Chapter 4

Without entering on the question as to possible connexion of the poet with the family above mentioned, the discussion may be simplified by solving a difficulty suggested by CLIVIGER (p. 362.), arising from Hurstwood Hall (_another estate in Hurstwood_) having been possessed by Townley, and by explaining, 1st, The identity of the tenement once owned by Spencers; 2ndly, The seeming cause of Whitaker's silence; and, 3rdly, The certainty of possession by the Spencers.

I. The former estate of the Spencers in Hurstwood is a tenement which was purchased by the late Rev. John Hargreaves from the representatives of William Ormerod, of Foxstones, in Cliviger, in 1803, and which had been conveyed in 1690, by John Spencer, then of Marsden, to Oliver Ormerod of Hurstwood, and his son Laurence; the former of these being youngest son, by a second marriage, of Peter Ormerod of Ormerod, and co-executor of his will in 1650. So much for the locality.

II. As for Dr. Whitaker's silence, I know, from correspondence with him (1808-1816), that, from an irregularity in the Prerogative Office, he was not aware of this will, and uninformed as to this second marriage, or the connexion of this purchaser's family with the parent house; and I think it as probable that he was as unaware of the ancient possession of the purchased tenement by Spencers, as it is certain that this theory as to the connexion of the poet with it was _then_ unknown. If otherwise, he would doubtless have extended his scale, and included it.

III. As to the certainty of possession by Spencers, I have brief extracts from deeds as to this tenement as follows:--

1677. Indenture of covenants for a fine, between _John Spencer the elder_, and Oliver Ormerod of Cliviger, and note of fine.

1687. Will of same _John Spencer_, late of Hurstwood, mentioning possession of this tenement as the inheritance of his _great-grandfather_, _Edmund Spencer_.

1689. Family arrangements of _John Spencer_ (the son) as to same tenement, then in occupation of "Oliver Ormeroyde" before mentioned.

{411} 1690. Conveyance from _John Spencer_ to O. and L. O., as before mentioned.

In _Gentleman's Magazine_, August, 1842 (pp. 141, 142.), will be found numerous notices of these Spen_c_ers or Spen_s_ers, with identified localities from registers.

I think that this explanation will solve the difficulty suggested by CLIVIGER. On the main question I have not grounds sufficient for an opinion, but add a reference to _Gentleman's Magazine_, March, 1848, p. 286., for a _general objection_ by MR. CROSSLEY, President of the Chetham Society, who is well acquainted with the locality.

LANCASTRIENSIS.

I was about to address some photographic Queries to the correspondents of "N. & Q." when a note caught my attention relating to Edmund Spenser (in the Number dated March 26.). The Mr. F. F. Spenser mentioned therein was related to me, being my late father's half-brother. I regret to say that he died very suddenly at Manchester, Nov. 2, 1852. During his lifetime, he took much pains to clear up the doubts about the locality of the poet's retirement, and his relatives in the North; and has made out a very clear case, I imagine. On a visit to Yorkshire in 1851, I spent a few days with him, and took occasion to urge the necessity of arranging the mass of information he had accumulated on the subject; which I have no doubt he would have done, had not his sudden death occurred to prevent it. These facts may be of some interest to biographers of the poet, and with this object I have ventured to trouble you with this communication.

J. B. SPENCER.

11. Montpellier Road, Blackheath.

* * * * *

THROWING OLD SHOES FOR LUCK.

(Vol. ii., p. 196.; Vol. v., p. 413.; Vol. vii., pp. 193. 288.)

I do not know whether you will permit me to occupy a small portion of your valuable space in an attempt to suggest an origin of the custom of throwing an old shoe after a newly married bride.

Your correspondents assume that the old shoe was thrown after the bride _for luck_, and for luck only. I doubt whether it was so in its origin.

Among barbarous nations, all transfers of property, all assertions and relinquishments of rights of dominion, were marked by some external ceremony or rite; by which, in the absence of written documents, the memory of the vulgar might be impressed. When, among Scandinavian nations, land was bought or sold, a turf was delivered by the trader to the purchaser: and among the Jews, and probably among other oriental nations, a shoe answered the same purpose.

In Psalm lx., beginning with "O God, thou hast cast me off," there occurs the phrase, "Moab is my washpot, over Edom have I cast out my shoe." Immediately after it occurs the exclamation, "O God! who has cast us off!" A similar passage occurs in Psalm cix.

By this passage I understand the Psalmist to mean, that God would thoroughly cast off Edom, and cease to aid him in war or peace. This interpretation is consistent with the whole tenor of the Psalm.

The receiving of a shoe was an evidence and symbol of asserting or accepting dominion or ownership; the giving back a shoe, the symbol of rejecting or resigning it.

Among the Jews, the brother of a childless man was bound to marry his widow: or, at least, he "had the refusal of her," and the lady could not marry again till her husband's brother had formally rejected her. The ceremony by which this rejection was performed took place in open court, and is mentioned in Deut. xxv. If the brother publicly refused her, "she loosed his shoe from off his foot, and spat in his face;" or, as great Hebraists translate it, "spat before his face." _His_ giving up the shoe was a symbol that _he_ abandoned all dominion over her; and _her_ spitting before _him_ was a defiance, and an assertion of independence. This construction is in accordance with the opinions of Michaelis, as stated in his _Laws of Moses_, vol. ii. p. 31.

This practice is still further illustrated by the story of Ruth. Her nearest kinsman refused to marry her, and to redeem her inheritance: he was publicly called on so to do by Boaz, and as publicly refused. And the Bible adds, "as it was the custom in Israel concerning changing, that a man plucked off his shoe and delivered it to his neighbour," the kinsman plucked off his shoe and delivered it to Boaz as a public renunciation of Ruth, of all dominion over her, and of his right of pre-marriage.

These ceremonies were evidently not unknown to the early Christians. When the Emperor Wladimir made proposals of marriage to the daughter of Raguald, she refused him, saying, "That she would not take off her shoe to the son of a slave."

There is a passage in _Gregory of Tours_ (c. 20.) where, speaking of espousals, he says, "The bridegroom having given a ring to the fiancée, presents her with a shoe."

From Michelet's _Life of Luther_ we learn, that the great reformer was at the wedding of Jean Luffte. After supper, he conducted the bride to bed, and told the bridegroom that, according to common custom, he ought to be master in his own house _when_ his wife was not there: and for a symbol, he took off the husband's shoe, and put it upon the head of the bed--"afin qu'il prit ainsi la domination et gouvernement."

{412} I would suggest for the consideration of your correspondents that the throwing a shoe after a bride was a symbol of renunciation of dominion and authority over her by her father or guardian; and the receipt of the shoe by the bridegroom, even if accidental, was an omen that that authority was transferred to him.

JOHN THRUPP.

Surbiton.

* * * * *

ORKNEYS IN PAWN.

(Vol. vii., pp. 105. 183.)

That the Orkney and Zetland Islands were transferred by Denmark to Scotland in 1468, in pledge for payment of part of the dower of the Princess of Denmark, who was married to James III., King of Scotland, under right of redemption by Denmark, is an admitted historic fact; but it is asserted by the Scottish, and denied by the Danish historians, that Denmark renounced her right of redemption of these Islands. The question is fully discussed, with references to every work and passage treating of the matter, in the first introductory note to the edition of _The General Grievances and Oppressions of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland_, published at Edinburgh, 1836. And the writer of the note is led to the conclusion that there was no renunciation, and that Denmark still retains her right of redemption. Mr. Samuel Laing, in his _Journal of a Residence in Norway_, remarks, that the object of Torfæus' historical work, _Orcades, seu Rerum Orcadensium Historiæ libri tres_, compiled by the express command of Christian V., King of Denmark, was to vindicate the right of the Danish monarch to redeem the mortgage of the sovereignty of these islands; and he adds, that in 1804, Bonaparte, in a proclamation addressed to the army assembled at Boulogne for the invasion of England, descanted on the claim of Denmark to this portion of the British dominions. In a note he has the farther statement, that in 1549 an assessment for paying off the sum for which Orkney and Zetland were pledged was levied in Norway by Christian III. (_Vide_ Laing's _Norway_, 1837, pp. 352, 353.) From the preceding notice, it would appear, that Denmark never renounced her right of redemption, now merely a matter of antiquarian curiosity. And it is pertinent to mention, that the connexion of Orkney and Zetland was with Norway, not Denmark. I observe in the Catalogue of MSS., in the Cottonian Library in the British Museum (Titus C. VII. art. 71. f. 134.), "Notes on King of Denmark's Demand of the Orcades, 1587-8," which may throw some light on the matter.

In the historical sketch given by Broctuna, Kenneth II., King of Scotland, is said to have taken the Orkneys from the Picts A.D. 838; and that they remained attached to that kingdom till 1099, when Donald Bain, in recompense of aid given to him by Magnus, King of Norway, gifted all the Scotch isles, including the Orkneys, to Norway. This is not what is understood to be the history of Orkney.

In the middle of the ninth century, Harold Harfager, one of the reguli of Norway, subdued the other petty rulers, and made himself king of the whole country. The defeated party fled to Orkney, and other islands of the west: whence, betaking themselves to piracy, they returned to ravage the coast of Norway. Harold pursued them to their places of refuge, and conquered and colonised Orkney about A.D. 875. The Norwegians at that time destroyed or expelled the race then inhabiting these islands. They are supposed to have been Picts, and to have received Christianity at an earlier date, but it is doubtful if there were Christians in Orkney at that period: however, Depping says expressly, that Earl Segurd, the second Norwegian earl, expelled the Christians from these isles. I may remark, that the names of places in Orkney and Zetland are Norse, and bear descriptive and applicable meanings in that tongue; but hesitate to extend these names beyond the Norwegian colonisation, and to connect them with the Picts or other earlier inhabitants. No argument can be founded on the rude and miserable subterraneous buildings called Picts' houses, which, if they ever were habitations, or anything else than places of refuge, must have belonged to a people in a very low grade of civilisation. Be this as it may, Orkney and Zetland remained under the Norwegian dominion from the time of Harold Harfager till they were transferred to Scotland by the marriage treaty in 1468, a period of about six hundred years. What cannot easily be accounted for, is the discovery of two Orkney and Zetland deeds of the beginning of the fifteenth century prior to the transfer, written not in Norse, but in the Scottish language.

R. W.

* * * * *

HOGARTH'S PICTURES.

(Vol. vii., p. 339.)

The numerous and interesting inquiries of AN AMATEUR respecting a catalogue of Hogarth's works has brought to my recollection the discovery of one of them, which I was so fortunate as to see in its original situation. About the year 1815 I was invited by a friend, who was an artist, to visit a small public-house in Leadenhall Street, to see a picture by Hogarth: it was "The Elephant," since, I believe, pulled down, being in a ruinous condition. In the tap-room, on the wall, almost obscured by the dirt and smoke, and grimed by the rubbing of numberless foul jackets, was an indisputable picture by the renowned Hogarth. It represented the meeting of the committee of the {413} South Sea Company, and doubtless the figures were all portraits. It was painted in his roughest manner; but every head was stamped with that character for which he stood unrivalled. I have since heard that, when the house was pulled down, this picture was sold as one of the lots, in the sale of furniture, and bought by a dealer. It was painted on the wall, like a fresco; and how to remove it was the difficulty. On sounding the wall it was found to be lath and plaster, with timber framework (the usual style of building in the reign of Elizabeth). It was therefore determined to cut it out in substance, which was accordingly performed; and by the help of chisels, thin crowbars, and other instruments, it was safely detached. The plaster was then removed from the back down to the priming, and the picture was backed with strong canvas. It was then cleaned from all its defilement, and, on being offered for sale at a good price, was bought by a nobleman, whose name I have not heard, and is now in his collection.

I do not know whether your correspondent has heard of Hogarth's portrait of Fielding. The story, as I have heard or read it, is as follows:--Hogarth and Garrick sitting together after dinner, Hogarth was lamenting there was no portrait of Fielding, when Garrick said, "I think I can make his face."--"Pray, try my dear Davy," said the other. Garrick then made the attempt, and so well did he succeed, that Hogarth immediately caught the likeness, and exclaimed with exultation, "Now I have him: keep still, my dear Davy." To work he went with pen and ink, and the likeness was finished by their mutual recollections. This sketch has been engraved from the original drawing, and is preserved among several original drawings and prints in the _illustrated_ copy of Lysons's _Environs_, vol. i. p. 544., in the King's Library, British Museum.

While I am writing about unnoticed pictures by what may be called _erratic_ artists, I may mention that in the parlour of the "King's Head," corner of New Road and Hampstead Road, on the panel of a cupboard, is a half-length of a farmer's boy, most probably the work of G. Morland, who visited this house on his way to Hampstead, and probably paid his score by painting this picture; which is well known to have been his usual way of paying such debts.

E. G. BALLARD.

Agreeably to the suggestion of AN AMATEUR, I beg to send you the following list of pictures, from a catalogue in my possession:

CATALOGUE of the Pictures and Prints, the property of the late Mrs. Hogarth, deceased, sold by Mr. Greenwood, the Golden Head, Leicester Square, Saturday, April 24, 1790.

_Pictures by Mr. Hogarth._

41. Two portraits of Ann and Mary Hogarth. 42. A daughter of Mr. Rich the comedian, finely coloured. 43. The original portrait of Sir James Thornhill. 44. The heads of six servants of Mr. Hogarth's family. 45. His own portrait--a head. 46. A ditto--a whole-length painting. 47. A ditto, Kit Kat, with the favourite dog, exceeding fine. 48. Two portraits of Lady Thornhill and Mrs. Hogarth. 49. The first sketch of the Rake's Progress. 50. A ditto of the altar of Bristol Church. 51. The Shrimp Girl--a sketch. 52. Sigismunda. 53. A historical sketch, by Sir James Thornhill. 54. Two sketches of Lady Pembroke and Mr. John Thornhill. 55. Three old pictures. 56. The bust of Sir Isaac Newton, terra cotta. 57. Ditto of Mr. Hogarth, by Roubilliac. 58. Ditto of the favourite dog, and cast of Mr. Hogarth's hand.

W. D. HAGGARD.

* * * * *

PHANTOM BELLS AND LOST CHURCHES.

(Vol. vii., pp. 128. 200. 328.)

In a little brochure entitled _Christmas, its History and Antiquity_, published by Slater, London, 1850, the writer says that--

"In Berkshire it is confidently asserted, that if any one watches on Christmas Eve he will hear _subterranean bells_; and in the mining districts the workmen declare that at this sacred season high mass is performed with the greatest solemnity on that evening in the mine which contains the most valuable lobe of ore, which is supernaturally lighted up with candles in the most brilliant manner, and the service changed by unseen choristers."--P. 46.

The poet Uhland has a beautiful poem entitled _Die Verlorne Kirche_. Lord Lindsay says:

"I subjoin, in illustration of the symbolism, and the peculiar emotions born of Gothic architecture, _The Lost Church_ of the poet Uhland, founded, I apprehend, on an ancient tradition of the Sinaitic peninsula."--_Sketches of Christian Art._

I give the first stanza of his translation:

"Oft in the forest far one hears A passing sound of distant bells; Nor legends old, nor human wit, Can tell us whence the music swells. From the _Lost Church_ 'tis thought that soft Faint ringing cometh on the wind: Once many pilgrims trod the path, But no one now the way can find."

See also _Das Versunkene Kloster_, by the same sweet poet, commencing:

"Ein Kloster ist versunken Tief in den wilden See."

After Port Royal (in the West Indies) was submerged, at the close of the seventeenth century, sailors in those parts for many years had {414} stories of anchoring in the chimneys and steeples, and would declare they heard the church bells ringing beneath the water, agitated by the waves or spirits of the deep.

The case of the Round Towers seen in Lough Neagh, I need not bring forward, as no sound of bells has ever been heard from them.

There is one _lost church_ so famous as to occur to the mind of every reader, I mean that of the Ten Tribes of Israel. After the lapse of thousands of years, we have here an historical problem, which time, perhaps, will never solve. We have a less famous, but still most interesting, instance of a lost church in Greenland. Soon after the introduction of Christianity, about the year 1000, a number of churches and a monastery were erected along the east coast of Greenland, and a bishop was ordained for the spiritual guidance of the colony. For some four hundred years an intercourse was maintained between this colony and Norway and Denmark. In the year 1406 the last bishop was sent over to Greenland. Since then the colony _has not been heard of_. Many have been the attempts to recover this lost church of East Greenland, but hitherto in vain.

I could send you a Note on a cognate subject, but I fear it would occupy too much of your space,--that of _Happy Isles_, or _Islands of the Blessed_. The tradition respecting these happy isles is very wide-spread, and obtains amongst nearly every nation of the globe; it is, perhaps, a relic of a primeval tradition of Eden. Some have caught glimpses of these isles, and some more favoured mortals have even landed, and returned again with senses dazzled at the ravishing sights they have seen. But in every case after these rare favours, these mystic lands have remained invisible as before, and the way to them has been sought for in vain. Such are the tales told with reverent earnestness, and listened to with breathless interest, not only by the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans of old, but by the Irishman, the Welshman, the Hindoo, and the Red Indian of to-day.

EIRIONNACH.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUERIES.

_Photographic Collodion_ (Vol. vii., p. 314.).--In a former communication I pointed out the wide differences in the various manipulations prescribed for making the photographic _gun cotton_ by several photographers: differences most perplexing to persons of small leisure, and who are likely to lose half the opportunities of a photographic season, whilst puzzling over these diversities of proceeding. Suffer me now to entreat some one to whom all may look up (perhaps your kind and experienced correspondent DR. DIAMOND will do this service, so valuable to young photographers) to clear up the differences I will now "make a note of," viz. as to the amount of dry photographic gun cotton to be used in forming the prepared collodion.

On comparing various authors, and _reducing_ their directions to a standard of _one ounce of ether_, I find the following differences: viz., DR. DIAMOND (Vol. vi., p. 277.) prescribes _about_ three grains of gun cotton; Mr. Hennah (_Directions, &c._, p. 5.) about seven grains; the Count de Montizon (_Journ. of Phot. Soc._, p. 23.) eight grains; whilst Mr. Bingham (_Supplement to Phot. Manip._, p. 2.) directs about _thirty-four_ grains! in each case to a single ounce of ether.

These differences are too wide to come within even Mr. Archer's "long range," that "the proportions ... must depend entirely upon the strength and the thickness required ... the skill of the operator and the season of the year." (Archer's _Manual_, p. 17.)

COKELY.

_Filtering Collodion._--Count de Montizon, in his valuable paper on the collodion process, published in the second number of the _Journal of the Photographic Society_, objects to filtration on the ground that the silver solution is often injured by impurities contained in the paper. It may be worth while to state, that lime, and other impurities, may be removed by soaking the filter for a day or two, before it is used, in water acidulated with nitric acid; after which it should be washed with hot water and dried.

T. D. EATON.

_Photographic Notes_ (Vol. vii., p. 363.).--I wish to correct an error in my communication in "N. & Q." of April 9: in speaking of "a more _even_ film," I meant a film more _evenly sensitive_. I am sorry I have misled MR. SHADBOLT as to my meaning. I have very rarely any "spottings" in my pictures; but I always drop the plates once or twice into the bath, after the two minutes' immersion, to wash off any loose particles. I also drain off all I can of the nitrate of silver solution before placing the glass in the camera, and for three reasons:--1. Because it saves material; 2. Because the lower part of dark frame is kept free from liquid; 3. Because a "flowing sheet" of liquid must interfere somewhat with the passage of light to the film, and consequently with the sharpness of the picture. I think it is clear, from MR. SHADBOLT'S directions to MR. MERITT, that it is no very easy thing to cement a glass bath with marine glue.

J. L. SISSON.

_Colouring Collodion Pictures_ (Vol. vii., p. 388.).--In your impression of April 16, there is a typographical error of some importance relative to lifting the collodion in and out of the bath: "The plate, after being plunged in, should be allowed to repose quietly from twenty to thirty _minutes_," &c. This should be _seconds_. The error arose, in all {415} probability, from my having used the contractions 20" to 30".

It may appear somewhat droll for any one to answer a question on which he has _not_ had experience; but I beg to offer as a _suggestion_ to PHOTO, that if he wishes to use collodion pictures for the purpose of dissolving views, he should first copy them in the camera as transparent objects so as to _reverse_ the light and shade, then varnish them with DR. DIAMOND'S solution of amber in chloroform, when they will bear the application of transparent colours ground in varnish, such as are used for painting magic-lantern slides.

GEO. SHADBOLT.