Replies.
ARCHBISHOP OF SPALATRO.
(Vol. iv., p. 257.)
Audi alteram partem is too excellent and equitable a rule, not to find ample scope given for its exercise in "NOTES AND QUERIES," especially where the memory of a foreigner is concerned, who, after dwelling awhile among us under the protection of our hospitality, and in the communion of our Church, was content eventually to sacrifice his life, rather than forsake the truth, or repudiate the Church of England.
I am led to this remark by observing the tone of depreciation in which Chalmers speaks of Antonius de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, in the extract produced at p. 257. out of the Biographical Dictionary, for the satisfaction of MR. W. FRAZER.
The words of Chalmers, which I conceive to be objectionable, alike ungenerous and inaccurate—such as Fuller might rejoice in (conf. Church History, book x.)—are:
"He returned to Rome in 1622, where he abjured his errors; but on the discovery of a correspondence which he held with some Protestants, he was thrown into prison, where he died in 1625. He was a man of great abilities and learning, although remarkable for a fickleness in religious matters."
This reproach against the good archbishop, of having renounced the English communion (for that is doubtless what is meant), is clearly an unjust accusation, and appears to be based upon no better authority than a spurious book, published in the Low Countries under Spalatro's name, but without his knowledge or sanction, and bearing the following title: Marc. Ant. de Dominis sui reditus ex Angliâ concilium exponit, 4to. Dilingæ, 1623. This book at the time of its publication deceived Bishop Hall, and gave occasion to the Alter Ecebolius M. Ant. de Dominis, pluribus dominis inservire doctus: 4to. Lond. 1624.
It is only fair, certainly, to Spalatro's memory, that the calumnies thus raised against him in his lifetime should not now be perpetuated by the inadvertency of modern writers, for so far at least the means are at hand to refute them. Now there is one writer especially who has done much to vindicate the name of Ant. de Dominis from this charge of "fickleness in religious matters." That writer is Bishop Cosin, whose testimony herein is of the more value from the fact of his having been present (as Bishop Overall's secretary) at the "Conference between Spalato and Overall," which "Conference" the following particulars were collected by Mr. Gutch, e Schedis MSS. Cosini, and are preserved in the Collectanea Curiosa, vol. ii. p. 18.:
"A. Spalato came into England in 1616, being desirous to live under the protection of King James, having before been recommended by Padre Paolo. By King James's bounty and care he was safely conveyed through Germany into England, and lodged in Lambeth Palace: Abbot thinking fit to retire to Croydon, till either Bishop Andrewes or Bishop Overall had conferred with him. The king sent Bishop Overall to him, who took in his company his secretary, and commanded him to be near him the same morning Spalato arrived, to hear what passed between them. After dinner, some other being present, the discourse began about the state of the Church of England; of which Overall having given a large account, Spalato received great satisfaction, and made his protestation that he came into England then to live with us in the union and profession of that Catholic religion which was so much obstructed in his own country, that he could not with safety and peace of conscience live there any longer. Then he added what satisfaction he had received from the monitory preface of King James [Vid. Apol. for the Oath of Allegiance, ed. 4to. Lond. 1609] to all the estates and churches of Christendom; wherein the true ancient faith and religion of the Catholic Church is set forth, and no heterodoxies or novelties maintained: to the defence of which faith, and service of which Church, as he had already a long time applied his studies, and wrote ten books, De Republicâ Ecclesiasticâ, so, by the favour of God, and King James, he was now come into England to review and publish them, together with the History of the Council of Trent, which he had brought with him from Padre Paolo of Venice, who delivered it into his hands; by whom he was chiefly persuaded and encouraged to have recourse to the king and the Church of England, being the best founded for the profession of true Catholic doctrine, and the freest from error and novelties, of any Church in all places besides. Then they descended to the particular points of doctrine," &c.
It is, however, not with the doctrinal question which would, of course, be inadmissible in "NOTES AND QUERIES," but with the historical fact, that we have to do; the question being, whether Antonius Spalateasis was "fickle" in respect of the Church of England.
There is an interesting sketch of Spalatro's after history in Cosin's Treatise against Transubstantiation, chap. ii. § 7.; from Luke de Beaulieu's translation of which (Cosin's Collected Works, vol. iv. p. 160., Oxford, 1851) I quote the following:
"Antonio de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalato, (was) a man well versed in the Sacred Writings, and the records of antiquity; who, having left Italy (when he could no longer remain in it, either with quiet or safety) by the advice of his intimate friend, Paulus Venetus, took sanctuary under the protection of King James of blessed memory, in the bosom of the Church of England, which he did faithfully follow in all points and articles of religion. But, being daily vexed with many affronts and injuries, and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-rigid men, who bitterly declaimed everywhere against his life and actions, he at last resolved to return into Italy with a safe conduct. Before he departed he was, by order from the king, questioned by some commissionated bishops, what he thought of the religion and church of England, which for so many years he had owned and obeyed, and what he would say of it in the Roman court. To this query he gave in writing this memorable answer, 'I am resolved, even with the danger of my life, in profess before the Pope himself, that the Church of England is a true and orthodox Church of Christ.' This he not only promised, but faithfully performed; for though, soon after his departure, there came a book out of the Low Countries, falsely bearing his name, by whose title many were deceived, even among the English, and thereby moved to tax him with apostacy, and of being another Ecebolius; yet, when he came to Rome (where he was most kindly entertained in the palace of Pope Gregory XV., who formerly had been his fellow-student), he could never be persuaded by the Jesuits and others, who daily thronged upon him, neither to subscribe the new-devised tenets of the Council of Trent, or to retract those orthodox books which he had printed in England and Germany, or to renounce the communion of the Church of England, in whose defence he constantly persisted to the very last. But, presently after the decease of Pope Gregory, he was imprisoned by the Jesuits and Inquisitors in Castle St. Angelo, where, by being barbarously used, and almost starved, he soon got a mortal sickness, and died in a few days, though not without suspicion of being poisoned. The day following, his corpse was by the sentence of the Inquisition tied to an infamous stake, and there burnt to ashes, for no other reason but that he refused to make abjuration of the religion of the Church of England, and subscribe some of the lately-made decrees of Trent, which were pressed upon him as canons of the Catholic faith. I have taken occasion (Cosin adds) to insert this narration, perhaps not known to many, to make it appear that this reverend prelate, who did great service to the Church of God, may justly (as I said before) be reckoned among the writers of the Church of England."
In the first collection of Lord Somers's Tracts, vol. iv. p. 575., there is a curious paper bearing the title: A relation sent from Rome, of the process, sentence, and execution done upon the body, pictures, and books of Marcus Ant. de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalato, after his death. There are some notices of De Dominis, also, among the Birch and other MSS. in the British Museum.
MR. FRAZER might possibly ascertain the other particular about which he inquires, viz. whether Spalatro "acted as a bishop in England," by consulting some of the numerous tracts written at the time, both against and in vindication of the archbishop; and, more particularly, a tract entitled: De pace religionis M. Ant. de Dominis Spalateus. Archiepisc. Epist. ad venerabilem virum Jos. Hallum, Archipresbyterum Vigorn, &c.: edit. Ves. Sequan. 1666.
J. SANSOM.
Perhaps it may be doubted whether it was the wish of Antonius de Dominis to reunite the churches of Rome and England: however this may be, as Dean of Windsor, he accused one of the canons, Richard Mountagu (afterwards successively Bishop of Chichester and Norwich) of preaching the Roman doctrine of the invocation of saints and angels. Mountagu replied in a pamphlet, the title of which is, Immediate Addresse unto GOD Alone. First delivered in a Sermon before his Majestie at Windsore, since reuised and inlarged to a just Treatise of Invocation of Saints. Occasioned by a false imputation of M. Antonius de Dominis upon the Authour, Richard Mountagu. London, 1624.
Mountagu had evidently no high opinion of his accuser: for he writes in his Epistle Dedicatory to John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, and Visitor of the collegiate church of Windsor: "There was present at my sermon that infamous Ecebolius of these times, Religionis desultor, Archbishop sometime of Spalata, then Deane of that church, Marcus Antonius de Dominis;" and he goes on to abuse him in no measured terms. Collier (Ecc. Hist., vol. ii. p. 726., ed. 1714) mentions that Antonius assisted at the consecration of some English bishops in the chapel at Lambeth Palace. He was afterwards reconciled to the Church of Rome, but was soon imprisoned on suspicion of heresy. After he was dead, he passed through the forms of the Inquisition, was pronounced a lapsed heretic, and his corpse was publicly burnt.
ROVERT.
Withyham.
ANAGRAMS.
(Vol. iv., p. 226.)
I know not whether the art of composing anagrams was much practised in the days of Swift; the description, however, of one of the employments at the Academy of Lagado—the "project for improving speculative knowledge by practical mechanical operations," which was carried into operation by covering the superficies of a large frame with wooden letters, which, by the turning of a handle, were constantly shifted into new places—so aptly satirises this practice, that it seems likely that it was to this he alluded, the more so as the one employment would be as profitable as the other. MR. BREEN, however (Vol. iv., p. 226.) having challenged the production of half a dozen good specimens of the art, perhaps you will afford him an opportunity of amending his judgment. The following twelve, whether new or not, will at least stand the test he has propounded:—
Who will deny that Old England is a golden land; or that lawyers are sly ware?
There are many who deem radical reform a rare mad frolic; and when asked to guess a fearful ruin, would reply universal suffrage.
Every one will admit that astronomers are moon-starers; and that a telegraph is a great help.
We have long been accustomed to consider that a revolution is to love ruin; and that nine thumps constitute a punishment.
What answer more fitting in the penitentiary than Nay, I repent it?
Is there a more comical trade than the democratical? and what is more likely to make bakers fat than a good breakfast.
But, in conclusion, I am compelled to confess that I can see no affinity between potentates and ten tea pots.
C. A.
That on Daniel R. may be otherwise rendered Erin lad.
D. Q.
Your interesting correspondent MR. BREEN challenges the world to produce "six good anagrams." It may help him in his search for them to be referred to two curious papers on the subject in the Bengal Moofussul Miscellany, reprinted in London in 1837. Or, as perhaps he may not have the book within reach, he may not be displeased at my extracting a few of the best of them. The first is a compliment paid to one of the Ptolemies: Πτολεμαῖος, ἀπὸ μέλιτος. Lycophron, in a similar vein, calls Ἀρσινόη, ἴον Ἥρας. Out of William Noy, Charles I.'s Ship-Money Attorney-General, we have, I moyl in law. Loraine produces alerion, which is assigned as the reason for that house bearing eaglets in their arms. Sir Edmundbury Godfrey gives, I fynd murder'd by rogues. The tale about Lady Eleanor Davies, lately referred to by one of your contributors, occurs in the first of these papers; as does another of somewhat later date, which really deserves to be preserved among your "Notes."
"When young Stanislaus, afterwards king of Poland, returned home from his travels, all the illustrious family of Leczinki assembled at Lissa to congratulate him on his arrival. Festivals, shows, and rejoicings of every kind took place: but the most ingenious compliment that graced the occasion, was the one paid by the College of Lissa. There appeared on the stage thirteen dancers, dressed as youthful warriors; each held in his hand a shield, on which was engraved in characters of gold, one of the thirteen letters which compose the two words 'Domus Lescinia.' They then commenced their dance, and so arranged it, that at each turn their row of bucklers formed different anagrams. At the first pause they presented them in the natural order:
| Domus Lescinia | ||
| At the second | Ades Incolumis | |
| At the third | Omnis es lucida | |
| At the fourth | Mane Sidus Loci | |
| At the fifth | Sis Columna Dei | |
| At the last | I, scande Solium." |
I fear I have already asked for too much of your space, yet must I beg the least bit more for an anagram which, unless the sacredness of the subject be accounted a drawback, may well claim a foremost place among the "six." It is found in Pilate's question to our Lord, Quid est veritas? which contains its own best answer: Est Vir qui adest.
PHILIP HEDGELAND.
DISCOVERING THE BODIES OF THE DROWNED.
(Vol. iv., p. 251.)
The mode of doing this, as shown by S. W. to be practised by the North American Indians, is very common amongst ourselves. About five-and-twenty years ago, an Eton boy, named Dean, who had lately come to the school, imprudently bathed in the river Thames where it flows with great rapidity under the "playing fields," and he was soon carried out of his depth, and disappeared. Efforts were made to save him or recover the body, but to no purpose; until Mr. Evans, who was then, as now, the accomplished drawing-master, threw a cricket bat into the stream, which floated to a spot where it turned round in an eddy, and from a deep hole underneath the body was quickly drawn. This statement is entirely from memory, but I believe it to be substantially correct.
I heard the following anecdote from the son of an eminent Irish judge. In a remote district of Ireland a poor man, whose occupation at certain seasons of the year was to pluck feathers from live geese for beds, arrived one night at a lonely farmhouse, where he expected to glean a good stock of these "live feathers," and he arose early next morning to look after the flock. The geese had crossed the river which flowed in front of the house, and were sitting comfortably in the sunshine on the opposite bank. Their pursuer immediately stripped off the few clothes he had, deposited them on the shore, and swam across the river. He then drove the birds into the water, and, boldly following them, he maintained a long contest to keep then together on their homeward voyage, until in the deep bed of the river his strength failed him, and he sank. The farmer and his family became aware of the accident, the cries of the drowning man, and the cackling of the geese, informed them, in the swimmer's extremity, of his fate, and his clothes lay on the shore in witness of his having last been in their company. They dragged the river for the body, but in vain; and in apprehension of serious consequences to themselves should they be unable to produce the corpse, they applied to the parish priests, who undertook to relieve them, and to "improve the occasion" by the performance of a miracle. He called together the few neighbours, and having tied a strip of parchment, inscribed with cabalistic characters, round a wisp of straw; he dropped this packet where the man's head was described to have sunk, and it glided into still water where the corpse was easily discovered.
ALFRED GATTY.
The discovery of drowned bodies by loading a loaf with mercury, and putting it afloat on a stream, or by casting into the river, as the Indians do, "a chip of cedar wood, which will stop and turn round over the exact spot," is referrible to natural and simple causes. As there are in all running streams deep pools formed by eddies, in which drowned bodies would be likely to be caught and retained, any light substance thrown into the current would consequently be drawn to that part of the surface over the centre of the eddy hole.
J. S. C.
MARRIAGE OF ECCLESIASTICS.
(Vol. iv., pp. 57. 125. 193. 196.)
In the early ages, your correspondent H. WALTER assumes that the primitive Christians knew "that their Scriptures said of marriage that it was honourable in all" (Vol. iv., p. 193.). H. WALTER is under more than one mistake with regard to the text of St. Paul (Heb. xiii. 4.) on which he grounds his assertion. This whole chapter being full of admonitions, the apostle, all through it, speaks mostly in the imperative mood. He begins with, "Let brotherly love continue;" "Be not forgetful," &c.; "Remember them that are in bonds," &c. Then he says: Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, that is: "Let (the laws of) marriage be revered in all things, and the marriage bed be undefiled;" and as a warning to those who might not heed such an admonition, he adds, "whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." H. WALTER mistakes the adjective feminine ἐν πᾶσι as meaning "all men," whereas it signifies here, "in all things;" according to which sense St. Paul uses the same form of speech in 2 Corinthians xi. 6. True it is, the authorised version translates thus: "Marriage is honourable in all;" but the is is an insertion of the translators, and therefore printed in Italics. Parkhurst, however, in his Lexicon, at the word Γάμος, says: "Wolfius has justly remarked, the imperatives preceding and following show that we should rather understand ἔστω than ἐστί. See also Hammond and Macknight; and observe that the Alexandrian and two other MSS., for δὲ in the following sentence read γάρ, and the Vulgate translates by enim, "for."
I cannot but think that the makers of the authorized version advisedly inserted is instead of let, to forward their own new doctrines, as this their rendering would seem to countenance the marriage of priests. Curiously enough, when they had no interest in putting in the indicative instead of the imperative mood, those same translators have of themselves inserted, in the verse following, the latter, thus: "Let your conversation be without covetousness," &c. Moreover, in translating ἐν πᾶσι, in another passage of St. Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 6., they render it, "in all things;" in which same sense it is to be understood in the above place, Heb. xi. 4.
CEPHAS.
In lately reading that very curious book, Whiston's Autobiography, I met with some remarks on this subject, which I made a note of, and which are at the service of A. B. C. Whiston quotes the well-known Dr. Wall as follows:—
"The Greek Church still observe the rule of allowing their clergy to marry but once, and before the Council of Nice made a further rule that none after his orders should marry; and I believe it is hard to find in church history an instance of any one who married after he was in priest's orders for a thousand (in reality for above a thousand four hundred) years before Martin Luther."
The interpolation marked by a parenthesis is Whiston's, who proceeds:—
"The Church of England allows their very bishops to be twice—nay thrice—nay even four times married without any impediment to their episcopal functions, whereas the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople would not admit the Emperor Leo, a layman, into the church, because he had married a fourth wife."
Whiston, though a "fanciful man," as Burnet calls him, was well read in Christian antiquity, and his opinion is therefore of some weight. Wall's authority no one would willingly undervalue.
I cannot call to mind any English bishop who was four times married; yet Whiston would hardly have asserted the fact if he had not had some example in view. I should be obliged to any one who would inform me on the subject.[1]
[1] We have somewhere read of a Bishop Thomas giving his fourth wife a ring, with this posy:—
"If I survive,
I'll make it five."
This may give a clue to our correspondent.
When on the subject of Whiston, I should be glad to know if his edition of our Common Prayer Book published in 1713, and his Primitive New Testament published in 1745, still exist.[2]
[2] The two works mentioned by K. S., though scarce, occasionally occur for sale. The "Common Prayer Book" was republished by the Rev. Peter Hall in his Fragmenta Liturgica, vol. iii.
The former he entitled The Liturgy of the Church of England reduced nearer to the Primitive Standard. The latter contains, besides the Canonical Books of the New Testament, the Apostolic Constitutions, Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Timothy to Diognetus, &c. &c., all of which he considered as of equal authority with the Canonical Books. The Apostolic Constitutions indeed he terms "the most sacred of the Canonical Books of the New Testament."
K. S.