replies:

"'Tis _seldom-when_ the bee doth leave her comb In the dead carrion."

Here also the editors have always printed it as two words; and, as before, MR. COLLIER here repeats the comma.

That the word was current with our ancestors, is certain; and I have no doubt that other instances of it may be found. We have a similar compound in Chaucer's _Knight's Tale_, v. 7958.:

"I me rejoyced of my lyberté, That _selden-tyme_ is founde in mariage."

Palsgrave, too, in his _Eclaircissement de la Langue Françoise_, 1530, has--

"_Seldom-what_, Gueres souvent."

_Seldom-when_, as far as my experience goes, seems to have passed out of use where archaisms still linger; but _anywhen_ may be heard any day and every day in Surrey and Sussex. Those who would learn the _rationale_ of these words will do well to consult Dr. Richardson's most excellent _Dictionary_, under the words AN, ANY, WHEN, and SELDOM.

This is at least a step towards MR. FRASER'S wish of seeing _anywhen_ legitimatised; for what superior claim had _seldom-when_ to be enshrined and immortalised in the pages of the poet of the world?

S. W. SINGER.

Manor Place, South Lambeth.

* * * * *

CHICHESTER: LAVANT.

(Vol. vii., p. 269.)

Your correspondent C. affirms, as a mark of the Roman origin of Chichester, that "the little stream that runs through it is called the Lavant, _evidently from lavando_!" Now nobody, as old Camden says, "has doubted the _Romanity_ of Chichester;" but I am quite sure that the members of the Archæological Institute (who meet next summer upon the banks of this same _Lavant_) would decidedly demur to so singular a proof of it.

{336} C. is informed that, in the fourth volume of the _Archæologia_, p. 27., there is a paper by the Hon. Daines Barrington, on the term _Lavant_, which, it appears, is commonly applied in Sussex to all brooks which are dry at some seasons, as is the case with the Chichester river.

"From the same circumstance," it is added, "the sands between Conway and Beaumaris in Anglesey, are called the _Lavant sands_, because they are dry when the tide ebbs; as are also the sands which are passed at low water between Cartmell and Lancaster, for the same reason."

To trace the origin of the term _Lavant_, we must, I conceive, go back to a period more remote than the Roman occupation; for that remarkable people, who conquered the inhabitants of Britain, and partially succeeded in imposing Roman appellations upon the greater towns and cities, never could change the aboriginal names of the rivers and mountains of the country. "Our hills, forests, and rivers," says Bishop Percy, "have generally retained their old Celtic names." I venture, therefore, to suggest, that the British word for river, _Av_, or _Avon_, which seems to form the root of the word _Lavant_, may possibly be modified in some way by the prefix, or postfix, so as to give, to the compound word, the signification of an _intermittent_ stream.

The fact that, amidst all the changes which have passed over the face of our country, the primitive names of the grander features of nature still remain unaltered, is beautifully expressed by a great poet recently lost to us:

"Mark! how all things swerve From their known course, or vanish like a dream; Another language spreads from coast to coast; Only, perchance, some melancholy stream, And some indignant hills old names preserve, When laws, and creeds, and people all are lost!" Wordsworth's _Eccles. Sonnets_, xii.

W. L. NICHOLS.

Bath.

* * * * *

SCARFS WORN BY CLERGYMEN.

(Vol. vii., p. 269.)

The mention of the distinction between the broad and narrow scarf, alluded to by me (Vol. vii., p. 215.), was made above thirty years ago, and in Ireland. I have a distinct recollection of the statement as to what _had_ been the practice, then going out of use. I am sorry that I cannot, in answer to C.'s inquiry, recollect who the person was who made it. Nor am I able to specify instances of the partial observance of the distinction, as I had not till long after learned the wisdom of "making a note:" but I had occasion to remark that dignitaries, &c. frequently wore wider scarfs than other clergymen (not however that the narrower one was ever that slender strip so improperly and servilely adopted of late from the corrupt custom of Rome, which has curtailed all ecclesiastical vestments); so that when the discussion upon this subject was revived by others some years ago, it was one to which my mind had been long familiar, independently of any ritual authority.

I hope C. will understand my real object in interfering in this subject. It is solely that I may do a little (what others, I hope, can do more effectually) towards correcting the very injurious, and, I repeat, inadequate statement of the _Quart. Review_ for June, 1851, p. 222. However trifling the matter may be in itself, it is no trifling matter to involve a considerable portion of the clergy, and among them many who are most desirous to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the Church of England, and to resist all real innovation, in a charge of lawlessness. Before the episcopal authority, there so confidently invoked, be interposed, let it be _proved_ that this is not a badge of the clerical order, common to all the churches of Christendom, and actually recognised by the rules, in every respect so truly Catholic, of our own Church. The matter does not, I apprehend, admit of demonstration one way or the other, at least till we have fresh evidence. But to me, as to many others, analogies seem all in favour of the scarf being such a badge; and not only this, but the very regulation of our royal ecclesiastical authorities. The injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, in 1564, seem to mark the tippet as a distinction between clergymen and laymen, who otherwise, in colleges and choirs at least, would have none. I also am strongly of opinion that the tippets mentioned in the 58th and 74th English canons are the two scarfs referred to: the silken tippet (or broad scarf) being for such priests or deacons as hold certain offices, or are M.A., LL.B., or of superior degree; the plain tippet (or narrow scarf) being for all ministers who are non-graduates (Bachelors of Arts were not anciently considered as graduates, but rather as candidates for a degree, as they are still styled in many places abroad); so that _all_ in orders may have tippets. This notion is confirmed by the fact, that the scarf was frequently called a _tippet_ in Ireland within memory. And in a letter, discussing this very subject, in the _Gentleman's Mag._ (for 1818, part ii. p. 218.[7]), the testimony of one is given who had for upwards of fifty years considered the two words as identical, and had heard them in his youth used indiscriminately by aged clergymen. It is notorious that in Ireland, time out of mind, _tippets_ have been more generally worn than _hoods_ in parish churches there. I am not sure (though I lay no stress on the conjecture) whether this may not have been in {337} consequence of the option apparently given by the Canons of wearing _either_ hood or tippet.

It is not correct to restrict the _customary_ use of the scarf to doctors, prebendaries, and chaplains. In some cathedrals the immemorial custom has been to assign it to minor canons and clerical vicars also. At Canterbury, indeed, the minor canons, except otherwise qualified, do not wear it. (But is not this an exception? Was it always so? And, by the way, can any cathedral member of old standing testify as to the customary distinction in his church between the two scarfs, either as to size or materials?) The very general use of it in towns cannot be denied.

I may add, that Bishop Jebb used to disapprove of its disuse by country clergymen. In his Charge he requests that "all beneficed clergymen" of his diocese "who are _Masters of Arts_, or of any superior degree, and who by chaplaincies or otherwise are entitled to the distinction, may with their surplices wear scarfs or _tippets_." This apparently was his construction of the Canons.

JOHN JEBB.

[Footnote 7: See also p. 315.; and 1819, part i. p. 593.]

The narrow scarf, called the stole or orarium, is one of the most ancient vestments used by the Christian clergy, representing in its mystical signification the yoke of Christ. Though it may be true that its use is not enjoined by any modern rubric or canon, custom, I think, fully warrants the clergy in wearing it. What other sanction than custom is there for the use of bands?

E. H. A.

A great deal of very interesting matter bearing upon this question, both in an ecclesiastical and antiquarian point of view, though no definite conclusion is arrived at, will be found in a pamphlet by G. A. French, entitled _The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical_.

AN OXFORD B.C.L.

* * * * *

INSCRIPTIONS IN BOOKS.

(Vol. vii., p. 127.)