Part 4
The Editor will, I doubt not, be good enough to forward to the learned Doctor a copy of the Number in which this appeal is published.
C. MANFIELD INGLEBY.
Birmingham.
* * * * *
MR. JUSTICE TALFOURD AND DR. BEATTIE.
(Vol. ix., p 393.)
There is so much similarity of character, in respect of sympathy for the humbler position and the well-being of others, between this lamented judge and that of the professor who is depicted by his biographer in the following extract, that I hope you will agree with me in thinking it worthy of being framed, and hung up as a companion-sketch in your pages:
"As a Professor, not his own class only, but the whole body of students at the University, looked up to him with esteem and veneration. The profound piety of the public prayers, with which he began the business of each day, arrested the attention of the youngest and most thoughtless; the excellence of his moral character; his gravity blended with cheerfulness, his strictness joined with gentleness, his favour to the virtuous and diligent, and even the mildness of his reproofs to those who were less attentive, rendered him the object of their respect and admiration. Never was more exact discipline preserved than in his class, nor ever anywhere by more gentle means. His sway was absolute, because it was founded in reason and affection. He never employed a harsh epithet in finding fault with any of his pupils; and when, instead of a rebuke which they were conscious they deserved, they met merely with a mild reproof, it was conveyed in such a manner as to throw not only the delinquent, but sometimes the whole class into tears. To gain his favour was the highest ambition of every student; and the gentlest word of disapprobation was a punishment, to avoid which, no exertion was deemed too much. His great object was not merely to make his pupils philosophers, but to render them good men, pious Christians, loyal to their king, and attached to the British constitution; pure in morals, happy in the consciousness of a right conduct, and friends to all mankind."
This is the language of Dr. Beattie's biographer, who knew him intimately. Cowper, the poet, thus writes of him to the Rev. W. Unwin, from a knowledge of his works:
"I thanked you in my last for Johnson; I now thank you with more emphasis for Beattie--the most agreeable and amiable writer I ever met with--the only author I have seen whose critical and philosophical researches are diversified and embellished by a poetical imagination, that makes even the driest subject, and the leanest, a feast for an epicure in books. He is so much at his ease too, that his own character appears in every page; and, which is rare, we see not only the writer, but the man; and that man so gentle, so well-tempered, so happy in his religion, and so humane in his philosophy, that it is necessary to love him, if one has any sense of what is lovely."--_Life of Dr. Beattie_, by Sir William Forbes, Bart.
J. M.
Oxford.
* * * * *
{498}
RUSSIAN "TE DEUM."
(Vol. ix., p. 325.)
The following is a translation of this Greek doxology, as contained in the Prayer-Book of the Greek Church, under the title '[Greek: Hôrologion to mega, Benatiai, Tupog. Nikulaou Glukê], 1845, p. 75.:
1. Glory to Thee, the Giver of light.
2. Glory to God on high, and on earth peace, good-will towards men.
3. We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we worship Thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to Thee for Thy great glory;
4. O Lord King, heavenly God, Father Almighty, O Lord, only begotten Son Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit.
5. O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that taketh away the sin of the world; have mercy upon us, Thou that takest away the sins of the world.
6. Accept our prayer; Thou that sittest at the Father's right hand, have mercy on us:
7. For Thou only art holy; Thou only, Lord Jesus Christ, art in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
8. Day by day I bless Thee, and I praise Thy name for ever, and for all eternity.
9. Vouchsafe, Lord, this day to keep me sinless.
10. Blessed art Thou, Lord, the God of our fathers; and praised and glorified be Thy name for ever. Amen.
11. Lord, let Thy mercy be on us, as we trust in Thee.
12. Blessed art Thou, Lord; teach me Thy statutes.
13. Lord, Thou hast been our refuge from one generation to another.
14. I said, Lord be merciful unto me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.
15. Lord, I fly to Thee; teach me to do Thy will, for Thou art my God;
16. For with Thee is a well of life, in Thy light shall we see light.
17. Extend Thy mercy to them that know Thee.
18. O holy God, holy Strength, holy Immortal, have mercy on us. Amen.
Verses 2. to 7. are identical with the _Gloria in Excelsis_, or the Angelic Hymn, sung at the conclusion of the Lord's Supper in the Anglican Church, but which commences the Mass in the Romish Church. It is of great antiquity, being attributed to Telesphorus, A.D. 139, and is found in the _Apostolic Constitutions_, vii. c. 48.
Verses 8, 9. 11. are the same as in the Latin _Te Deum_.
Verse 12. is from Psalm cxix. 12.
Verse 13. is from Psalm xc. 1.
Verse 14. is from Psalm xli. 4.
Verse 15. is from Psalm cxliii. 9, 10.
Verse 16. is from Psalm xxxvi. 9.
Verse 17. is from Psalm xxxvi. 10.
T. J. BUCKTON.
Lichfield.
In answer to your correspondent HONORÉ DE MAREVELLE'S Query regarding the _Te Deum_ as sung in Russia, I beg to inform him that in whatever language the Emperor Nicholas is most familiar with this hymn, it is sung in all their churches in Sclavonic, which is only intelligible to the priests and a _very small_ number of the laity, the mass of the people being quite ignorant of this old language. All the services in Russian churches are performed in Sclavonic.
The _Old_ Testament is not permitted to be read by the people in modern Russ, by command of the Emperor; it is circulated sparingly in Sclavonic, which is of course useless to most of the people, for the reason named above. The _New_ Testament is, however, allowed to circulate in modern Russ, and not _half_ the population read that, perhaps not more than a third.
With regard to their images or pictures (alluded to by me in Vol. viii., p. 582.), I had not only perused the works mentioned by G. W. (Vol. ix., p. 86.) before I wrote about the Russian religion, &c., but several other works besides.[1]
Having been in the country for some little time, and paid some attention to the subject, I was certainly surprised to find little, if any, mention made of their manner of worship or superstitious customs in Dr. Blackmore's works, and wished to contribute my mite towards giving your readers some information as to the state of this semi-civilised race.
From _Translations of Russian Works_ you can glean nothing but what the Russian government chooses, as every work goes through a severe censorship before it is allowed to be printed for circulation; and if there is anything in it that is not liked, it is not permitted to be published unless those parts are suppressed.
It is perhaps only partially known that there is some difficulty in getting English books and newspapers into Russia, as all must go through the censor's office. _The Times_ (which is however all but, if not quite, prohibited at St. Petersburg, and has been so a long time), _Punch_, and other of our papers, possess a ludicrous appearance after having passed through the hands of the worthies in the censor's office, sometimes there being very little left of them to read.
Whilst writing about images, I omitted to name one or two other circumstances that have come under my own notice, showing still farther the superstitious veneration in which they are held by the Russians.
In the case of a house on fire, one of the inmates, with his head uncovered, carries the image three times round the burning house, under the {499} belief that it will cause the fire to cease, never attempting to put it out by any other means.
At Moscow there is a very noted image of the Virgin Mary; it is deposited in a recess at one side of an archway leading to the Kremlin. Every person passing through this archway is _obliged_ to uncover his head. I had to do so whenever I passed through. The belief of the efficacy of this image in healing diseases is universal. When any person is ill, by paying the priests handsomely, they will bring it with great pomp, in a carriage and four horses, to the sick person's house, who _must_ recover, or else, if death ensues, they say it is _so fated_.
Instances of other images in various parts of the empire, some believed to have fallen from heaven, might be multiplied to any extent. I mention these to show that, whatever these representations of the Deity may be called, I had not written unadvisedly previously, as might be surmised by G. W.'s remarks. Everybody must deplore the wretched condition of these people; and the Czar, well knowing their superstitious ideas, works upon their fanatical minds with such letters as we all have had the sorrow of seeing a specimen of in _The Times_ of to-day.[2]
J. S. A.
May 15, 1854.
[Footnote 1: Owing to an error in my original MS., or of the printers, they were called _the "gods,"_ instead of _their gods_, answering to the ancient _penates_.]
[Footnote 2: Vide Nicholas to the Commandant of Odessa.]
* * * * *
ARTESIAN WELLS.
(Vol. ix., p. 222.)
Your correspondent STYLITES is strongly advised not to set about making, or rather endeavouring to make, a well of this description till he has been well advised of the feasibility of the scheme in his particular locality. The old adage will apply in this case, "Ex quovis ligno," &c. It is not everywhere that an artesian well can be obtained with any depth of bore; that is, a well which shall bring its water to or above the surface of the ground. But if, on sufficient knowledge of the mineralogical structure of the country, it be declared that a well of the true artesian sort cannot be obtained, STYLITES should dig his well, say fifteen or twenty feet deep, and "stein" it, and then bore in search of a spring, unless a sufficient supply is already obtained from the surface drainage. A moderate outlay in this way, unless the impervious stratum be of very great thickness indeed, will generally bring up water, with a natural tendency to rise within reach of a common pump, or of a well-bucket at the least.
But it may still happen that the water of the bore has not this natural tendency. In that case the sinking of the well may be continued till the water is reached, and a sufficient depth of reservoir obtained at the bottom.
M. (2)
As practical answers to the inquiries of STYLITES on this subject, I have to say, that common wells are preferable to artesian in all cases where abundance of water is obtained at a depth not exceeding thirty feet. I need not tell STYLITES that the common sucking-pump will not draw up water from a depth exceeding thirty feet. The convenience of common wells is one reason why artesian ones are not universally adopted; and a greater reason is that artesian wells are very much more expensive to make than common ones. When artesian wells are preferable to common ones is, when water cannot be obtained at a depth beyond the reach of the force-pump. Two of my friends have made artesian wells; one a mill-spinner at Dundee, at a time when that town was very ill supplied with water. He sunk a well 150 feet in depth and found no water. A bore was then made through trap rock for upwards of 150 feet, and water was found in abundance on reaching the underlying sandstone. The water ultimately reached near to the top of the well. The other well was made by a bleacher in the neighbourhood of Lisburn in Ireland. All the surface springs in his bleaching-grounds, which are extensive, did not supply a sufficient quantity for his purposes. The subsoil being boulder clay, he had to bore through it to about 300 feet before the water was met with; when it rose as near the top of the bore as to permit the use of a common pump being worked by power. The theory of the action of artesian wells has been explained by MR. BUCKTON (Vol. ix., p. 283.), but I have no hesitation in telling STYLITES that he will find water almost anywhere in this country by means of an artesian bore.
HENRY STEPHENS.
* * * * *
DOG-WHIPPERS.
(Vol. ix., p. 349.)
The following Notes may contain information for your correspondent C. F. W. on the subject of dog-whippers.
Richard Dovey, of Farmcote in Shropshire, in the year 1659, charged certain cottages with the payment of eight shillings to some poor man of the parish of Claverley, who should undertake to awaken sleepers, and _whip dogs from the church_ during divine service. Ten shillings and sixpence per annum is now paid for the above service.
John Rudge by his will, dated in 1725, gave five shillings a quarter to a poor man to go about the parish church of Trysull, in Staffordshire, during sermon, to keep people awake, and _keep dogs out of the church_. This sum is still paid for that purpose.
At Chislet, in Kent, is a piece of land called "Dog-whipper's Marsh," about two acres, out of {500} which the tenants pay ten shillings a year to a person for _keeping order in the church_ during divine service.
There is an acre of land in the parish of Peterchurch, Herefordshire, appropriated to the use of a person for _keeping dogs out of the church_.
In the parish of Christchurch, Spitalfields, there is a charity fund called "cat and dog money," the interest on which is now divided annually amongst six poor widows of weavers of the names of Fabry or Ovington. There is a tradition in the parish that this money was originally left for the support of cats and dogs, but it is more probable that it was originally intended, as in the cases above mentioned, to "whip dogs and cats" out of the church during divine service, and that on the unforeseen increase in the fund after a lapse of years, it became appropriated in the present way. This money was the subject of a chancery suit in the last century, and the decree therein directed the present division.
Many of your readers will call to mind the yelp of some poor cur who had strolled through the open door of a country church on some sultry day, and been ejected by the sexton. I myself have often listened to the pit-a-pat in the quiet aisle, and I once remember a disturbance in church caused by the quarrel of two dogs. Such scenes, and the fact that dogs were considered unclean animals, most likely gave rise to the occupation of dog-whipper as a function of the sexton. It will also be remembered that some dogs cannot forbear a howl at the sound of certain musical instruments; and besides the simple inconvenience to the congregation, this howl may have been considered a manifestation of antipathy to holy influences, as the devil was supposed to fear holy water.
Landseer's well-known picture of "The Free Church" proves to us that amongst the Highland shepherds the office does not now at least exist: and amongst other instances of the regular attendance at church of these "unclean animals," I know one in Wales where a favourite dog always accompanied his master to church, and stood up in the corner of the pew, keeping watch over the congregation with the strictest decorum.
A NOTARY.
That persons bearing an office described by such a name were attached to great houses in the sixteenth century, is clear from the well-known passage in _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, Act IV. Sc. 4., where Launce says,--
"I, having been acquainted with the smell before, knew it was Crab; and goes me to the _fellow that whips the dogs_: 'Friend,' quoth I, 'you mean to whip the dog?' 'Ay, marry do I,' quoth he," &c.
W. B. R.
Derby.
* * * * *
CEPHAS, A BINDER, AND NOT A ROCK.
(Vol. ix., p. 368.)
I hope you will allow me to give a few reasons for dissenting from MR. MARGOLIOUTH. I will promise to spare your space and avoid controversy.
1. The Hebrew word _Caphis_ is only to be found in Hab. ii. 11. Hence it has been regarded as of somewhat uncertain signification. However, by comparison with the Syrian verb [Hebrew: KPS] (_c'phas_), we infer that it may denote that which _grasps_, _gathers_, or _holds together_; it is therefore not synonymous with [Greek: deô], which is to _bind_, and is used in Matt. xvi. 19.
2. Proper names from the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, are generally written in Greek, with the terminations of that language, as _e. g._ Jesus, John, James, Thomas, Judas, &c., and these terminations are _added_ to the radical letters of the name, which are all retained. It is easy to see that _Caphis_ would become _Caphisus_, while _Cepho_ (Syriac for _rock_) would become _Cephas_, just as _Ehudo_ (Syriac, _Jude_) becomes _Judas_.
3. Still less likely would the name _Caphis_ be to lose a radical in its transfer to the Syriac, where Cephos is represented by _Cepho_, without _s_.
4. The paronomasia exhibited in the Latin, "Tu es _Petrus_, et super hanc _petram_," also appears both in the Greek and the Syriac.
5. The difference of gender between the words _Petrus_ and _petra_, moreover, is preserved in the Syriac and appears in the Greek.
6. The figure of binding and loosing (v. 19.) is one which was common to the three languages, Greek, Chaldee, and Syriac, in all of which it denotes "to remit or retain" sins, "to confirm or abolish" a law, &c.
7. The occurrence of this figure in ch. xviii. 18., where the reference is not special to Peter, but general to all the apostles. (Compare John xx. 23.)
8. The Syriac uniformly translates the name Peter by Cepho (_i. e._ Cephas), except once or twice in Peter's epistles. This at least indicates their view of its meaning.
On the whole I see no reason to suppose that Cephas means anything but _stone_; certainly there is much less reason for the proposed signification of _binder_.
In John i. 42., the clause which explains the name Cephas is absent from the Syriac version in accordance with the regular and necessary practice of the translators to avoid tautology: "Thou shalt be called _Stone_; which is by interpretation _Stone!_" (See the _Journal of Sacred Literature_ for January last, p. 457., for several examples of this.) There is here surely sufficient reason to account for the omission of this clause, which, it {501} appears, is supported by universal MS. authority, as well as by that of the other versions.
B. H. C.
The paronomasia of _Kipho_ (=Rock) was made in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, the vernacular language of our Lord and his disciples. The apostle John, writing in Greek (i. 43.), explains the meaning of _Kipho_ ([Greek: Kêphas]) by the usual Greek phrase [Greek: ho hermêneuetai Petros], which phrase was necessarily omitted in the Syriac version, where this word _Kipho_ was significant, in the original sense, as used by our Lord, and therefore needed no such hermeneutic explanation. Had our Lord spoken in Greek, and had the name [Greek: Kêphas] been _idem sonans_ with [Hebrew: KPYS] (Hab. ii. 11.)--which, however, is not the case,--some slender support might have been thereby afforded to MR. MARGOLIOUTH'S argument; but as he admits that our Lord did _not_ speak in the Greek tongue, such argument falls to the ground as void of all probability.
T. J. BUCKTON.
Lichfield.
* * * * *
WHITTINGTON'S STONE.
(Vol. ix., p. 397.)
The disappearance of this celebrated memorial of a questionable legend, seems to have been satisfactorily accounted for. The newspapers inform us that it has been taken to a mason's yard for the purpose of reparation.
Those who lament the removal of the stone on which, as they imagine, the runaway apprentice sat listening to the bells of Cheap, will perhaps be surprised to hear that the object of their regret is at least the _third_ of the stones which have successively stood upon the spot long since the days of Whittington.
1. In a learned and interesting paper communicated to the pages of _Sylvanus Urban_ (G. M. Dec. 1852) by T. E. T. (a well-known and respected local antiquary, who will yet, it is sincerely hoped, enrich our libraries with a work on the ancient history of the northern suburbs, a task for which he is pre-eminently qualified), it is shown that in all probability the site in question was once occupied by a wayside cross, belonging to the formerly adjacent lazar-house and chapel of St. Anthony. A certain engraving of 1776, mentioned by Mr. T., and which is now before me, represents a small obelisk or pyramid standing upon a square base, and surmounted by a cross, apparently of iron. The stone (popularly regarded as the original) was removed in 1795 by "one S----," the surveyor of the roads. Having been broken, or as another account states, sawn in two, the halves were placed as curb-stones against the posts on each side of Queen's Head Lane in the Lower Street. (Nelson's _Hist. of Islington_, 1811, p. 102.; _Gent. Mag._, Sept. and Oct. 1824, pp. 200. 290.; Lewis's _Hist. of Islington_, 1841, p. 286.) In _Adams's Picturesque Guide to the Environs of London_, by E. L. Blanchard (a recent but dateless little work, which I chanced to open at a book-stall a day or two ago), the present Queen's Head tavern in the Lower Street is mentioned as containing certain relics of its predecessor, "with the real Whittington stone (it is said) for a threshold."
2. Shortly after the removal of this supposed "original," a new memorial was erected, with the inscription "Whittington's Stone." This was, for some cause, removed by order of the churchwardens in May, 1821.
3. In his second edition, 1823, Nelson says, "The present stone was set up in 1821, by the trustees of the parish ways." This is the stone which has lately been removed.
H. G.
* * * * *
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.
_Photographic Experience._--I send you the Rev. W. Le Mottée's and mine:
W. Le M.
1. 6 minutes' exposure.
2. Sea-side.
{_Iod._--Double iod. sol. from 25 gr. N. A. to 1 oz. 3. {_Exc._--5[minim] 50 gr. A. N. A. 5[minim] G. A. Aq. 2 drs. {_Dev._--1^o 50 gr. A. N. A. and G. A. part. æq. 2^o G. A.
4. Turner.
5. 3/8 inch.
6. 3 inches.
7. Diam. lens 3 in. Foc. length parallel rays 12¾ in. Maker, Slater. Picture 8½ x 6½.
T. L. M.
1. 10 minutes.
2. Sea-side.
{_Iod._ 3. {_Exc._ As Le M. {_Dev._
4. Turner.
5. 3/8 inch.
6. 3-1/8 inches.
7. Diam. lens 3¼ in. Foc. length 17½ in. Maker, Slater. Picture 11½ x 9¼.
I have given the development according to the plan usually followed, for the sake of comparison; but where it is desirable to work out the shadows fully, it is far better to give longer exposure in the camera (three times that above given), and develop with gallo-nitrate of the strength used to excite, finishing with gallic acid. The time varies with the subject; a cottage among trees requiring 12 to 14 minutes. Almost all the statements I have seen, giving the time, do so absolutely; it is well to remind photographers, that these convey no _information whatever_, unless the focal length for parallel rays, and the diameter of the diaphragm, are also given: the time, in practice as well as in theory, varying (_cæteris paribus_) directly as the {502} square of the former, and inversely as the square of the latter; and, without these corrections, the results of one lens are not comparable with those of another.