Replies.
CONVOCATION OF YORK.
(Vol. iv., p. 368.)
This body (of which I am a member) ought to meet on the same occasions with that of Canterbury; but owing to the neglect or the wilfulness of its officials, many omissions and mistakes occur. I have heard a commission to further adjourn the Convocation, from a day to which it previously stood adjourned, read the day after that on which it ought to have assembled, but which day had arrived and passed without any one recollecting the fact! Our Convocation appears at no time to have acted a very prominent part, though its constitution is far better fitted for a working synod than that of the southern province. In the latter the parochial clergy are so inadequately represented as to be much outnumbered by the dignitaries appointed by the crown and the bishops; but in York there are two proctors chosen by the clergy of each archdeaconry and peculiar jurisdiction, and two by each cathedral chapter; thus affording a complete counterpoise to the deans and archdeacons who are members ex officio. Another peculiarity in the Convocation of York is, that it assembles in one house, the bishops commonly appearing by their proxies (priests), and the archbishop presiding by his commissioner, who is always the dean, or one of the residentiary canons of York.
In 1462 (temp. Archbishop Booth) the Convocation of York decreed that such constitutions of the province of Canterbury as were not prejudicial to those of York should be received, incorporated, and deemed as their own (Wilkins's Concilia, vol. iii. p. 580.). Under Archbishop Grenefeld it was decreed that since the Archbishop of York hath no superior in spirituals except the Pope, no appeals should be suffered to the Archbishop of Canterbury (p. 663.). At an earlier period the northern metropolitan laid claim to all England north of the Humber, with the whole realm of Scotland (Wilkins, vol. i. pp. 325, 479, &c.). In a provincial council at London, A.D. 1175, his jurisdiction was denied over the sees of Lincoln, Chester, Worcester, and Hereford, upon which he appealed to the Pope. With the exception of Chester, however, none of these sees were finally retained in the province.
The next year we are told that, in a (national) council at Westminster, the Pope's legate presiding, the Archbishop of York, "disdaining to sit at the left hand of the legate, forced himself into the lap of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but was immediately knocked down by the other bishops and clergy, severely beaten, and thrust out of the council!" (Hoveden ap. Wilkins, vol. i. p. 485.) How far the Northern Convocation supported their burly prelate in these claims I do not know; but I note that in those days the disorderly conduct of the clergy was not made a pretext for the indefinite suspension of synodical functions; and I query whether the clergy might not be trusted to behave quite as well in the nineteenth century.
But to return to the Convocation of York. There is a curious letter, A.D. 1661, from Accepted Frewen, Archbishop of York, to the Convocation, desiring them to send up to London some of their members duly commissioned on their part to sit with the Lower House of Canterbury for the review of the Liturgy. In this letter the archbishop says that himself and the other bishops of the province were sitting with the bishops of the southern province in their House. A similar expedient for constituting a quasi-national synod seems to have been resorted to upon some earlier occasions; but the Convocation of York still passed in due form by their own separate decree what was so agreed upon. The Articles were thus subscribed by our Convocation in 1571, and the Canons in 1604 and 1640.
Since then the Convocation of York has been regularly summoned, met, adjourned, and been prorogued, without even the dutiful address to the crown, which is regularly discussed and adopted in Canterbury. In the year 1847, a spasmodic attempt at life was manifested in this venerable and ill-used institution. Archbishop Harcourt had consented that an address to the crown should be adopted, and himself procured a draft to be approved by the bishops. His grace however died before the day of meeting. Some difficulty was experienced by the officials, both in York and London, as to the course to be pursued; but a precedent having been pointed out in the reign of James I., when Archbishop Hutton died after summoning the Convocation and before its assembly, a writ was issued from the crown to the dean and chapter at York to elect a præses for the Convocation during the vacancy of the archbishoprick. They appointed the canon who happened to be in residence; an unusually large attendance was given; the Convocation was opened, the names called over, and then the officials had reached the limit of their experience; according to their precedents we ought all to have been sent away. The address however was called on by the præses, being apparently quite unaware that a prolocutor should be chosen by the clergy before they proceeded to business. Such an officer probably seemed to the dignitary already in the chair like a second King of Brentford "smelling at one rose," and the demand was refused. Further difficulties ensued, of course, the moment the debate was opened; and finally, the præses, determined not to be tempted out of his depth, rose all at once, and read the fatal formula which restored our glorious Chapter House to its silent converse with the ghosts. The Convocation has never since been heard of.
CAN EBOR.
THE OLD COUNTESS OF DESMOND.
(Vol. iv., p. 305.)
If your correspondent A. B. R. will refer to Walpole's Fugitive Pieces he will find a minute inquiry into the person and age of this long-lived lady. This is doubtless the dissertation alluded to by C. (Vol. ii., p. 219.) Pennant has two notices of the countess in his Scotch tours. In that of 1769 (which somewhat strangely follows the one of 1772), he gives at p. 87. the engraving spoken of (Vol. iv., p. 306.), apparently taken from the original at Dupplin Castle. It differs a little from R's. description of another portrait, as the cloak is strapped over the chest, not held by a button. In 1772 Pennant again describes this portrait in his Tour in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 88., and speaks of four others, viz., first, at Devonshire House; second, at the Hon. John Yorke's seat, near Cheltenham; third, at Mr. Scott's, printer; and the fourth, in the Standard Closet, Windsor Castle. At the back of the last is written with a pen "Rembrandt." "A mistake (says P.) as Rembrandt was not fourteen years of age (he was indeed only eight) in 1614, at which time it is certain the countess was not living."
In my copy of the Fugitive Pieces (the Strawberry Hill edition, presented by Walpole to Cole), I find the following manuscript note by Cole; an amplification of the passage from Walpole's letters quoted at p. 306.:—
"Being at Strawberry Hill in April, 1773, I saw there a copy of the picture commonly attributed to the old Countess of Desmond; but Mr. Walpole told me that there is sufficient proof that it is a painter's mother, I think Rembrandt's. However, by a letter from Mr. Lort, April 15, 1774, he assures me that on Mr. Pennant's calling at Strawberry Hill to see this picture, he was much chagrined at having a print of it engraved for his book, till Mr. Lort revived him by carrying him to a garret in Devonshire House, where was a picture of this same countess with her name on it, exactly corresponding to his engraved print. I remember a tolerable good old picture of her at Mr. Dicey's, prebendary of Bristol, at Walton in Bucks."
Walpole could not dismiss Pennant without a disparaging remark. He is "a superficial man, and knows little of history or antiquity; but he has a violent rage for being an author." Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones: Pennant would not have displayed the ignorance which Walpole exhibits in the instance before us. In an inscription, which the latter gives, on a Countess of Desmond buried at Sligo, occurs the following contraction: "Desmoniæ Noie Elizabetha." Walpole says (Fugitive Pieces, p. 204.), "This word I can make no sense of, but sic originale; I take it to be redundancy of the carver. It seems to be a repetition of the last three syllables of Desmoniæ!"
The sarcastic observations which Walpole passes on the Society of Antiquaries, its members, and its publications, are so frequent and so bitter, that they must have been founded on some offence not to be pardoned. Were the remarks on the "Historic Doubts" by the president, Dean Milles, and by the Rev. Robert Masters (printed in the first two volumes of the Archæologia), regarded as satisfactorily confuting Walpole's arguments; or did he aim, but unsuccessfully, at the president's chair?
J. H. M.
Bath.
COINS OF VABALATHUS.
(Vol. iv., p. 255.)
There have been many attempts to explain the puzzling VCRIMDR, on the supposition that a Latin sentence was concealed under these letters. Pinkerton suggested "Voluntate Cæsaris Romani Imperatoris Maximi Domini, Rex." I hope to offer a better solution, which, although not new, has been passed over, I believe, by all subsequent writers. The Rev. George North, in the Museum Meadianum, p. 97., gives the following note: "Apud Arabes accepi verbum Karama significare Honoravit, a quo Ucrima, et Ucrim; quo sensu respondet hoc Arabicum Τῷ Σεβαστῷ apud Græcos." On applying to a well-known scholar and linguist here, I found that from the verb Karama there was derived the adjective Karīmat (nobilis), from which again the superlative Akram comes. There can, I think, be little doubt that the word VCRIMDR is originally derived from this verb Karama, and that it is most probably equivalent to Nobilissimus, a title so common shortly afterwards, as applied to the heirs to the empire.[3]
[3] "Nobilissimus, in the Byzantine historians, is synonymous with Cæsar."—Niebuhr.
The word ϹΡΩΙΑϹ or ϹΡΙΑϹ, which appears on the Alexandrian coins of this prince, is of more difficult explanation. Some think it a prænomen, some a Syriac or other Eastern title, perhaps corresponding to VCRIMDR. Pellerin thought so. I hope some Oriental scholar will direct his attention to this point. These coins are very often ill struck, so that the part of the legend below the head, where the word in question is found, is indistinct, for which reason I suppose MR. TAYLOR has followed the erroneous reading of Banduri, ΕΡΜΙΑϹ (properly ϵΡΜΙΑϹ, with lunate epsilon) for ϹΡΩΙΑϹ, which has been corrected by Eckhel. Of three specimens which I possess, one only reads clearly ϹΡΩΙΑϹ, from the above-mentioned cause, but it is unquestionably the correct reading on all. The best arrangement of the legend, from analogy with those forms used by the Romans, is as follows:
ΑΥΤοκρατωρ . ϹΡΩΙΑϹ . ΟΥΑΒΑΛΛΑΘΟϹ . ΑΘΗΝΟδωρου . Υιος.
The existence of coins, of which I possess a specimen also, reading
Α . ϹΡΙΑϹ . ΟΥΑΒΑΛΛΑΘΟϹ . ΑΘΗΝ . Υ.
shows that we must not read ΑΘΗΝΟΥ as one word, but must divide it as above. I think MR. TAYLOR will find his specimen to read as the last-mentioned coin, the ΕΡ (properly ϵΡ) being ϹΡ, and the ΑΥ in like manner ΑϹ. My coin gives the whole legend distinctly, and I can vouch for the exactitude of the above legend.
I believe there appeared some years ago, in the Revue de Numismatique, an article on the coins of the Zenobian family, but I do not remember when it was published, nor the conclusions to which the writer came. That is, however, the most recent investigation of the subject, and to it I must refer MR. TAYLOR, as I have not access to that periodical here.
Sir Gardner Wilkinson has published in the Numismatic Chronicle, vol. vii. or viii., an inscription containing the names of Zenobia and Vabalathus. After the name of Vabalathus, who has the title of Autocrator, is the word ΑΘΗΝΟΔΩΡΟΥ, which justifies the reading Αθηνοδωρου Υιος on the coins. Vabalathus is thus probably the son of Zenobia by a former husband, Athenodorus, while bearing himself the same name, as Vabalathus (better Vaballathus, as on the Alexandrian coins) is said to be equivalent to Athenodorus, Gift of Pallas.
W. H. S.
Edinburgh.
MARRIAGE OF ECCLESIASTICS.
(Vol. iv., pp. 57, 125, 193, 196, 298.)
I entirely agree with you that your pages are not a fit battle-ground for theological controversy. Still, since the question of the translation of Heb. xiii. 4. has been mooted, I beg with much deference to suggest that it will not be quite right to let it fall to the ground unsettled, especially since CEPHAS has thought fit to charge those of our Reformers who translated the Scriptures with mistranslating advisedly, and with propagating new doctrines.
CEPHAS'S version of the passage is right, and our English version is wrong; but the fault lies in the ignorance of our translators, an ignorance which they shared with all the scholars of their day, and many not bad scholars of our own, of the effect produced on the force of the article by the relation in which it stands to the other words in the clause, in point of order. ὁ τίμιος γάμος is "the honourable marriage;" ὁ τίμιος γάμος ἐστί is "the honourable marriage is;" ὁ γάμος τίμιος is untranslateable, unless you supply ἐστί, and then it means "the marriage" (or, marriage in general, in the abstract) "is honourable." But ἔστω might be supplied, as it is in Heb. xiii. 4., when it will mean, "let marriage be honourable:" and τίμιος ὁ γάμος has just the same meaning, with perhaps this difference, that the emphasis falls more distinctly on τίμιος. The circumstance that the mere assertion that marriage is honourable in all (men or things), true as it is in itself, ill accords with the tenor of the passage of which it forms a part, which is hortatory, not assertive, is a good reason why CEPHAS'S version should be preferred. But when we find afterwards the words καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, it is impossible to deny this hortatory force to the sentence; for those words cannot mean "the undefiled bed:" and to translate them "the (or their) bed is undefiled"—which is the only version which they will here bear, but one—would give but a feeble sense. That sole remaining sense is, "the bed (let it) be undefiled;" subaudite ἔστω in the verse is, "Let marriage be honourable in all" (men or things), "and the bed be undefiled; but (or for) whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Had our translators known that ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος could not mean "the bed undefiled," they would at once have been driven to see that the verse is a commandment: and the commandment that marriage should be held honourable in all men (or in all respects), would have served the purpose of their doctrines quite as well as the affirmative form which they have given to their present version. I say, it would have served their purpose; but I say more: they heeded not what did or would serve their purpose. They looked only for the truth and disregarded all else in their pursuit of it. With regard to the controversy about ἐν πᾶσι, it is immaterial which version be adopted. MR. WALTER is right in the rule which he enunciates, if he means that in those cases of adjectives in which the masculine and neuter forms are the same, "man" or "men," not "thing" or "things," must be understood: but it is not always observed, even in classical writers, either in Latin or in Greek. There is no reason why it should be broken here; and I do not believe it is broken. It must have been only by a slip of CEPHAS'S pen that he called πᾶσι a feminine adjective. It undoubtedly refers to both sexes. I wish E. A. D. had given the Greek of the passages from Chrysostom and Augustine, of which he has communicated the Oxford translation, which is as likely to err, perhaps, as any other. Jerome's Latin, like the Vulgate, though the words are not precisely the same, gives a literal version of the Greek, without supplying any verb at all, either est or sit, and, since the Latin has not that expressive power in cases like this which the article gives to the Greek, leaves the passage obscure and undecided.
THEOPHYLACT.